Letters to the Editor
-
Not up to Salon's standards
Euff – what a yucky article. I have so many problems with it I hardly know where to begin. Well, one is my embarrassment as an alumnus of the College of William and Mary. Another is my annoyance with Salon for being rather misleading – this is not an article about “Why it’s OK for scientists to believe in God.” Indeed, neither is it really about “What our distant cousins can tell us about religion” because “religion” has to be re-defined beyond recognition when we start talking about ape and monkey behavior.
“I think religion is all about emotional engagement and social action.” Huh? I thought religion was, first and foremost, about belief in some kind of supernatural being. Does anyone disagree with me? And note the “I think” – we are going to be subjected to this scientist’s personal, religious-y/new-age-y beliefs throughout the article.
“When I think about religion, what comes to mind are personal relationships with the supernatural, with God or with spirits, and compassionate action. Not necessarily books or texts that you read, but some sort of action in the world.” OK, the first part contains that belief in the supernatural, which most of us would agree is an intrinsically religious concept, and one which Ms. King is not going to force upon her apes and monkeys (good!). But she has tied it to the separate idea of “compassionate action” – which is NOT an exclusively religious concept, and which she IS going to apply to her studies of apes and monkeys. Compassionate action exists outside of religion – I’m a dyed in the wool atheist, but I send money every month to a needy family in Asia (true statement – not hypothetical): compassionate action without a personal relationship with the supernatural. And I’d remind King that the front pages of every newspaper every day are filled with stories of death and destruction – the opposite of compassion - caused by terrorists who have a PROFOUND belief in their God: a personal relationship with the supernatural without compassionate action. King joins the two ideas, thereby flimflamming us into finding religion (relationship with the supernatural) when all we’re really seeing are apes who are acting compassionately. The two ideas do not go together. And by the way, there’s that annoying “When I think…” thing again. Just the facts, please. Ms. King.
As I re-read the article, I find half-formed-idea after non-sequitur after half-formed-idea, but the article DOES seem to boil down to this (again, anyone disagree?): While some recent scientists have suggested that our religious feelings are an ACCIDENT of evolution – a meme that quite accidentally found particularly fertile ground in our little brains, and hung on parasitically to no particular ill or positive effect – King is suggesting that perhaps Homo Sapiens became the only surviving hominid in part BECAUSE we displayed certain patterns of behavior and tendencies toward belief which made us the strongest hominid around, and that these patterns and tendencies look like the beginnings of religion. In simpler terms, some of the same characteristics which gave us a tendency toward religion also made us the STRONGEST human-like species, and hence we are the only one that survived…and still tend toward religion to this day! [“Yes, I do think it was not just an accident but something that is very much part of us and helped us survive.”] That seems to me like a worthy idea to throw into the hat with the others – but it’s an inherently scientific, evolution-based idea, and NOT and intrinsically religious one at all.
Yes. So when the article then skips to questions about King’s own religious beliefs, I’m left thinking “who cares? And how does it pertain to the basic point of the article?”.
“Did human beings just make up the spirits and gods that they worship? Or is there really some other reality out there?
Yes, in my book I say that's a question I will not take up. I think my stance is rather beautiful because it's about "agnosis"; that means not knowing. That's where I would like to leave that question. But we as human beings have gotten to this certain place because of our evolutionary history.” Ah! So we’re dealing here with “agnosis” – “not knowing”. So, Salon-ites, may I at this point simply deem King to be a religious “agnostic,” and a scientist who believes our current tendency toward religious belief is not at all an ACCIDENT but is in fact part of what helped us survive as a species?
This has taken too much work to make sense of. Poor-quality interview. Annoying article.
-
No relevance to the real question
Interesting interview, but whether or not religious beliefs have an evolutionary basis in the social behaviors of primates has nothing to do whether god exists. Religious behaviors may have arisen for a variety of reasons, none of which are dependent on the existence of an actual supernatural creator.
Explanations for how the world works that rely on supernatural or unknowable factors will never be as satisfying as explanations that are based on observing evidence, i.e. science. Religion and science are not compatible because religious ideas add nothing useful to the conversation.
-
Still waiting, for evidence. And, Hello Dalai!
Fair enough, Still Waiting. I once argued your side against a theoretical physicist -- call me a Devil's Advocate -- and he ended up confounding me with an assertion that according to his scientific discipline, it was entirely plausible that something could come from nothing. Being a non-theoretical physicist, I couldn't argue back, so we left it hanging.
Maybe one day a new Carl Sagan will explain how something can come from nothing for the scientific laymen, like me. Until then, I'll cast my lot with atheism, for a variety of reasons.
In the end we may never know, but I say that it is better to shrug and say, "It's a mystery," than to ascribe it all to a god, or gods, and then worse, to write competing rule books which result in people flying planes into buildings and other people authorizing brutal attacks on the wrong country (and everything in-between).
If we must have a religion, then I suggest we go with the one espoused by the Dalai Lama: "My religion is very simple. My religion is loving kindness."