On truth and betrayals
A simple test of the relative merits of science and religion is to compare lighting your house at night by prayer or electricity.
E M Forster's motto was "only connect". Responding to this injunction by putting together three items of the week's news is an instructive exercise.
The first is the description in the journal Science of the process by which evolution produces new molecular machinery in biological systems by incrementally adapting existing structures to new purposes.
The second is a report in the science journal Nature of several well-preserved 375 million year old fossils of a species intermediate between water and land-dwelling creatures.
The third is the announcement of a parchment found in the Egyptian desert containing part of a second century Gnostic document, described as "the Gospel of Judas", in which the legendary betrayer is exonerated and indeed placed in a theologically privileged position because - so the document says - he was asked by Jesus to deliver him to the authorities in completion of his mission.
Which of these three items of news is the odd one out? If you think this is a no-brainer, remember the respondent in the quiz show who said that the synonym for "blessed" occurring before the words "thy name" in the Lord's Prayer is "Howard". Perhaps this might count as news too, to all those wishing to know the name of God.
There is a biochemistry professor at Lehigh University in the United States called Michael J Behe, darling of the creationists, who says that biological structures are "irreducibly complex" and their existence can therefore only be explained by invoking a divine designer. This absurd argument, which alleges a mystery (the existence of complex biological structures) and claims to solve it by introducing an arbitrary and even greater mystery (the existence of a deity), has exactly the logical force of saying that the shapes of clouds are designed by Fred. Who or what is Fred? Pick a legend to explain.
As Karl Popper pointed out, a theory which explains everything (and all the religions, otherwise in fierce competition with one another over the Truth, do that) explains nothing. Unless a theory specifies what counter-evidence would refute it, it is worthless. Good science invites rigorous questioning and testing; almost all religions, at least at some time in their history, have killed those who have questioned them. No wars have been fought over theories in botany or meteorology; most wars and conflicts in the world's history owe themselves directly or indirectly to religion. By their fruits, we are told, we shall know them.
A simple test of the relative merits of science and religion is to compare lighting your house at night by prayer or electricity.
The molecular evolution research focuses on hormone receptors. Hormones and their receptors are protein molecules that fit one another like keys in locks. By comparing specific hormone receptors in lampreys and hagfish, primitive species of jawless fish, with more evolved versions in skate, Professor Joseph Thornton and his laboratory co-workers at the University of Oregon have been able to reconstruct the genetic evolution of the molecules in question, tracing it (the evolution) to a common ancestral gene 456 million years ago. They found a receptor molecule that predated the existence of the hormone for which it now serves. This offers evidence of how changes in a system exploit existing structures for new purposes, and therefore how greater biological complexity arises incrementally from less complexity.
Professor Behe, believer in supernatural agencies - a class that includes fairies, demons, unicorns, cthonic gods, angels and ghosts - whose alleged existence is inexplicable and untestable, and credence in which rests on ancient writings embodying the superstitions of mankind's early ignorances, calls Professor Thornton's work "piddling". That is not an expression, presumably, that he would use to describe the - earth-shattering? - discovery of the Gospel of Judas in Egypt's desert sands - but then he is that sort of person.
Language, truth and logic section
In some London buses there is a sign instructing passengers as follows: "Do not speak to or obstruct the driver's vision." This interesting injunction is reminiscent of the notice - really, a sign of its times - that once told bus passengers, "Smokers are requested to occupy only seats in the rear half of the bus." That meant you could not sit on the floor, or stand, if you were smoking at the back of the bus.
The likes of Professor Behe doubtless understand what it means to "speak to someone's vision". Which church is running London's buses? (Would it be surprising, in the Reverend Blair's Britain where churches are running ever more of our schools, to find that this is not a rhetorical
question?)
Comments
Comments have now been closed on this entry.
As long as we don't live in a nation where religious belief is stuffed down our throats and used to decide policy, then I couldn't care less if people want to believe in God, Creationism, Unicorns or whatever else.
Each to their own and I believe there is room enough in the world for the measurable and immeasurable to co-exist easily enough.
To be honest, the science fundies are beginning to worry me as much as US Born Again Evangelists and Islamic Fundies with their obsessed, narrow and vehement attacks on anyone who simply believes in God or disagrees with them.
Extremists with all the answers of any sort are far more dangerous than the majority who believe (But don't get their knickers in a twist) in a higher being or science and just want a quiet life.
Religion destroys anything it comes in contact with whether it be Christian, Muslim, Jew. Once the radicals take control reason goes to the wind and persecution begins as we have seen over the last few years, religion like the monachy is a thing of the past.
[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]In the days before science, people wondered about and feared the elements and pretty much every act of nature, large or small. They, naturally, wondered how it all came to be, how the crops they planted came to grow etc.
So they (feeling somewhat inferior given that they could not cause floods, make storms and what have you) attributed everything to a superior being (or beings, depending on location).
As we evolved, our brains did develop, our societies did grow, and science began to supply valid explanations for a lot of natural occurrences and still continues to do so, to still gaze in wonder at the earth and call it the work of "God" is not only primitive - it's ludicrous!
Still, a world that questions not the "authority and work of God" is a rather malleable populace, no?
Belief based on personal experience,rather than blind faith, does not need the blessing of science for its validation. "Science" quite arbitrarily states that only objective, repeatable,measurable experiences are "real", and rejects subjective, personal experiences out-of-hand.
I do not take drugs or alcohol, nor am I a member of any religious organization or cult! My own personal experiences undeniably testify to the existence of the "non-physical." It seems to me that "Science" quite arbitrarily assumes that the brain and its chemicals are the source of our conciousness rather than the vehicle through which conciousness might manifest.
Have you ever wondered why we say " I love you with all my heart". After all , the
heart is just a pump isn't it? Then,why don't we say, " I love you with all my liver" or "..all my kidneys". Haha it sounds SO weird doesn't it!
What if I was to say to you that love,not physical/emotional ordinary love, but a different love, can be experienced and feels like an energy, a force, pick a label, that manifests itself in the location of the physical heart, and pours into you with the power of a billion orgasms of bliss.
What if I say that many people,including myself, have experienced this? I cannot connect myself to a machine and measure it for you. I cannot repeat the experience at will while you measure whatever you like measuring, but it WAS a real, very real experience - it is REAL FOR ME. It is part of the reality of my life. So, is my reality different from your reality? Is my personal experience LESS valid than those blessed by science?
Ponder this. Maybe......In the same way that the Earth is not just made of soil and water, but extends in ever more subtle layers of atmosphere and radiation belts - the totality being the Earth, so is our physical body more than just flesh and blood; extending outward in subtle layers of energy.
Can I "prove it" by "scientific method"? Of course not! Does that make my experiences invalid , my reality unreal, because science can't measure it? Can an eye see itself? haha. Scientific Method owns a little slice of reality and declares anything beyond the limits of its own self-made boundaries as heresy.
Comment No. 9316
April 7 16:22