I read with facination the article concerning E.O. Wilsons' progressing view of the world and humankind's essential place in it. I am curious as to why Buddhism would not answer his concerns? It is my interpretation that it does not require the belief in an overly involved supreme being, allows for the transformaiton of the human soul into an eternal form and ties man, nature, science, the universe and time into a system of unity and reason. I'm sorry the discussion (till now?)has not covered this area.

Wilson has a brilliant mind and he speaks with remarkable clarity about complex issues, but he leaves unsaid what I believe to be the great motivating force behind why humans continually search for transcendence and God: existential terror.

We fear our own mortality and the idea that after death there is nothing and the universe simply barrels on without us. We fear (even more than death, perhaps, which at least has a certainty to it) the idea that the events of life unfold with no plan, that all is chaos, that there is no hidden meaning behind South Asian tsunami and all the rest. As long as people fear these twin demons, they will always cling to religion like a small child clinging to a parent's robe in the dark.

How fortunate we are to have minds like Wilson's to light some small measure of the darkness.

perhaps someone with more scientific training than i can help me with this...

is there any merit to the argument that statistical research can prove that the probability of 'life' arising out of the primordial ooze is so infinitesimal that belief in such an explanation requires as much of a 'leap of faith' as belief in, say, god?

or is this objection answered by something like david lewis' modal realism (i.e. the actual existence of all possible worlds), or the explanatorily similar idea that in an infinite time period, an infinite number of possibilities will be realized (although this may not be logically necessary, i can't quite wrap my mind around it, and besides, it seems like the big bang wouldn't mesh very well)

possible worlds, god ... same thing, right?

Who says scientists don't proselytize? I will, at the drop of a hat. Many scientists are happy as clams to talk about the wonder of discovery, to be obsessed with their theses, to argue passionately at parties about testing points of view. How is this different from the religious? One way, I suppose: the true scientist is willing to be proven wrong!

No. To make such an assessment, certain assumptions need to be made. Assumptions that have no realistic scientific basis. In other words, guesses and opinions. For example, there is no real reason to believe that those as of yet unknown processes were strictly random. Or that they were sequential. Or that our form of life is the only viable model. The latter point is pretty important, if there are many possible paths to lead to something we recognize as 'life', the odds of purely random processes(assuming they are random) turning one up get better. Sure, particular type might be extremely unlikely, but that doesn't mean that some form of life turning up in a given time period with a particular set of conditions is also unlikely. It may be that all you are quibbling about is the exact flavor, which becomes the luck of the draw. The fact of the matter is we just don't know.

I am going to just touch on your question, and I think it would be useful for others to offer alternative perspectives as well.

For me, the statistical likelihood of life spontaneously developing is a moot point. It did, here, for us. Our cosmic lottery ticket had the winning numbers. Unlikely? Perhaps. But the fact that we're here to talk about it demonstrates that it wasn't impossible.

Even statistics will tell you that long shots do come in.

Now, one might argue that I don't know that life came about without divine help. True, I don't. But I have yet to learn of any evidence in some kind of divine creator, whereas I have learned of a lot of evidence of a materialistic development of life. Like Wilson, I am best described as a provisional deist, however. I always found atheism to be just as faith-based as most religions. So far, we can no more prove the absence of God as the presence of God. Show me empirical evidence of God (and I don't see that statistical pyrotechnics by themselves constitute empirical evidence), and I will change my tune. So far, physics, biology, and evolutionary theory are doing really well without God though. There's certainly so much more to be learned, but in terms of hard evidence, God is striking out.

Beyond that, I'm not sure I'm even convinced that you can statistically prove that life is infinitesminally likely. I've read (as a layman to be sure) that life may be more likely than it might seem. I've even seen it suggested, by meeting a few basic conditions, life may be all but inevitable. Life not so different from us (defining "us" as all life on planet Earth) may require little more than liquid water, a fairly reliable energy source, and a mix of elements commonly found in the universe.

I don't want to presume to suggest that I am an authority on this topic by any means. I'm just a layman who enjoys reading and learning about science. People with actual education likely come along and show all the absurdities and scientific fallacies in my arguments here, and I will enjoy reading them, and being educated further!

I was a dedicated adherent of scientism. I loved physics more than anything. Then I went to nerd school to get my Ph.D. and I was overwhelmed by geeks telling me evolution created me with inferior genes and I was statistically likely to be bad at physics.

They didn't really care whether I was good or bad at physics. They just liked to fixate on abstract truths that could be announced impersonally. The personal truth of what they were doing to my emotional well being, and my feelings about science, with their Darwinistic projections on my character and abilities, never for a moment dawned on them.

Truth be told, it made me want to get religion just to piss them off.

People don't get spiritual for the sense of awe. It's not like IMAX. That's an emotionally disconnected systematizer speaking.

Someone who says it's about the awe is someone out of touch with the basic pain of human existence, because that person comes from the upper middle class and is going to stay there.

People get spiritual because there are emotional challenges in life. Sometimes the only way to rise above those emotional challenges is to imagine that the universe is capable of love, and you, a mere human being, deserve to receive that love.

The people trying to build a spirituality of science go on and on and on about their IMAX universe of awe. Love is a topic they can never broach.

But this loveless IMAX universe makes them happy, so they are welcome to it. Just as long as they don't try to cram it down my throat.