Science and religion share more than you think

Recently, I've been reading a fascinating little book, namely Bernardo Kastrup's Brief Peeks Beyond: Critical Essays on Metaphysics, Neuroscience, Free Will, Skepticism, and Culture (iff Books, 2015). I know, some of you have already jumped ships and the rest are looking for any remaining lifeboats, but it's not what you think. Yes, the Enlightenment proclivity for book titles as long as the texts seems to be returning, but Kastrup's "essays" are reworked blogs and interviews for the most part, and are written in an engaging and easy-to-read way; that is, for the rest of us, not the professional philosopher or neuroscientist. Anyone with a little openness and willingness would find them both understandable and thought-provoking.

While reading, one of the essays on the theory of evolution and what Neo-Darwinists have unfortunately done with it, I was struck by an idea. Part of the striking goes back to a post I made not long ago on how so many classic authors are seriously, if not maliciously, misquoted, as the victim this time is not Adam Smith but Charles Darwin. Now there's a really nice guy that got a bum deal.

To almost everyone, Mr. Darwin is known for his evolutionary principle of the "survival of the fittest". As you might have guessed, though, Charles never said, nor wrote that. Truth be told, he adamantly opposed the notion which was actually put forth and promoted by Herbert Spencer, not unsurprisingly an economist (because we saw in that other post what happens apparently when economists read, or something like that). Of course, these days, economists are quick to quote this non-Darwinian "truth". No, Darwin himself promoted the idea of "cooperation" as the most favorable factor in evolutionary survival and benefit. He spent years hoping to find a genetic link to it, of course, without success.

This blarney about the fittest (meaning in most instances the so-called strongest) surviving is a one of those ideas that appear intuitively obvious and brilliant, until you think about them. The strongest is the one that has to constantly prove his strength, so he's the one that fights the most and has, as a matter of simple consequence, the greatest chance of gettting killed. While all the tough guys were out and about getting their genes eliminated from the gene pool, the more reflective (and I'll readily admit, cowardly), but certainly more cooperative types were adapting our plans to get through this life and our genes into succeeding generations. And what the overwhelming evidence that we have for the notion of evolution is that we cooperative types were simply more successful, as is the case in every other species on earth.

Put another way, those who are willing to share -- quite simply, adjust their behavior positively toward others -- be it food, shelter, knowledge, comfort, and love, live longer in this life and through the lives of their offspring.

Similarly, Stan Tenen at the Meru Foundation has pointed out that not only is the so-called Golden Rule the most widely spread principle common to all the world's religions, he reminds us that the science writer Michael Shermer has argued that the Golden Rule "does not rest on any underlying religious belief, but rather is simply the most logical and reasonable way for a human to behave". That is, doing to others as you'd like them to do unto you is, well, the essence of sharing, isn't it?

Those who think the world is too huge and complex for us to understand are simply avoiding the obvious. In the end, at bottom, life is really rather simple. For as complex as evolution may seem to be, it works best for those who share. For as much as we like to insist on how different the different religions are, they share the most fundamental tenent in common. And for those who think that science and religion are incompatible, well, apparently you never really stopped to look at or think about either.

Quite often, life is only as tough as we make it.

Simple wisdom

There's an old Zen saying: "Those who speak do not know; those who know, do not speak."

I stumbled across that one many, many moons ago, and I can assure you it's every bit as true now as it was then. We've got more than our share of purveyors of "truth" (or what they believe to be true or whatever), but, let's face it, most people talking have very little to say.

And, before you get the wrong impression, I'm one of those talking. I know that, and at a literal level, one could maintain that I have no idea what I'm talking about. However ... there is a difference between speaking and "speaking". Regardless of what my detractors might think, I don't claim to know what's what or what we should or should not think or believe or not believe. I don't think, believe, or even feel, that I have all the answers. Hell, I'm not even claiming that I have any answers. My "job", if that's how anyone might like to see it, is simply "to draw your attention to". No more, no less.

It's impossible for me to tell you what's right, wrong, good, bad, worthwhile or not worth even thinking about. That's something that each of us has to decide for him or herself. And that's what you need to do. You have to decide what you want to believe or what you actually believe. You have to decide what is fact and what is fiction. You need to discern and differentiate between what is real and what is illusion, what has substance and what does not.

All I want to do is nothing more than perhaps make you aware of something that you might have not thought about before. I'm not telling you what "is", I'm merely pointing out that this, that, or the other might not be exactly how you thought it might be, that not everything you're being told is being conveyed with good intentions, that a small dose of skepticism is very often very much in order, that just because something feels right doesn't mean it is right.

A buddy of mine once told me that the reason we have to learn from others' mistakes is because we don't have time to make them all ourselves. He was right. The flip side of that coin is that we need to listen to and learn from others because we don't have time to find out everything for ourselves either. When we're all sincere about pointing out and sharing, about communicating, we can all benefit. True, there are those who would abuse this process for their own advantage. We all know that as well and for that reason it is important that, well, we keep a bit of a skeptical attitude until we can corroborate, confirm or, when necessary, deny what we're hearing.

It's really not a difficult nor dangerous nor risky undertaking. It means taking things perhaps a bit more slowly, perhaps stopping to think from time to time, and maybe evening thinking first and believing later.

So, while I may be "speaking", in a sense, I'm not laying claim to knowing. Sure, I want to know, but first I've got to figure it all out.