Comments (9)

1. Beautiful. Uncertainty is the starting point for wonder.

   posted by Jen Sweeney on 8-17-2009 at 11:19 pm

2. Well said Jen! If we had all the answers, why bother asking any more questions?

   posted by Bert on 8-18-2009 at 11:24 am

3. “Effectively Feynman obliquely addresses issues of religion versus science here, and seems to paint himself as the quintessential scientist — someone to whom uncertainty is simply a normal state of being, and presumably the jumping-off point for most of life’s explorations.”

   I think you are mistaken about the relation of science and religion.

   A difference between religion and science are the people that are generally associated with them. It seems ‘scientists’ are those who have advanced education and thus are adept at living with uncertainty. Whereas the ‘religious’ can refer to anyone, no matter how little they admit uncertainty. Some religious people admit as much uncertainty in their religious understanding as their scientific understanding.

   Further, religion can be _more_ embracing of uncertainty than science. Science has a hard time sustaining more than a single dominant theory–rather than basking in uncertainty and entertaining multiple possible understandings, ideas that don’t fit the presently dominant paradigm are rarely even pursued. Whereas, religious discourse is open to multiple interpretations–this is apparent in the multiple present expressions of Christianity that trace their roots to a variety of historical traditions. Yet, except for a foolhardy few, Christians affirm unity in the church universal while allowing multiple expressions to thrive.

   Also, that there is no certainty is the reason for ‘faith’–at least a faith that anticipates a future. Such faith is necessarily provisional and thus wrestles with uncertainty. Without such faith, one cannot even deliberate about the best action to take for the long run; one can only live in the moment. How can there be any hope for a better future if we only live in the moment? If there were no hope for a better future, why should we continue to reproduce let alone live out our lives?

   Note that such faith might simply entail faith in science to provide a better future. Then, would we call such faith in science a religion?

   The irony in what Feynman says is that he admits he might not have any purpose, but he obviously has lived his life with purpose to become who he is.

   posted by Kevin on 8-18-2009 at 11:56 am

4. Feynman may have found his own enlightenment about the unknown, but the majority of the human species are afraid of what they don’t understand. (Do you want an example? Watch the healthcare debate.)

   Science and religion are both around to try to explain the mysteries that haunt us. Personally, i think religions tend to tug at emotions and morals in their solutions rather than looking at facts. I also think that science sometimes rejects the idea that something may have more than one right answer (logic has limits). I myself want to know as much as I possibly can. It’s not necessarily a goal, but it’s the constant feed of information that lets me know that there is more I don’t know about yet. Unlike Feynman, I DO want to know the answer to a question I think about. I might come to the realization that I will never know, but i will still pursue it. Did Galileo ponder our place in the universe, but not pursue it because he couldn’t immediately find the answer?

   I may never know the answer, but I will never forget the question. If I don’t agree with the answer that has been given to me, I will study it more until there is no possible way that there can be another answer.

   In my opinion, i think Feynman lacks ambition. “I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell — possibly.” You don’t need to be frightened by not knowing. You can, however, be curious; curious enough to take the time to find the answer.

   “Science is open-minded to all other ideas until a solution is found, then they stop looking. Religion is closed-minded to all other ideas if it is not the solution they are looking for.” -me

   I think that quote illustrates the fear in the common man – science or religion – for clinging onto what they believe.

   Feynman doesn’t belong in those categories, I will admit. He is a rare breed. But not knowing doesn’t mean he can’t look.

   posted by Steven on 8-18-2009 at 12:47 pm

5. @Kevin – You state that a lack of certainty is the reason for religious faith. While I will not argue with you regarding the lack of certainty inherent in most religious decrees, I view the issue of faith differently. Faith is not embracing the unknown elements of existence. Instead, it is an exercise in accepting simultaneously unfalsifiable and unprovable statements in an effort to make the unknown more palatable. Accepting uncertain “answers” is not the same as accepting uncertainty.

   I will not disagree that mainstream science does resist attempts to stray from accepted paradigms and can, at times, slip into dogmatic assertions reminiscent of religious doctrine. I feel, however, that money and power are at the root of these issues. The misuse of a discipline by a few should not condemn the entire discipline. The skepticism, disputation, and mutability inherent in science are generally absent from the layman’s experience in a faith-based religion.

   posted by Shine on 8-18-2009 at 5:00 pm

6. Science can provide vision into uncertainty, but not eliminate it. “Religion” is really a search for truth not certainty. It is the search for meaning in our existence and the hope of something to follow is some traditions. In that sense, it’s more of a legal discipline than a scientific one, searching for evidence that is never absolute, but I would venture to say much law has been decided with less evidence for truth than my particular faith, which is but one data point in my belief structure. There is religious and scientific dogma. Both are wrong. Go where the evidence takes you, certain or not.

   posted by Alan Wells on 8-19-2009 at 6:03 pm

7. Anyone who claims Feynman “lacks ambition” obviously knows nothing about the man. Also, anyone who quotes himself is kind of a douche.

   posted by JT on 8-25-2009 at 10:24 pm

8. Lacks ambition? Interesting. I guess if your amibtion is to waste time exploring every possible question, with the bulk of labors spent on the unanswerable questions.

   “I may never know the answer, but I will never forget the question. If I don’t agree with the answer that has been given to me, I will study it more until there is no possible way that there can be another answer.”

   Why? Sounds like a colossale waste of undirected effort. If it is unanswerable, stop working on it and move on to things that support your ambitions.

   Is there a god? Unanswerable. No evidence for (or against). So why then default to “yes”. Just move on to something of interest and pursue your ambitions.

   As Feynman apparently did judging by his successes.

   posted by Jimmie on 8-26-2009 at 10:29 am

9. Ok, and the ad for Scientology is a joke, right?

   Ad sense is working over time.

   posted by Flossy on 9-1-2009 at 8:39 pm

Comment