The Wonder of the Universe

Science is often contrasted with religion by being portrayed as static and boring, of no real utility, and above all, as a ruiner of wonder. Newton destroyed the wonder of the rainbow for Keats when he explained the origin of its colours. I want to echo the sentiments of Richard Dawkins when he wrote Unweaving the Rainbow. I want to argue likewise that science is a source of wonder and not a destroyer of it. However, Dawkins had an entire book to dispel the myth, whereas I only have a few paragraphs.

I want to stress, like Dawkins, that science evokes more wonder than religion ever could. It certainly wreaks havoc by destroying the wonder with which we perceive now mundane objects such as rainbows and lightning, but it more than makes up for this by replacing it with an even grander sense of wonder at the universe itself. If a theologian experiences wonder when reading the Bible in its original Hebrew (or Greek or Aramaic), imagine how the astronomer feels when confronted by a photograph of a cluster of galaxies, taken from a satellite orbiting many kilometres above the Earth’s atmosphere. That truly is wondrous. But what is even more wondrous, if that is possible, is that we too can share in the wonder of the astronomer, unlike the religious laity who cannot read ancient languages like the theologian can.

As some religious people are oft to say, what we atheists believe, is, in a sense, even more miraculous than what they believe. Whereas they have the luxury of invoking an intelligent designer in order to explain the universe, we have nothing other than blind, purposeless chance. However, the very fact that theists believe that they need to invoke an intelligent creator to explain away various parts of the universe means that this “stupid” and “blind” force is capable of extraordinary things, betraying its seeming simplicity. Who ever saw a picture of the Earth taken from space and was not moved at some deep level? Only the most immovable of people.

Sometimes finally explaining something actually increases our wonder in it. Before we knew how it worked exactly, it was less wondrous than afterwards. Take life for example. If god actually exists, and who seeded life on this planet, then that isn’t a very improbable event at all. Whereas for life to have been an “accident” would have taken so many and so exacting conditions that we still do not have more than a broad-brush understanding of it. But what is even more remarkable than this is our existence. The existence of a species which can look back on the process which has created us and is able to comprehend it in some small way. We may be the only life forms of remote intelligence in the universe, either now or ever. So great is the improbability of our very existence.

“We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia.”

(Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow, pp. 1)

For me the word “Arabia” conjures up images of Aladdin and the genie; Ali Baba and the forty thieves, and all of those wonderful boyhood stories. But it also conjures up images of the Muslim world, with its beautifully decorated Qur’ans and mosques. The world would be infinitely poorer, culturally speaking, if Muhammad did not fall into a trance-like state in a cave and receive revelations from god, mediated by the angel Gabriel. Despite the blood shed in its name, some say rightly and some say wrongly, it has given us much more than just a glimpse of immorality masking itself as morality.

Of course, science cannot study class i gods since they are scientifically unfalsifiable. But can science study religions? Dan Dennett thinks so, and makes his case in Breaking the Spell. Many would be alarmed at this, seeing science as impeding upon their sacred ground where empirical investigation is strictly forbidden. The consequences would be too great. However, if they believe that god really exists, then what are they afraid of? Perhaps such investigations may actually help them. For it would soon uncover any fatuous claims, and get rid of those useless or otherwise damaging aspects.

I am arguing that scientific wonder far outsize’s religious wonder. That, even if the existence of god is disproved, whether through scientific or philosophical means, we will still be left with wonder. But there is also another source of wonder to be had. And that is of human ingenuity. We marvel at the abilities of others, and what they can achieve. Shakespeare and his plays, Newton and his apple*, Einstein and his imagination, Henry Lawson and his makeshift pen, and Michael Jackson and his feet. All of these people are a source of wonder for the rest of us seemingly average people who will never achieve anything of international significance. Even if there is no wonder in science, there will always be wonder so long as we are all different.

* Which is almost certainly a myth. There is no indication that Newton was inspired to discover gravity by a falling apple hitting him on the head.

References:

Dawkins, Richard. (1998). Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder. London: Allen Lane.

Dennett, Daniel C. (2006). Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. Great Britain/USA: Allen Lane/Viking.