content top

The “We’re Not Special” Ideology

The “We’re Not Special” Ideology

“We’re not special” is not a scientific statement. It’s an opinion. It’s a simple way of expressing what has become known as the Copernican principle. Copernicus himself did not explicitly hold this when he realized Earth was likely not the physical center of the universe. In the generation after Copernicus, isolated thinkers like Giordano Bruno interpreted this as a demotion of Earth. It did not become such a widespread view until recently.

Carl Sagan asked in the original Cosmos, “Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.” Sagan had requested that, as Voyager 1 left the solar system in 1990, it turn its camera around to take one last picture of Earth. Presenting this image before an audience at Cornell, he reflected on all the people that have lived on Earth, “a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.” His speech is worth reading in full. Interwoven in the beautiful prose, however, is the assumption that the Earth is unimportant since it’s just a dot in this image.

Just because the Earth is small when it is compared to the vastness of space does not make it insignificant. Assumptions of the homogeneity and isotropy of the universe lead to accurate scientific cosmological models. Making the step from these principles to the Copernican principle, however, is an unjustified ideological leap.

The fact that “the Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life” rather speaks to me of its importance. If the Earth were not as small as it is, then its surface gravity would be too strong for life as we know it. If the Earth didn’t orbit a G-type star, the circumstellar habitable zone could easily be less stable. If our Sun were a member of an elliptical galaxy or closer to the center of our spiral galaxy, or even in the spiral arms rather than between them, interactions with other stars would be more likely, which could more easily disrupt the stability of our solar system. So many places in the universe are inhospitable to life. We live on a planet where life is possible. I think that is enough to challenge Sagan’s claim that we are deluded to think “we have some privileged position in the universe.” Authors Jay W. Richards and Guillermo Gonzalez of The Privileged Planet challenge Sagan and the Copernican principle with a thesis that not only is our planet well suited for life, but it is also well suited for discovery. Although I am unsatisfied with its presentation of the “intelligent design” view as scientific, I highly recommend watching the thought-provoking documentary and even reading the book.

The fact that in the Pale Blue Dot image the Earth lies in a sunbeam is indeed, as Sagan says, an effect of geometry and optics. Just from that, however, there is no way to prefer one philosophical view over another. The worldviews that clash over the Earth’s significance or insignificance are entrenched enough that I do not expect any amount of scientific discovery to settle the dispute. The science we discover certainly inspires wonder, and we need to keep doing science. We also need to reason more rigorously and integrate the different ways we can come to know things. By doing this, we can sort fact from opinion and identify any unjustified leap before falling for a conclusion that could lead us down a dark or deluded path.

I believe it is pertinent to close this post with a related quote from St. John Paul the Great: “If knowledge of the unmeasured dimensions of the cosmos has erased the dream that our planet or our solar system could be the physical center of the world, not by that is man diminished in his dignity” (translation from Italian).

Read More

Comments on Ethan Siegel’s Forbes Article, “Yes, Science Is For the Religious, Too”

Comments on Ethan Siegel’s Forbes Article, “Yes, Science Is For the Religious, Too”

“There’s a public perception that’s harmful to everyone: that science is hostile to faith, and that religious people aren’t interested in science.” So writes Ethan Siegel, an astrophysicist and science writer. (Read his full article here.) Although Siegel calls himself an atheist, he recognizes that “anyone can learn how to investigate the world like a scientist, and a scientist can belong to any religion.” I’m glad that an atheist like Siegel is giving this issue the attention it deserves. This is common ground that we have.

There are different ways we as humans can come to know things. The scientific method is one of those ways. Faith in revealed truths is another. Philosophical reasoning is a third way, and this is where the dialogue between science and faith takes place. In other words, when we talk about science, we are doing philosophy; when we talk about faith, we are doing philosophy. Siegel does not explicitly state the role of philosophical reasoning in his article, but I think he does correctly imply it. He says, “There will always be room for wonder, and there will always be questions beyond humanity’s capabilities of drawing robust scientific conclusions.” These questions beyond science include both faith and philosophy. Arguments can certainly be made for specific faiths and specific philosophies, but I will leave that for another time.

 

Read More

Total Lunar Eclipse on 1/31/2018

Total Lunar Eclipse on 1/31/2018

Interested in seeing the Earth’s shadow fall on the Moon on the 31st of this month? Here’s a simple and elegant representation by timeanddate.com showing where on Earth it will be visible from. This is a lunar eclipse. It will be total roughly 5-6am Pacific Time. Because a lunar eclipse can only happen at Full Moon, you can only see it if it’s nighttime where you’re at. Western North America, Pacific, Australia, and Eastern Asia, mark your calendars!

Read More
content top