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?
An Epic Post by Greta Christina
Thursday, September 18th, 2008Over at Greta Christina’s blog there is an epic two part post called the ten main reasons why i don’t believe in god one and two. Here – collaborated from the two – are her 10 reasons:
1: The consistent replacement of supernatural explanations of the world with natural ones.
2: The inconsistency of world religions.
3: The weakness of religious arguments, explanations, and apologetics.
4: The increasing diminishment of God.
5: The fact that religion runs in families.
6: The physical causes of everything we think of as the soul.
7: The complete failure of any sort of supernatural phenomenon to stand up to rigorous testing.
8: The slipperiness of religious and spiritual beliefs.
9: The failure of religion to improve or clarify over time.
10: The complete and utter lack of solid evidence for God’s existence.
I like how her list touches upon all of the ways people attempt to frame god, from the man with the grey beard type to the “god is love” type. Usually, while trying to show people why god likely doesn’t exist, atheists will focus on one particular example, like showing how the soul doesn’t exist, or showing the logical fallacies that are apparent in theology. What Greta does is posit the arguments against god into broader categories, which begets the ability of the reader to easily connect several examples together to solidify a point; this makes her post especially cogent.
Also, many of her examples are contemporary. In a debate over the existence of god, all of the old arguments are regurgitated by both sides, which just ceases to the point of preaching to the choir – or in atheist terms, talking rationally to the herd of cats.
Speaking of herding cats, the reason I post Greta’s list is not only because I greatly appreciate it, but I believe that if it’s stripped down to be a tad shorter, it could make a great addition to a campus atheist club’s brochure. I’ll surely be doing it.
Tags: atheism, god, Greta Christina, religion, science, soul
Posted in Commentary | No Comments »