Time for a little cultural criticism. (Has this guy nothing better to do than criticize? Actually I do, but I also have opinions, and the Net, as we know, is a handy place to nail up one's theses! [Who really *reads* them is another question.])

This goes deeper than usual. Anyhow, it happened recently that an MSNBC science site featured, among other temporary links, one leading to a page of dialog with a dude famed in "skeptical" circles; I think he runs a publication I'd like to call the Cynical Inquisitor. I believe it was this outfit that, not long ago, sponsored a series of spots on one of the relatively interesting cable channels where a presumed spokesman would appear to give their take on a subject, an introductory voice-over proclaiming, "Turning up when you least expect him...." which made me want to respond, Monty Python-style: "NO one expects the Cynical Inquisition!" Well, our honcho, whom I'll call Mr. Sureman, has a book out titled Why People Believe Weird Things. That begs the question, doesn't it? "Weird" is evidently defined as unorthodox, or perhaps I should say heterodox--as in "ideas unapproved by the dominant intellectual elite." It's hardly an objective term. There's no standard scientific definition for weirdness, although science has certainly discovered some seemingly strange phenomena, and physicists themselves may sometimes refer to "quantum weirdness." To paraphrase one of the Haldanes (I forget which one) quoted by Arthur Clarke: The universe is not only weirder than we imagine, it is weirder than we can imagine.

Well, someone put a query to Mr. Sureman about religion, and if it was intended to provoke, one might say that he rose to the bait. He treated the subject as if religion ought by nature to fall under the category of "weird." A major point was why so many scientists persist in holding religious beliefs (rather than adhering to the Church of Scientism, I guess). Mr. Sureman speculated that this could be because scientists are good at rationalizing. That he apparently felt the need to explain away this phenomenon speaks to an underlying--and unspoken--philosophical bias. My purpose is not to fault him for this so much as to proclaim that the much-vaunted conflict between science and religion can be boiled down to philosophical matters which are not subject to obvious demonstration. "Faith and reason" arguments tend to focus on areas of necessary uncertainty; it would be premature to declare that one's own side has won!

Had Mr. Sureman merely cited current findings suggesting that people are naturally "wired" to be religiously inclined, I wouldn't complain. Note that this assertion about human nature is itself ambiguous of interpretation; what you make of it depends on your understanding of origins--*including your underlying philosophical assumptions*.

A second observation about such a blithe dismissal of religion is that it has consequences. Now, you may not follow any particular faith and yet believe that the universe is possessed of a certain moral order. You may, of course, hold varying degrees of agnosticism on this subject. If, on the other hand, you're convinced we live in a meaningless world and are only here by chance, well, you're welcome to your opinions--which conceivably fit with your own experience. (These particular opinions don't square with *my* experience, but that's another story.) You might then, if so inclined, persist in trying to live by some moral code, or figure out a "rational" system of ethics, as some apparently have attempted. My point is this: Don't expect anyone else to take it too seriously. In other words--well, I'll let another speak to this.

I conveniently just ran across an item about a young cleric, containing a quote nicely summarizing my argument. Early in his college career a philosophy class introduced him to Nietzsche, whose famous dictum challenged his faith. "I understood," says our then-student, "that if God is dead, the consequences are tremendous--there are no rules, no binding laws, no such things as good and evil. The 'winner' is the one who is stronger, faster, cleverer at using things and other people to reach his goals. In the end it is simply me against you; but, conversely, if if God is not dead, if God is indeed alive and well, there are also tremendous consequences." While his perspective is that of traditional theism, I obviously find it applicable to other concepts of the Supreme Being. What I'm getting at, basically, is that Voltaire wasn't kidding when he said (if he did in fact say it) that "If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent one."

This is the conclusion few seem willing to admit, though occasionally you'll find a materialist who does. One such is the prominent Oxford biologist whom I'll dub Professor Meme for the sociological concept he reportedly originated...

But I digress. This "cultural criticism" has taken so long that I'll spare my hypothetical reader further comment on the subject for now. Except for one thing: The other evening Mr. Sureman surprisingly popped up ("NO one expects--oh, bugger!") on a show where I might not have thought to find him. It was almost over then, but I did learn that he'd authored a book called The Science of Good and Evil. Funny, to my knowledge science has never discovered any such phenomena. I once ran across a book titled something like Biological Origins of the Ten Commandments, but those relating to conduct toward God were missing.