Sunday, 14 August 2005 - 12:55 PM EDT

I was tempted to let you think that I was some anonymous responder from out in the great vast Internet void but the initials M. P. should be dead giveaway. The notation MP^2 is an inside joke that I must've forgotten to explain to you at your new job. In any case, my reply:

Religious fundamentalists are an interesting group of people. Because it is impossible to take the Bible completely literally at all times and not live a contradictory existence, religious fundamentalists pick and choose the phraseology that best suits their cause at that particular moment -- whether it be from the Bible, scientific literature, or random compilations of the English alphabet. Evolution, which was originally proposed by Charles Darwin -- an exceptionally religious man, does not provide for or exclude the existence of diety. The theory of evolution is based on a series of objective observations of the natural world. It does not even necessarily deny that the world was created in more of than "six days" since as, some religious scholars say that God would hide evidence of his existence by planting the fossil record to mislead us.

Something that I notice done by religious fundamentalists is that they will attempt to use science to disprove things like evolution and use science to disprove the "naturalness" of things like homosexuality. If God created everything and everything that God created it is "supposed to be" and how can homosexuality not be natural? How is it that a person could rationally think like this? How is it that is OK to use science sometimes but not others? If the Bible is supposed to be the last word at least be consistent and apply it across the board. The answer is that religion is not a rational exercise and because it is based on faith and not reason a person can justify picking and choosing from a variety of theories and philosophies to explain their viewpoint. Ancient Greek logicians must be rolling over in their graves.

And briefly, in response to David Peckinpaugh -- one cannot deny that life today is much better than life 1000 years ago. Because of this it is difficult to argue that progress does not occur and life is solely cyclical in nature. There ARE certain archetypal patterns that are cyclical in nature and repeat (the cycle of war and peace, the cycle that nations go through as they progress from poverty to greatness and then back) but the flow of time progresses onward and the collective human unconsciousness learns from past situations even though we may not apply that consciously. To pin our hopes on achieving residence on some lofty spiritual plane is to deny the power that we have to affect change in the world around us and is to deny our responsibility to work towards a better world. The world is the mechanism by which we evolve spiritually and ignore our part in that in turn away from our responsibilities is to reject true spiritual ideals -- those that encourage compassion towards others and the alleviation of suffering.

Tuesday, 6 September 2005 - 4:10 AM EDT

Yes, I was pretty sure it was you. But you never know.

Regarding your first paragraph, I remember in the film about the Scopes-Monkey trial, the lawyer defending the theory of evolution said if there were no days before God created the earth, exactly how long were those 6 days? In literal terms, it's an absurd statement to say that it took God six days to create the earth. As I remember, the prosecutor had no answer, because it's beyond his concrete-operational mind. Such is the case with religious fundamentalism (not to say that a fundamentalist can't be smart in other areas, indeed many are, but when it comes to religion, formal-operational thinking shuts down, maybe because it's stems from an emotional level).

Whether religion is anti-rational or not, it's more complicated than that. Recently in Slate, another lawyer (I forget his name) and former colleague of Gould criticised his idea that religion and science are different "magistera," or domains of knowledge. He claims in fact religion depends on beliefs about events that followers think literally happened, events that can usually be verified by empirical evidence (something that happened on the earth). Sometimes this is true, science can prove or disprove things that religious authorities claim are fact (the sun does revolve around the earth). Except, religion uses different symbols, in language it is poetry, not measurement or technical language, so now we're once again back to interpretation. Furthermore, many religions are anchored in versions of the great chain of being, in that the physical realm is but one of many. When you allow for th great chain, the physical and non-physical realms overlap, or not overlap, in interesting ways. Lastly, religion often intersects with philosophy (hence, theology), and religion has often stimulated, and been stimulated by, other fields of knowledge. So I think Gould is right, religion is subjective and oes provide people with a meaning and morality. Usually, when we develop meaning and morality without reliance upon religion, then it is philosophy. Science is facts, numbers, prediction of more facts, etc. Science analyses a a book of Shakespeare and tells you it weighs so many grams, has so much ink, consists of solid matter. An English teacher looks at that same books and sees tragedy, comedy, motivation, dreams, fears, and so on.

That religions are predicated upon supernatural events or phenomena (remember, not all religions have the linear view of time as does the Abrahamic faiths, and thus the meaning given the temporal itself varies) is moot, for there are plenty of religious followers who find meaning in mythology, knowing full well that it's mythology. To them, it's no different than literature or the arts. This is why in academic institutions, ones whose purpose is not training fundamentalists, religious studies often fall within the purview of the humanities.

As for David Peckinpaugh, he was referring to life further back, around the neolithic period. In some places in the world today, there are tribes who live close to this hunter-gatherer lifestyle, depending on how isolated they are. One Peckinpaugh cites is that, contrary to popular belief, humans at this time didn't work more or harder. Most of the daytime activity is spent socializing, playing, and napping. Sustainence activities take up 3-4 hours. In other respects, certainly, their lifestyle is much harder. I don't know if life is better now, but I can say life is very different. I don't think we can "turn back the clock." The important issue is how we adjust, which brings me to my next point.

I accept that evolution, meaning simply adjustment, is a fact of biology. I also accept certain religion beliefs that the individual can make progress in terms of wisdom and virtue, in one life, and perhaps as part of a larger journey of several lives. I don't know if we're moving collectively, en masse, to a better future. Even if we're not, however, I can only do so much, and while I cannot control everyone else, I can certainly try to do the best I can to contribute something positive to this world.

If it's all up and down, all a cycle, then I suppose any positive thing I contribute will be canceled out by negative things, so it wouldn't matter, would it. Perhaps the balance can move up and down, and others can cancel out my deeds, but again, I can't control that. But when I personally leave this world, I think the ledger does not have to end up zero. You can't take money with you, but I emphatically beleive karma travels.

A French philosopher once compared the role of idealism to piloting an airplane. He said pilots aim higher than where the plane is supposed to be to compensate for forces that drag it down. That way, the plane is centered where it needs to be. So it is with our ideals.