What do you think?
Rate this book
Turbulent Universe
In his final book, the late Paul Kurtz outlines his personal vision for a planetary ethics inspired by scientific wisdom. Blending realism and optimism, he lays out the basic principles of an ethical approach that he calls humanist eupraxsophy--that is, the application of practical moral choices inspired by scientific wisdom. Emphasizing the dramatic character of the biosphere, human affairs, and the physical universe itself, Kurtz has structured the book in terms of an operatic scenario, with an overture, intermezzo, nine acts, and a grand finale. Citing the emergence of a new planetary civilization, he proposes the development of a planetary ethics based on universal human rights, free scientific inquiry unfettered by dogma, an attitude of exuberance toward human potentials, and courage and determination in the face of the daunting challenges of our time. Kurtz concludes on an enthusiastic there is meaning to be found in creative human endeavors as well as a sense of awe and profound reverence inspired by the spectacle of the enormous universe and the prospects for the human adventure.
- GenresPhilosophy
259 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2013
4 people are currently reading
47 people want to read
About the author
Paul Kurtz
69 books60 followersDr. Paul W. Kurtz was a prominent American skeptic and secular humanist. Before his retirement, he was Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo, having previously also taught at Vassar, Trinity, and Union colleges, and the New School for Social Research.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
February 23, 2019
In this book Paul Kurtz explores a number of things about our universe, and how they might fit into a secular humanist’s view of it. After some introductory remarks he begins with the beginning of scientific studies. He then introduces chance and life, and how it plays out in evolution. He next focuses on the universe as a physical entity and emergent properties. Lastly he explores contingency in human culture and the making of moral choices, and wraps up with a look at order and harmony, and their expression in the universe.
I have a number of comments on specific parts of the text. Kindle locations are given in [brackets]. An “@” symbol indicates where no specific piece of text is being commented on, but where the comment occurred when I was reading the book.
[169] “Religion thus grew out of the brute existential encounters with adversity and offered balm for the grieving heart.” In other words religious belief begins with fear. Kurtz also wrote [188] “. . . the reappearance of the ancient myths of consolation in order to assuage human fear and foreboding.” (my italics)
[812-822] I am surprised that he does not use the fossil record in the geological stratum to argue for evolution. You always see new species in higher strata above older species in lower ones. You never find any older species on top of newer ones.
[943] “All other species are products of natural causes—genetic and environment.” Human beings are also products of these causes, including culture. Culture is just a part of human interactions; it has no other cause, hence it is natural.
[1175] “Should one become a nihilist in the face of a bleak future? One would hope not, because we can still live comfortably significant lives without worrying now about what will occur eventually in the remote future. It is similar to the statement that we all know today that each of us will die some day in the future. Meanwhile, we should live each moment fully. What will happen to future generations is an interesting speculative puzzle that we can do little about today.” We need to and can do something about global warming now or things will be worse for a large proportion of the human population, not to mention the possible extinctions of other species.
[1242] “To maintain, as Quine did, that natural sciences provide the bedrock of all scientific explanations is questionable—unless one is prepared (as I am) to extend the notion of the natural sciences to include not only bio-chemistry and biology, but also many of the psychological, behavioral, and social sciences.” Science is not usually define by what it studies, but how it studies it.
[1283] “But this [background microwave radiation] tells us nothing about what happened before the zero-point expansion . . .’ (my italics) The zero-point is something of a misnomer. All we can know about the beginnings of the universe goes down to the Planck time and length. The big bang is a misnomer as well. It was given by Fred Hoyle as a dig against an expanding universe. All we know is whatever was there before the Planck time and length the universe began to expand and underwent a period of great inflation in a very, very, very, short time after the expansion had begun. Also there would have been nothing to transmit sound, so there was no bang at all, big or small.
[1293] “Can we simply assert that a unified field theory to everything in the expanding universe, a presumption for which there is presently insufficient evidence?” (author’s italics) Claiming that there is something else smacks of the supernatural. Knowing that he does not, he is still positing the existence of something so the onus is on him to show that there is that something extra whatever he thinks that is.
[1344] How he can argue against naturalism I cannot understand when he accepts materialism. He says that there is no evidence for naturalism. I believe he is wrong. We have never encountered any verified case of supernaturalism. He also says it is a philosophical belief. I agree with him here, but his position is philosophical too. So far we have only proved (or at least confirmed) natural things. So I claim that naturalism of the metaphysical kind makes better sense, and your reasoning is better placed within it. He is only willing to accept methodological naturalism which is the default position of science.
[1375] “Thus, he [Steven Weinberg] thinks that reductionism is a statement of the order of nature that is simply true. He grants that different levels of experience call for description and analysis in different terms, although he says that ‘we can never eliminate the accidental and historical elements of science, like biology and astronomy and geology.’ The hope is to trace the explanation of all natural phenomena to final laws and historical accidents.” While I agree with Weinberg here, I do not think there are any accidents in universe. I see no theoretical obstacle to this goal of reductionism. In practice it is not likely to happen. For my defense of reductionism and what kinds of explanations we seek to understand things better see my blog post - [https://aquestionersjourney.wordpress...]
[1410] “Whether these [newer fields in medicine] in toto can be deduced from the laws of physics and chemistry still remains to be seen. Thus we may conclude that physicalist reductionism is mistaken, and that some form of nonreductive naturalism seems a more appropriate account of the contingent-random universe in which we live.” In this section he wants an emergent something or other. And that is the best that proponents of emergent properties can do—something or other.
[1709] “. . . a creative process of whipping, baking, and bringing into being a new dessert that now exists; it is an emergent product, a result of cultural tradition.” (author’s italics) It is emergent in one sense of something new has been created, but it does not involve some process other than chemistry to understand how this happens physically. “Cultural tradition” is also in the end a physical process.
[@1719] For my arguments against emergent causes see the above blog post.
[1846] “I do not see how physics can tell us how to write a constitution or amend it . . .” No it does not. But without the causal properties of the things of physics, we would not be able to write one in the first place. “To abandon the behavioral and social sciences entirely in the quest for a reductionist ‘holy grail’ smacks of illusion.” I do not think any physicist would consider abandoning these studies, only that they are not as sure as physical theory.
[1944] “. . . cannot be reduced to the ‘selfish gene’ alone . . .” Of course not. Genes can not act without a suitable environment. Plus, the “selfish gene” was meant as a metaphor, not as a part of evolutionary theory.
[@1964] For what explanations we seek at different levels of investigation see the above blog post.
[3127] “contingency” He seems to conflate contingency with randomness. The New Oxford American Dictionary says that it is “a future event or circumstance that is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty.” True randomness shows no pattern at all. The higher the randomness the higher the entropy and the higher the amount of information present (that might sound paradoxical, but randomness requires more information to describe it). Given our large amount of ignorance of causality, contingency should not be surprising. But, it reveals no causality other than physical events.
[3218] “But scientific determinism is only a presupposition.” So is indeterminism. Scientific determinism has support from every well designed study. Indeterminism has a very limited role in quantum mechanics in being able to make two measurements at the same time with maximum certainty, like position and momentum. Indeterminism never appears above the quantum level. And chaos theory does not contradict scientific determinism.
[3239] “In the past I often changed my beliefs and attitudes (as did you, dear reader), and I am willing to change them again in the future, if need be.” (my italics) Why the “dear”? Playing on the reader’s emotions is underhanded. I do not know if this was intentional, but the effect is the same.
[3288] “Hard determinism, I submit, is akin to a religious faith, worshiping at the alter of hidden causes. It is contrary to who and what we are as resolute and responsible human beings. It is also a false doctrine often promoted by malevolent fools who may wish to control other people’s behavior.” This is the pot calling the kettle black, he is the one positing something hidden. And, I expect better from him, not to indulge in ad hominem attacks. This is like the religious believer who declares one can not be moral without god. Finally, I have not read of a hard determinist who seeks to control other people’s behavior.
[3698] “We should consider life an adventure . . .” I wholeheartedly concur, especially on embarking on something new.
[3981] “To return to the question ‘What is the meaning of existence?’ I respond that it has no meaning in itself; meaning is present only if there is consciousness and awareness. Existence takes on significance for living beings who strive to question their place in the universe and try to cope with and understand it. Our meanings are discovered in the process of living . . .” (authors italics) Well said.
I was disappointed with this book by Paul Kurtz. My main beef is on his insistence that there is something more (never says what) than the physical universe in some sense (never says what either). I also spotted a number of science errors and even a philosophical blunder or two.
Because of these issues I cannot with a clear conscience recommend this book. He has written better books than this one.
I have a number of comments on specific parts of the text. Kindle locations are given in [brackets]. An “@” symbol indicates where no specific piece of text is being commented on, but where the comment occurred when I was reading the book.
[169] “Religion thus grew out of the brute existential encounters with adversity and offered balm for the grieving heart.” In other words religious belief begins with fear. Kurtz also wrote [188] “. . . the reappearance of the ancient myths of consolation in order to assuage human fear and foreboding.” (my italics)
[812-822] I am surprised that he does not use the fossil record in the geological stratum to argue for evolution. You always see new species in higher strata above older species in lower ones. You never find any older species on top of newer ones.
[943] “All other species are products of natural causes—genetic and environment.” Human beings are also products of these causes, including culture. Culture is just a part of human interactions; it has no other cause, hence it is natural.
[1175] “Should one become a nihilist in the face of a bleak future? One would hope not, because we can still live comfortably significant lives without worrying now about what will occur eventually in the remote future. It is similar to the statement that we all know today that each of us will die some day in the future. Meanwhile, we should live each moment fully. What will happen to future generations is an interesting speculative puzzle that we can do little about today.” We need to and can do something about global warming now or things will be worse for a large proportion of the human population, not to mention the possible extinctions of other species.
[1242] “To maintain, as Quine did, that natural sciences provide the bedrock of all scientific explanations is questionable—unless one is prepared (as I am) to extend the notion of the natural sciences to include not only bio-chemistry and biology, but also many of the psychological, behavioral, and social sciences.” Science is not usually define by what it studies, but how it studies it.
[1283] “But this [background microwave radiation] tells us nothing about what happened before the zero-point expansion . . .’ (my italics) The zero-point is something of a misnomer. All we can know about the beginnings of the universe goes down to the Planck time and length. The big bang is a misnomer as well. It was given by Fred Hoyle as a dig against an expanding universe. All we know is whatever was there before the Planck time and length the universe began to expand and underwent a period of great inflation in a very, very, very, short time after the expansion had begun. Also there would have been nothing to transmit sound, so there was no bang at all, big or small.
[1293] “Can we simply assert that a unified field theory to everything in the expanding universe, a presumption for which there is presently insufficient evidence?” (author’s italics) Claiming that there is something else smacks of the supernatural. Knowing that he does not, he is still positing the existence of something so the onus is on him to show that there is that something extra whatever he thinks that is.
[1344] How he can argue against naturalism I cannot understand when he accepts materialism. He says that there is no evidence for naturalism. I believe he is wrong. We have never encountered any verified case of supernaturalism. He also says it is a philosophical belief. I agree with him here, but his position is philosophical too. So far we have only proved (or at least confirmed) natural things. So I claim that naturalism of the metaphysical kind makes better sense, and your reasoning is better placed within it. He is only willing to accept methodological naturalism which is the default position of science.
[1375] “Thus, he [Steven Weinberg] thinks that reductionism is a statement of the order of nature that is simply true. He grants that different levels of experience call for description and analysis in different terms, although he says that ‘we can never eliminate the accidental and historical elements of science, like biology and astronomy and geology.’ The hope is to trace the explanation of all natural phenomena to final laws and historical accidents.” While I agree with Weinberg here, I do not think there are any accidents in universe. I see no theoretical obstacle to this goal of reductionism. In practice it is not likely to happen. For my defense of reductionism and what kinds of explanations we seek to understand things better see my blog post - [https://aquestionersjourney.wordpress...]
[1410] “Whether these [newer fields in medicine] in toto can be deduced from the laws of physics and chemistry still remains to be seen. Thus we may conclude that physicalist reductionism is mistaken, and that some form of nonreductive naturalism seems a more appropriate account of the contingent-random universe in which we live.” In this section he wants an emergent something or other. And that is the best that proponents of emergent properties can do—something or other.
[1709] “. . . a creative process of whipping, baking, and bringing into being a new dessert that now exists; it is an emergent product, a result of cultural tradition.” (author’s italics) It is emergent in one sense of something new has been created, but it does not involve some process other than chemistry to understand how this happens physically. “Cultural tradition” is also in the end a physical process.
[@1719] For my arguments against emergent causes see the above blog post.
[1846] “I do not see how physics can tell us how to write a constitution or amend it . . .” No it does not. But without the causal properties of the things of physics, we would not be able to write one in the first place. “To abandon the behavioral and social sciences entirely in the quest for a reductionist ‘holy grail’ smacks of illusion.” I do not think any physicist would consider abandoning these studies, only that they are not as sure as physical theory.
[1944] “. . . cannot be reduced to the ‘selfish gene’ alone . . .” Of course not. Genes can not act without a suitable environment. Plus, the “selfish gene” was meant as a metaphor, not as a part of evolutionary theory.
[@1964] For what explanations we seek at different levels of investigation see the above blog post.
[3127] “contingency” He seems to conflate contingency with randomness. The New Oxford American Dictionary says that it is “a future event or circumstance that is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty.” True randomness shows no pattern at all. The higher the randomness the higher the entropy and the higher the amount of information present (that might sound paradoxical, but randomness requires more information to describe it). Given our large amount of ignorance of causality, contingency should not be surprising. But, it reveals no causality other than physical events.
[3218] “But scientific determinism is only a presupposition.” So is indeterminism. Scientific determinism has support from every well designed study. Indeterminism has a very limited role in quantum mechanics in being able to make two measurements at the same time with maximum certainty, like position and momentum. Indeterminism never appears above the quantum level. And chaos theory does not contradict scientific determinism.
[3239] “In the past I often changed my beliefs and attitudes (as did you, dear reader), and I am willing to change them again in the future, if need be.” (my italics) Why the “dear”? Playing on the reader’s emotions is underhanded. I do not know if this was intentional, but the effect is the same.
[3288] “Hard determinism, I submit, is akin to a religious faith, worshiping at the alter of hidden causes. It is contrary to who and what we are as resolute and responsible human beings. It is also a false doctrine often promoted by malevolent fools who may wish to control other people’s behavior.” This is the pot calling the kettle black, he is the one positing something hidden. And, I expect better from him, not to indulge in ad hominem attacks. This is like the religious believer who declares one can not be moral without god. Finally, I have not read of a hard determinist who seeks to control other people’s behavior.
[3698] “We should consider life an adventure . . .” I wholeheartedly concur, especially on embarking on something new.
[3981] “To return to the question ‘What is the meaning of existence?’ I respond that it has no meaning in itself; meaning is present only if there is consciousness and awareness. Existence takes on significance for living beings who strive to question their place in the universe and try to cope with and understand it. Our meanings are discovered in the process of living . . .” (authors italics) Well said.
I was disappointed with this book by Paul Kurtz. My main beef is on his insistence that there is something more (never says what) than the physical universe in some sense (never says what either). I also spotted a number of science errors and even a philosophical blunder or two.
Because of these issues I cannot with a clear conscience recommend this book. He has written better books than this one.
June 23, 2013
Thank goodness I am done with this godawful book! The description on the back cover promised that it would contain brilliant insights into ethical philosophy- along with recommendations from Michael Shermer and Steven Pinker to boot. Indeed it seems that Paul Kurtz was an excellent philosopher. But the philosophy didn't start until pg. 189 in a 259 page book! The vast majority of the chapters were a stringing together facts of science, history, and culture that seemed important to the author; apparently only to make the point that life is essentially a collection of random events and one must make one's own way in the universe.
October 3, 2016
Great book, I wish he could have been less vitriolic on beliefs other than his own. Other than that it was interesting read.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews