I´m more worried about the possibility of peak human intelligence. This selection of articles from the New Scientist rather chimes with my current concerns.
The only way forward for us as a species is to educate people as well as possible into the practice of thinking for themselves. That´s what some trends (of which organised religion is but one element) are making nigh impossible. Not sure most people do not want to think but prefer the simple life and have got lots more pressing issues. Understandable but it´s leading to
- History teachers feeling unable to challenge highly contentious or charged versions of history in which pupils are steeped at home, in their community or in a place of worship.
- Teachers that 'fear evolution lessons'
- Dumb and Dumber on the health select committee
- "Creationist" zoo winning an Education award (Depressingly, it´s in the UK)
Good science has to be done (more or less) within social norms - but what if those norms actively undermine science?
Too many vested interests are excellent at playing on doubts and creating narrative with emotional and rhetorical appeal (and very little by way of factual content - isn´t that always the way with myth?). That can only reinforce the very human habit of simply trying to wish away scientific evidence that challenges a pre-existing view. Perhaps it´s just more evidence that as a species we are pan narrans rather than homo sapiens.
I read recently a comment in response to religion being described as mumbo-jumbo complaining "Economics is said to be a science but it keeps changing the goal posts". The non-dismal sciences do the same. It´s called learning. It´s why text-books become out of date and we don´t use Newton´s alchemical texts or ancient Greek biology. When science starts thinking it has sacred texts (Aristotle´s works, for example) is usually when it starts going wrong. At least its method generally corrects mistakes over time. Religions never seem to admit to any.
In the UK, I reckon that there is a broad consensus that parts (most?) of so called holy books are as out of date as other writings from the time but some of the philosophical content is still relevant in a modern society.
But that consensus is being undermined by believers with megaphones (literally and metaphorically) who start from the notion of divine* inspiration despite all the errors, contradictions, editing, political compromises and so on that produced them. And then demand that everyone else agree with them and treats the words with the same blind, unthinking reverence that they do (even if they can´t agree about the meaning of said words leading to schisms and sometimes bloody violence).
Not much room for critical thinking and intelligent debate there. Yet, one thing the monotheistic religions can agree on is that they should continue to be able to tell "lies-to-children".
If this post makes me sound a typically arrogant science chappy (I might have an MSc but it´s in Politics and never understood why it wasn´t an MA) rather than an ordinary god fearing person who sees all the evidence needed in the world around them for a loving, omnipotent, invisible deity (as carefully pointed out to them once a week with cherry picked phrases from texts of dubious worth) and ignores anything to the contrary, then guilty as charged. Does that make me feel a I´m a better individual. Nope. I´ll respect many different sorts of people for being prepared to do things I know I couldn´t.
As humans, we often need simplifications to give a sense of belonging, avoid emotional distress or to provide an introduction to more complex concepts. But we need to recognise them for what they are, means to an end - not the end itself. Science gives us hope of being able to understand the world around us. Its method (like Churchill´s view of democracy) is the worst one - except for all the others we´ve tried. We undermine it at our peril.
*One meaning of the word divine (when used as a verb) given by the OED is
To make out by sagacity, intuition, or fortunate conjecture (that is, in some other way than by actual information) [my emphasis]Yep, that sounds about right.
The title of this piece is something a great aunt in Belgium told me once when I was younger. Came back to me when drafting this. Not advice I´ve ever taken.
0 comments:
Post a Comment