Letters to the Editor
-
the Practicle Application of Christian Thought #1
Most religions came about to explain the unknown. Unlike other animals, we see into the future and with that we forsee the great unknown, our own demise. As science progresses, the unknown is becoming more and more clear hence, science an explanation of the unknown becomes the religion. Yet what happens when we die is no less clear. In a universe where nothing is wasted, where energy comes from energy, where both sides of the equation must be equal, it is hard to imagine that our minds, our souls (for lack of a better word) are simply wasted. And although the evolutionary process is becoming pretty much a given at this point, the difference between modern humans and chimps (our closest relatives with 98% of our genome) is astonishingly different. Intelligent life, buy that I mean truly intelligent life,(not a monkeys ability to use a stick to catch ants) is exclusive to humans.
Also despite developing at great distances, all of the major religions (and most of the minor ones) have very, very similar moral belief systems, indicating what I believe to be an innate 'moral trait.' Now there are ways this trait may have come about. It could have been a genetic mutation proceeded by a natural selection favoring the more moral, spiritual of a group of individuals for offspring and procreation; or it could have been simply behavior driven (which is what I believe drives evolution anyway [animals with similar behaviors will have a tendency to stic together pushing evolution forward]). Either way, moral beliefs would have been beneficial to other social animals as well as our own and this developed only in humans.
What I am trying to say is, there is space in our lives as well as in science for God. Religion and science can be reconciled. The moral laws we follow are God's laws. So are the Theory of Relativity, of Quantum mechanics, Calculus, Physics and the like. We don't say that Newton invented Calculus. We say tat he discovered it. As a matter of fact Geoffrey Leibnez came up with it (or discovred it) independently at the same time. Is the theory of Relativity and invention or a discovey on the part of Albert Einstein. The more I study science, the more I find myself in awe of the laws of the Universe, God's universe.
I think reconciling Christian thought with science is very easy for those of us who are intellectually willing to try. But, those who take an absolutely literal translation to heart (as most fundamentalist religions do) that is when this reconciliation becomes clouded to say the least. Fundamentalists believe the world is only 6000 years old. There are parts of the bible that speak about the sun circling the earth. These are facts that have been unequivically disproven by science. Yet, should these nonfacts interfere with the fact that commiting adultery is wrong because your spouse will no longer trust you (or leave you for that matter)? Or that killing is wrong? Or that we should be good to are neighbors?
If you don't believe these things are wrong think of the proven consequences on the sinner. There are consequences to negative actions on this earth not just in heaven and hell, which is the fundamental basis of Christian behavior and thought.
-
continued
It's been my experience that there is a large difference between being skilled in science and its practical application and having a good grasp of philosophy of science. What, and who, I'm criticizing isn't science or scientists in general. It's people like Wilson and Daniel Dennett and others who are part of a growing trend which says that science is the endgame of human progress. I'm afraid that it is becoming more and more popular to believe that science is the only endeavor worth taking.
My criticism is only of that perspective. Romanticism was inevitable following the Enlightenment, and it will be again.
-
the Practical Application of Christian thought page 2
When fundamentalist Christians take what is in essence a translation of a translation of ancient oral tradations literally, they completely miss the boat. Which is why, Darwin and mister Wilson no longer believe. The bible, and religion, for that matter cannot ignore the natural world.
The rise of fundamentalism in our country is a symptom of our greater society. For the same reason we watch TV and 'vege out' we are becoming more fundamentalist. Fundamentalism requires no thought on the part of the believer. "Its in the bible" they are taught, and thats it. More often than naught they simply go by what the preacher is hollering at them. Fundamenatlism is Christianity's easy way out.
Christianity requires thought, hard thinking. Jesus belief systems and teachings are as much a continuation of the teachings of Greek philosphers as they are from Judaism, a melding of the two so to speek. And as such, Christianity requires study, and open mindedness (not simplemindedness).
-
The "gift" of certainty
Too bad the world's reknown sociobiologist never hooked up with the world's reknown mythologist, i.e., Joseph Campbell. Campbell traced tribalism and mythology back to cave man days and ultimately decided the combination served to give man a sense of certainty amidst a chaotic universe. Today that same combination is manifest in world religions.
-
Proselytizing and the Big Bang
It's funny that the interviewer assumed Wilson's atheism. Typical.
For all his own open-mindedness, Wilson is wrong that scientists don't proselytize. Ask the next one you meet about "Intelligent Design." 80/20 he's frothing at the mouth about Darwin in thirty seconds.
I say this as part of the 20, who, like Wilson, doesn't think there's an angry, robed Gent On A Cloud, but also does not consider the Big Bang philosophically complete. Where did that super-hot hydrogen come from, again? And the heat itself? The truth is we don't know yet, and the physicists and philosophers haven't come up with anything more convincing, it seems, than the religious people in their fancy tribes.
-
GOD
Why is something that is nothing so hard to get rid of, and why are so few desperately trying to do so?
Answer the first question first.
Poco
-
No, Wilson isn't an atheist
"Atheist" has become a bad word because most of them are as rigid as any fundamentalist Christian.
Here is the conversation I keep having with my intellectually superior atheist boyfriends, in a nutshell:
"There is no god."
"How do you know?"
"There is no god."
"But..."
"There is no god. Agnosticism is a fraud."
Sure, it's simpler and more appealing than the notion of Jerk on a Cloud who annihilates cities full of children because they're the wrong race, but No-god is dogma all the same.