In some sense divine
Right so the French physicist Bernard d’Espagnat has won ‘the Templeton Prize’ which is awarded annually to someone who contributes to something called ‘affirming life’s spiritual dimension.’ What does that mean? I haven’t the slightest fucking clue. I don’t think anyone has. I think it just means something like ‘not being mean and boring like those horrible atheists’ – or ‘not saying people are made entirely of metal’ – or ‘liking the pretty rainbows.’ But that of course still doesn’t mean I have a clue what it means, because meaning something like something isn’t the same as actually meaning something, and I don’t suppose the Templeton Foundation stands up in all its pomp and hands a prize worth many dollars to someone actually for liking the pretty rainbows, in so many words – so I still don’t know what it actually, really, when you nail it down, means by it.
Neither, it would appear, does Mark Vernon. He’s remarkably careful to avoid saying anything precise about it.
The bizarre nature of quantum physics has attracted some speculations that are wacky but the theory suggests to some serious scientists that reality, at its most basic, is perfectly compatible with what might be called a spiritual view of things…For [D’Espagnat], quantum physics shows us that reality is ultimately “veiled” from us. The equations and predictions of the science, super-accurate though they are, offer us only a glimpse behind that veil. Moreover, that hidden reality is, in some sense, divine.
See what I mean? Not exactly anything you can hold him to. The theory suggests to some serious scientists that reality, at its most basic, is perfectly compatible with what might be called a spiritual view of things. That’s a lot of hedges – five in one clause, and then ending up with the perfectly meaningless ‘a spiritual view of things.’ Oooooooooh, really? The theory suggests that reality might be compatible with what might be called a spiritual view of things? Ooooooh, wow, that changes my whole view of everything, which has been turned upside down and inside out and every which way and is now unrecognizable. Or to put it another way, big woop – anything might be compatible with ‘a spiritual view of things.’ Unless of course Mark Vernon really does mean something precise and (say) falsifiable by ‘a spiritual view of things,’ but I think if he had he would have said so.
But no matter, because after some more pious waffle about a veil and a glimpse, we get to the nub of the thing, which is that ‘that hidden reality is, in some sense, divine.’ Ah. Ah yes. Quite. But – in what sense, exactly? ‘In some sense, divine’ really covers an awful lot of territory. It covers rum raisin ice cream, just for one thing. But surely the Templeton Foundation wouldn’t go giving some French physicist large amounts of dollars just for saying rum raisin (or cassis or abricot or noisette) ice cream is divine. Would it? But it would give them to him for saying something that boils down to ‘that hidden reality is, in some sense, divine,’ only with equations. Do you sense a certain amount of obscurantism here? A whiff of the old hocus pocus? Because I do. I think they’re conning us – or themselves, or both. I think they think d’Espagnat said something really deep, and spiritual, without having any idea what it is. But that’s okay, because whatever it is, it’s compatible with something else, so no worries.
Reality is ultimately “veiled” from us? What the hell? What, like a widow in a big hat? A bride? A bee-keeper? Sickening. Horrible writing.
Science advances by disproof. Oops I mean science advances until it detects the veil, then falls to its knees.
Unlike previous recipients of the Templeton prize who have said egregiously unscientific and outright flaky things about God and spirituality and other such nonsense – Paul Davies, Freeman Dyson, and John Polkinghorne (in what I see as descending order, or perhaps ascending ordure) – I’m not sure d’Espagnat is really with the Templeton program. Certainly this comment from d’Espagnat has more than a whiff of being a backhanded compliment:
I sense snark – and not all that well-concealed snark considering they just handed him a small fortune. I think I like this guy, which I certainly cannot say of any other Templeton recipient.
*Hat tip to PZ Myers for the link to the Physics World article.
@claire – But even there, it is only through science that we could ever detect the ‘veil’ or safely conclude that there are things we cannot know. To simply state, on the basis of nothing more than conviction, that there are things we cannot know and that reality is hidden from us, well, anyone can do that, but it doesn’t mean anything.
@G – I’m reminded of a quote from New Scientist’s Amanda Geftner:
“I happen to believe that drawing any spiritual conclusions from quantum mechanics is an unfounded leap in logic – but if someone out there in the world is willing to pay someone £1 million for pondering the nature of reality, that’s a world I’m happy to live in.”
He showed that not all scientists are mean old atheists who believe everything is just material and everything is horrible and meaningless. For that, clearly, he deserves a fat cheque to spend on material things.
Mark Vernon gets more peculiar by the year! There was a time when he seemed to be quite out and out atheist. And now he’s gone all soft at the centre. The significant thing is that going soft in the centre means being very very vague, as you point out Ophelia. I just love this, don’t you?
What’s so revealing here is not only the ‘suggests’ and ‘might be compatible’, but the ‘some serious scientists.’ (And, of course, the portmanteau word ‘spiritual’) Of course, we know that, but what we need to know is whether some serious scientists just believe this (whatever ‘this’ is), or whether they have some scientific evidence for ‘this’, which they obviously don’t.
It would be like a neuroscientist or cognitive scientist studying the dizzying complexity of the brain, saying that it seems as though, behind this skein of complexity, we see, not only brain and mind, but something ‘far more deeply interfused.’ It’s really a form of pious romanticism, as the quote from Wordsworth is meant to indicate.
A million quid to make religious people not feel vaguely romantic? It’s open to philosophers, journalists and writers as well as scientists. Someone needs to set up a secret committee that would find ways of extracting large amounts of Templeton Prize moolah in return for vaguely worded pop-philosophy, pseudoscience or vaguely religious interpretations of real science, philosophy and scholarship. They would then take the prize money and use it to fund actual useful social ends: feeding the poor, keeping people in their homes, running science labs and universities, medical research, healthcare and providing help and outreach to those stuck inside manipulative religious cults.
Whoops. Said ‘not feel vaguely romantic’, and of course I meant the opposite. I actually toned that down – it was originally ‘not feel stupid’.
Hahahahahaha –
I love the idea of that committee. Let’s do it! Provided of course we make B&W the beneficiary.
Also love d’Espignat’s comment. Un grenouille formidable.
That’s the same thing – Tom is suggesting a kind of Sokal.
Eh, to be fair, I don’t blame them for vague language here because I suspect the feelings/yearnings/intuitions they’re describing are vague and don’t lend themselves easily to verbalization.
Honestly I mind this kind of thing much less than the concrete, clear, religious claims people make based on science or pseudo-science. Like claims about intelligent designers and irreducible complexity and so forth. This is silly, but to me much less irritating and dangerous.
Sure. I too wouldn’t call this stuff dangerous. But hey, the mere fact that it’s less absurd than some other things is no reason not to make merciless fun of it!
Anyway – yes of course the feelings/yearnings are vague, but then all parties should just admit that up front, rather than kind of sort of almost pretending they’re talking about something. All this heavy breathing is meant to convince the unwary that something genuine (and thus at least potentially precise) is meant when in fact it isn’t. That’s a con game, and should be labeled as such.
I actually find this kind of thing much more irritating than fundamentalist talk.
It’s really annoying the way people treat vague waffle as if it’s just so deep and subtle and sophisticated. If you point out that it’s meaningless claptrap it must be because you don’t get it – you’re stuck in the past with your linear thinking and your expectations of clarity and evidence.
It’s nonsense like this that lends bullshit a veneer of respectability.