Add new comment

Thanks for your conversation with Dr. Krauss. He is a highly intelligent man and I appreciated his insight, even though he (like a great deal of the scientific community) left me vexed. I am a man of faith, and the offhand arrogance that comes across as enlightenment that seeks to dampen those with spiritual pursuits denies that those very beliefs have shaped them as well, like it or not.

Let me explain. We will divorce, for a moment, the thought of "is God real" and go with the notion that "god" is a man-made concept. Yes, from a certain perspective it would be the rationalization of "bronze age thinking in understanding the universe," but this concept also assisted in maintaining the species. At some point in our evolution there needed to be that divergence that elevated humans higher than the animals. The animals procreate and the animals kill. That's natural. That's instinct. Humans needed to make that leap. Why? Because unlike the animals, we had the capacity to think our way through our instinct.

Example: a wildcat kills a gazelle for the pride to feed. They are hungry, they kill, they eat. They do not kill all the gazelle, just enough to feed. Humans, on the other hand, have the capacity to see full townships, full regions of people as "enemies." We think our way into believing it would be best that their entire pack be destroyed, not just individuals. History shows this to be true. If that is the case, then there would be no reason for the opposing townships not to believe the same. In the end, the species would kill itself off (or come very close to it) because the animalistic and humanistic tendencies would be in conflict.

God as a concept presents a fail-safe for the species. It is an outside force that sates "thou shalt not kill," theoretically impartial to one township over another. Because it is not just another human saying "I think thou shalt not kill" it is an edict over all. Without that, if it was just one "peacenik" saying you, that peacenik gets eliminated to further achieve the political goal. In a sense, the conceptual "god" has for centuries presented a reason to behave and not kill off our own with impunity.

Of course, we all all know of examples, even in the 21st Century, where that fail-safe has been superseded, but one cannot correct all the animalistic thought processes out there.

It is this notion of a heaven and hell, a god, or otherwise overseer of right and wrong that is separate from us that has fundamentally shaped our decision-making concepts over the ages; even among atheists. The idea that humans are above wouldn't exist without the conditioning experienced and integrated over time. Now, does that mean that science cannot explain away god? Not necessarily. But to claim out of hand that it was all just baseless fables for children, even though our race probably depended on it to keep us from killing ourselves into extinction, is to be short-sightedly dismissive.

I have my beliefs because I have felt things that I cannot explain through the rational. I can only square the circle through mystery. I will either have my suspicions confirmed one day, or I'll be dead and it just won't matter. But I am more likely to see a natural end than if the entire human race was conditioned to believe that there was no outside governance that forbade wiping us out with no consequences. It's just a thought.