Believe It Or Not

It becomes clear that a great schism wracks human society with spasms of outlandish idiocy, foments titanic battles between groups of otherwise normal people, and leaves the foul stench of hypocrisy lingering on the breeze, like the wisps of Winter wood smoke. On one side, the fervent religious believers, who take their scripture to heart, using the very words to conjure up visions of how secular society will doom humanity to an ignominious fate. On the other, the rationalists, believers in unbelief, clad in the armor of science and pointedly against anything that even hints of human invention, determined to expose the machinations of religious zealotry in committing us all to a hideous fate.

I tire of them both. As usual, the answer to it all lies in between.

Misconceptions

Human law and human beliefs cannot alter physical systems. No decree can change the motion of the Earth's crustal plates as they slide across the face of our world. No amount of determination can bend the Second Law of Thermodynamics to create unlimited energy. No declaration will place the Earth at the center of our solar system. No force of will can alter the motion of the stars through the heavens. No avarice can force chemical processes to turn lead into gold.

So, it is laughable to think that some in our country believe, wholeheartedly, that they can command the very mechanism of the creation of life through law, by declaring a fertilized egg a "person." At its most elementary level, the idea is farcical, and the stolid determination of those who seek to bring this about would be comical if they were not so earnest, and more importantly, if they were not in positions of power in government. The shame in it, is that ignorance cloaked in belief is being used as a yardstick for legality, and reason is being shoved out of the room. Worse still, is that there is no hue and cry from the vast majority of reasonable American, shouting down this travesty of lawmaking.

Let me, then, light the fire of outrage, as we take a little tour of why this execrable legislation and all its kin need to be consigned to the dustbin of history.

Beauty And The Labcoat

The obsession modern human society has with beauty is an outgrowth of the need for the species to procreate, which is an evolutionary imperative enforced through natural selection to drive the continued diversification of the species, to allow for its success in adapting to changes in environment. A rudimentary system to ensure the survival of our species, dragged along into the modern era through the auspices of our DNA, we have taken it, expanded it, "codified" it, and then attempted to enforce it, through media and opinion. Beauty has gone from a primitive device to the bane of human society.

Nowhere is that more evident than in a remarkably troubling event that took place this week, when Psychology Today -- a magazine loosely dedicated to the dissemination of useful knowledge in the field of psychology -- printed a tract by Satoshi Kanazawa that was entitled “Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?” It was another in a series of diatribes dressed as science by the author, seeking to apply a veneer of scientific legitimacy to sexist and racist ideas in the disreputable field of "evolutionary psychology." It was attempting to paint a picture of black women as "undesirable" compared to "social norms"; instead, it painted a picture of a bigoted author trying to justify that bigotry, an all too common practice over the centuries. Science has now usurped scripture as the medium by which nonsensical, biased, and backward ideas are perpetuated and reinforced.

One Next Step For Mankind

Perhaps it was the same feeling, the same moment of awe, as that of the first colonists to land at Jamestown or Plymouth. A new world, being seen by those eyes for the first time. Stepping off, and placing a foot on new soil, carrying the hopes and dreams of so many.

No one save Neil Armstrong can know what he was thinking and feeling at that moment on July 20th, 1969, at 10:56 Eastern Daylight Time, when his left foot touched the lunar soil and he uttered the words many of us know by heart: "That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for Mankind." Unlike the original American colonists, who landed on a sandy shore, with trees and birds and the breeze in their faces, Neil was enclosed in his bulky spacesuit, the sounds of his life support backpack his constant companion, along with the sound of his own breathing and the chatter in his earphones. He looked out on a stark, barren, and inhospitable landscape; his traveling companion, Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, would later utter perhaps the most descriptive two words to convey the scene: "Magnificent desolation."

That day happened forty-one years ago, and was a moment that, for an instant, locked every person on the planet who had access to a radio or television, together. An estimated six hundred million people were, briefly, one, in their awe and admiration for the feat. What had been touted as a "race to the Moon," was now shorn of its Cold War implications, and was a triumph for all humanity, our first tentative step into the cosmic ocean.

Like so many explorations in the past, the feat has not been followed up, as it so logically should have been. Lack of will, lack of money, lack of vision -- the curse of any great endeavor is that once it is over, the fickle among us turn away. Every Apollo mission after Apollo 11 (except for the near-disaster that was Apollo 13), would see American support wane and interest evaporate. Just as we were getting good at going to the Moon, we stopped, and turned our remaining equipment into the most expensive lawn ornaments of all time, or quietly rusting and decaying scrap. The glory of the moment, fueled initially by John F. Kennedy's vision, was now spent, discarded like a booster stage of the mighty Saturn V.

If we can put a man on the Moon... this was now the beginning of a refrain heard many times afterward. It was used to highlight the need to end poverty, cure cancer, stop world hunger, and end global conflict. If such energy, time, money, and knowledge could be harnessed to accomplish a goal that, until that moment, had been the stuff of science fiction, why not these other things? This is where the Cold War reasserted itself, for the impetus needed in creating a manned space program and reaching for the Moon was not initially made from high ideals, but fear, fear of a Red Moon, and nuclear weapons raining down on the United States from above. Sad to say, but poverty, malnourishment, and peace all lay at the edges of human vision, even as they do today. No number of documentaries about the plight of people in the world has engendered the kind of outcry and call for action that were supplied by the launching of Sputnik.

Many would see the Moon program as a waste of taxpayer money. Still others, did -- and still do -- seek to deny that it ever happened, pleased with themselves for denying America its technical triumph, secure in their own ignorance. Worse still, NASA's prominence flags, only holding on through the auspices of its robotic probes, as they comb the Mars and the outer solar system for information on the origins of the planets and life on Earth. Soon, with the last few Space Shuttle flights, there will no longer be the roar of human beings being hurled into space from the Florida coast. The gantries will fall silent.

A vast, seemingly limitless horizon awaits us. Untapped resources are there for the taking, obviating us from the need to pillage our world. Asteroids, filled to overflowing with mineral and material wealth circle us, waiting to be mined. Comets, bearers of water, can provide the potential fuel to explore the solar system thoroughly and supply space stations and Moon bases with oxygen and water for many decades. The Moon itself could become the next frontier outpost, part mining camp, part scientific research station, part launchpad for the stars, and eternal monitor of the health of the Earth.

Just as the original colonists and pioneers stepped off into the wilderness, with no guarantee of survival, or riches, or even stability, so too must we, humanity, step off into the void, cross the cislunar sea again, this time provisioned for the long haul, to settle and to explore and to harvest the bounty that awaits. The time is inevitable when we must do this; we are the only known sentient life in the universe, and our home cannot hold us in safety forever. As seeds on the wind and in the waves, we too must spread out, take root in new places, and let humanity grow, unencumbered by the limitations of our planet and our minds. It is not enough to bemoan the loss of the past, to shriek for a return to the way things were; our eyes should always look toward the future, toward what humanity can be and must be, if we are to be more than a footnote to cosmic history. We speak for humanity, and it is we who must make the next great leap for Mankind.

Leap Of Faith

Today marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of one of the most remarkable books to ever come out in the many fields of science: On the Origin of Species. It is interesting to note that the book, that outlined the process of natural selection which is the driving force behind evolution, was not as feared in the mid-19th Century as it is today. In fact, Charles Darwin sent a copy of the book to Reverend Charles Kingsley, a prominent member of the Church of England, who, upon reviewing the work, wrote back to Darwin: "It's just as noble a conception of God to think that he created animals and plants that then evolved, that were capable of self-development, as it is to think that God has to constantly create new forms and fill in the gaps that he's left in his own creation."

The fact is, that if you look down the corridors of history, and specifically those of science, you see that faith was often the starting point for explorations of the workings of the universe. In every faith, everywhere, we see thinkers, looking around at the world, and up to the heavens, wondering how it was all put together, why it all works the way it does. The natural curiosity of philosophers, scientists, and even clergy, throughout the centuries, led to the expansion of human knowledge and the growth of human society. Concepts first outlined in one place and time worked their way forward to inspire others. So it was that the Egyptians inspired the Greeks, who inspired the Romans, and so on, taking concepts of the universe and its workings and passing them down the line to be refined.

One has to realize that this process, of identifying nature and attempting to explain its workings in more rational terms, is not some new phenomenon of the later centuries of Mankind, but a continuous thread that runs through the tapestry of human society. Science, far from denigrating faith or impugning religion, sought to open up the curtains, to see how the creation of the universe was accomplished. It was not enough for some to believe in a god or gods, but that if these deities were responsible for everything, including the appearance of Mankind, then surely their fingerprints were still indelibly etched on the world. To their minds, the perfection of creation was something to not just be mindful of, but to be understood, that they might know their creator better.

Their names are writ large throughout history: Archimedes, Aristotle, Ptolemy, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Darwin, and yes, even Einstein, who remarked: "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." At some point, their personal beliefs drove them to think about, and discover, more about the universe. They believed that if the creation were the work of a god or gods, then it should be comprehensible and logical.

Thus it is inconceivable, given the breadth of human knowledge and the world we now live in, that at the beginning of Third Millennium of Humanity (as per the Christian doctrine), we should see religion attack science for its attempts to pervert or destroy faith. Specifically, we see Christian faiths decrying such things as the teaching of evolution in schools, because it somehow "attacks" their faith. The "intelligent design" movement is just the latest "theory" to provide a direct response to this "threat," attempting to show that there is a "scientific basis" for creationism. This goes far beyond a refutation of evolution, for traces of it can be found in the firestorm of protest over stem cell research, abortion, and the rights of homosexuals. It is all part of a toxic mix, designed to cloud judgment and pander to fear. It is not too far removed from the conditions that ultimately led to the Salem Witch Trials; faith in Christ can lead to salvation, peace, and a better regard for your fellow humans, but it can also lead to suspicion, self-righteousness, and fear-mongering.

It is a measure of the fear of some Christian groups -- and the Roman Catholic Church, from which they sprung -- that such vehement opposition is raised. The mantra heard most often is that science, and government, seek to destroy faith, through the imposition of secular ideals at the expense of that faith. Evolution offends them, contradicts what they know from The Bible, and that somehow diminishes them. Allowing a woman to decide if she will keep a child or not contravenes the lessons of their belief, that it is the command of God to "be fruitful and multiply," that to terminate a pregnancy somehow extinguishes a soul. Allowing homosexuals to marry will erode the meaning of what it is to be married, because homosexuality is an "abomination" in the eyes of the Lord and for them to marry means their faith is somehow stained, and they will not be found worthy.

What the Christian faithful do not truly understand, is that science is not interested in matters of individual faith, per se. Science is interested in teasing apart what makes the universe, and the great variety of things in it, work. It seeks to uncover the watchmaker's fingerprints, to understand the architecture and peruse the blueprints of the creation. Far from annihilating faith, science expands the avenues of it, by showing us the glories of the universe. Who can look at a picture taken by the Hubble Space Telescope and not be moved by how the glowing stars and their home galaxies stretch out into space, filling it with delicate structures, like cathedrals of light? Who cannot marvel at how the sum total of the universe is built of the tiniest number and type of particles, particles too small to see, yet leading to the profusion of things we experience? And how can you not be astounded by a feat of biological engineering, to build such a simple mechanism as evolution, to take a handful of living things, and fill a world?

Blind faith is just that: blind. To take only the words of a book as gospel, to avert your gaze from the true marvels of creation, to wallow in a comfortable stupor as the world changes around you, to never question or show curiosity, is to travel a lonely road to salvation. If you believe in God, and you believe Mankind was made in his image, then is it so far a leap to believe that the brains we were given, the curiosity we were imbued with, and the world we were placed upon are not at once his gifts, but also his puzzle and the means to solve it? Perhaps salvation does not rely on a closed system of faith, but an open system of wonder and belief in a greater world to be explored.

Crosses To Bear

The acme of ignorance is to feel that your beliefs are beyond reproach. Nowhere is that represented more fully than in organized religion.

Now, before I am crucified and told what a bad human I am for spouting my blasphemies, let me say that I have nothing against religion and religious conviction, save where such conviction is twisted toward purposes that are against the greater good of humanity. There is a great deal to be said for having faith in something, and I have struggled for many years with my own Catholicism, accepting and rejecting it at various times. I have studied many of the world's major religions, most recently having the good fortune to listen to the Dalai Lama speak of the path of faith in Tibetan Buddhism last summer. I think I got the most from his talks, because he emphasized that Buddhism shares so many commonalities with other religions of the world, and to find the true path, one must start with one's own faith. In other words, the Dalai Lama is not out to make everyone a Buddhist.

My belief is that you must have faith in something. Being a man of science, I have delved into the workings of the universe, from the tiniest atom to the most distant quasar. Einstein's equations have spoken to me of a universe governed by a set of unalterable yet malleable principles, that allow it to function, separated from the need for oversight. Set in motion, the grand cavalcade that is the march of the galaxies has been going on for billions of years, guided by simple equations and knowable forms. My core faith tells me that the universe will continue to work as intended, without the machinations of its creator. Who that creator is, and by that I mean I believe there was one, remains a mystery. The signs are there in the stars.

If you find the strictures of an organized religion more palatable, there is nothing inherently wrong with that... unless you are unwilling to question the tenets the religion is founded on. If the universe teaches us anything, it is that nothing remains static. So too it should be with our beliefs. When the evidence of our senses and our cognition tell us that the tenets of our faith are misaligned with the way of the universe, we must be willing to alter those beliefs. Strict adherence to beliefs in the face of contrary evidence is anathema. Science teaches us that lesson ever day; in fact, it tells us that no matter what we think, we must be able to subject our beliefs to critical testing in order for them to remain strong.

And while the average person can see clear to believe what they need to, in order to live a harmonious life, altering core beliefs to better fit their view of the world, it is the zealotry of some which unfortunately tinges religion with an unsightly pallor. Blind adherence to beliefs, whether religious or scientific, creates the illusion of power over the world. In science, it is too often the case that someone will try to make the universe fit their theory, rather make their theory fir the universe. The course of science is marked with ideas (Terracentrism, the ether, perpetual motion, constant creation, etc.) which held on far longer than they should have, given that scientists were sure they were right, and could not adjust their thinking until the preponderance of evidence made it folly to maintain the belief. Even then, some went to the grave certain their ideas were not incorrect, merely misinterpreted.

Religion, dealing more directly with personal faith in ideas, finds it harder to yield to fact or even to the idea that one faith is not necessarily the faith. While the adherents of a religion are often able to navigate the schisms caused by differences between daily life and religious teaching, far too many people are trying to force daily life to fit their religious beliefs, not just for themselves, but others. The friction caused by this is seen in much of the political debate in the United States over issues such as abortion, sex education, and school prayer. While it is good to see people take their faith seriously, it is disturbing when they take it so seriously that it blinds them to fact or causes them to feel that they must force others to fall in line (either through law or deed).

Now, my beliefs have been shaped over the many years of my life, and while in youth they changed frequently, as I have become older I find them becoming more set, less malleable. I am still able to change them, do not get me wrong, but the level of evidence and discourse required is much greater, and I put a greater premium on how someone approaches me in an attempt to change my mind. I find that a knee-jerk reaction is very off-putting; when I voice a contrary opinion, it is not an attempt to denigrate what someone else is saying, only to stake out the grounds for discussion. Those who cannot stand to hear a contrary view, who leap immediately to an offensive mindset rather than engage in discourse, very rarely will hold any sway with me. I do sometimes wonder if my views of the world have become too rigid, to the point of limiting my flexibility, but finding it hard to step outside myself as I once could, and forced to take my queues from others, I tell myself that I am being as scrupulous in that regard as I can manage. I would like to think my view is right most of the time, but I am the first to admit when I am wrong. Or so I would like to think.

It is my desire to see harmony in the world, and that cannot be approached until we are willing to set aside our differences. There is room enough on this planet for every type of belief (or non-belief), without the need to exhort against any one system, or to attempt to legislate them away. For whatever you or I might feel about any group's beliefs, at the core we owe them the respect that we wish to be accorded for ours. We will disagree, we will see others as perhaps misguided, but in the end we will extend the hand of friendship and goodwill, because it is for the greater good.