God – by Andrés Moya

This post is also available in: Spanish

You ask yourself questions that may be considered metaphysical and you add a reflection: what is the meaning of doing that from the evolutionary perspective?

To what extent is one capable of formulating certain questions and, once the answers have been obtained, reach the conclusion that it may not make a lot of sense, from the existential point of view, to answer that we could just as well not exist? I have commented this in some forums and people have told me this vision contrasts in some way with religion. Many times people say science is not incompatible with religion. In the book I don’t make reference to this, but if you take that train of thought to its last consequences, there is a substitution. The thesis I sustain are rational thesis. With science I’m in a position to explain -not prove- questions such as why religious thought appears or why religion or societies appear. In an evolutionary context. A bit like Richard Dawkins said in his most recent books. Science makes you prone to atheism. You’re capable of progressively answering many questions because you learn more and more laws of Nature, but at the end of the way we still don’t know why we’re here. Science does give me an explanation, that’s the paradox. The thesis that stems from the text is that I can say, more or less, why I’m here, that I’m a contingent product of evolution; that just as we’re here, we could not be, other equally intelligent forms could have evolved. We have the capability to look retrospectively. From Physics, we can explain how something could come out of nothing. And from the point of view of the emergence of life, we have progressively stronger convictions, empirically justified, of how it can have come to be, in certain planets; of how multicellular organisms can have appeared, organisms with a very basic development of language, and so on until we reach this beings, us, who can look back. We know how we’ve been able to reach this stage and we’re in a position to explain more or less complex behaviors of our own species. This is important, because here there’s some disagreement with some versions of sociobiology, which may be rational explanations but don’t have to be definitive or scientifically proven, even though they may be sensible. It’s in this sense that I think there may be a certain antagonism between science and religion. Sociologically it’s interesting to recreate the debate between both instances. From the point of view of sociology, of course, because, as I say in the second text, we can disguise it a little saying science deals with some things and theology with some others. But if we take scientific thought to its last consequences, I think it collides with the thesis from theology, which are the object of faith, while science isn’t. If one stays in the are of scientific thesis, probably one may reach a certain existential melancholy.

See more answers by this author.

See more answers to this question.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Bitacoras.com
  • Google Buzz
  • Meneame
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>