- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Reductionism can carry us (as a technology-using species) from sub-atomic particles to black holes, but I agree with Kaufman that it can't explain everything--at least at our current level of knowledge. Many of you seem to think that it's not a scientist's place to be discussing anything outside the concrete, but science is, after all, a way to understand the workings of the universe...and some of those workings, at least on the quantum level, are pretty fuzzy. The interlocking functions of living creatures that make up the biosphere certainly inspire awe and wonder...and we all struggle to make sense of our own place in the grand structure, or abandon that struggle to an acceptance of meaningless, transitory existence. Many people--most people, in this country--just can't handle the sterility of that idea.
I think Kaufman is on the track of a sort of materialistic spirituality, that doesn't require the supernatural, but still gives people a sense that they are one with--something. He's far from alone, as the increasing number of adherents to nature-based religion indicate. Personally, I see a lot of benefits to encouraging people to engage emotionally with the biosphere, as they will then be more likely to accept that we have to set limits on ourselves as a species if we are not going to alter it to the point that we compromise our own survival. I think the point that since so many people like to believe in god, that it may be easier to get them to accept another definition than to abandon their superstition entirely, also has some validity.
In the scientific professions you have many researchers trying different approaches to similar problems. The problem of humanity's relationship with the biosphere also requires a diversity of solutions. This one at least has the advantage of being based in empiricism.
