Science doesn't have all the answers. But they're working on it.

Recently, I saw a comment by Rainn Wilson, who plays Dwight K. Schrute on NBC’s The Office, that went like this:

Rainn Wilson

“By and large, people don’t like to live in the realm of “not knowing.” It’s terrifying. Which is why everybody wants to have all the answers. Atheists think science has the answers. Religious fundamentalists believe their particular theology does. But “not knowing” is a richer and more gratifying place to be. I have no idea what’s going to happen to me, why the universe is the way it is, or what will happen to my life force once my body stops working. You probably don’t either. So just breathe and live in the great, beautiful mystery. And floss regularly.”

That’s a big step toward a pretty solid, comprehensive philosophy. These are the sort of questions discussed on Wilson’s website, SoulPancake.

I like most everything about his answer, except the part about “Atheists think science has the answers”. Nope. I are an atheist and I don’t think science has all the answers. If I did, I would be misunderstanding science.

There’s an old atheist joke that goes like this:

“Does science have all the answers?”

“No, but we’re working on it.”

Science is a process, and a manner of thinking … or conducting inquiry to better understand how our natural world works. So it stands to reason that science - a process - cannot have answers. You might accuse me of fiddling with semantics, and to an extent, I am. But this is one of those ‘big questions’ that is always being asked by the religious or the seeker, and I’ll use their language.

Scientific inquiry is a rigorous process, punctuated by proposed provisional conclusions large and small, regarding empirical phenomena. These are often referred to as theories … like Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation. The Germ Theory of Disease.  Global Climate Change. Faraday’s Law of Induction. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.

When is the last time you saw anybody successfully challenge the Newton’s Law, or even want to? How about the Germ Theory? Why aren’t the churches in an uproar over the Theory of Relativity?  The fact that something is a ‘Theory’ - a provisional conclusion - doesn’t necessarily make it untrue. Since the time of Newton, we have a massive preponderance of information - derived from extensive, tested, peer reviewed learning and research - that says gravity exists. Physics depends on the soundness of our thorough understanding of the laws of gravity. But it is still, technically speaking, a theory.

The same holds true of Darwin’s ideas about Evolution, and the current thinking about Global Climate Change and the fact (an enormous preponderance of evidence) that it is human caused.

This is unlike religion which has repeatedly claimed to have the answers to both life’s big questions and thousands of small ones over the course of many millennia. You might say that religion is a collection of casual hypothesis. I say ‘casual’ since they are not ‘scientific hypothesis’, which are designed to be tested - and religion doesn’t like testing. When extraordinary claims are put to the test by others, believers tend to get out the pitch forks and flaming brands - or a chalkboard ala Glenn Beck.

You won’t see the pope or Glenn Beck applying the following, generally accepted standards, to any of their hypothesis (or provisional solutions):

• Testability (compare falsifiability )
• Simplicity (as in the application of “Occam’s razor”, discouraging the postulation of excessive numbers of entities)
• Scope – the apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena
• Fruitfulness – the prospect that a hypothesis may explain further phenomena in the future
• Conservatism – the degree of “fit” with existing recognized knowledge-systems.

Their ‘educated’ guesses tend to whither under such scrutiny. This is why Beck and his ilk hide out on Fox and talk radio instead of the daylight of PBS or The New York Times.

Do theories - and scientific ‘fact’ change over time? Of course they do! As new discoveries are made, the critical thinkers, scientists and rational among us continue to re-define, re-calibrate, and revise what we think is ‘so’. Thus it has always been, since the time of the ancient Greeks.

But let me get back to “not knowing”.

Way back in the day, when I discovered that I no longer felt that religion could provide a reliable means for my understanding the world around me, I learned that I was alright with ‘not knowing’ something. And I agree with Wilson that the very acceptance of ‘not knowing’ suddenly makes for a more richly textured, exciting and rewarding living experience.

I’m wasn’t terrified of ‘not knowing’, since I realized that nobody else knows everything. We all know some things, and not other things. I don’t know what you don’t know - which can lead to a lot of misunderstandings unless I keep that ‘not knowing’ front and center at all times. The only thing that terrifies me in this life are those who insist that they ‘know’ - particularly the kind of bug-eyed, shrill-voiced ‘knowing’ that comes with people like Sarah Palin, or your ‘TeaParty’/fundamentalist/evangelical neighbors.

They tend to become unstable - and unpredictable -  when confronted with the limits of their ‘knowing’. They really must be something to behold in school, home or the workplace anytime they are confronted with an incorrect answer. These are the ones that tend to lash out in anger and frustration.

But I will suggest that ‘not knowing’ has it’s practical limitations. It can be a place to hide from the responsibility of declaring that you’ve arrived at a conclusion - even a provisional one. In my own case, I have comfortably arrived at the provisional conclusion that belief in a god is unnecessary to my own ethical and moral existence. I can happily accomplish that on my own, and am happy to take full responsibility for any consequences. Thank you.

Have a nice day.

Cheers.

-maven