One of my favorite shows on TV is MythBusters. And why not? I am a guy and what is not to like about a show with a lot of explosions in slow motion? (They had me at “When it’s worth doing, it’s worth over-doing.”) Yes, the scientific approach of the show is very weak, I know. But: Who cares? The guys are model makers (plus one engineer), not scientists. (The scientific community jokes about the fact that they usually only have one experiment and therefore only one data point. You can fit everything through one data point.) But again why should they be scientists? They are doing a great job and are highly entertaining. And some of their results are so counter-intuitive that one data point is enough to shake my mind. From the two hosts of the show, Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage, I like the latter better because his character is more like my own. From what I see on TV I think I would have a blast meeting him.

At the end of 2014 Adam Savage was invited to be one of the judges of the ReThink-prize. The idea was to find so to say the ten commandments of the atheist faith. From all the suggestions ten were chosen by the jury. And here they are:

1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true.
3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
4. Every person has the right to control over their body.
5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life.
6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them.
7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective.
8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations.
9. There is no one right way to live.
10. Leave the world a better place than you found it.

(From http://www.inquisitr.com/1692212/atheists-rewrite-ten-commandments-mythbusters-adam-savage-judged-new-commands/)

Don’t get the wrong impression. I like what they’ve been aiming at. From my point of view everybody should have a sound set of moral values. And with the majority up there I completely agree. (1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10. The first two I couldn’t emphasize enough for I think they are often not lived out as well as they could be. 7 is known as the golden rule and I might spent an entire post on that topic in the near future.) But one thing that I found odd right away is that some of the rules seem to be somewhat redundant.

The second rule implies the first. For if we hold the truth higher than our own believes it becomes imperative that we have to alter our believes with new evidence. And in a way number 7 contains 4, 6, 8, and 10. To show that I would have to go into much more detail and that is not my main intention here. So you will have to wait for another post on that topic. (In the meantime feel free to give it some thought. From the small part I see there is a good reason to call it the golden rule.)

But what really bothers me is the fact that the rules are very science oriented and yet in them-self somewhat un-scientific. The first two rules (or just rule 2) depict the scientific creed. The approach is: Come up with a theory, based on that make some predictions, try to prove (or better disprove) the predictions, and alter your theory according to your results. Then start again with step 2. In that way you maximize the truth in your theory. And always keep in mind: what holds true in that sense could still no be the whole truth. (Newton’s theory of motion was unchallenged for about 200 years until Einstein came with the theory of relativity.) But that has to apply also for our method of finding facts. Even though the scientific approach is probably as old as mankind itself it does not mean that is’s perfect. So I would rephrase number 3 like this:

The scientific method is the most reliable way we know of understanding the natural world.

Being scientific means being open minded. About everything. Because in a way a scientist does not believe in truth. He believes in more or less well proved theories. And his way of approaching the world around him is again based on a more or less well proved theory. That’s why stating absolutes is the opposite of  what a scientist should do. And that is what concerns me with numbers 5 and 9.

All communist countries of the 20th and 21st century were and are build on the democratic model of Lenin. While the western world has a bottom-up democracy the “eastern democracy” was/is top-down. In the west the majority sets the tone, in the east a circle of experts decide the fate of the people. In a way the west says: “We don’t know what to do, let the people tell us. The best supported idea wins.” And the east says: “There is a perfect way of living but the ordinary man is not well educated enough to find it. So we’ll gather those who are and design the ideal future for everybody.” This is not the place to discuss why one prevailed while the other mostly perished. But it is interesting to see that the biggest atheist nations the world has ever known would disagree with number 9.

And when we are honest we would agree that there are better and worse ways of living. Sleeping in a comfortable bed in a warm house or sleeping under newspaper in the entrance of a subway station for example. And when not all are equal (I know number 9 doesn’t say that.) at least local maximums must exist. Maybe even an absolute maximum. We don’t know. And it would make total sense to try and find it. And as much as we can not know if 9 is true we can’t say anything about number 5.

I just finished reading a book called “Flatland. A Romance of Many Dimensions” by Edwin Abbott Abbott (The funny guy published it under the name of A. Square.) which I enjoyed very much. The main plot revolves around a square (Now you see why the alias is funny.) living in a 2 dimensional world he calls flatland who is taken into the 3rd dimension by a sphere. After that experience he not only has to wrap his head around the fact that there is something like another dimension, he is also (unsuccessfully) trying to teach his countrymen about his discovery. That proves to be impossible for the government declared that there is no such thing as another dimension. As a scientific minded person it is impossible to read the book without thinking how extremely and dangerously stupid the government is. And yet, don’t we make the same mistake when we categorically prohibit the possibility of the existence of God?