|
|
|
| A Larger View |
| Applying Trans-Religious Values to Current Events |
| Volume XII Edition 1 |
January/February |
2007 |
In this issue: Of all the topics we shall be focusing on as the New Year marches on, we've picked four we believe are worthy of special attention. We offer some thoughts, by way of beginning the process and eliciting those of our readers.
Scientists and Religion: Is The Pot Calling The Kettle Black?
The Nuclear Club: Larger Than Is Safe
The Growth of China and India: Opening Our Minds
Resolving Divisive Social Issues: Separating Politics...
Website of Interest: Darwin Online
To Ponder On
Scientists and Religion:
Is The Pot Calling The Kettle Black?
Many would not want to live in a world without science. It is science after all that has helped us cure diseases, given us cars, phones, faxes, computers and airplanes among many of the things which, despite certain drawbacks, do improve our lives. And, if one takes the broadest possible definition, some would also not want to live in a world without religion, a world where our purpose and metaphysical links would not be as clearly hinted at. Recently, however, a series of popular new books puts the two in a noisy confrontation, leaving an audience not only well versed in the excesses of religion but also well primed to accept science in its place, as if ready to have science become a god instead.
Yes, religion has given us fundamentalism and zealotry which both blur the distinction between what-might-be and what-we-want-things-to-be. As such religion often ends up fostering intransigence, intolerance and prejudice all the while saying that the given tradition it speaks for teaches love, acceptance and justice. This contradiction has made it easy for the critics of religion to make the most of its weaknesses and posit another model, one where science is king, where facts prevail and where reason does too. But science as a discipline is relatively new. If one is generous, it dates back to the 17th century Enlightenment. History tells us of many independent researchers, and in Darwin's time, some 200 years ago, certain clubs or groups of like-minded people such as the Royal Society did exist. Still the international group of scientists with a tacit pledge to advance human knowledge that we call the scientific community is a rather new phenomenon. In view of how recent it is, it is quite remarkable how much science has achieved in such a short while. Physics, chemistry, psychiatry, a redefinition of medicine, biology, neurology, and all they have given us are, for example, only fairly recently established.
As a group, the scientific community has succeeded because it had an open mind. It tested hypotheses, questioned, made no prejudgment, or tried to. It shunned big names, publicity, aimed at as much of the truth as it could and knew that the truth it uncovered was only true for the moment because at any time some bigger truth could alter it or could come to undo it. But the cult of celebrity reached the world of science and with it came big money and big names. Science and the scientists doing the science were no longer separate entities. To our collective detriment, hubris made a dramatic entrance. And as hubris is influencing many scientists to be very sure of themselves, it is closing their minds, and within their own sphere seems to push many toward becoming as unyielding as the religion they aim to contrast, oppose or work to disprove.
In the past religion was the domain of absolutes-God said: therefore-and science was the domain of facts-the facts are: ergo. Science, therefore, left room for nuance, for a host of variables. But in its popular ego driven form, scientists, in their efforts to offer a paradigm they deem better than the absolutes of fundamental religion, seem to be losing the needed reliance on nuances. It's as if their message reads: Reality is, period. And yet, there have been times when science and scientists were wrong, as it was, for instance with our understanding of race. Some even thought Einstein wrong when he proposed a unified theory and are now wondering if he really was.
Unless scientists cease to fall prey to a hubris which tends to render them as uncompromising as the religious rigidity they fight against, neither they, nor science, will be able to meet their responsibility to increase the role of reason in our interface with religion.
The Nuclear Club:
Larger Than Is Safe?
Several countries now have nuclear weapons. The list of those trying to obtain them is increasing, and that of those who wish they could try grows too. It's not difficult to deduce that as the lists grow the safety of the world ebbs. We may now be concerned about North Korea and Iran, but Mohammed El Baradei, director of the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, thinks that soon the number of countries joining the nuclear club could well add another 20 or 30 states. While the IAEA has powers to inspect and monitor sites, its powers are limited, mainly by the fact that the agency cannot violate national sovereignty. The case of pre-war Iraq and the interface with Iran demonstrate how tricky the process of inspection and monitoring can be. Experts say that in the future these difficulties will be even harder. Regardless of known or unforeseen difficulties, the problem does exist and can't be ignored whether or not the issue makes it to the headlines on a given day. "North Korea and Iran ought to be a wake up call..." says Henry Sokolsky, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in Washington.
Kofi Annan, whose stewardship of the UN just ended, wants to go further than the IAEA is entitled to go. In a lecture at Princeton University last December, Mr. Annan suggested that we need to address both nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. To him the only option is to tackle both fronts at the same time.
If we are to make headway with limiting the development and the possible use of nuclear weapons, the issue is going to have to be more prominent in the public sphere and we shall have to be more supportive of those engaged in limiting the danger of the existence of nuclear weapons. Too, we shall have to make a conscious effort to be involved, through our knowledge, our interest, and our dialogue with officials and groups working to make the world safer.
The Growth of China and India:
Opening Our Minds?
China and India are frequently in the news. While the fact that they are becoming important is understood, according to former World Bank president, James Wolfensohn, the implications of that fact are not. In a recent speech in Wales, Wolfensohn spoke of how unready the West is to deal not only with the economic power China represents, but also with the power of the combined economies of the whole represented by China and India. Citing projections made by Goldman Sachs, the well-established New York investment firm, Wolfensohn tells us that by 2050 China's current gross two trillion economy will be 48.6 trillion, and that of India, whose economy is currently under a trillion, will be 27 trillion. Meanwhile, the U.S. 3 trillion dollar economy will expand to only 37 trillion, obviously 10 trillion behind China. In view of this, Wolfensohn, who is now chairman of Citigroup International Advisory Board as well as of his own investment and advisory firm, says that the West is not taking the steps it needs to take. It is, for example, not sufficiently investing in education, young people are not preparing themselves with needed knowledge to deal with this emerging world. He warns that for newer generations to "be able to take advantage of the coming realignment," they must factor in the consequences of this power shift and be willing to make certain adjustments. China and India have, for example, taken the lead in investing in Africa partly to obtain needed commodities and raw materials. Indeed, according to a recent article in the New York Times, Sudan, Myanmar and Zimbabwe have been able to avoid international sanctions because of Chinese protection.
It's easy to be overwhelmed, and to avoid facing what Wolfensohn calls a "formidable challenge." And yet if we continue unmindful of what the economic power of China and India mean for the economies, standard of living and power alignment of the rest of the world, we invite a greater problem than what it is we have to face.
Resolving Divisive Social Issues:
Separating Politics...
We're used to abortion and gay marriage being divisive, but increasingly more and more issues stand to divide us. Stem cells, immigration, English as a national language, even the rights of sexual offenders. We're at the point where divisiveness ends up being a worst social ill than the very problems various sides are seeking to address. It is nevertheless true, however, that people are too diverse for a real consensus to emerge, and issues have become too complex for one answer to be inclusive of several points of view. That means that in some cases even an answer that will satisfy the majority may be horrendous to achieve, and by the time some sign of accord is forged, the arrived at answer may end up more like a new problem. Yet, if we are going to be a viable society we need some form of agreement, some standards binding us as one group. We need to find a way to build bridges, to elevate issues above the nitty-gritty. Certainly we need to identify the core values. We then need to prioritize those values. While all may be important, some may be more important than others, or more able to create a deeper understanding and bring people together. Most of all we need to separate politics from the exercise of our social conscience, and we need to insist that our politicians do the same. Indeed some issues may require laws, but are laws the answer to every social problem? Are we so sure that our legislators are wise enough to apply what they know without any self-interest? Can we not learn to think outside the box? And expect them to do the same? For example, could we not come up with some sort of communal covenant that would be superior to laws?
Website of Interest: www.darwin-online.org.uk
The Work of Darwin a Click Away
The work of Charles Darwin, the great 19th century naturalist who revolutionized our understanding of science and of humans comes to us via Cambridge university scholars. Eventually all of Darwin's work will be online, but for now more than what a layman needs is available, including a biography. Most of all, the site has a sense of humor, the home page has a picture of Darwin working on his laptop! Not only to benefit our own general knowledge, but also given that Darwin's ideas have achieved added relevance when juxtaposed to those of religious fundamentalists, it may behoove us to review what the basis of the controversy is.
To Ponder On
An Unheralded Strength
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance."
Confucius
A Larger View is published by the Inner\Outer Partnership, a tax-exempt educational organization probing how trans-religious spiritual principles can be agents of individual and societal change. We are funded through donations. Please send any - as well as any comments - to P.O.Box 1293, Pac. Pal. CA 90272-1293. Also contact us by email at alargerview@earthlink.net or call 310-836-7710 or visit our web site at www.innerouterpartnership.org
To un-subscribe, send an email to alargerview@earthlink.net |
|
