 |
Les automates
intelligents robotique, vie artificielle, réalité virtuelle information, réflexion, discussion |
 |
| Jean-Paul Baquiast
Jean-Paul.Baquiast@wanadoo.fr Christophe Jacquemin christophe.jacquemin@admiroutes.asso.fr |
| |
Les automates
intelligents robotique, vie artificielle, réalité virtuelle information, réflexion, discussion |
|
| Jean-Paul Baquiast
Jean-Paul.Baquiast@wanadoo.fr Christophe Jacquemin christophe.jacquemin@admiroutes.asso.fr |
No 22
Retour au sommaire
Courrier des lecteurs
Une liste de discussion Mémétique
De Pascal Jouxtel <pascal.jouxtel@wanadoo.fr>
http://www.contagions.com
28/10/01Bonjour les automates intelligents! Juste un mot de news.
Je suis en train de mettre en place une liste de discussion consacrée à la mémétique en lancue francaise, destinée aux chercheurs, aux étudiants et aux honnêtes gens.Dès que ça tourne et que c'est montrable, si vous êtes sur la liste mail du bureau des contagions, vous serez au courant.
Dans une des premières conversations sérieuse, alors que les cendres du WTC étaient encore chaudes, des amis et moi nous sommes dit : 'la lutte contre le terrorisme n'est pas une guerre matérielle. C'est une bataille mémétique.' Nous avons quelque chose à faire.
Nous faisons autant chaque fois que nous discutons amicalement avec un musulman, par exemple, que lorsque nous expédions 500 kg d'explosif sur un entrepôt de la Croix-Rouge (oops).
C'est comme le sens premier du mot jihad (combat spirituel contre l'ennemi intérieur). Si nous comprenons à quel point sont semblables la situation du brave bonhomme chargé d'Islam et celle du brave bonhomme infesté de Wall Street, et que nous propageons cette connaissance, peut-être que something good sortira de ce gros battement d'aile de Boeing.
Parfois lorsque je discute avec mes enfants de la propagation de virus mentaux comme ce que nous appelons pour plaisanter "halloweenpokémonstarwars", je me sens un peu léger de m'énerver pour des futilités pareilles. Eh bien à tort, à tort, à tort : quel est le masque de halloween le plus vendu actuellement au monde ? Osama Bin Laden, alias Sauron, le Prince des ténèbres en personne !!
Donc, c'est vrai, nous avons vraiment une très belle et très utile oeuvre à faire.
D'ailleurs, on sent bien, au ton employé dans vos éditos, et votre article sur la mondialisation (j'ai tout lu avec appétit) que par-delà la rigueur scientifique nécessaire, vous ne vous cloisonnez pas et que vous laissez dialoguer différentes approches, notamment la morale et l'engagement de terrain. C'est un aspect de votre façon de travailler qui me plait énormément.
A bientôt,
PascalMerci de vos encouragements, et de nous tenir informés de ce que vous allez faire. Sans attendre, vous verrez dans notre édito de ce mois que nous prenons très au sérieux le mème Ben Laden. J'en discutais ce matin au téléphone avec notre ami Cardon qui me confirmait que des études scientifiques sur ces flux de mèmes étaient non seulement faisables mais faites par certains services. Pourquoi leur en laisser le monopole? JPBaquiast
La maison de la démocratie continue
From: Jean ROBIN jean608@noos.fr
To: Jean-Paul Baquiast
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001Cher monsieur
J'ai suivi l'évolution de votre site Automates Intelligents, et notamment la partie Démocratie de ce site, qui est exactement dans les réflexions de mon association. Connaissant votre intérêt pour le projet, je me permets de vous informer de notre évolution, et de vous inviter à rejoindre notre Conseil.J'annoncerai officiellement la création de l'association lors de la Conférence que nous organisons le 20 novembre prochain à l'Université Dauphine devant 300 personnes. . Le thème retenu est : « Internet, Démocratie et Médias ». Des intervenants prestigieux ont accepté notre invitation : Jean-Marie Descarpentries, patron de Bull de 1993 à 97, actuel Président de la Fnege (Fondation Nationale pour l’Enseignement de la Gestion des Entreprises), Jacques Attali, Président de PlanetFinance, Jérôme Jaffré, Président de Expression-Publique.com, et M. le sénateur René Trégouët. Les débats seront animés par M. Pierre Chambat, maître de conférences à Dauphine, docteur d’Etat et spécialiste de ces questions.
Nous serions ravi que vous y assistiez, et que vous participiez à l'une de nos futures conférences.
Avec l'expression de mes salutations les plus sincères,
Jean Robin
Président de Madéco 'La Maison de la Démocratie Continue'
06 85 94 82 82Cher monsieur, merci de votre message et de votre invitation. Je la publie sur notre site car elle pourra intéresser nos lecteurs. JPBaquiast
Programme "Parents intelligents"
De Frederic.PAULUS@wanadoo.fr
28/10/01APPEL A L'INTELLIGENCE DES PARENTS
Ces dix années écoulées ont fourni bon nombre de preuves irréfutables de ce que l'on pourrait appeler de nos jours les potentialités intelligentes innées des bébés. Les explorations scientifiques dès la période fotale sont également venues renforcer l'idée selon laquelle l'évolution de la vie, en donnant notre forme humaine actuelle, a organisé la complexité du corps humain suivant une logique qu'on pourrait dire « potentiellement intelligente ». Aucune prouesse humaine n'est capable de reproduire ce que la vie a sélectionné au fil des siècles, c'est « l'intelligence de la nature ».
Il est également admis de nos jours que les premiers acteurs accueillant cette potentialité innée, cette intelligence, sont les parents. Il est reconnu que la fonction parentale est essentielle au développement de l'enfant, à son éducation et à l'établissement de sa santé. Les découvertes scientifiques en ce domaine ne font que renforcer ce qui est perçu aujourd'hui comme une évidence. Nous sommes devant une réalité qui devrait faire consensus : la fonction parentale est essentielle dans l'éclosion, l'épanouissement et l'expression de ces potentialités. Dès lors on peut déduire cette perception : « De lourdes responsabilités reposent sur les « épaules » des parents ». Cette présentation ainsi formulée peut aussi culpabiliser les parents. Pour tempérer cette perception on peut reconnaître qu'il est extrêmement complexe d'être « un parent acceptable » (comme dit l'expression) pour différentes raisons que nous ne pouvons exposer faute de place. Cette présentation mériterait cependant un débat de fond.
Etant donné cette culpabilité sous-jacente, les professionnels de l'enfance qui ont accès aux connaissances et aux savoirs actualisés sur les besoins des enfants et qui voudraient en faire profiter les parents risquent de s'exposer à une sorte de confrontation avec les parents, qui pourrait générer chez ces derniers des résistances. Celles-ci se déclenchent souvent lorsque l'on se sent culpabilisé ou remis en cause. Cette crainte peut conduire à la paralysie. Nous suggérons de tenter de dépasser ces craintes.
On peut également s'interroger sur notre culture qui accueille la vie et qui s'organise pour la développer, cela touche l'organisation sociale, les valeurs, le mode de vie... Sans nous livrer à une critique de notre culture (ou des cultures !) qui risque inévitablement de devenir polémique, jugeante et donc stérile, nous devrions adopter l'attitude d'accepter cette culture, (ou ces cultures), sans jugement et de décider de transmettre aux parents les informations les plus sûres possible sur le développement et la compréhension des enfants, c'est à dire des informations qui tendraient vers l'objectivité. Le transfert d'informations sur le développement de l'enfant, dès la vie fotale, de l'enfance à l'adolescence est aujourd'hui possible. Il viserait à mobiliser ce que nous pourrions appeler une « attention vigilante » des parents.
Un présupposé que nous avançons en termes d'hypothèse doit être mentionné : les sphères de la connaissance qui incluent la complexe notion de « conscience de soi », si elles transitent par le ressenti et l'éprouvé du parent, en d'autres termes si elles activent l'intuition incarnée, pourraient mobiliser l'attention vigilante des parents et aiguiser leur réceptivité sollicitant leur intelligence innée. Cette « attention » se porterait en faveur de leur enfant. Il s'agirait en somme de créer une triple rencontre : 1) développer, en première rencontre, la sensibilité et la réceptivité intérieure en soi-même, désirer s'informer sur la réalité de l'enfant ; 2) organiser, en seconde rencontre, le transfert de connaissances théoriques tendant vers l'objectivité ou considérées comme telles, 3) avec la troisième rencontre qui implique l'enfant lui-même, évoluant sous les yeux des parents, celui-ci est considéré comme porteur d'informations sur lui-même. Cette triple rencontre favoriserait la réflexivité du parent tout en rendant l'enfant co-auteur de son développement. Implicitement ou (et) explicitement les parents seraient amenés à développer leur sens critique afin de distinguer les « critères » qui développent la vie de ceux qui l'entravent, avec toutes les nuances que l'on pourrait introduire entre ces deux polarités. Ainsi aucune norme ne serait imposée autant que faire se peut, le parent garderait son libre arbitre pour évaluer son attitude éducative, il pourrait être amené à la comparer à d'autres points de vue et réajuster ses comportements etc. Dans cette optique, chaque information sur les besoins des enfants, leur développement, leur éveil etc. nécessiterait des échanges et une confrontation de points de vues selon une éthique qui respecterait les croyances et les différences. Ces perspectives complexes à mettre en ouvre sont réalisables. A notre avis seules les recherches éprouvées issues des laboratoires de recherche peuvent nous guider pour réaliser la critique de notre mode de vie, de notre culture, de nos comportements, de nos attitudes et il appartiendrait à chacun d'en déduire les conséquences dans sa propre vie et auprès des enfants... Mais il faut aussitôt rajouter que ce savoir, issu de ces laboratoires, est provisoire, transitif et même partiel, ce qui n'enlève rien à ses pertinences et à ses capacités de susciter la réflexivité.
Le C.E.V.O.I. (Centre d'Etudes du Vivant de l'Océan Indien) s'organise actuellement pour offrir aux parents cette possibilité de réflexion à partir de la diffusion de ces informations. Le Centre présente une recherche-action intitulée « SOUTIEN DES PARENTS DANS LEURS TACHES ET FONCTIONS EDUCATIVES », étalée sur trois années, qui a reçu le soutien de la DRASS et de la CAF de la Réunion. D'autres démarches sont actuellement menées auprès des collectivités locales et des entreprises pour soutenir cette action. Il s'agit dans un premier temps d'identifier des parents qui pourraient soutenir ces perspectives de travail et en bénéficier en retour. La seconde phase vise à « sensibiliser - former » des parents qui pourraient être reconnus comme « médiateurs » et « amplificateurs » de la diffusion de ces informations par la promotion de lieux d'échange entre parents avec le soutien de professionnels de l'enfance, de la santé et de la pédagogie. La troisième phase serait de penser l'institutionnalisation de ces lieux et de ce statut de « parent-médiateur ». Ces lieux pérenniseraient ces innovations reconnues et favorisées par les pouvoirs publics. Nous pensons qu'il s'agit d'un programme d'intérêt public qui devrait rencontrer un consensus culturel et espérons mobiliser dans ce sens les responsables politiques et administratifs de l'île. Le CEVOI tient à la disposition de toute personne qui le souhaiterait des éléments d'information plus précis sur ces trois phases (on peut également consulter le site « http://www.cevoi.com »). Nous encourageons les lecteurs parents et les professionnels à nous contacter pour connaître plus précisément nos intentions, engager un échange et participer éventuellement à ce programme. Tel : 0262.20.11.16. Un comité de soutien devrait être mis en place. Cette démarche, qui fait appel à l'intelligence des parents, pourrait devenir une formidable aventure humaine.
F. Tsang King Sang
F. Paulus
Recherche info
De : Jean-Paul Zimmermann jazi@guetali.fr
A : Christophe Jacquemin
24/10/2001Tout d'abord tous mes remerciements pour la qualité de vos articles.
Habitant la Réunion, je ne trouve nulle part en kiosque le magazine permettant de s'abonner pour la construction du robot "Monty" et édité par F&G.
Vous serait-il possible de m'indiquer des coordonnées auxquelles je pourrais m'adresser à cet effet.
Avec tous mes remerciements.Merci pour vos compliments . Vous obtiendrez ces renseignements en téléphonant au 08 25 15 00 22 (0,98F la minute).
Vous pouvez également contacter le service abonnement/vente par correspondance : DISTRI MEDIAS, BP 1121 - 31036 Toulouse Cedex 1
Tél : 05 61 72 76 27 - Fax : 05 61 72 78 28.
CJ
Relevant Excerpt, in light of recent events, from The "God" Part of the Brain http://www.automatesintelligents.com/biblionet/2001/mai/alper.html
From: GODPART@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 11:09 PM
From the final Chapter: "What is to be gained from a scientific interpretation of human spirituality?"For all the advantages there might be in possessing a spiritual/religious instinct, for all its healing capacities, all the comfort it might bring, it has proven itself, time and again, to be a very hazardous impulse in us. As the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead expressed it, “History, down to the present day, is a melancholy record of the horrors which can attend religion: human sacrifice, and in particular the slaughter of children, cannibalism, sensual orgies, abject superstition, hatred as between races, the maintenance of degrading customs, hysteria, bigotry, can all be laid at its charge. Religion is the last refuge of human savagery.”
Granted, humankind has done away with many of the more primal excesses of its spiritual/religious impulse. For example, none of the world’s present-day mainstream religions incorporate such rites as child sacrifice or cannibalism into their practices. Nevertheless, even with the proscription of these more barbaric rites, religion continues to act as a divisive force, promoting discrimination among peoples as well as inciting enmity, aggression, and ultimately war.
But why is it that the world’s various religions, whose tenets are so often based on just and loving principles, so frequently find themselves pitted against one another in acts of cruelty, hostility, and even genocide? Though every culture possesses the same inherent spiritual/religious impulse, because each emerges from its own unique historical and environmental circumstance, this same impulse is manifest in each culture differently. It is for this reason that, though we all possess the same inherent spiritual/religious impulse, so many different religions have emerged.
Because each religion has faith that its beliefs—and only its beliefs—are representative of “the truth,” each religion inherently contradicts every other (If my God is true, how can yours be also?). Consequently, there exists an inherent antagonism in each religion for the next. Moreover, our spiritual/religious functions instill us with an inherent belief that we are immortal. Because each religion possesses its own unique interpretation of what immortality represents, each religion views every other as a threat to its notion of an immortal soul (If my heaven is true, how can yours be also?). In this regard, each belief system perceives every other as not just a mortal threat, but an immortal threat, and, as one might imagine, any threat to one’s immortal soul is not something that any individual or its society is likely to take lightly. As a result of this unfortunate psychodynamic, our species tends to engage in what could be termed religious tribalism. It is this same dynamic that has compelled us to initiate the types of religious wars and atrocities that have marked our species’ history.
Perhaps if we could learn to view spirituality/religiosity as no more than two genetically inherited impulses, we’d be better able to contain their more destructive influences. If we could come to understand the underlying nature of these instincts, perhaps we could learn to temper the inevitable antagonism that each religion inherently feels for every other. If we were to recognize that our religiously generated fears and antipathies were merely the effects of an inherited impulse (as opposed to anything founded in reason) we might be able to curb this same impulse that has launched our species into a history of repeated religious war. How many more times must we justify acts of cruelty, murder, and genocide in the name of God and religion before we learn to tame this destructive impulse in us? Even today, we need just look to the Middle East, India/Pakistan, Northern Ireland, and Yugoslavia, as a mere few examples, to witness the destructive grip our spiritual/religious instincts have on our species.
Only once the human animal comes to terms with the fact that it has been born into a mental matrix—a neurological web of deceit—will we have a chance of offsetting this potentially destructive impulse in us. Knowledge is power, and it is high time that the science of spirituality and religiosity be made available to the world so that our species might see that there is another way. It is time that the fields of spirituality and religiosity be taken out of the hands of philosophers, metaphysicians, and theologians and “biologized.”
Not to suggest that we should seek to eradicate spirituality but rather that we try to put it into scientific perspective. In itself, there is nothing wrong with engaging the spiritual impulse in that it helps us to reduce dangerous stress levels as well as to bolster our general health. Apparently, our spiritual impulse serves a very critical function in us otherwise “nature” most probably would not have selected such a mechanism. It is rather the excesses of our religious impulse that represents the greatest threat. In its extreme, the religious impulse fosters a fanatacism that promotes dangerously discriminatory and martyristic behaviors. And though this same impulse may sometimes be used to promote such positive virtues as peace and harmony, it, instead, too often only ends up fueling the flames of religious fundamentalism. Nevertheless, by merely brow-beating and ridiculing the religious with accusations of absurdity, they will never be converted to reason. By explaining to them [the religious], however, that there is a real underlying logic—a bio-theology—through which to rationally explain our religious and spiritual propensities, they might be more inclined to at least consider this as a possibility.*
*In light of recent discoveries in the neurosciences, there are those who have suggested that if we truly do possess a physiologically-based spiritual function in the brain that perhaps God put it there. My response to this is: What kind of god would install a device in us that would compel us to believe Him to be so many different things that we’d each be prompted to kill one another in order to prove that our version of Him is the right one?
During the time of our species’ emergence, when humans lived in small nomadic tribes, perhaps it was necessary that we possess a spiritual/religious impulse. At that time, spiritual/religious consciousness provided us, not just with a means to cope with anxiety and death, but also with a way to order and organize ourselves socially. Nevertheless, times have changed since then. Since our emergence, not only have humans successfully populated the planet but, in the process, have evolved from a species made up of small, closely-knit, often isolated, nomadic communities into citizens of diverse and stationary civilizations.
Within a relatively short period of time, humans had transformed their own environments into something very different from the ones into which they were originally adapted. At the time of our emergence, we were little more than what Desmond Morris referred to as “Naked Apes,” monkey people who lived in caves, could start fires, and chip rocks. And look at us now, a mere hundred thousand years later (which is very little in terms of evolutionary time) living in concrete megalopolises, using advanced modes of transportation and communication. In essence, the physical conditions into which our species was initially selected had been drastically altered within a relatively short time. As a result, certain aspects of our “hardwiring” no longer suited our new conditions, rendering us an environmentally maladjusted animal.
Perhaps during the dawn of our species, when humans had barely populated the planet and lived in small isolated nomadic communities, religious tribalism didn’t represent as much of a threat as it helped to preserve a group’s survival and identity. As time passed, however, and our species grew in numbers, varying cultures with their numerous religions and ideologies began to expand into one another’s territories, making religious tribalism an ever-increasing threat to the fabric of our new social environments. In order to survive our divisive religious instincts, humans were suddenly confronted with the dilemma of having to either abandon their new social arrangements or to force an accelerated social evolution upon themselves. To accomplish this, humans would have to learn to temper the more discriminatory and hazardous aspects of their spiritual/religious impulses.
Today, as we find ourselves living in what is becoming an increasingly global community, maintaining a diversity of belief systems may no longer represent a viable option for our species. Instead, we may have to learn to adopt one unified set of “spiritual” principles through which to achieve global harmony. Perhaps if we could create and embrace a single humanistic ideology based on such principles as tolerance, love, compassion, and forgiveness (while discarding the more divisive promptings of our religious impulses), we might be able to optimize our potential for happiness, while minimizing our potential for fostering pain and suffering in the world.
Humans are destined to remain a spritiual animal. We are “wired” this way. Nevertheless, not unless we learn to rechannel our inherent spirital sensibilities into one globally-shared humanistic ethic are we likely to survive. If we are naive enough to only love, value, and respect those who share the same religious ideology with which we were raised, we will probably destroy ourselves. The boundaries of our love and respect for other men must be extended beyond the narrow margins of any single religious ideology and applied to the whole of humankind. As succinctly expressed by the investor turned philanthropist Sir John Templeton, “Unlimited love will bring wealth to everyone. If you really try to love every human being with no exceptions, and don’t love them just a little bit but love them totally, then you will be happy. You’ll make other people happy and love will come back to you. That’s a basic spiritual principle. And the more you work at it, the wealthier you’ll be spiritually.”
Similar to the manner in which the Europeans have abandoned their national currencies and replaced them with one unified “Euro,” it may be necessary for every country to abandon all national and religious sentiment and replace them with one unified cultural/spiritual paradigm, one world religion based on a brotherhood of man. United our species may at least have a chance of standing; divided, however, we are sure to eventually fall. To restate Einstein’s impassioned plea to the world after World War II, “Only a few short years remain in which to discover some spiritual basis for world brotherhood, or civilization as we now know it will certainly destroy itself.”
This notion of containing our self-destructive impulses seems particularly relevant today in a world in which we possess modern weapons of mass destruction. In such potentially precarious times, can we really afford to leave ourselves in the hands of our most primal instincts? Just as it is necessary that we contain the excesses of all of our instincts, shouldn’t we seek to do the same for our religious ones as well? Rather than to simply learn new ways to negotiate a war, wouldn’t we be better off if we sought to understand and contain those impulses that continue to drive us to fighting one. There is no time left to negotiate. We’ve played our last chip in the war room. Any next world war that might emulate those of our past would mark the end of life as we know it. As Einstein, once again, so eloquently expressed it, “I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IVwill be fought with sticks and stones.”
Because we, as a species, are temporarily king of the hill, we mistakenly presume that we’re invincible. It’s as if we’ve placed unconditional trust in the forces of nature to preserve us, as if, because of the great strength we presently possess, we are immune to the forces of extinction. Perhaps we feel this way because we continue to believe the myth that we are God’s “chosen creatures.” To recognize what a puerile fantasy such thinking represents, we need just look at terrestrial life’s three and a half billion year history to see that it is little more than a chronicle of mass extinctions. As a matter of fact, for every species that exists today, there are countless numbers now extinct. For us to presume that we are immune to such a fate may very well mark the dawn of our demise.
Just because we happen to live in a time of relative peace and calm, we shouldn’t presume things will remain this way forever. The history of our species is an epic of war, one that is often contingent on the world’s economic conditions, which happen to be cyclical in nature, fluctuating between periods of growth and recession. In a period of growth, we become complacent. In recession, we go to war. (Put a hundred loaves of bread before a hundred hungry people belonging to two different religions and you will have peace. Put ten loaves of bread before a hundred hungry people of two different religions, and you will have genocide.)
In addition, with all our newly advanced medical technologies, which decrease infant mortality rates and extend life expectancy, the continued rise in our world’s population only exacerbates the possibility of a world recession. Again, in light of the destructive technologies we now possess—nuclear, chemical, and biological— perhaps it’s time we start to work on mastering our own natures, most particularly on those instincts that tend to be the cause of so much conflict. Once we understand the nature of our self-destructive instincts only then will we be able to channel these same energies into more productive outlets, and, consequently, to maximize our species’ potential for survivability and happiness.
Furthermore, because our spiritual functions compel us to believe in an afterlife, it’s possible that we tend to take less responsibility for our actions here on earth. Because we instinctively believe that this life represents a mere stop-over in eternal existence, we allow ourselves to be profligate. Because we inherently perceive ourselves as immortal, we place less meaning and significance on perfecting ourselves within this lifetime as well as in preserving the conditions of this, our earthly environment. Why, after all, worry about the earth when we’ll be spending the rest of eternity elsewhere? How else are we to explain the manner in which we recklessly continue to exploit and butcher this planet—as if we’re the last living generation?
So why not use the same methodology [science] that has enabled us to master our environments to master ourselves? Isn’t it time we begin placing the same emphasis we do on perfecting our toys—our space ships, computers, and automobiles—on perfecting ourselves? How much longer will we be slaves to destructive religious credos before we can transfer our faith over to the natural sciences? Why this need to cling onto the same antiquated paradigms by which we were raised? What if our great, great, great, great—and then some—grandparents were wrong? What if those who believed rain to be mana from heaven and lightning the wrath of God were mistaken?
So, which will it be? Are we to accept the underlying principles conceived in scientific method—in reason—or are we to obstinately hold on to those antiquated belief systems that sprang from our pre-scientific, ignorant past? In prior times, it was considered blasphemy to believe that the earth revolved around the sun. Since such primitive times, science has sent men to the moon and back. In the past, it was considered sinful to perform an autopsy, that is, to study human anatomy and physiology. Now, as a result of the physiological sciences, we’ve developed a plethora of medical technologies that have eased our pains as well as extended our life span. And yet, in a society as modern as ours, in the world’s most powerful democracy, we still find ourselves battling against the suppressive forces of religious ultraconservatism and fundamentalism. In as modern an age as ours, we still live in a nation in which the same evolutionary principles that brought us so many life-enriching technologies struggles to be taught in the classroom. And why? Because religious values, which often seek to impede the march of scientific progress, continue to play a significant role in human nature and therefore in human politics.
We rely on our religions to tell us what is acceptable versus unacceptable, what we should and shouldn’t do, what we can and can’t say or think. Religion acts as a constricting force, constantly trying to obstruct the flow of any information it might construe as a threat to its own obsolete ideology. In this way, religion confines us. It limits our field of vision. It tries to place us in a narrow box and bind us within. Should we seek to step outside the confines of that box, to merely take a peek at the world of possibilities beyond, we are to be shunned and punished. Why then, when this life may be our last, should we want to limit ourselves in such a way?
Not to suggest that there should be no limits set on human behavior. As a social animal, with often runaway impulses, there’s nothing wrong with a bit of healthy restraint. By no means am I encouraging the dissolution of all codes of behavior and conduct. It’s just that do we necessarily want these codes to be based on antiquated mythologies? Through the careful application of scientific method we know more about the origins and nature of human behavior than ever before. Why then would we want to rely on systems that were based on the whims of men’s imaginations, on untested and unproven hunches, to decide social doctrine? Should a person suffer from psychosis, should they seek the care of a licensed psychiatrist or an exorcist? Isn’t it time we finally discard our dated paradigms and replace them with methods that can at least be validated? How much more evidence do we need before we will finally embrace the scientific process? And if we do, shouldn’t we seek to resolve our social and ethical dilemmas through this same medium? As the sociologist Auguste Compte expressed it, “Only those willing to submit themselves to the rigorous constraints of scientific methodology and to the canons of scientific evidence should presume to have a say in the guidance of human affairs. Just as freedom of opinion makes no sense in astronomy or physics, it is similarly inappropriate in the social sciences.”
Suppose, there is no spiritual reality. Suppose we are nothing more than strictly physical entities, a chance combination of molecules, devoid of any ultimate purpose or meaning. If this is the case, then death truly does represent the decisive end of individual consciousness. Granted, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Granted, the same energy of which we are composed today will exist in some form until the end of time. Nevertheless, once our brain dies, once its cognitive processes stop functioning, so does our conscious experience. In whatever form our present store of energy will be redistributed into the vast universe after death, whether it be as soil, gas, or cosmic dust, it will bear no relation to who or what we are today. Never again will we exist in the same exact molecular combination. Consequently, never again will we experience the same conscious identity. Death, whether we want to believe it or not, most likely represents the end of our conscious experience...forevermore.
Being that this may represent our one and only shot at existence, shouldn’t we seek to place our priorities and emphasis on our lives here on earth rather than on some dubious hereafter? We should revel in life, all life. We should honor organic matter, devote our species’ energies to its preservation. As the strongest and most able of all earth’s creatures, we must take the helm as the guardians of this planet. As the only species with the power to destroy this world, it’s imperative we assume this role. We have but two choices: to work to preserve life or to destroy it. We know we have the capacity to destroy it. The question is, do we have the power to preserve it?
Suppose we are composed of matter and nothing more. If true, we must learn to view ourselves as organic machines. Not until we accomplish this will we be able to effectively act as our own mechanics. If we truly possess a spiritual/religious function, one that has instilled our species with an impulse leading us to acts of aggression, hostility, and war, shouldn’t we seek to master it? If we truly are ticking biological time bombs, shouldn’t we seek to diffuse ourselves?*
*In light of the potentially hazardous nature of this impulse, should we use future advances in the genetic sciences to eradicate the gene responsible for generating such divisive behaviors? Should we seek to strike religiosity from human consciousness forevermore? Considering the dangers of genetic tampering, I, for one, would not encourage such a drastic strategy. At the same time, I have heard others speak of the possibility of surgically removing one’s “God” part of the brain as yet another option to countering its hazardous excesses, a procedure that has been whimsically referred to as a “Godectomy.” As another solution, perhaps there will one day be pills that will help chemically suppress the excesses of this impulse in as much as we may one day view fanatacism as some sort of “religious disorder.” Regardless of these more intrusive solutions, it is likely that we will have to solve this problem the old-fashioned way...with diplomacy, patience, and reason.
Besides, if there truly is no spiritual reality, just think of all of the energy we’ve wasted in practicing our illusionary beliefs. Think of all of the useless rituals and ceremonies we’ve performed, all of the sacrifices we’ve made, the shrines we’ve built, the purses we’ve filled, the gods we’ve worshipped and prayed to and, meanwhile, all of it in vain. If there truly is no spiritual realm, we’ve been little more than a species of primitives paying homage to thin air. Imagine what a group of onlooking extraterrestrials would think after witnessing our behavior. “Look at the monkey people,” they would say, “offering sacrifices to the void; killing, defiling, and warring with one another over literally nothing; banging their chests and wailing at the wind, all in the vain hope that it might incite some imaginary force or being to save them from their inevitable fates.”
If it’s true that there is no spiritual reality, God, soul, or afterlife, then let’s accept ourselves for what we are and make the most of it. Perhaps such a change in our self-perceptions might help us to shift our priorities from the hereafter to the here and now, to deter future wars, and, ultimately, to minimize our pain and suffering and maximize our chances of obtaining the greatest amount of happiness in life. This, more than anything, is what I would hope to gain from a scientific interpretation of human spirituality and God.
I am afraid you are right. I expect your book has gained new and enthousiastic readers. JPB