riviersonderend

Die afgelope paar jaar het verskeie boeke die lig gesien wat geloof ongenaakbaar aangeval het. Terme soos “militante ateïs” en “fundamentalistiese ateïs” word gebruik vir skrywers soos Richard Dawkins en Sam Harris. Myns insiens het twee gebeure aanleiding gegee tot die opkoms van die sg. “militante ateïsme”: 9/11 en die verkiesing van George Bush tot Amerikaanse president.

Nadat George Bush, ‘n wedergebore Christen, president geword het, het hy dadelik begin om mense te polariseer rondom geloof. Dit het gou duidelik geword dat hy ‘n president vir fundamentalistiese Christene sou wees, en nie die hele Amerika nie. Dit het gepaardgegaan met minagting vir die wetenskap.

Die gebeure van 9/11 en Bush se gevolglike optrede het godsdiens in die spervuur geplaas. Dit is geen wonder dat daar soveel reaksie was nie. Mense reageer op ekstreme posisies (soos dié van Bush en sy ondersteuningsbasis van fundamentalistiese Christene) met ekstreme standpunte.

Neem vir Bush uit die Withuis en vervang hom met ‘n gematigde president en dit sal ook die einde wees van militante ateïsme. Dawkins en Harris sal nie naastenby soveel boeke verkoop soos nou nie en die debat oor die onversoenbaarheid van godsdiens en wetenskap sal sy dringendheid verloor.

Dit maak ‘n mens eintlik benoud om te besef hoeveel mag die Amerikaanse president het. Baie van George Bush se mislukkings is reeds bekend, alhoewel dit nie maklik gekwantifiseer kan word nie. Hoe plaas mens ‘n prys op Iraki’s se lewens? Ek wonder egter of toekomstige geslagte sal terugkyk en die skade wat Bush geloof aangedoen het, kan meet?

***

In die onlangse Scientific American verskyn ‘n gesprek tussen Richard Dawkins en Lawrence Krauss oor hoe die wetenskap godsdiens en sy volgelinge moet benader. Krauss verdedig ‘n rustiger gesprek tussen die groepe, in vergelyking met Dawkins se meer onverdraagsame aanslag.

Krauss vra ‘n interessante vraag aan Dawkins in die gesprek: “Kan wetenskap geloof verryk, of moet dit geloof noodwendig vernietig?”

The question came to me because I was recently asked to speak at a Catholic college at a symposium on science and religion. I guess I was viewed as someone interested in reconciling the two. After agreeing to lecture, I discovered that I had been assigned the title Science Enriching Faith. In spite of my initial qualms, the more I thought about the title, the more rationale I could see for it. The need to believe in a divine intelligence without direct evidence is, for better or worse, a fundamental component of many people’s psyches. I do not think we will rid humanity of religious faith any more than we will rid humanity of romantic love or many of the irrational but fundamental aspects of human cognition. While orthogonal from the scientific rational components, they are no less real and perhaps no less worthy of some celebration when we consider our humanity.

Waarop Dawkins as volg antwoord:

As an aside, such pessimism about humanity is popular among rationalists to the point of outright masochism. It is almost as though you and others at the conference where this dialogue began positively relish the idea that humanity is perpetually doomed to unreason. But I think irrationality has nothing to do with romantic love or poetry or the emotions that lie so close to what makes life worth living. Those are not orthogonal to rationality. Perhaps they are tangential to it. In any case, I am all for them, as are you. Positively irrational beliefs and superstitions are a different matter entirely. To accept that we can never be rid of them—that they are an irrevocable part of human nature—is manifestly untrue of you and, I would guess, most of your colleagues and friends. Isn’t it therefore rather condescending to assume that humans at large are constitutionally incapable of breaking free of them?