Reader's Block and On The Beauty of Science

You've all heard of writer's block. Well, I've got "reader's block" which I define as getting mired in a book and then being unable to finish it. The culprits are Thomas Friedman's Hot, Flat and Crowded and Reinhold Niebuhr's Moral Man and Immoral Society. The problem with the first one is that Friedman takes over 400 pages to state a case that he probably could have handled in less than half of that. The problem with the second one is that Niebuhr is too smart for his audience (at least me) and ends up inflicting a headache on his reader.

In any event, I do manage to finish a book from time to time. The one I wanted to touch on tonight is an interesting collaboration between Nobel prize winning chemist Hebert Hauptman and Point of Inquiry host D.J. Grothe. It's called On The Beauty of Science. The main body of the book is only 65 pages long and tells the fascinating life story of Hauptman who grew up in the Bronx and ended up working in the US Naval Research Lab after W.W. II. More as an intellectual challenge than anything else, Hauptman managed to solve the up-to-then insoluble phase problem of x-ray crystallography. I won't go into detail on that but if you can understand the monograph in the last appendix, you deserve your own Nobel prize.

The portion of the book which most interested me was the chapter entitled How God Hurts Science. I was reminded of this chapter today while I was reading a post by University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne which trumpted his view that religious faith is fundamentally incompatible with science. Hauptman echoes this view and writes:

Science and religion are simply two different ways of looking at the world. When seeing the universe from a scientific outlook, one only believes that for which there is some evidence. With religion, on the other hand, one believes on no basis whatsoever; religion is just a matter of faith. The religious person believes the most ridiculous things for no reason. Most religious claims have no justification, and it seems to me it is not even open to discussion for most people. Most religious people cannot stand to have their beliefs examined, much less criticized ... [my emphasis]

I was also interested to read how someone of Hauptman's intellect would answer the question: Why Do People Believe in the Unbelievable? His explanation is as follows:

It is very hard for people to accept that there may be no ultimate meaning to life. There is meaning, I admit, but I do not think an ultimate meaning. Even if there is no God and life is ultimately meaningless, you don't end up loving your wife any less than you would if there was a God. Most people seem to think there must be an ultimate meaning to life. I really don't see that there needs to be. In fact, I'm not sure in what sense that statement makes any sense at all. I don't know what kind of answer you can expect from inquiring into the ultimate meaning of the universe.

.....

I would suggest that major factors determining people's ethical behavior have to do with their childhood and child rearing. I believe that I was rewarded for certain behaviors as a child that, in turn, inculcated certain habits. At a basic level, I participated in a reward system that rewarded me for working hard and being a decent person. Sadly, not everyone has this kind of environment when growing up. Religion may actually stifle this kind of upbringing.

Hauptman is president of a biomedical research institute based in Buffalo and an adjunct professor at the University of Buffalo. I'm not sure if he is a football fan but he and D.J. have an open invitation to join me for a Bills game in my lower level season ticket seats. I have a great view.