Arguing Science. Michael Shermer

Knowledge is about information, but wisdom is more about seeing patterns and the way in which things interact. It also involves taking a long-term perspective.

      Unfortunately, in the modern world our perspectives are often very short-term, driven by daily news agendas, four- or five-year electoral cycles, and annual or quarterly profit reports. Investors in the stock market now make decisions on timescales of fractions of a second.

      Wisdom involves looking at the bigger picture—taking a more holistic view—and it cannot easily be taught because in part it depends on experience, and often on intuition as well—a direct knowing that is not reducible to textbook facts or statistical procedures.

      James Barham: Thank you very much for your time and your insights! Are there any final thoughts you would like to share with our readers? What changes in the scientific world would you like to see in the next five to 10 years? What is needed for these changes to be realized?

      Rupert Sheldrake: As I argue in my book Science Set Free, I am convinced that the sciences are being imprisoned by the outmoded ideology of materialism. I show how each of the 10 dogmas of materialism can be turned into a question, treated as a scientific hypothesis, and evaluated scientifically. None of these dogmas turns out to be valid or persuasive. In every case, new questions open up, along with new possibilities for scientific research.

      I would like to see these possibilities explored. There are already many open-minded scientists working within universities and other scientific institutions, but most of them are unable to follow unconventional lines of research because they’re afraid these would not be funded. I would like to see a plurality of sources for funding in science that enable different approaches to be explored. This is unlikely to happen through government funding agencies, which are dominated by the science establishment, but there are many private foundations that could fund alternative scientific and medical research and I hope that some of them will do so.

      I also hope that non-materialist scientists will feel able to meet up with other like-minded professionals and work together to change the sciences from within. And I hope that these open questions will become more widely known to students at schools through the educational system. For anyone interested in these possibilities, I recommend a new website, OpenSciences.org, that is a portal for the post-materialist sciences.

      I am delighted that TBS is exploring these issues and hope that students in schools colleges and universities will be able to have some influence over what they are taught through making their interests known and through not blindly accepting the dogmas that are presented to them. Students need to learn, but they should also have some influence over what they are taught.

      THEBESTSCHOOLS.ORG

      MICHAEL SHERMER INTERVIEW

      Michael Shermer is the editor-in-chief of Skeptic magazine and the author of several books, most recently The Moral Arc. He has also authored a dozen other books on science, evolution, religion, parapsychology, morality, and other topics, many of them bestsellers.

      Dr. Shermer holds a B.A. in psychology/biology from Pepperdine University, an M.A. in experimental psychology from Cal State Fullerton, and a Ph.D. in the History of Science from Claremont Graduate University. Among his numerous endeavors, he has been writing the monthly “Skeptic” column for Scientific American magazine since 2001, has produced the 13-episode television series “Exploring the Unknown” for the Family Channel, and is a former competitive bicycle racer who co-founded Race Across America (RAAM) and helped design better protective equipment for the sport.

      James Barham for TheBestSchools.org: Thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to be interviewed. You have a new book just out! It is called The Moral Arc: How Science and Reason Lead Humanity toward Truth, Justice, and Freedom¹, and we will be spending a good deal of this interview discussing it in detail.

      Before we do that, though, we would like you to tell us a little bit about yourself. First of all, when and where were you born, and what is your family’s educational, social, ethnic, religious background, etc.?

      Michael Shermer: I was born and raised in Southern California, specifically the La Canada area in the foothills surrounding Los Angeles. My parents were not religious and none of them went to college. I had both biological and step-parents, and toggled between homes weekdays and weekends while growing up—a real boon at Christmas time! I have three sisters and two brothers and am an only child. Figure that one out—the quintessential American blended family of two half-sisters (same father, different mother), a step-sister, and two step-brothers. No one in the family was particularly religious, and yet somehow we grew up learning moral principles and how to be good. Imagine that!

      James Barham: Today, you are one of the most recognizable atheists/agnostics in the United States, as well as across the world. Yet, you were once an evangelical Christian. That’s quite a journey! Could you describe the circumstances that led you to become an evangelical Christian as well as give some snapshots of what your life during that time was like? Is there anything you miss about that phase of your life?

      Michael Shermer: My conversion to Christianity came at the behest of my best friend in high school, whose parents were Christian, and it was something of a “thing” to do at the time (early ’70s) as the evangelical movement was just taking off. I accepted Jesus as my savior on a Saturday night with my friend, and the next day we attended the Glendale Presbyterian church, which had a very dynamic and histrionic preacher who inspired me to come forward at the end of the sermon to be saved. My buddy told me that I didn’t need to do it, but it seemed more official in a church than at the bar at my parents’ home. So, I was born again, again, so I figure that must count for something, you know, just in case I’m wrong now in my belief that there very probably is no God.

      I took my religious beliefs fairly seriously. For a couple of years I attended this informal Christian study fellowship group at a place called “The Barn” in La Crescenta, which, in looking back, was a quintessential ’70s-era hangout with a long-haired, hippie-type guitar-playing leader who read Bible passages that we discussed at length. But more than the social aspects of religion, I relished the theological debates, so I matriculated at Pepperdine University (a Church of Christ institution) with the intent of becoming a theologian. Although living in the Malibu hills overlooking the Pacific Ocean was a motivating factor in my choice of a college, the primary reason I went there was I thought I should attend a school where I would receive serious theological training, and I did.

      I took courses in the Old and New Testaments, Jesus the Christ, and the writings of C.S. Lewis. I attended chapel twice a week (although, truth be told, it was required for all students). Dancing was not allowed on campus (the sexual suggestiveness might trigger already-inflamed hormone production to go into overdrive), and we were not allowed into the dorm rooms of members of the opposite sex. Despite the restrictions, it was a good experience; I was a serious believer and I thought this was the way we should behave.

      The only thing I miss—and only a little—is the confident certainty that religion brings, the knowing absolutely that this is the One True Worldview. That was, as well, the downfall of my faith.

      James Barham: To follow up on the last question, what circumstances led you to abandon evangelical Christianity? In repudiating evangelical Christianity, did you immediately become a skeptic of all religion, or did your skepticism evolve more gradually? Please explain.

      Michael Shermer: While undertaking my studies at Pepperdine, I discovered that to be a professor of theology you needed a Ph.D., and such a doctorate required proficiency in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Aramaic. Knowing that foreign languages were not my strong suit (I struggled through two years of high school Spanish), I switched to psychology and mastered one of the languages of science: statistics.

      In science, I discovered that there are ways to get at solutions to problems for which we can establish parameters to determine whether a hypothesis is probably right (like rejecting the null hypothesis at the 0.01 level of significance) or definitely wrong (not statistically significant). Instead of the rhetoric and disputation of theology, there was the logic and probabilities of science. What a difference