David Eagleman on Uncertainty

The scientific pursuits of recent centuries have been tremendously successful: we’ve reached the moon and eradicated smallpox and built the internet and tripled life spans. And we’ve discovered that the blueprints of the cosmos are deeper and more beautiful than anyone could have guessed.

But along with gorgeous answers, science never fails to provide more questions.  What we really discover from a life in science is the vastness of our ignorance.  When we reach the end of the pier of everything we understand, we find all the uncharted waters of what we do not know.  Given that, I’m surprised at the number of books in the bookstore that are penned with certainty.

Consider the debates between the new atheists and the religious.  Strict atheism points out critical problems with religious fundamentalism, but it often leaves the public with the misconception that scientists believe they have everything solved. In truth, we know far too little to pretend that we have identified all the major puzzle pieces.

On the other end of the spectrum, we understand far too much to commit to any particular religious story.  Religious stories often crystallize hard-won wisdom about human nature—but the stories are too limited to embrace what we now comprehend about the cosmos.

I suggest that beyond the dogmatism of strict atheism and religious fundamentalism lies a third option.  I call myself a possibilian. The idea of possibilianism is to explore new, unconsidered hypotheses.  A possibilian enjoys awe at our existence, is not opposed to holding mutually exclusive ideas, and is comfortable with uncertainty.

At its root, possibilianism is simply an appeal for intellectual humility. I think it’s possible to appreciate and study the mysteries around us without dogmatism.  In the end, comfort with uncertainty may prove critical for our systems of education, law and civilization.

 

David Eagleman will be delivering one of The School of Life’s Sunday Sermons on Uncertainty on Sunday 23 May. For more information click here.

Comments

[Megan Zuniga]

Interesting article.
I've come across an atheist who doesn't believe in the existence of the human soul. And even if presented with various arguments, he just wouldn't accept it. He kept saying that there is no proof that the soul exist. Like some scientists, they all need proof of existence.
But the truth is we are merely a tiny speck in the infinite universe. There are still so much we don't know and will probably never know. And even if I'm a Christian, I'm open to the idea that aliens do exist. I don't think they will save our world but I believe in their existence. Because the universe is far too big to be just for us humans.
I've come across this pretty convincing article http://sn.im/uxpl6 that tells of the proof of existence of God.

[Bobleckridge]

Excellent article David.

It always astounds me when people make claims of complete certainty. It comes across as arrogance and it's very off-putting. I agree that the most strident advocates of scientism and most extreme of religious fundamentalists share this characteristic.

We could do with more understanding and tolerance in the world. Science is, I believe, the unceasing pursuit of greater understanding, so here's to your "possibilian" qualities of awe, tolerance and comfort with uncertainty.

[www.themaritimes.co.uk]

Great article, I think possibilianism is a cool concept but surely it is not more than an extension of agnosticism?

Cheers,
Pete

www.themaritimes.co.uk

[Paco]

Your equating the dogmatism of religious fundamentalism with the intellectual seriousness of atheism (hardly new, and far older than Christianity) is disappointing. Strident atheists, at worst, make a confusing case. Dawkins, Myers, et al. are not so much against personal beliefs as against the marketing of unproven claims to the the gullible or, most criminally, the young.

Atheism can make its case without resort to threats of divine retribution. Better yet, atheists don't claim special exemption for discrimination, for tormenting children (emotionally or physically) or for protection of those who do.

Atheists are happy to scrap it out on a level playing field, or some even to ignore spiritual issues altogether, as uninteresting. There are plenty of things that we're ignorant about, atheists and theists alike, so why focus on measuring precise levels of validity in some ancient book of stories? There's a whole real world out there to ponder and engage.

Just don't let dishonest theists off the hook with your intellectual relativism. There are plenty of religious traditions (e.g. Buddhism, Unitarian Universalism, Sufism) that are open to free-thinking exploration of the natural and the spiritual. Fundamentalists who deny the lessons of this world and who don't play well with non-believers don't deserve coddling, let alone intellectual respect.