Letters to the Editor
-
But... it's NOT a 'private question'-- it makes a big difference!
When pressed for more details about her thoughts on 'the supernatural', Barbara responds, in part, with 'For me, it's a private question'...
Since reading that, I've been sitting here, mildy disturbed, trying to piece together exactly what bothered me about the last part of this interview. Barbara J. King has just brought a lot of fascinating things to light (for me) about pre-history, the emotional lives of apes, and several other areas where she clearly has something concrete - although, it could be argued, possibly redundant - to bring to the 'big conversation'. I enjoyed those bits a great deal. When she began pontificating about 'definite transcendent reality', though, I got uncomfortable.
If you believe something about the world that science does not (yet) have adequate tools to address, it's almost always going to change your behavior. Perhaps most of these changes are subtle, but I have a hard time calling them insignificant. I have to admit that while I certainly can enjoy and appreciate the value of trying out different 'reality lenses/filters', when it comes down to the decisions I make, the goals I set for myself, my introspection about the 'purpose' of my life, and how I present all of these things to others publicly, I feel it's irresponsible to consider anything outside the realm of what can be objectively investigated. The biggest reason for this is the simple fact that once you open the door to considering possibilities which for all practical purposes can't really be verified, you're immediately creating unnecessary conflict with anyone and everyone who came up with a slightly different 'neat way of looking at things' that is not in harmony with yours. This kind of conflict is a very real and very major problem that could, in the worst-case scenario, conceivably lead to the extinction of our species. Maybe that's why she called it a private question.
Nonetheless, if Barbara really does personally believe something unprovable about the world (belief that goes beyond tongue-in-cheek sci-fi/fantasy daydreams) - whether it be a 'collective subconscious', a hidden extraterrestrial telepathy network, surveillance by people from the future, or some kind of cosmic Santa Claus - I can't see how it couldn't have an inescapable impact on her day-to-day life, the direction of her thoughts, and, I would suggest, even her professional work... which is why I don't think it's a private question at all.
<==>
-
to ktwdawg
Man, what version of the bible and koran have you been reading??? "Exploring ways to live together" my ass.
-
word up, dawg
There is violence and hate too, but these are the residue of 'sinful' or 'evil' or plainly 'contrarian' human influence. -- Ktwdawg
It's violence first, love they neighbor second. And it's all human, not "human influence." No magikal sky being helped write a word of any of those books...or rewrite, or translate into English. Just people. There are a few very good ideas, but nothing unique to a particular sect. An awful lot of smiting and flood and fire, though, along with an occasional "turn the other cheek."
-
Science is descriptive, NOT prescriptive
Bsloane writes:
"Science teaches us that despite our religious, racial or ethnic differences, we are all one species with a common destiny on this planet; that as observers we are fallible and biased, especially about ourselves; and that with understanding and education, we can overcome our prejudices for the benefit of the human community."
Excuse me, but science does not "teach" us any of these things. Our interpretation of the data, flavored by our emotions and prejudices, leads us to specific moral conclusions. The Nazis saw human diversity and used science to explain how the "Nordic" peoples were superior to the rest of humankind and should therefore rule over them.
Social Darwinists can use science to argue against helping the "unfit" to survive and reproduce - i.e., stop welfare for the poor, stop food aid to poor countries, ethnically cleanse inferior races, etc.
Misogynists can use science to argue how women's brains are different, and therefore inferior, to men's, and thus deny them equal rights.
Science is amoral. We derive meaning, ethics, morality, etc., from our shared history and traditions, and from our psychological responses to each other. Science can explain and elucidate these responses, but it cannot tell us how we should live, or why we should live. That's why we have religion and art.
-
DubiousJoey
No one says it came from nothing, except you. I've never read that in any atheist statements. When you start from a false premise, the rest of your blathering is hard to take seriously.
Flip side...you claiming "God made it all happen" just begs the question of 'the beginning.' From where did your god come?
-
Sidestepping teleology doesn't mean life is pointless
There can't be any conflict between valid science and valid philosophy, spirituality or religion. Truth is truth however it is arrived at. A belief in the existence of a supernatural aspect to the world is either an oxymoron (the supernatural can't exist - it's just unexplored regions of a larger "nature"), or is a tautology (regard a flower - all nature has a supernatural essence). To feel otherwise is to reject the fundamental unity of reality. There is one universe, so there is one nature, so there is nothing outside of nature.
It may well be that we don't fully understand the subtleties of nature as yet. I certainly hope so, because how dull the world would become with no mysteries yet to delve.
We shouldn't look for aspects of humanity in the Great Apes. Rather, our own nature contains elements of "ape-ishness". Many characteristics we regard as defining human nature may be found in our animal cousins, near and far. See, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtLzvOsQ80k
-
The "how" of religion
I absolutely agree with Barbara King. The puzzle of death has been with us forever as well as the wonder of nature. How can we have avoided these things in the past, living so close to nature? Relationships do not end with death even if death were permanent and dead, so we want and need an afterlife for those relationships to continue.
But beyond that. Reading the quantity of the near death experiences, there is enough of this epi-phenomena, that the afterlife becomes real. Even in this day and age, reading near death experiences raises serious questions. It can be well imagined that 40,000 years ago near death experiences would have had a huge impact, to establish a belief in an afterlife and gods.
Then there is all of the lucid dream material, let alone the chemically induced visions.
There is so much material that is so everpresent. I believe that if all memory of religion were erased from our species, it would take about a half an hour to start to reestablish itself. So much for the meme idea.
I believe that life is so important in this universe that whatever powers there are, are vitally interested in its success, even ours. There is ample room for belief in transcendent life.