interesting stuff richard. lots of truth here.

still, it's kind of sad that somehow the ideas of awe/magic/myth are seen as being somehow completely independing of reason. then there's the related notion that emotion and reason/thought processes are in diametrical opposition. not true either.

northern lights: i saw them once from a remote location not too far from the coast of maine. totally stunning with no local light pollution. jaw-droppping, really.

Richard-
I don't think that reason and awe stand at odds. I believe many scientists have been motivated by a sense of awe. The real enemy of awe is greed, the all consumptive greed that pervades our way of life and in the end consumes us. When I stand in awe, the moment is complete and I don't need anything else. The more awe I feel, the less I desire. The "bottom line" has no room for awe, only restless and ravenous hunger.

I really can't agree with your central premise that awe and reason don't mix.

I think what might be happening is that in this age of accelerating scientific discovery, knowledge is becoming deeper, hence more specialized. A given scientist, in order to earn his pay, needs to know more and more about less and less (although that sounds worse than it is). Consequently, non-scientists get left further and further behind, regardless of their efforts to stay abreast of current research by reading popular science publications. Even scientists are losing ground, since they are unable to follow developments in other subfields. There just isn't the time or the inclination. What non-specialists get is a distillation of scientific discoveries -- the results -- without understanding the sequence of steps leading to those results. Without an understanding of the theoretical underpinnings and the methods of experimental science, the entire enterprise may appear to be rather cold and sterile, sucking the "magic" out of the phenomenon in question.

However, it has been my experience that Nature, in all its physical glory, is truly awe inspiring, at a level that far exceeds the experiences of my younger pre-scientific days. To suggest that Reason replaces Awe is not a general truth. Understanding Nature, to the extent we are capable, inspires awe in many people. The common stereotype of a cold, humorless scientist with his white lab coat and clipboard, reducing the world to tables of numbers is a fallacy, and an unfortunate one at that.

Skepticism: But the down side of those positives is the residue of skepticism that now infuses all of our thoughts, opinions, and reactions when it comes to things outside of our frame of reference.

An interesting notion -- "residue of skepticism." I would counter by saying that, in fact, there is skepticism running rampant among those who, at first blush, might be attributed with a highly developed sense of awe, namely, the self-proclaimed religious or spiritual. Lest I be charged with stereotyping, I am aware that there are exceptions (see #2, for example). What I have found here at BC is a contingent of "believers" who are skeptical of science and scientists. They work within a confining "frame of reference" and intentionally deny themselves access to the workings and wonders of Nature, which, by their world view, is nothing less than the handiwork of their Creator. It is these people who, in fact, lack the ability to be truly awed by Nature, being afraid or too intimidated to step outside of their cocoon of safety, content to dismiss as being inferior to the wisdom of their god the knowledge and understanding that mankind has wrested from Nature.

Quotes from a cold, emotionless scientist:

"He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite
He is not duration or space, but He endures and is present
He endures forever, and is everywhere present
And by existing always and everywhere
He constitutes duration and space"

"Whence is it that Nature doth nothing in vain;
And whence arises all that order and
Beauty which we see in the world?"

--- I. Newton

Fear: Give us a nice safe reason for those bright splashes of colour in the sky and we can all go bed at night feeling somewhat safe.

This might work in the year 10,000 BC, but to suggest that modern science is driven by fear is hardly defensible. You do a great disservice to scientists with this comment, and underestimate the mental capacity of your fellow man. It's all very interesting to learn about elephants and turtles and angels and devils, but it's all too pat. Belief in such things as constituting reality defeats the adventure of searching and discovering the truths of Nature, which, for many, are the wellsprings of awe.

Awe, shucks. I wrote too much.

Richard, as a long time fan of your writing I can't tell you how disappointed I was to find you were the author of this piece.

I am absolutely committed to reason and yet feel a sense of awe on an almost daily basis. Who can consider the extreme unlikelihood that some 8 billion humanoid lifeforms are clinging to a still burning stellar ember as it tumbles and rotates so beautifully in space without feeling humility and awe? Surely only the terminally unimaginative or simply braindead?

This is really the worst thing you have ever written.

Bah!

The more I understand how something works, the more awe I feel when I see it in operation. I've never quite understood what people meant when they said that hearing about how something worked sucked the magic out of it. Wrapping my mind around even simple devices and processes is one of the most awe-inspiring things that I have felt.