Rationality
Reason can wrestle and overthrow terror - Euripides
AC Grayling for The Guardian
Saturday March 16, 2002
Before the scientific revolution of the 17th century, mankind found its picture of the universe a satisfying one. The world existed to serve mankind; it had, indeed, been created by a supernatural agency for that express purpose. Our home the Earth hung from the glittering floor of Heaven like a jewel, with Hell beneath and Chaos around; while above, in the crystal spheres, burned the greater and lesser lights, set in everlasting motion by the creator to illuminate our days and mark our seasons - making music, as they flew, too beautiful for us to hear while we remained imprisoned in our "muddy vesture of decay", but promised to be audible to us if we merit it when dead.
When it was proposed that the Earth flew too, and as one modest member of a vast swarm, occupying an insignificant corner of a vaster universe, the affront to human self-importance was incalculable. But the calm deductions and patient observations of science, not to say the extraordinary difference it has made to the conditions of ordinary life, did not allow the preceding mythologies to retain their plausibility long. But humankind, like its individual members, finds it difficult to give up bad habits, least of all ancient superstitions and beliefs. Proof of this comes in news that a number of schools in the UK are teaching "creationism" - the "theory" that the universe was created by supernatural agencies - alongside, or as "more true than", scientific cosmology and evolutionary biological theory. Reports do not specify which creationist view is being taught; is it (to take a few random examples from thousands) Babylon's account of the mingling of Apsu and Tiamat, who thus gave birth to the gods who went on to create man? Or the Aztec story of how Quetzalcoatl formed humans from the ashes of a previous earth (no one explains the origin of the previous earth)? Or the Genesis story of how a supposedly omnipotent god took six whole days to separate the waters (where did they come from?) and make the plants and animals? How, by the way, do "creationists" tell which of these accounts is better than the others, and the right one to believe?
The trouble with these tales being taught as comparable in intellectual worth to evolutionary theory is that, whereas scientific accounts of the universe and life within it are based on evidence gathered from observation and experiment, then interpreted by reason, tested by careful and rigorous procedures of evaluation, and subjected to revision or rejection in the light of further evidence, the creation myths are based on nothing but the fantasies of the ignorant who lived long ago. Thinking of the latter as even a remotely serious competitor to science is a nonsense. The key here is rationality. Rational thought proportions belief to evidence. To believe that there are sparrows in the garden is rational because the publicly available and checkable evidence is powerful, repeatedly accessible, undeniable, and conclusive. To believe that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden is irrational, not least if based on the testimony of one flaky member of the family who got the idea from an old book. This sums up the comparison between science and creationism in a nutshell.
But to teach creationism to children as if it were a serious competitor to science is worse than irrational, it is educationally and morally irresponsible. Let creation myths be taught along with other myths and fairy tales - some are beautiful, and most are fun, especially the sexy ones about heaven mating with Earth. But to tell children that ancient traditions, the dreams of our uneducated forefathers, and holy writings which must not be questioned or impugned for fear of blasphemy, are sources of authority about the world on a par with science, is a travesty. "By their fruits ye shall know them": the legacy of scientific rationality includes antibiotics, electric light, computers, aeroplanes, central heating, anaesthesia, and clean water; that of religious irrationality includes inquisitions, crusades, persecutions, strife and hatred. The case rests.
2 comments:
So the crazies finally made it over there to your side of the pond?
I'll comment on the actual content, just give me a moment to help the esteemed Mr. Grayling get over himself.
"By their fruits ye shall know them." ie... if you're a bastard and you do terrible things then we know you're a bastard. Though I must admit I haven't Grayling's sense of theatrics. I see this figure hulked over a bible with a highlighter chuckling, "By their fruit... oh, that's rich."
*grin*
*sigh* Ok... I’m done...
Don't teach kids Creationism in public school. That’s right. As far as I'm concerned it's up to the parents to teach religion. It’s that sort of a personal thing.
To the rest of it, the 95% which is supposed to ‘set the mood’ so that you know you’re lofty precipices of knowledge and learned wisdom is so above reproach and all that is faith based lies wallowing in the darkness of ignorance for thy to spit upon, I say fail . This type of essay would have landed me a whopping F in composition for being nothing more than an opinionated rant that even those of us who haven’t memorized Grayling’s immortal words recognizes as just another ‘typical’ Grayling finger exercise.
Honestly, for the Christians so set on warring against the secular world this whole evolution/creation nonsense needs to stop. I found myself doing the same thing (fighting against evolution) just a few articles back in my comments. There is no fight, evolution wins. To take a stance against evolution is to make yourself look like an idiot and it does nothing for your ‘cause’.
There’s no need to defend creationism in school. There’s no need to put up such a fight against proven evolution theory. Honestly there’s nothing in my faith that says either things will hurt me spiritually so why do I need to feel so threatened?
That’s the true issue here. Christians need to live in peace with secular ideas. The inquisitions, crusades, persecutions, strife and hatred that Grayling talks about (and seems rather good at inciting) is all the ‘fruit’ of an ‘at war’ type of thinking.
Grayling’s general point against religion is that it breeds ignorance. My point against Grayling is that people are stupid for many reasons and religion is but one. Love, race, drugs, creed, money, land, and power are all things folks kill in the name of. There will always be ‘something’ and just because religious people believe in the ‘fairies from the old book’ doesn’t mean we’re apt to kill you.
“Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and give God what is God’s.” Jesus once said to a believer determined to defy the Roman tax collectors. His point fits well with this because it indicates a most basic ‘separation’ of Church and state long before that term was coined (ha… coined… get it?). As a Christian who follows the works and teachings of Jesus I don’t see anywhere at ALL that I’m supposed to get upset about people trying to teach my kids something that all kids should know in order to succeed in this world and not be limited.
My challenge to Christians is to realize that it’s up to YOU to teach your children that God can exist right along with Evolution or any other scientific theory or fact. If you can’t stomach their questions and their own ‘testing’ of their religion then how strong do you think your faith really is? You should not protect anyone from knowledge, what you can do is be a good example of a normal, functional and sane person who has a personal feeling that isn’t scientifically explained.
Grayling is wrong. Religion is not a ‘bad’ habit. Being a jerk to people for something they’ve found peace with is a ‘bad’ habit and a fruit that I know Grayling by.
Post a Comment