|
|
My parents, with perhaps only incidental intentions, gave me a great gift. It was the gift of letting me make up my own mind regarding not only the existence of God, but also, if I chose to believe in a god, they allowed me to select my own method of belief. They more than likely decided to not indoctrinate me to their spiritual beliefs for no other reason than their own disillusionment with the religion they both happened to be raised with.
Regardless of their motivations, the result was that I had the freedom to decide these issues on my own. This is the gift I wish to also impart to my own children someday, if my wife and I are fortunate enough to conceive at some point. The value of this lack of indoctrination can't be sufficiently expressed. In a world where people form their opinions early, and rarely step away from them for the entirety of their lives, the chance to truly make up your own mind without any sort of pressure in any direction is priceless. Therefore, whatever it is I chose to believe about the universe, it wasn't handed down to me by my family or friends' religious convictions, or for that matter, my institutional peers. Richard Dawkins seems to assume that ideological indoctrination only occurs within a religious context. An interesting assumption, but not very sound, as the dogma of evolutionary biology has its own petri dish of viral transference. I submit that an open mind is better equipped to discover 'truth' regarding the universe. By open mind, I'm not referring to an automatic consideration of every wacky idea that crosses one's desk. I'm specifically speaking about looking deeper at questions raised regarding any particular scientific theory, instead of consistently explaining them away with imaginative reasons that guarantee the general theory remains intact. The latter is the starkly obvious procedure of the stubborn adherent. Dawkins dances around the big 'why' questions by assigning them vacuous status. 'Vacuous' is a serious adjective, and coming from a man who seems to be devoting far too much personal and professional time to debunking spiritual beliefs, it reveals the bias by which he is hopelessly controlled. To declare that asking why is a meaningless venture because there is ultimately no reason for anything, is a lazy way to avoid the issue. Surely a no-name, unknown, non-degreed, unimportant philistine like me should know better than to dare call such a distinguished, brilliant, respected and accomplished sage like Dawkins a lazy scientist. And yet I will continue to do so until he and others like him admit their grand folly that prevents the world's total acceptance of their dogma. They possess the same sort of tunnel vision as those they deem scientifically ignorant. How have the Darwinian Dittos managed to miss the fact that something they view as so entirely self-evident is not necessarily so? These purveyors of pretentious prattle seek to convince the world, through relentless insistence, that the innate human desire to seek the why of mysteries in the universe is in itself a primitive, ignorant, un-evolved, knee-jerk-behavioral activity; one that could never possibly bear fruit in the realm of the physical sciences. How far would that approach have taken us historically in the realm of science if we just accepted everything at its face value, and assigned logical-sounding theories the status of fact, just because they seemed to make sense? One of the most devious (but not very original) methods these wise men employ to pull in more converts is the age-old comparison to fairies, goblins, sea monsters, Santa Claus, and name-your-imaginary-entity. That's all very fine and dandy; there is no known way to prove the three-dimensional, physical existence of a god. However, this kind of intellectual pressure has somehow failed to stamp out the delusion so many human beings allegedly suffer from. If the unchallenged verity of Science should be enough to forever obliterate any lingering desire to believe in a primitive superstition such as a 'creator of the universe,' then why do many highly skilled and formally educated scientists still choose to believe in this nonsensical boogie-man/heavenly Father? Can't these intelligent, accomplished and sometimes brilliant minds see the cognitive dissonance of their belief systems? Dawkins, Dennett, et al haven't learned, and may never learn, that the subjective nature of humanity and the perhaps limitless possibilities of a highly complex and still somewhat unrevealed universe, will always prevent them from turning the world into a bunch of nodding yes-people, bowing to their god of exceptional intellect, Charles Darwin. I say, hey, if that's what floats your boat, go on ahead. March on with your alarmist propaganda regarding the 'dangerous' belief in God. All those who continue to believe in this imaginary entity know full well that your accusations are groundless, faceless, hapless and hopeless. The misdeeds of humankind do not require the flag of religion to make history a sometimes unpleasant recollection. If Dawkins and his philosophical cronies were being entirely honest, they would have to admit that the beneficial results of humanity's spiritual disposition far outweigh the heinous headlines blasted from anti-religious literature. The entire world will never sway to one side of the fence. This is somehow guaranteed in the biological/sociological mix, lack of scientific data notwithstanding. I'm merely making an unscientific observation, but the greatest of scientists would be hard pressed to falsify that statement with actual lab results. Truth be known, at the risk of sounding condescending, I actually feel sorry for people like Dawkins. Not for the reasons he might guess, such as "I'm saved and he isn't," or the ever popular "he's deceived by Satan." No, nothing quite as dramatic. I feel pity for Dawkins because he's not even aware of the fullness of existence that a belief in God can bestow upon the believer. He and I both believe we only get one shot at this life; which one of us probably possesses more hope? He would likely comment that he is happier in the knowledge that he's not deluded. If that is the sort of happiness he thinks is near the summit of human experience, then I say have at it, Richard...enjoy. Take comfort in all the meaningless events caused by meaningless people who will all become, as you and I will, meaningless fertilizer in a meaningless world, in a random universe that holds no purpose whatsoever. I'd rather bask instead in the 'pathetic' and 'ignorant' delusion that Someone or Something else is out there, and that there is far more depth to existence than statistically impossible accidents in a three-dimensional mass of inexplicable energy and information. And by the way, Richard: the vast majority of the believers out there have absolutely zero interest in dismantling your precious edifice of conjecture. In the final analysis, most of them couldn't care less about your academic theories. They're too busy working, raising families, and trying to make sense of life to bother with your esoteric ideas and necessity for validation. |