I was reading the latest installment of Darksyde's Science Diaries [which are lots of fun and impressive] and I came across a post about the idea of resuppositionalism.
resuppositionalism is basically a false equivalency. They argue that there is merely a difference in the foundation of the creationist and scientific views: the creationist builds on their presupposition that the Bible is true, while the scientist builds on the presupposition that the Bible is false and that atheism is true. qtd by Darksyde.
I have some thoughts on that.
But before we dive in--A short disclaimer or perhaps an explanation. I am not necessarily Anti-Christian. But I have had to live for years in a place where the antics of some extremist Christians have left their mark, and left me tired, pissed off, and generally sick of the entire discussion about religious-anything-at-all. So this discussion here-If the description of the kind of Christianity isn't *your kind of Christianity, if you don't do these things to others, then clearly this isn't about *YOU personally. Keep that in mind.
I don't care [if you go to church] where you go to church or who or what you worship [if you believe in anything at all], as long as you pay your taxes, adhere to the laws of the land, and treat other citizens with civility, and uphold the notions of equal rights for all, whenever possible.
Clearly there is a large portion of our population right now who fail to accomplish any of those things and use religion as the excuse for their immature and obnoxious behavior.
So if that isn't you, if that isn't your brand of faith, then clearly I am speaking of a cloth, that was not cut for your figure.
I operate on the notion that the Bible is Irrelevant to this discussion and to most Scientific Discussions. It only becomes relevant if someone erroneously attempts to equate this document with anything other than what it is: A compendium of cultural folk wisdom, and religious rules of conduct, and instructions regarding religious rituals.
In fact, the belief, acceptance or rejection of either religion or atheism is irrelevant to the academic discipline of Science.
None of those things are relevant to a Scientific Theory in terms of the mechanics of the natural world. Specifically, the Bible may only [note the use of the word MAY] be used as a source for ethical considerations that are premised on the ideas of right and wrong, in the context of the Abrahamic belief system. And still, that is a mighty narrow plank to walk in this wide world.
This speaks to the issue that there are many Christians who are convinced that everything, everywhere is all about them, exclusively.
We had this discussion roughly 500 years ago, thanks to the works of Galileo Galilei. His work and other, often unacknowledged early Astronomers allowed us to discover that the Earth is not the center of the cosmos, that the cosmos does not literally or figuratively revolve around us, which points to a greater truth, one that makes certain sectarian groups very uncomfortable.
It means, even though we are, as Carl Sagan said, "Star Stuff," we are also insignificant. We are microscopic specs on a blue marble within a solar system, inside of an arm of a galaxy, that is surrounded by the vastness of space, uncountable stars and planets, and of course, other galaxies and cosmic phenomena.
And by the way, everything else on this blue marble is star stuff as well. The monkeys, the slugs, the virus, the jellyfish, the spiders, plants, fungi, algae, even rocks--are all star stuff.
Does it disturb you to see that we share a "common molecular ancestor" with the very stones on this material side of the cosmos? I know some objected to the notion that we are in fact, apes; my question is why? What is so bad about apes? or Lemurs or Chimps? What would be so bad in sharing a common ancestor with one or all of these and many other living things?
Does that diminish the essential nature of our being as humans, or does it simply remind us that we are but one of many organisms that inhabit this biosphere and not necessarily the most important one at that.
When you see how intelligent and caring these animals are in their habitat, amongst their own; what is not to admire?
If these are our relatives, what does it say about us, from a spiritual or religious perspective, when we eat them? When we use their hands and feet for ashtrays, when we separate families and troupes for our own petty amusements?
Where is our religious morality when that happens? Animals have no souls, in Christianity, so it's all good. How has religion blinded us to the genuine reality, while providing a substitute that suits our desires?
The thoughts that these discussion inspire within me, are that we occupy a contradictory space. We are both important and insignificant simultaneously. We are sacred and profane simultaneously. And what determines the side of the spectrum we fall upon individually or collectively is tied to our ability to coexist with each other and that *each other extends to the natural world, and some day to other *natural worlds.
Will we be humans or locusts? Will we be our best selves or marauding barbarians at the gates? Will we understand that everything has an intrinsic value, or will we simply focus on satisfying, purely materialistic desires until there is nothing left on this world? And maybe some day we will consume other worlds as well?
Personally, I have no desire to use a god or a religion as an excuse to rape this world until it is no longer habitable for humans and many other species. I am already witnessing drastic changes to my home state in terms of climate, and wildlife.
When I watch these famous Scientists lecture and interview on various programs, when I listen to their words, I can see with my own eyes, hear with my own soul, that they are indeed passionate, spiritual beings.
They simply are not [necessarily] religious, or at least not blindly so.
Where the religious person is comforted by ritual, and inspired by the man-made theology, these Scientists are thrilled by the unfolding of reality all around them. They are diving into the process, and the systems, searching for the interconnections that exist between these processes and systems. They are discerning the rules by which material things are governed. They feel no need to ascribe an individual consciousness to these phenomenon, they do not need to imagine an invisible person guiding these phenomenon.
Besides, they are still simply, exploring, observing, making their notes, and learning these new languages that emerge from their experiments and from the material existence that is unfolding moment by moment all around them, here on the Earth as well as in the vastness of space.
The Bible is not relevant to that. It is an earthbound book written by ancient humans, that might reflect individual, spiritual truths within some humans who explore and identify with the religious mysteries of the Abrahamic religions, but it does not apply to the academic discipline of science as a science or even as a tool to explore science.
The Bible, is but one of many religious documents that exist all over this one world. It is not even the oldest document or the longest.
It is no more useful or relevant than a pack of tarot cards, or a dream symbol dictionary. The cultural relevance of any of these items simply does not translate across the board, and will only be important to those who believe it is important.
The value of religion is purely subjective. It is specific in it's culture and language and not universal, and it is only as good, or moral or intelligent, as the practitioner makes it.
Which is why it is so frustrating to see intellectual troglodytes using historical, religious figures who set good or at least, better examples, as a means to give destructive, dysfunctional, sectarian practices credibility --where they deserve none. And then to use that assumed connection to destroy curiosity as if it were an enemy of humanity.
Christianity has attacked every other religion out there as a rival. And it has given Atheism no quarter in this omnidirectional offensive. Add to that, Christianity has often equated perceived rivals {Science and Scientists} with evil and amorality whenever possible, in an attempt to silence anyone who might force Christians and others to reframe the debate in more realistic, less biased parameters.
At this point, in the wider discussion, Other religions, scientists or any perceived religious or political rivals are not considered human.
Humans after all, or tribally speaking, "The People" are made in the image of a god or important spirit. And the only way to renew that status of humanity is to keep the faith and fulfill the ritual requirements of purity and adherence--often through the practice of total, unquestioning loyalty.
How many groups will fail that "Humanity Test" right now in the context of religion? Any religion at all?
This habit of demonization of perceived rivals reflects the inherently narrow space that the Bible, and religion in general tends to occupy, even if that habit is self destructive and nonproductive. And in Western civilization, it was the values in the Bible that encouraged or even required Scientists to practice forms of bigotry, and prejudice, or worse yet encourage medical and scientific abuses against other races and cultures that were not recognized as Christian or even human via modern exegetical treatments of Biblical law. But that's another diary entirely. The use of the Bible to determine actual and cultural *Whiteness and therefore *perceived *Humanity and *Value.
I know some will counter with parts of the 10 Commandments or even the words of Jesus in the new Testament. But those ideals are simply ignored when dealing with [perceived] NON HUMANS.
Examples of this: The Lost Generation of Australia, and the continued use of developing world peoples as guinea pigs for drug development, that will profit first world developers and users when perfected.
Most of us would find these practices disturbing now, but the root of this started in the notion of who is human and who is merely an expendable, and suitable, semi-human analog.
Religion [again has] became a proxy for Whiteness, and now material wealth has once again become a proxy for divine favor and innate morality.
Dumping religion as a the gate keeper for Science [especially in the West] was the best moral action to take, given our history. I can only say thank you to people like Emile Durkheim who made this call in the soft Sciences, giving permission for the other hard sciences to follow suit. Dumping religion as a gate keeper for Science also allowed Scientists to explore questions that might otherwise be considered taboo or unorthodox, questions that were necessary for greater understanding of science and medicine.
We are not done making that dump. That much is clear when one considers the entrenched battle between Science and Religion taking place in the West right now, especially within the United States.
It is a strange juxtaposition.
The scientists see that we are all connected, not only to each other, but to everything. They do not deny our innate humanity nor ties with the greater things in the cosmos.
They simply disagree, with regards to what that means.