Too Skeptical?

Too skeptical for our own good. That's how someone characterized many scientists and science teaching on BBC Radio 4. I was listening yesterday morning where Lewis Wolpert*, the scientist and another gentlemen - apparently religious, whose name I forgot - were guests. Wolpert is an avowed atheist who was startled at one point when the other gentleman pulled the Origin of Universe question from his hat. Here's my recollection of the discussion.

"Surely, the origin of the universe has an explanation", he said.

"Perhaps, but saying god made the universe explains nothing. Who created god then?", Wolpert retorted.

The gentleman shot right back with a muddle that would've startled even the mic in front of him. "You know, this is a philosophical problem. If you ask for an explanation for an explanation, you can never stop", he said.

He was alluding to the question of Knowledge*. He even presented the case of a Matrix-like world where brains in vats cluelessly think they live in a world far removed from their actual state.

I missed what Wolpert said because I was hitting my head repeatedly with a hammer I keep on the table specially for these occasions. So, what's the response to his question? Is there a point at which we must stop being skeptical?

The choice for me is always between rational skepticism and willful ignorance. The choice is clear. It may not be an easy choice to make but our inability to choose does not change the choices in any way. At the end of it all, what you choose is your own decision and you must be prepared to live with the consequences.

*Wikipedia page of Lewis Wolpert
*Knowledge at Stanford Enclyclopedia of Philosophy

More like this

Evolutionary biologist H. Allen Orr has this lengthy essay in the current issue of The New York Review of Books. Officially it's a review of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, Joan Roughgarden's Evolution and Christian Faith: Reflections of an Evolutionary Biologist, and Lewis Wolpert's Six…
Since Nick Matzke has become a fanboy, and Larry Moran has never heard of him, I thought I'd mention that I've liked Neil deGrasse Tyson's column (titled "Universe") in Natural History for a long time. It is generally on astronomy/astrophysics/cosmology, so it's far afield from my usual comfort…
I have not been shy about my contempt for the crackpot, Roy Varghese — he's one of those undeservedly lucky computer consultants who struck it rich and is now using his money to endorse religion. He's a god-soaked loon who pretends to be a scientific authority, yet he falls for the claim that…
Larry Moran has an excellent review of Francis Collins' silly book The Language of God. You don't really appreciate Ken Miller until you have contemplated the far daffier arguments made by Collins. Moran writes: The second persuasive argument is the presence in all of us of a God-shaped vacuum.…

That would have been William Lane Craig.

So, what's the response to his question? Is there a point at which we must stop being skeptical?

The response is to point out that is exactly what he did by suggesting that the Big Bang needs God as an explanation. Apply his own objection to his own question.

By Mustafa Mond, FCD (not verified) on 28 Feb 2007 #permalink

I believe we always have to stop being skeptical at some point (or level of depth). That's the point where we make solid assumptions which form the basis of our skepticism.

I saw a guy on Youtube who had posted some atheist's viewpoints. He made a perfect point when he said "You can put the world's renowned biologists, geologists and physicists in a room with a preacher and the preacher, the preacher, will feel equally qualified to talk about every scientific matter as they and will not be daunted by the facts."