Michael Shermer's new book is a collection of 27 of his essays over a wide range of topics as the examples above suggest. They focus on religion, politics, humanism, controversial intellectuals, and most of all, the primacy of free speech.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - the phrase misattributed to Voltaire sums up one of the core tenets of modern liberal democracies. It's very hard to find a more authentic defender of the freedom of speech today than Shermer, the skeptic, psychologist, historian of science, and professional debunker of myths.
Dr. Shermer moves in the same circles as my other favorite public intellectuals, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Steven Pinker, or the late and great Christopher Hitchens. His two TED talks are ranked in the best 100 TED talks of all time. He is a famous atheist who has engaged in debates with religious apologists, and, next to Pinker, is probably the most vocal proponent of scientific humanism. Personally, I have always found him the most relatable from these gentlemen, for two reasons.
One of them is a very human one, I'm afraid. The intelligence and erudition of the persons above are simply intimidating. Next to them, Shermer at least looks like a human. A normal guy you could crack a joke or go for a beer with.
The other reason is that he's also the least combative among them. Dawkins has been attacking religion with a crusader's fervor. Hitchens lived for the pleasure of crossing swords with his enemies. Harris is less apt to go after a person rather than an idea, but when he does, he is so ruthless that his assault reads like the written equivalent of an artful murder with sadistic pleasure. (I can't resist sharing some examples at the expense of Chris Hedges, Nassim Taleb, or the Catholic Church). When attacked, even the soft-spoken, shy-looking Pinker can thrust back with the lethal grace of a professional duellist.
Shermer is a very different character. By temperament and profession, he is interested in why people think what they do. He shared beers and dinners with Holocaust deniers, Intelligent Design advocates, Flat Earthers, UFO believers, gun-right advocates, religious fundamentalists, 9/11 Truthers, and all kinds of believers in wild or outrageous ideas. He is also someone who himself has changed his mind on fundamental questions over the course of his life, such as Christianity, climate change, libertarianism, or gun-rights.
Not very far into the first essay becomes it clear how big the difference is between being normal and being normal compared to the crème de la crème. Shermer is an excellent writer who has been honing his skills for over four decades. His style is engaging, expressive, and clear. After finishing one essay, it's very hard to resist starting the second one. Then the third... Then it's hard to get up in time the next morning.
He's not the caliber (or maybe just not the type) of thinker that comes up with earth-shattering ideas or penetrating new insights. He is a generalist, with knowledge wide enough to put those ideas and insights in perspective and context, and deep enough to draw meaningful observations from them.
The focus of the collection, in some essays explicitly, in others tangentially, is on the argument for the right to free speech. Even when the majority disagrees with the opinion and even when it finds it repugnant. Why? Because most ideas scientists come up with are wrong, and progress is the result of letting clashing theories fight it out among each other in the open. And because our moral instincts have been evolving continuously. There is no reason to assume we have achieved perfect clarity on all ethical issues, and there is no room for change anymore. There was a time when most people had a very different view on questions like religion, sex, or slavery than the one the overwhelming majority holds today. There will be a time when they look back on us and find some of our ideas incredibly barbaric.
Shermer approaches messy problems (and there are no unmessy problems in society) like a scientist. He builds on data, weighs pros and cons, finds parallels, offers different hypotheses, and presents them with humor and empathy. His style doesn't gain him zealous supporters on either extreme in passion-fuelled debates like the ones over gun-rights or Jordan Peterson, but he is the voice of reason and compassion the society could really use more of.
No comments:
Post a Comment