I'm ready to accept a new way of understanding that offers a meaningful way to see the "realm of value" (right/wrong, good/evil, or sacred/fulfilling) as an essential and real part of our human reality. But should we group people into two vast categories of secular intellectual vs. religious fundamentalist?
If evolution has shaped our human nature should we jump to the conclusion that all humanity is looking for the sacred or fulfilling life as part of our DNA? Do we all, deep down, want to flourish?
Andy Schmookler responds:
On your first question:
Reality is of course more complicated than our categories. But our understanding does seem to require that we notice differences, and one important difference is that different people reach their beliefs by different means. In other words, they have different "epistemologies."
This series is dedicated to the approach to knowledge/belief that is about evidence processed through reason. The belief in biological evolution grows out of a veritable mountain of evidence of many different kinds.
The religious approach --and please note that I said nothing about "fundamentalism" -- is usually different. Certainly scientific proof of God's existence is lacking. And the purely logical attempts to prove it -- as attempted by Aquinas for example -- fail to pass logical muster. I expect that most people who believe in God (or believe, say, that one can find salvation in Jesus Christ) have arrived at that belief by means quite other than "evidence processed by reason."
It is true that a person might believe in God through that means. If, for example, one had the experience that Moses is reported to have had with a voice speaking to him out of a bush that burned but was not consumed, that experience would constitute for that person "evidence" (even if not of a publicly available sort), and reason might lead him/her to conclude that indeed, God does exist. (Or they might conclude that they'd been hallucinating.)
I myself would like to believe that the universe is ruled by a God who is just, merciful, good, powerful, wise, etc. as our traditional Western religions have posited. For me, however, the evidence does not seem to support that belief. On the other hand, I also have had some experiences that I have difficulty integrating into my general worldview, and leave me open to the possibility that "there is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in my (natural) philosophy."
On your second question:
I am in general against "jumping" to conclusions. But if there are people who are inherently indifferent to the "pursuit of happiness," I would be at a loss to explain why. And that would be for the reasons articulated in the piece--i.e. how selection has crafted us to do what survival requires, and to feel rewarded (fulfilled) for doing those things.
There certainly seems a wide range of human variation. It seems to me quite plausible that seeking experience of the "sacred" -- value to the nth degree -- is not a human universal, just like not everyone responds deeply to music. (Also, there can be birth defects of all kinds.) And certainly people can be damaged by their experience so that they do not remain alive to the possibilities of happiness, pleasure, fulfillment.
But how would it come to pass that someone would -- by inborn nature -- not be inclined toward that which his/her ancestors were selected for being motivated and rewarded for pursuing?
************************
Fred Andrle:
Atheists and agnostics I know -- admittedly a small number --have firm moral beliefs and a motivation toward altruistic action based in compassion for their fellows. I don't find them at all hesitant in this regard. Perhaps they base their beliefs in a kind of thought process similar to yours. I will inquire.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
