Certainty and doubt

Not long ago I spent an evening looking at and listening to the man I believe to be the greatest scientist of my lifetime, Richard Feynman. I lent one of his books, the collection called "The pleasure of finding things out" to R&R's nephew Martin, who is a physics student at Ottawa U, and will pass it on to Raman Kumar when Martin returns it. Meantime Raman and his Mum, Karen Trollope Kumar found many U-tube clips and the BBC Panorama interview with Feynman on line, and sent me the URL coordinates (some are familiar, others I'd not seen). It's hard to think of a better way to pass the time than learning from or in my case refreshing my memory of Feynman's thoughts - profound thoughts, always expressed in plain language. I've seen that BBC Panorama program several times before, and enjoy it more each time I look at it. I can very highly recommend it to everyone who reads this blog. The last clip I looked at on that evening spent with Feynman was a montage of Feynman's sayings and writings spoken by someone else, on the dichotomy between science and religion, between doubt and certainty, skepticism and unquestioning faith. The fundamental point is that a true scientist questions everything, accepts no absolute certainties. There are obvious exceptions: it is absolutely certain that I could not swim across the Atlantic Ocean, it is absolutely certain that I will die. Feynman's point was that scientific certainties are certain only until or unless refuted by valid scientific observations, often investigations designed to refute previously accepted truths. Thus, for instance, prayer has been demonstrated in numerous trials to be without efficacy. Miracles, required for canonization of saints, vanish under objective, impartial scrutiny. It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god, or a supernatural power responsive (or not) to human entreaty. There are scientists who believe in god; those I have heard discussing their belief seem to do so on the basis of a sense of wonder at the working of nature: no human could make a flower, or a flea, or a radish, so there must be a higher power than humans. This commonly used but hackneyed argument misses the point (and ignores the facts of evolutionary biology). The point is simply this: there are believers and there are skeptics. I am a skeptic; my brother, to whom I sent the URL of Feynman on religion, is a believer. He needs no evidence, no proof: god exists, prayer works. My brother and I have a great deal in common. But we differ on this matter. I don't seek to convert him to my viewpoint, but I do enjoy a discussion, a debate, an argument. I suspect that what I've said in this post may provoke some, and I look forward to it.