Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Gotta Serve Somebody

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

It has been a very busy week digging out from under the pile of work that accumulated while I was on vacation (think of the Bride digging out of the grave in Kill Bill 2). Earlier I had time only to post a link to Mollie Hemingway’s take down of Frank Bruni’s genuflection before the alter of “science.” Today I want to revisit that topic. Before I do, a couple of definitions:

Reify: to regard (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing

Fealty: the obligation or the engagement to be faithful to a lord, usually sworn to by a vassal.

The money quote from Bruni’s piece:

And with the right fealty to science, this next Congress would be forced to accept the overwhelming consensus on climate change and take action.

Bruni reifies an abstraction called “science” and bids Congress (and presumably everyone else) to give “fealty” to his reification. It is one thing to honor a particular scientist, but Bruni urges us to genuflect before “Science” with a capital “S.” Why?  Because, he feels an overwhelming need to serve something larger than himself, to place his life in a larger context, and to find meaning in his life. What in the world is going on here? As it happens, Bob Dylan has a keen insight into this phenomenon. He writes:

But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You’re gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody.

Gotta Serve Somebody. As another song goes, “ain’t Bobby so cool”?

The idea that our life is completely meaningless, that the universe is indifferent to our existence, that literally nothing we say, think or do has any ultimate significance, is unbearable. No one is able to stare into the abyss without flinching. Even those who insist there is no meaning feel compelled to seek meaning. Consider these two quotations from Richard Dawkins:

[In the universe there] is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

The truly adult view, by contrast, is that our life is as meaningful, as full and as wonderful as we choose to make it.

In the first quote Dawkins stares into the abyss, and in the second he flinches away.  Why?  Because an intense longing for meaning is at the bottom of every human heart. Everyone, from fundamentalist Bible thumpers to militant  atheists, searches for a greater context in which to situate their lives.

For theists the explanation for this longing is easy:

You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.

Confessions, Augustine of Hippo

The materialist insists there is no meaning to life. Therefore, he cannot admit that our longing for meaning is a response to the existence of real meaning. Like so many things (consciousness, the overwhelming appearance of design in nature, libertarian free will), he is forced to argue that the impulse to find meaning is the product of an illusion foisted on us by our genes, which in turn resulted from some evolutionary adaptation.

It is not my purpose in this brief post to argue for one view or the other. I only point to the reality of the impulse. Bobby is right. Ya gotta serve somebody.

Comments
Science is a process, not a canonical body of knowledge. Bruni's talk about swearing fealty to science is nonsensical and logically absurd.OldArmy94
November 8, 2014
November
11
Nov
8
08
2014
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
Does The Universe Have A Purpose? This is a very good question … a question often directed to religious people … and a question directed to me, a Christian, recently that gave me serious pause. Do I believe or even think much about the question? Do I even have an answer to the question? My answer is here: http://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2014/08/31/does-the-universe-have-a-purpose/ayearningforpublius
November 8, 2014
November
11
Nov
8
08
2014
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
OT: If anyone is interested, Magnus Carlsen and Vishy Anand are now playing a rematch for the world chess championship. The first game is now over and was a draw. Magnus Carlsen VS. Vishy Anand http://www.sochi2014.fide.com/bornagain77
November 8, 2014
November
11
Nov
8
08
2014
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
I wonder if in the 1920's the following sentence would have been feasible:
And with the right fealty to science, this next Congress would be forced to accept the overwhelming consensus on the need for eugenics and take action.
Barry Arrington
November 8, 2014
November
11
Nov
8
08
2014
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
The second definition that Merriam Websters' site gives for fealty is "intense fidelity." Under which, "fealty to science" wouldn't reify science any more so than the phrase "fealty to reason" would reify reason. Certainly abstractions can be raised to the level of deity. But the main problem with Bruni's statement is that it's a bald-faced lie.
And with the right fealty to science, this next Congress would be forced to accept the overwhelming consensus on climate change and take action.
The claim that a consensus among scientists is evidence of an intense fidelity to the scientific method is like claiming that the shared morals found among porn stars show their intense fidelity to the Virgin Mary.jstanley01
November 8, 2014
November
11
Nov
8
08
2014
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
Or another word, IDOLATRY. The operational definition of Science is extremely simple. Anything that will bring in more than a million from an agency or foundation is Science. Anything that won't get you a million-dollar grant is Denialism. (For some disciplines like physics, the threshold is closer to a billion. It depends on the size of the lab and the overhead of the assistants and equipment.) Some idolaters of Science understand that they're really worshipping plain old Greed. They won't say it, but you can tell that they know. Not sure about Bruni; he sounds like he doesn't understand.polistra
November 8, 2014
November
11
Nov
8
08
2014
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply