Edge: God does throw dice

God does throw dice
The Third Culture defends itself in New York
by Andrian Kreye
October 1, 2003

An evening promises to be something special when it begins with Marvin Minsky, the pioneer of artificial intelligence, addressing the audience with the sentence, “I don’t believe that the universe exists.” This is exactly the sort of provocation that one is used to from the 76-year-old scientist, who with a messy crown of hair and Hawaiian shirt had just disembarked from a direct flight from Tokyo to New York, and who, before the program really began, excused himself for the possibility that his present jet lag might confuse his chain of argumentation. Naturally this was coquetry, since within ten minutes Minsky instructed his listeners with impressive clarity that the universe is an obsolete concept, along with consciousness and God, and finally that the universe could not exist within itself, but would have to be one of many universes. With these statements he had already launched the conversation into motion.

John Brockman, literary agent and publisher of the online magazine, Edge, invited Marvin Minsky on this early evening together with the philosopher of science, Daniel Dennett, to a discussion on the podium at New York’s Barnes and Noble book store at Union Square. The occasion was the publication of the essay collection, The New Humanists (Barnes & Noble Books, New York, 496 pages, $19.95). In the book John Brockman once again collects the most important arguments of the Third Culture, with texts from esteemed scientists like Marvin Minsky, Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, David Deutsch, and Jared Diamond. Throughout, the title is meant to be taken literally — for twelve years John Brockman has fought on behalf of that movement of natural scientists and philosophers of science who throw into question the sovereignty of humanities scholars in their ability to interpret the meaning of humanity and the world. In his introduction Brockman once again describes those for whom his declaration of war applies: He promotes a new way of thinking that grows from the optimism of science as opposed to the pessimism of modern humanistic study.

One could conclude from this that public appearances by Marvin Minsky and Daniel Dennett take place in front of an exclusively scientific audience. Indeed artificial intelligence and sociobiology are not exactly topics that one chooses to enjoy on a relaxing evening instead of making a visit to the cinema. Nevertheless, this evening one could not shake the feeling that Minsky and Dennett once again had to finish battles that were won long ago.

THE NEW HUMANISTS

The representatives of the Third Culture sketched a truly unromantic picture of humanity. They demystified consciousness, thinking, learning, and even free will as phenomena that are scientifically explicable, despite their complexity. In the same way, neuropsychologist Steven Pinker last year dismantled the foundations of the humanistic image of humanity as argued by Locke, Rousseau, and Descartes in his bestseller, The Blank Slate. In his most recent book, Freedom Evolves, Daniel Dennett even went a step further and investigated the evolutionary origins of ethics, morality, and free choice. His conclusion was that determinism stands in no way as a contradiction to human free will, because it spurred humanity to become finished with the realities of evolution. In this worldview there is really no place for God, since God stands for arbitrariness, coincidence, and contradiction. These have no place in science, since even chaos theory follows its own specific rules.

Thus, it is no wonder that in addition to the triumphant agreement of agnostics in the audience, doubters also chimed in. Bruce Feiler was one of these, himself a bestselling author who in his last book proved the similarity of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam based on the figure of the prophet Abraham. Unrecognized by the other participants, he stepped up to the microphone provided for the audience and asked if science, with its model of multiple universes, might not touch on the much more difficult explanation of one and infinity. In response, Marvin Minsky instructed that it would be impossible to find out whether one lives in a singular universe, although the explanation of multiple universes appears to be scientifically feasible.

RELIGION IS SUGAR FOR THE MASSES

Another member of the audience wanted to know why Minsky and Dennett attacked religion so passionately although the father of sociobiology, Edward O. Wilson, described faith as one of the greatest of humanity’s ideas. Daniel Dennett argued patiently with the young man that one could compare religion to the craving for sweets. This impulse to consume anything sweet quickly and in the greatest possible amounts played an important role in the early evolutionary stages of humanity, when saving energy was important. Because today one must ordinarily no longer survive a long winter on the steppes, however, the compulsion to consume sugar injures him more than it helps. The same is true with religion, whose greatest service over the centuries has been to deliver explanations for the inexplicable. But this function has survived too long. Today it does much more to prevent humanity from gaining knowledge.

The leading thinkers of the Third Culture argue only seldom in such a popular forum, but it is precisely in this way that one can assess the pragmatic aspect of their declaration of war. For them it does not concern only the honor of holding intellectual sovereignty over interpretation. At the beginning of the 21st century the sciences stand on the brink of enormous progress. The human genome has been decoded, technology has reached the nano-scale, and it is possible to research human and artificial intelligence. In view of these new possibilities, science sees dogmatic ethics and the moral burdens of history as obstacles on the road to progress. Not to mention the science policy of the American president, who must take consideration of those who elected him and who continue to take creationism at face value.

Just recently Steven Pinker expressed despair in an essay concerning lay ethicists who want to legally restrict research (Süddeutsche Zeitung, July 15) and who argue against the dangers of technological possibility, settling in the same place as their predecessors in the field of science fiction. At the same time the Third Culture in no way promotes the totalitarian belief in science that is often ascribed to it.

The concern is not to reduce humanity to its biological and physical principles, Brockman writes in The New Humanists. Art, literature, history and politics have only to learn again to incorporate the natural sciences into the intellectual process. Only at that point might the natural sciences and the humanities work together in the future.

[Original German text]

|Top|