If there is anything that really bothers me it is the growing practice of taking scientific discoveries and trying to modify its results to suit one’s personal taste. Many books of that nature are selling to those who can no longer deny science but want to hang on to their preconceived opinions. I am thinking of those who present themselves as humanists or agnostics before trying to convince us that there is some good in religion that should not be so easily cast aside. And their favourite target, naturally, is the man who calls a spade a spade. Richard Dawkins.
These types usually claim that religion is still worth consideration, even though no new measurable evidence, has been presented by its adherents over, lo, these many centuries. Are we to waste time talking about whether a deity could exist, for example? Must we keep beating this dead horse century after century after century? Why this frantic need to keep religion alive so far past its due date?
To be fair, religion played an important role before much science was available and if it had ceded to science–as new revelations became available– it could still be playing an important role but once the inquisition came along it was clear that religion had become more viper than dove .Yet Dawkins’ critics continue to credit religion as the keeper of our moral standards despite it being pretty obvious that pragmatic common sense has directed our behaviour throughout. Our survival as a species demanded cooperation.
Granted, I am not sure whether these critics are so much trying to save religion as trying to keep science’s discoveries at bay, for while lauding science their arguments seem to me, at least, aimed at defending our traditional role as observers of the universe rather than accepting our new role as components of this magnificent Universe. Neuroscience, dear critics, is not a spiritual project. Cheers
“The end to manufactured evil will come when we have attained
that level of intellectual morality wherein we
will claim no thing to be true unless we can
substantiate such in a measurable, ostensive
manner” Andy Mulcahy