- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Especially after the past attempts by other "scientists" to integrate science and religion. However, using the word "God" to denote something that is not god and not religious is questionable. Why use such a loaded word? Of course people are going to read a religious extra-normal power in that. Nature means nature, why call it god? And while I do believe that there is at this time no scientific way to completely understand consciousness and sentience and why beings react the way they do and make the choices they do, that still isn't a reason to point to some supernatural being as the reason for it. It seems like he just decided to use the word "God" to make himself palatable to the people turned off by Dawkins' dogged atheism, and then says it's not religious to placate the atheists (of which I am one). I respect the life of other living beings, but because they are alive and deserve to live, not because they are sacred. Why do I need some weird philosophical reason to respect life? (and I don't mean that in a pro-life/anti-choice way) It's fine if he wants to release a book like this, that's fine, but hopefully one doesn't find it in the science section of the bookstore, but either philosophy or possibly new age.
