I believe in reason. If I could have a religion in this world, it would probably be reason and logic. I also believe in the laws of physics, chemistry, biology and yes natural selection. I believe in evolution. Up until now, I never saw a contradiction between these beliefs. However, I recently read an article about a speech pronounced by the Cardinal Ratzinger (the current Pope) over 10 years ago and suddenly, my belief system started to develop internal contradictions. This is even more ironic considering that I don't believe in religion or in God. So, in that case, how can a religious argument make me, not doubt my previous beliefs, but somehow make me reorganize them. Well, I have to hand it to Ratzi (I think Ratzinger sounds cooler than Benedict... besides the fact that there were I don't know how many Benedicts before him so that makes him just another one in the pile, Ratzinger makes me think of a rat of the type that you find in the movie Ratatouille... cute, adorable and witty... but anyway, leaving aside the sacrileges and coming back to the subject at hand). Here is the excerpt of his speech that managed to shut up the die-hard scientist with a constant rebuttal in me (for a moment in any case):
La question qu'il faut poser ici, va à vrai dire plus en profondeur : il s'agit de savoir si la doctrine de l'évolution peut se présenter comme une théorie universelle de tout le réel, au delà de laquelle des questions ultérieures sur l'origine et la nature des choses ne sont plus permises ni même nécessaires, ou si de telles questions dernières ne dépassent pas au fond le domaine de la recherche ouverte aux sciences naturelles.
Je voudrais poser la question de façon encore plus concrète. Tout est-il dit avec un type de réponses tel que nous le trouvons par exemple chez Popper dans la formulation suivante : La vie comme nous la connaissons consiste en des "corps" physiques (mieux des processus et des structures), qui résolvent des problèmes.
C'est ce que les différentes espèces ont "appris" par la sélection naturelle, c'est-à-dire par la méthode de reproduction plus variation ; une méthode qui, de son côté, fut apprise selon la même méthode. C'est une régression, mais elle n'est pas infinie... En fin de compte il en va d'une alternative qui ne se laisse plus résoudre simplement par les sciences naturelles ni non plus au fond par la philosophie. Il en va de la question de savoir si la raison ou le rationnel se trouve ou non au commencement de toutes les choses et à leur fondement.
Il en va de la question de savoir si le réel a surgi sur la base du hasard et de la nécessité (ou, avec Popper, suivant Butler, du luck et cunning [heureux hasard et prévision]), et donc de ce qui est sans raison, si, en d'autres termes, la raison est un produit latéral accidentel de l'irrationnel et est finalement aussi insignifiant dans l'océan de l'irrationnel, ou si reste vrai ce qui constitue la conviction fondamentale de la foi chrétienne et de sa philosophie : In principio erat Verbum - au commencement de toutes les choses il y a la force créatrice de la raison. La foi chrétienne est aujourd'hui comme hier l'option pour la priorité de la raison et du rationnel.
Ouf you got me there Ratzi! So natural selection is based on random variation and adaptation. True. Natural selection is the basis of evolution. True. Evolution explains the origins of man. True. Man is a rational being. True (in most cases). Random variation, through its unpredictable nature and its reliance on chance alone, is the antithesis of reason. True. Therefore, reason was born from a lack of reason and is the accidental byproduct of an irrational universe. Based on that premise, Christianity is the embodiment of reason for it presents a world created by a rational being as opposed to an irrational universe who developed reason only as a side project.
Weeeeeeelll the beginning is good, my problem is with what follows next. You know, like the lack of an actual tangible and rational proof of your rational being? Or the lack of rational premises to your arguments? Anyway, leaving old arguments aside, Ratzinger is right on one thing. The main question here is whether reason is at the basis of the world. In a sense, this can seem a bit of a superfluous question for, pardon my familiar language, who the hell cares if the intent of our being here is rational or not as long as we are here, we are functional and we are rational and able to understand our origins. That would be judging the question a bit too quickly. In the same logic we could say why should we try to understand the functioning of the universe or of black holes or even the origins of the universe because it really doesn't affect us or our present condition. Because it's a mental exercise. It satisfies our natural curiosity. So bear with me here.
Anyway, coming back to the question at hand, is the origin or the universe rational or irrational? Well, if we accept evolution and quantum mechanics as some of the basic theories explaining our world, then we must also accept the conclusion that the universe spans from irrationality. This is further supported by chaos theories and the second law of thermodynamics which propose the increase of entropy as the universe evolves. Therefore, the universe is not organized and cannot be the product of reason. Reason is a glitch that somehow got inserted into the fabric of the cosmos and brought us, rational beings, at the top of the evolutionary curve. And you know, that does not diminish in any way the power or the appeal of reason. If it's not the basis of our origins, it is what got us here. It is what makes us special and different from the other components of nature. Note that this does not make us better than the rest of the food chain, for decisions made based on cold hard reason may end up being atrocious and make us seem more inhumane than a worm. And anyway, that pertains to another discussion.
Therefore, Ratzi, I disagree with your conclusion and your assumption that Christianity is rational because it proposes a rational view of the creation of the universe is preposterous if only for the reason that you assume that the universe must be rational from beginning 'till end. It is not. Sorry. But you get brownie points for trying!
As a side note (and I promise that with this I'm done), the ending of the article is really touching:
La tentative pour redonner, en cette crise de l'humanité, un sens compréhensif à la notion de Christianisme comme religio vera, doit pour ainsi dire miser pareillement sur l'orthopraxie et sur l'orthodoxie. Son contenu devra consister, au plus profond, aujourd'hui - à vrai dire comme autrefois - en ce que l'amour et la raison coincident en tant que piliers fondamentaux proprement dits du réel : la raison véritable est l'amour et l'amour est la raison véritable. Dans leur unité, ils sont le fondement véritable et le but de tout le réel.
The purpose of humanity is love and reason and in Christianity they form a whole. It's cute actually. And it kind of got me thinking that maybe a cold hard (true) reality is not preferable to a loving and caring (fake) reality. I know that in a previous post I talked about how humanity doesn't need Christianity anymore because its lessons have been absorbed into popular culture and the legal system (charity, the concept of not stealing or killing, social care, etc.). But maybe a society that believes too hard in the survival of the fittest can regress from these principles and go back to a caveman-like social and political organization. Anyway, I don't really have time to get into this, but it is a fascinating question that is worth exploring.
And that concludes my article. Happy Easter everyone!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment