On the surface it seems strange, but the reality of human
life is that sources of false hope (e.g. illusions of deities and immortality)
flourish amongst us as well as the source of real hope (science). They exist
because, while science does provide us real hope for a better future, it cannot
satisfy all of our concerns. The picture that science is painting is that which
exists within the confines of objective reality, subject to natural laws. It is
not always pleasant and seems to
ultimately point, one way or another, towards our non-existence. For
most, for this reason, science cannot be fully embraced... a natural world
cannot be fully accepted. False
hope is still hope to many and still effective in calming the basic anxieties
that threaten to undermine sanity... but at what cost to society as a whole?
For some, science is fully embraced. The universe is
accepted as natural and our place in it is fully realized as minute, ephemeral
and insignificant as it is. Their blanket of security takes the form of the
limited power that scientific knowledge gives us... a blanket that does not
hide what remains uncertain, if not unknowable... a blanket that can't be
pulled over the eyes or hinder intelligent inquiry. The challenges of those
basic anxieties are still there and must be dealt with alone or with the help
of those others (relatively few in number) who share a naturalistic
life-stance.
Those who follow this path see our future potential as a
species. They find meaning in working hard and sacrificing that goes beyond
sustaining their own existence and which is not motivated by the promise of a
ticket to Heaven. While science still advances and society improves, how much
faster would we reap the potential of scientific understanding if a majority in
our society recognized and respected science for the real hope offers? Many
religious people value science, but many do not and actually organize
themselves to work against it *. Can we change this situation? Perhaps it is
changing, but only very slowly.
Even if we have a society in which a majority recognizes and
respects science, would that be sufficient change to allow us to realize the
potential of science to improve human society? Will we avoid the
self-destruction that can arise via our tendencies to live for the moment at
the expense of future generations?
* From CNN article "10 Reasons Religious Conservatives
Love Rick Santorum" 2/9/12
Reason #10:
"Santorum isn’t afraid to challenge science, questioning
the theory of evolution and dismissing global warming as “a hoax.” The former
senator “confirms (social conservatives’) view of science as being at odds with
a Christian worldview,” tweets Warren Throckmorton, a psychology professor at
Grove City College, an evangelical Christian school in Pennsylvania."
