Observations From Outside - an essay

[Ray Melnik]

The only thing we can be sure of when it comes to our existence is simply that we do. We are alive and can see that; but nothing more. To assume a guided purpose or predetermined fate for ourselves is nothing more than wishful thinking. No matter how comforting it might be to believe we are special to the cosmos there’s no reason to think that we are. Texts, both ancient and new, attribute a sense of privilege and immortality, but they’re only concepts born in the minds of ordinary people. Again this is the only thing we know for certain. To insist that somehow a supernatural force inspired any of it is again wishful thinking.

Too many people insist that the position of the stars can predict their fate or that cards can guide them. Some believe in ghosts, psychics and in the ability to talk with the dead. A common thread is that not one can produce results under real scrutiny because they are all simply not true. To explain why people would believe, is better left to those who study the human mind and are not trapped by acceptance as well. Although insignificant in number, there are those who dedicate themselves to the pursuit of knowledge yet are somehow able to embrace the notion of a cosmic watchmaker.

But when one chooses the path of discovery, to begin with a preconceived notion of the supernatural, does a disservice to all of us. Possibilities are immediately limited. For example, Francis Collins, the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the National Institute of Health pursues the reconciliation of the biblical account of creation with evolution. He uses his title and notoriety to advance ideas based on faulty assumptions that are completely devoid of evidence. Because of his position, people listen, and it’s disappointing at the very least.

So what if the majority of people believe in the supernatural?

When we believe without question there’s no need to take responsibility for our own actions. Demons are invoked when we’re caught in a sticky situation. Decisions are made by reading a four sentence blurb in a local newspaper written by someone who worked in classifieds the month before. Our lives are limited.

We relinquish our responsibly for what we consume and the effects that our actions have on future generations. We believe we are privileged and this selfishness leads us to use up our resources as if they were unlimited. Radio talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, convinces a very outspoken group that it would be vain to assume we could destroy what only God has the power to. This is nothing more than dangerous ignorance spread on a large scale, and he’s not the only one.

Just as in the days of Galileo, real knowledge is still marginalized, ridiculed, disputed and postponed by dogma; keeping it from taking its rightful place in general understanding. Real science is produced by the foremost experts in their respective fields through meticulous experimentation and is supported by solid evidence. What shows true is accepted while works in progress are honestly considered to be hypothesis. Once a theory is accepted through peer review, if mistakes are discovered, there is no resistance to making corrections. Pseudo-science looks backwards with their roots in ancient text and mythology.

We believe all these things at our own peril. If we can not come to grips with reality and our own mortality, it puts all of us in danger and limits any progress that can be made. It seems very strange to me that a debate continues to rage about whether we are contributing to the impending dramatic climate change when solid science shows we are. Opposition groups use no science, only threats of lawsuits if they’re not given equal time to debate. And look close at who they are. They are some of the very people who fought the regulation of cigarettes, fluorocarbons, emissions causing acid rain and now regulation of fossil fuels.

We are reactive rather than proactive, because it is convenient and palatable. Although it’s the most obvious, this is not the only issue our human species faces. A world perfectly suited for our existence can change rapidly as it has many times in earth’s history, and for many reasons. For us to continue on this course of blind acceptance is unwise.

At times I feel as if I’m living in an alternate universe. We consume our planet on a path to human extinction. We obsess about acquiring things that we will never need. We couldn’t care less about curing disease or more about marketing erections. We pay people who play children’s games by profession, vast amounts of money, while a person who runs into a burning building to save a child has to work a second job on the side to make ends meet. We repeatedly watch dogma trump new scientific discoveries and advancements, not realizing that if we look back in history we can see that they had it wrong each and every time.

We dispute the most brilliant minds on the planet yet rush to a simple minded AM radio talk show host for answers. We have astrology columns in every major newspaper in America, but very few if any columns on astronomy. We have a tool in space that has been revealing the real wonders of the cosmos for decades, but most people refuse to even look. We don’t prepare in even the smallest way for a major planet-wide catastrophe. We make no effort to limit population even though we are already billions over what our planet can sustain.

In fact we build on land near rivers as if they weren’t in the path of what periodically but predictably become extended flood plains. Instead we fight nature by building dams, only for them to fail or accelerate the rate of flow causing the water to wipe out towns further downstream. Many of them are towns that have never flooded before. We also ignore the regular and predictable extreme storms on our ocean shores.

In the real universe, we consider ourselves to be Stewarts of the planet, who strive to make conditions just a little better for future generations. Education is important to us and the sciences are embraced. We invest what is necessary to mitigate the effects of whatever the cosmos is sure to throw our way. We understand that we are not created equal, but should be treated equally. We know that we cannot control everything we are faced with, but we decide what we do about it.

In the real universe, greed is in check and we are relentless in our efforts to find cures for illnesses. Our appetite for energy is no longer the cause for countless of cases of heart disease and cancer because we understand the win/win situation of living carbon neutral. We reward those of us who choose to work in the service of others.

In the real universe there are still many views about how we came to be, but only one for how we can and should collectively create our own destiny. We understand that only we can manipulate our environment, priorities and direction. We help and guide ourselves and each other, knowing that life is neither malicious nor kind. It simply doesn’t care.

We will improve beyond belief, once we have the strength and courage to get over ourselves.

[Ray Melnik]

Hi Brent
I understand. It’s more of a forum function whereas my post was more appropriately a blog.

I completely understand that I’m the odd man out when it comes to some higher force or forces however as an existentialist I simply can not entertain these ideas as is. I have a completely open mind, but in my 51 years I have yet to see anything to believe any of it has any merit. The extent of my believing in the possibility of anything unproven is limited to the work of valid scientific research performed by the most accomplished in the fields, such as in string theory. I follow in the path of philosophers such as Daniel Dennett who considers what we know to be solidly true about the nature of the cosmos before giving his philosophical views. As an existentialist, to begin with any preconceived notion that has no peer review acceptance is not an option.

I only wish that all people would accept real science and facts we now know are solidly true as much as they are willing to entertain views in the pseudo-sciences. There are so many things proven that are still debated by the general population when they are concrete fact to the scientists in their fields. In the last decade alone we have uncovered genetic evidence that we are related to every bit of life on earth including pond scum and everything evolved from a single organism. We had a breakthrough with Hubble that answered so many questions, dated the universe almost exactly and photographed just after the Big Bang.

Evolution and the Big Bang are now accepted fact by all but those who have simply not looked at the science or refuse to. Think about how long after Galileo discovered we were not the center of the solar system or the universe, before it made its way into general understanding. The same people fighting this are the same types who fought it then. They were wrong then and they are wrong now, but it is now that the lack of scientific knowledge and use of reason can very well blow up in our faces. As Carl Sagan said, “We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.”

[Brent Robison]

In the blog comments, there appears to be no way to reply to a specific comment only. In the Forum discussions, there are Repy buttons for either the individual entry or for the whole thread.

My thanks too -- I always enjoy conversations like this. I suspect if we talked a while longer, your impression would be that I lean much further toward mysticism than either of you is comfortable with. My thought is that at some future point of human evolution (if we survive), the most advanced technologies will be a mix of science with realms we now call "mystical" just because we don't understand them.

[Ray Melnik]

In response to Randy

You keep on being a skeptic. It is the heart of every smart move in life. My views are but one.

I'm not a good example. I studied electronics and my hobbies are quantum and astrophysics, evolutionary biology and earth sciences. Basically I’m an A1 geek. My point is only that we need to make science education paramount for our children. The planet has never needed that more.

[Randy Burgess]

Ray -

"I understand completely how electricity works, and is conducted as well, because I read it."

You're a better man than I am. I can't remember most of what I read on any subject! And I don't think i would claim to completely understand anything in this world, with or without the aid of books.

But I'd best opt out of this discussion until & unless I have more to contribute than skepticism.

[Ray Melnik]

In response to Brent
I totally agree. The only thing we are certain of is what we can see and feel. No matter what someone believes, it is best to run the planet as if only we can form our destiny. All else is icing.

Brent – is there a way we can make it so we can respond to a specific post? I know you have the admin rights. Thanks to both of you for an interesting conversation.

[Ray Melnik]

In response to Randy
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. Ordinary people believe in the knowledge gained by the most brilliant minds every single day. They are the basis for almost everything ever created by men and women. Strip away everything that we have created. Everything. Strip away calendars, clothes, clocks, buildings, houses, education, careers, jobs, money, industry and all of our technology. You’re left with the truth about what men and women have been able to achieve.

I may not know all the math and formulas, but that’s simply the vehicle. It’s what it all means that counts for me. I understand quite a bit of it because I read it. I understand completely how electricity works, and is conducted as well, because I read it.

The point is which direction we take. Do we simply give up and say we don’t understand then open ourselves up to mysticism, or do we learn and educate our children much more seriously in the only thing that reflects reality; science. I choose the second and teach my children the second. I’m proud that my 13 year old daughter and 15 year old son have known more about the real and concrete nature of the cosmos than most adults; and for years they have.

[Brent Robison]

Oh-- Ray, I have very much enjoyed Brain Greene's Elegant Universe series, and I just realized that I mis-attributed my reference to the omnicentric universe. I meant to say Brian Swimme (Hidden Heart of the Cosmos). Also, I think I interpreted Beinhart differently than you did -- not that he gives 50/50 credence to a deity, but that in asking the unanswerable questions, the only sensible place to start is with the assumption that there is not one.

[Brent Robison]

Hmmm -- I enjoy Bob Berman's column a lot, and occasionally clip and save them when he gets into the most esoteric stuff. I also enjoy Eric Francis Coppolino. I read them both faithfully, for fun and new angles of insight.

As to what is "really important," I would suggest that just because some knowledge may be the the minimum necessary for functioning doesn't make it important; it just makes it practical. The paradoxes and conundrums at the highest levels of science get me fired up and raise my eyes beyond the near horizon. To me that's important. Am I an "ordinary person"? I think so.

My concern with strictly practical thinking is that it falls too easily into the rationale of immediate self-interest -- my bank account above what's right -- that has brought this country to the sorry state of affairs we're now in.

[Randy Burgess]

But if you don't know the math yourself . . . and have never met the brilliant minds . . . what then? What is the use for an ordinary person of believing in such supposedly sophisticated "knowledge"?

My favorite illustration of what I'm talking about here is an ordinary light switch. We use them every day, most of us, yet how many of us really understand or could talk about the principles involved in the conduction of electricity? How many of us could build a battery from scratch without consulting a reference book first?

Damn few.

But is this really important? No. It is only important to know that you can flip the switch one way and get light, flip it the other way and get darkness.

[Ray Melnik]

Hi Randy
And that's OK if science is not enough for you.

I speak for me and I’m an existentialist and solid skeptic. I realize that so few people hold my point of view and I’m the odd person out, but I have no choice. I have a completely open mind, but I will not consider ideas without something definitive to make me believe they are anything more than wishful thinking. I’m fine with any belief that others may hold as long as we grow up enough to realize that there is no reason to believe that anyone but us can guide our destiny or care for each other.

I must say that as far as I’m willing to go in the area of the unknown is to entertain the idea of string theory. No scientist is saying that it is anything, but hypothesis, but just as Einstein’s hypothesis of Relativity took decades to prove. String theory is a worthy consideration given that there is solid math to back it up and has decades of solid research behind it, compiled by some of the most brilliant minds on earth, from the most prestigious universities.

All the best to you…
Ray