Poor evolution.
Evolution, which is as sound a scientific theory as we have ever had has been in the cross hairs of religion far longer than any of us have been alive.
Politicians court entire voting blocks by proclaiming their doubts about the theory of evolution, and the faithful cheer.
Why?
What is it about evolution so terrifying to so many? Is it because it gives a natural explanation for the appearance of design as Daniel Dennet the author of Darwin’s Dangerous Idea says? Why not, that seems like a good explanation to me. Nothing is more fascinating or elegant to me in nature, than living beings, especially us: homo sapien.
The appearance of design in organisms is real. But the mechanism of this design is well understood, that mechanism is natural selection. The elegance of this system yields countless complexity, that whatever reproduces with variation will yield different adaptive complexities over time. Its beautiful, it really is.
According to Dennet evolution as an idea is so “dangerous” because it explains that nature is enough to produce all of the marvelous things we see around us.
I do not disagree with Dennet about evolution offering a marvelous explanation about there not being a need for a designer, but I think Daniel Dennet does not fully understand what is at play in the minds of the believers who are so vitriolic against evolution.
We tend to assume that what is most important to the religious is where we come from, but I will argue that what matters most to the religious is where we are going. Which almost all of them are hoping, banking, and betting on is an eternal life, hopefully in some transcendental paradise.
There is one branch of science which has almost nothing to say about where we come from, but a whole lot to say about where we are going. It is my beloved neuroscience.
In the development of neuroscience we have found increasingly more and more evidence for the very real fact that everything we are is produced, contained, maintained, and experienced by the human brain.
Daniel Dennet once eloquently put it, “Yes there is a soul, and it is made of millions of little robots.”
Those little robots are called neurons, and it is the class of cell which your brain and nervous system are made from.
But being somewhat of a bastard, I find Dennet’s “Yes there is a soul…” comment to be reminiscent of the also famous “Yes Virginia there is a Santa Claus…” comment.
There is no soul.
That means that there is no afterlife.
When your brain dies, you die, every ability you have to experience life, passion, love, suffering, enjoyment ceases.
That means there are no 72 virgins for the martyrs of Allah, and no eternity of praises in the throne room of the lamb for the martyrs of Jesus.
It is the end of all experience.
What I can’t seem to get around my head is why don’t we have pseudoscience movements trying to teach the old Aristotelean idea that the brain is just a cooling system for the body, and nothing more.
I don’t see why neuroscience is not under perpetual attack by the religious extremists of this world, it deals a blow to the only thing they have to offer their followers: eternal life.
I wish to change this. I want to pick a fight.
Religious people of the world, there is no afterlife, and neuroscience is the reason why!
Perhaps unwisely. I want the religious to know that if neuroscience is right about how memory works, how experience works, how these things tshut off and turned on by the activities of specific chemical processes in specific physiological structures in the nervous system, then that means that their religion is false.
At least its promise of pie in the sky is false.
I want them to know the truth as I have come to understand it, the life you are living now is the only one you’ve got.
I want the Kirk Camerons of the world to demand that their followers refuse all neurology as witchcraft.
I want the Discovery Institute to try to create an “alternative theory” for the source of cognition, trying to come up with imaginative hogwash for the idea that personality, thought, dreams, and passion is happening somewhere independently of the brain.
I mean, really what motivates more people to believe in these ancient religions?
Is it really that they are just dying to have a solid explanation for where the earth and its diverse flora and fauna come from?
Or is it that they are dying to have a reassurance that they aren’t dying?
Comments
RSS
Digg!
Stumble
Tweet
More by Rodrigo Neely
Author Tweets
tweets loading 
It has been widely commented that the abolition of dualism is FAR more dangerous to the religious ethos than any upturned jawbones. I cannot agree more; no matter how old the universe is, if there were no afterlife, the chief (only?) “real” religious payout would die.
Rodrigo Neely: the anti-Descartes!
Be careful what you wish for, Rodrigo…
I agree.
Like, wholeheartedly.
You know how Staples has the easy button?
If this website had one with a giant YES on it, i would be clicking it.
Great article!!!
Most “organized” religions have a belief that there is an afterlife, whether it promises 75 virgins or spending the rest of eternity in the presence of God, or some other promise of similar description. The core reasoning which binds all of these beliefs is, very simply, Faith. The question I put before this panel is: “What’s wrong with that?”
If all “believers” have faith in an afterlife, and they’re all wrong, what’s the problem? No one, of course, has yet experienced an afterlife event and verified that such a claim is true. Believers in Christianity, for example, carry their faith to the ends of their human lives, with the belief that they will experience the rest of eternity (an oxymoron in itself) in the presence of their God. The beauty of their faith is that while they are alive they treat one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. Their lifestyle brings happiness in this life. Does it really matter who is right and who is wrong about the concept of Evolution vs. Creationism, or the reality of an afterlife? My comments are offered as “food for thought”. (And perhaps an acceptance of your challenge for a fight – with the concept of true or false not the end game – perhaps a glass of Spanish Sherry to smooth the vocal chords?)
Hi Ron,
Yes, faith can bring happiness…but at what cost? I submit to you it is more harmful than good.
Well, the main problem with faith is this: it is not based on evidence. Faith is believing in something without sufficient reason to. That is the problem. If someone truly values truth, then they cannot use faith. Simple as that.
But there are more problems with faith. It seems that you forget that faith does not just apply to belief in the afterlife. People use have faith in many other things, and many a time, that causes problems. Case in point (and something I’m familiar with), the Philippines is a 3rd world country. It is a very poor country. Many many many people living there are in poverty and live in horrible living conditions. Do you know why this is so?
In a nutshell: faith.
A recent study showed that one of the main reasons people in the Philippines are so poor is that families have too many children. Having 3 or 4 or more children while being poor is a very common thing in the Philippines. Families do not have enough resources to support so many children. And the reason why people have so many children is that they don’t use contraception. Why? Because of faith.
The majority of Filipinos are Catholic, and I’m sure you know the Catholic church is against contraception. But the Filipinos listen to the Pope…why? Because of faith.
That’s just one example of many of why faith is harmful.
It is a good question Ron. One deserving of a thoughtful answer.
The best thing I can give you is my own anecdote. I was not a particularly religious kid growing up, and my father is a secular humanist. But I endured a lot of traumatic events growing up and had gotten involved in what can only be described as a self-destructive lifestyle. At age 19 I stabbed myself in the stomach in a suicide attempt with a 4 inch butterfly knife.
Months later I accepted Jesus as my personal lord and savior. I had a lot of faith. I was a charismatic christian, and like all charismatic christians I believed that the Lord Jesus spoke to me in my internal dialogue. I believed that the holy spirit filled me with joy, and it did make me more positive than I had been before.
But I am an atheist now.
Faith ultimately failed me.
I lost my faith gradually as I pursued a quality science education and I learned the importance of evidence, objectivity, and reason when figuring things out.
Unlike my religious conversion, there was no explosive life transformation, but a gradual trend of making better and better life decisions as I relied less and less on faith.
One of those life decisions was to really take on ethics, to reject biblical authority as a source of ethical understanding and look for objective ethics elsewhere. I found that by being engaged in a thoughtful process of ethical inquiry my own values improved, they were more meaningful to me, more yielding in my own life and in the lives of others.
In short I believe faith is a problem because I think a life lived when reality is accepted on its own terms is a better life for the individual, as it has been for me.
If I may append my own minor commentary to Roy and Rodrigo’s excellent points, it would simply be that I feel the inner urge to hold that something that is true is inherently more deserving of being taught to the young than something that is false. Roy is absolutely right about the material harm of telling large groups of well-armed people that death has a silver lining, and I just wish to make an inquiry about the metaphysical harm (whatever that means) of telling children something that is untrue but also unfalsifiable just because it may help them get over the hurdle of the existential crisis.
YES!
Chris,
I would tend to agree, truth is definitely one of those virtues that is valuable for its own sake. I have a tendency to fire off consequentialism and ask questions later.
I’m delighted at having ignited responses to my attempt at examining issues which are often inexplicable. Let the dialogues begin!
I’m off for awhile – but rest assured “I’ll be baaaack!”
That’s an interesting question Rodrigo. I do not know why the origin of consciousness has not been as vilified as the origin of species. I’m definitely intrigued now why that is.
My guess is that the answer is more political, than philosophical. I am not familiar with the US system, but in Canada, I don’t recall learning neuroscience in High School, but I did learn about evolution. For better or worse, politicians can influence H.S. curriculum because they many H.S. are publically funded. And since evolution is part of H.S., it is targetted.
Universities, on the other hand, which run autonomously from government, don’t teach creationism at all, as far as I know (unless it’s a christian ‘university’). There is no court or politician that would even be able to criticize evolution in University without getting their wrist slapped.
My feeling is that when neuroscience reaches the H.S. level, then we will start seeing more opposition and denial regarding its claims.
Well, I’ve got a slightly different tack on this; my cousin is a dyed-in-the-wool, fundamentalist Xian. To accept the truth of evolution would be catastrophic. Evolution implies there were no literal Adam and Eve in The Garden. There was no ‘fall from grace’, no ‘original sin’. Without ‘original sin’ then there’s no need for ’salvation’. Without the need for ’salvation’ then Jesus is pointless and the bedrock of Xianity just falls apart. I know this is extreme, but it’s part of the mosaic.
Delusion is ultimately always harmful. To the individual, to society, to humanity. Our progress is directly linked to our rationality and reason.
Sure you can get warm fuzzy feelings that have no basis in reality, but what’s the point in that? I would much rather work at the scientific discoveries that improve conditions in the real world.
You don’t need to believe in Santa and unicorns and leprechauns to have happiness and brotherly love. A major part of the world’s problems is various groups who love every brother that shares their delusion, but despises everyone who doesn’t go along with their particular fantasy.
For the Evolutionists on board – Please explain the origin of the hydrogen atom – to put it another way, from whence came the primordial ooze so often used as the origin?
In addition, whence came water? Probably two H atoms got together and started out to find one O atom because they wanted to create water.
Attempts to “create” life in a test tube have not been successful. Stop and think of the origin of matter itself, never mind life. Seems to me that there must have been something created from nothing – impossible, except for the Creator.
Food for thought.
So, what something… created the creator?
Please. Before you criticize evolution, know what it us. evolution makes no claims about how life started. Evolution only explains how we have so many different species. It explains the diversity of life. That is it.
So what created the creator?
Did a father and a son get together one day and say “hey, let us join up with a holy ghost”?
[...] public links >> neuroscience Move Over Evolution Saved by Yoda808 on Fri 19-12-2008 Report: spies need to stay on top of neuroscience research [...]