- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
He's a strict adaptationist's strict adaptationist and always has been. Everything is an adaptation to him. And so much of what he says is out in the realm of the completely unprovable that it leaves science and enters into faith. Dawkins is somewhat better. Even though his reasoning is often circular much of what he claims could be falsified, at least in theory.
It's a shame that Wilson's experience with religion was largely Protestant Fundamentalism. If he'd been educated in differently he might have learned that Sufis (for instance) consider both heaven and hell to be traps. One of them is certainly pleasanter than the other. But both are dead ends if your goal is the presence of the Divine. Buddhism contains the oath of the Boddhisatva; the advanced practitioner must cleanse himself even of attachment to his own salvation in order to get past a very dangerous sticking point in his development.
I'm a little disappointed in the current crop of philosophers and scientists who talk about religion in general terms but deep down believe that "real" religion is whatever brand of Pauline Christianity they had forced on them as children.
