1. We must proceed carefully: humans are everywhere addicted to belief, and the projection of one’s own internal experiences and patterns onto the cosmos is a characteristic of our behaviour. Thus, if one should hear the Holy Voice Of God, then logically, God must exist and be talking presently, to me, here, now. This God must exist etc etc. We have addressed the faultiness of this conclusion above. Dawkins considers that humans would be happier deriving their moral and intellectual wellbeing from philosophical ideas and scientific principles. But such things are mutable, and often meaningless to humans.
2. Two million light years away, the Andromeda Galaxy is slowly cannibalising several dwarf galaxies on its periphery, the stars that they constitute slowly being absorbed into the much larger spiral galaxy’s structure. Whatever this means to me, whether I believe it to be true or not, it is still happening. Evolution does not require belief in order to still be occurring, it does not require my meaning to be projected onto it. It simply is. Fine, let it be. The physical laws of the universe are elegant and beautiful, and the wonder of it all can be deeply meaningful. But honestly, I do not care if I am made from atoms or porridge, if I am seeking meaning and experience, scientific principles cannot satisfy every part of me.
3. Dawkins’ proposition assumes that humans are rational creatures. Any artist can tell you that we are not purely so: we are polyvalently so, which is to say we are partly rational, some of us are more rational than others, and there are huge vistas of human experience which are clearly not rational. Dreams are a generally-agreed example of such irrationality, and much has been gained from both rational (Freudian) and experiential (Jungian) studies of dreams.
4. It seems inappropriate, then, to insist that we humans derive happiness from rationality. This would only be partially satisfying to all, and in varying degrees to many. The key is whether Dawkins means it as advice: as something to strive for, or whether he means it proscriptively. Religion is always proscriptive: there is one correct path through life, and there can be no debate on that. Does Dawkins mean to proscribe all irrational modes of thought, experience and meaning by his advice, or does he promote it as one way – his favoured way – among other possibilities?
5. I do not know the answer to that, but I can say that I have always preferred descriptive methods of observing human behaviour and striving for meaning, experience and wellbeing. To accept the diversity of human (ir)rationality and perception seems a most appropriate way forward to formulate a system of experience, whilst being careful of the traps and pitfalls of belief...
2. Two million light years away, the Andromeda Galaxy is slowly cannibalising several dwarf galaxies on its periphery, the stars that they constitute slowly being absorbed into the much larger spiral galaxy’s structure. Whatever this means to me, whether I believe it to be true or not, it is still happening. Evolution does not require belief in order to still be occurring, it does not require my meaning to be projected onto it. It simply is. Fine, let it be. The physical laws of the universe are elegant and beautiful, and the wonder of it all can be deeply meaningful. But honestly, I do not care if I am made from atoms or porridge, if I am seeking meaning and experience, scientific principles cannot satisfy every part of me.
3. Dawkins’ proposition assumes that humans are rational creatures. Any artist can tell you that we are not purely so: we are polyvalently so, which is to say we are partly rational, some of us are more rational than others, and there are huge vistas of human experience which are clearly not rational. Dreams are a generally-agreed example of such irrationality, and much has been gained from both rational (Freudian) and experiential (Jungian) studies of dreams.
4. It seems inappropriate, then, to insist that we humans derive happiness from rationality. This would only be partially satisfying to all, and in varying degrees to many. The key is whether Dawkins means it as advice: as something to strive for, or whether he means it proscriptively. Religion is always proscriptive: there is one correct path through life, and there can be no debate on that. Does Dawkins mean to proscribe all irrational modes of thought, experience and meaning by his advice, or does he promote it as one way – his favoured way – among other possibilities?
5. I do not know the answer to that, but I can say that I have always preferred descriptive methods of observing human behaviour and striving for meaning, experience and wellbeing. To accept the diversity of human (ir)rationality and perception seems a most appropriate way forward to formulate a system of experience, whilst being careful of the traps and pitfalls of belief...
No comments:
Post a Comment