Letters to the Editor
-
Is it a question of semantics?
At first I thought it was all a question of semantics. People speak of compassion as almost equating religion. Well, I know plenty of compassionate atheists. That is certainly an aspect of us humans, but does it lead to or result from a religious world view? I'm not so sure. I have to say I like one thing that Barbara King touches on, but doesn't really elaborate on in this interview (she may in the book) namely, that certain connections between people, often not anything we can scientifically explain, can give rise to so-called 'religious experiences.' Just consider the rituals in Santeria, which involve drumming, singing and dancing in groups, and how this combination gives rise to "trances" or "calling forth the dieties". The dieties only "appear" in the form of entranced dancers when the combination of the music and the people involved are just right. In addition to interacting wtih nature, our anscestors created places and rituals which would put them "in the presence of God." Many of us feel that "presence" on occasion, whether it is alone among nature, in a beautiful church with others experiencing the same thing, listening to music which expresses the spirit of the composer, perhaps long dead, or just together with someone we love. I do like the idea of connections giving rise to religion, but it's also easy to believe that a "thinking" human created explanations for what couldn't be explained logically. Here it turns into a question of semantics again. We all attach our own definition to what is "religious."
-
Step 1: Underpants, Step 2: ???, Step 3: Profit!
To start, I have only skimmed the letters, so I know this has been touched on, but not what was said:
Spirituality IS NOT Religion. It may be one of the pre-requisites for having a religion, or for your specific set of traditions and rituals to be called 'religion', but wondering at nature is natural , of all things, not religious. Ms. King would do much better to replace the word "religion" with the word "spirituality" when referring to the behaviours of gorilla's or speculating on the meaning of rocks (I think she uses the term 'archeological analysis', which is really nothing more than a variably-educated guess).
This is not a huge problem with her overall approach to studying our relationship with the wonderful and unknown- but it is a problem. Besides the obvious poke-in-the-eye to Intelligent Design (funny, but not diplomatic), the popular validity of her work could hang on this one word. It is only one word, but language is important, especially when the focus of your study is how we communicate meaning to one another. For the author to claim that, animals wondering at the beauty of nature could be interpreted as 'spirituality', is reasonable. For her to assert a connection between the 'spiritual' behavior exhibited by our evolutionary ancestors, and the 'spirituality' that is a component of our religious bent, is acceptable. To interpret these behaviors as 'religion', or make direct connections between human religious institutions and the mourning behavior of gorilla's, is NOT acceptable, does NOT constitute a reasoned argument.
All of this besides, I appreciate the author's work, and this interview- some of us really are interested in your 'atoms & eden' section and the questions it deals with. I cannot say what the author's motives are- I don't believe them to be malicious or driven by greed or the desire for fame- but I would suggest a change in her language. An augmentation , if you will.
Spirituality and wonderment are innate, religion is learned- that is the difference.
-
Perhaps someone can answer me this...
Why is the study of modern apes considered to be a gateway to envision our ancient ancestors?
Haven't these apes been theoretically evolving just as we have since our lines split some million or so years ago?
Isn't it possible, even probable that ape religious behaviors might be a recent development based on the advantages that they might confer?
Here's an interesting take. Apes that display human behaviors are much more likely to be studied by researchers, be protected in the wild, and be cared for in zoos. Hence displaying behaviors that humans find fascinating (like pausing in front of waterfalls) makes you more likely to survive and pass along your genes.
You could even possibly date this system back earlier as perhaps cultures that saw spiritual significance in an animals behavior would be less likely to mark that animal as prey. Thusly if you are a monkey or any animal that seems to be a messenger of the gods, this very skilled and dangerous new predator called man gives you a wide berth.
I'm not saying that is the case, but I think that perhaps drawing too much about our ancestors from modern dissimilar species is making a leap of faith (no pun intended) as to the purity of the experiences of these creatures.
Of course I do not have a doctoral degree in primatology, anthropology, or evolutionary biology, so I could be fully mistaken, but if someone does have the credentials, I'd love this one explained.
-
Bravo...
Awesome post Daniel Dvorkin. Very well put!
-
misleading lede
The blurb for this article says Barbara J. King explains "why it's OK for scientists to believe in God."
As an atheist scientist, I wondered why I would need her permission or encouragement. It turns out she's actually saying something quite different:
"But the emotional connection to that transcendent realm is what I'm looking for, rather than a mental or rational formulating of beliefs about such a realm."
What she has to say about belief is that it's an emotional, human experience. That's quite different from saying that it's OK to believe in God (as if anybody needed permission from anybody else to believe in anything).
King also seems to be falling into the trap of seeking popularity via unwarranted contrarianism. Who are these "arrogant scientists" who "tell people what to think"? I've been in the world of science for nearly two decades and have to to meet anybody who told me "what to think". What scientists do is point out the inconsistencies and weaknesses in various theories. So, sure, if you want to be a "Biblical literalist" and claim that the Earth was created in six days, in spite of all the scientific evidence to the contrary, then scientists will pick apart your theory as unfounded and at great odds with reality as it has been observed.
There's something about "Third Way" thinking that smacks of the faux compromise. A person who is saying "I'm Third Way" is really saying "I don't hold the wacky beliefs of those guys and I don't hold the wacky beliefs of those other guys and gosh, aren't I an intelligent, rational person". The problem is that what, exactly, this "Third Way" consists of remains just as vague with Prof. King explicates it as when Tony Blair does. Does King believe in God? She refuses to tell us, because it's "personal". Does she believe in a "transcendent reality"? She dodges that question, too. So what, exactly, does she believe in? Well, she believes in fence-straddling and seeking an aura of superiority apparently.
I could not see any statement of belief from her that would contradict anything Richard Dawkins has said.
And I certainly didn't see anything close to "it's OK for scientists to believe in God".
(FWIW, I think it's "OK for scientists to believe in God" as long as they don't inject talk of deities into their scientific work. But then, I never would have thought anybody cared about whether my opinion about what others should believe mattered at all! Mostly I want it to be made clear that all this God talk has nothing to do with science.)