The essays reflect Weinberg’s breadth and depth of knowledge on a host of issues, and the author gracefully moves through several entirely different fields of study. But they also display one of the prime examples of the hubris of modern scientism.Weinberg has made important contributions to modern physics. But he is not a simple hard-fact scientist. He is also a thinker, a philosopher of sorts. As a first-rate physicist he has delved into areas beyond the limits of hard science and ventured into intellectual controversy. “Lake Views” presents this aspect of Weinberg’s work and it is felicitous to see a prominent scientist think outside the confines of his/her field of expertise.
I have nothing against expert professionals in a particular field of study trying their luck in other areas of research. Albert Einstein became the most widely recognized scientist of the 20th century not only because of his groundbreaking studies in particle physics but also because of his ability to make difficult scientific ideas easily accessible to wide audiences. Furthermore, Einstein was a prominent thinker and commentator on various world events. As a matter of fact, his most revolutionary work in science was based not on experimentation and observation at a lab but on mathematical intuition, a gift he had for all of his work.
Alfred N. Whitehead, considered the most elegant defender of process philosophy in the 20th century, is another example. Whitehead was an accomplished mathematician and man of science and the author of “Principia Mathematica,” which he co-authored with Bertrand Russell. Whitehead also reflected upon world events and produced numerous works on philosophy, religion, science, education, history and politics. Since all human knowledge is interconnected, severed only artificially by reductionist epistemologies, scientists writing about non-scientific subjects are simply welcome.
But all this makes sense when they know what they are talking about. Being an accomplished scientist, one does not guarantee precision or veracity. Those who believe in science and turn their belief into an ideology, which I call “scientism,” seem to work on the erroneous assumption that science with some philosophical peppering over it can solve all of humanity’s problems. Since the time of Auguste Comte and his mostly blind followers in the 19th century, numerous attempts have been made to turn science into a religion, a pseudo-religion in fact. But such attempts are contradictory and self-defeating.
Popular scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg are still trying what Comte had failed to do more than a century ago: creating a false religion out of science. Their rabid atheism is supposed to be “scientifically grounded” as if such a claim can be verified by a lab experiment. If they admit they are simply making philosophical claims which require philosophical proofs, they will be doing a great service to their profession. But their arrogant belief in science not only produces bad philosophy but also abuses science.
The matter does not stop here. In a chapter called “A Deadly Certitude,” which is a review of Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion,” Weinberg dismisses all religions as false, irrational, violent and so on. But he goes further and launches a new attack on Islam: “Dawkins treats Islam as just another deplorable religion, but there is a difference. The difference lies in the extent to which religious certitude lingers on in the Muslim world, and in the harm it does … I share Dawkins’s lack of respect for all religions, but in our times it is folly to disrespect them all equally.” So, a world-renowned scientist is calling for more “disrespect” for one of the greatest religious traditions in human history. How scientific!
Such diatribes are not free of internal contradictions. While criticizing all religions and advocating open hatred for Islam, Weinberg reiterates his belief in science. In his book “Dreams of a Final Theory: The Scientist’s Search for the Ultimate Laws of Nature,” he argues for a final theory that will somehow one day explain how the universe works. He admits he has no hard evidence to support this. But he goes on to believe it. How scientific is this?
Towards the end of his long life, Isaac Newton wrote: “I do not know what I may appear to the World but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” (Quoted by Freeman Dyson in his review of Weinberg’s book in “The New York Review of Books,” June 10, 2010, Vol. 57, No. 10.)
Newton was not only one of the greatest scientists of all times but also a firm believer in God and a devout Christian. This has taken nothing away from his scientific work. To the contrary, it has helped him develop a more mature and integrated view of the universe and its meaning. And it has added a profound dimension of humility to his work. Weinberg and his like seem to have none of that.
