Heaven Would Be Hell
Listen to Interview here
The file is an mp2 and is huge 46.3MB you are better off downloading it, right click PC or control click Mac and save file as ...or to listen here, click below
11.8MB (audio only)
Sociobiology founder Edward O. Wilson explains why we're hard-wired to form tribalistic religions, denies that "evolutionism" is a faith, and says that heaven, if it existed, would be hell.
It would seem that religion and science have two entirely different ways of understanding the world. Science is founded on reason and deduction and empirical study. Religion, on the other hand, is grounded in faith -- often a leap of faith, in mystery, in living with the non-rational part of your mind. Are those two utterly alien ways of looking at the world? Or is there any common ground?
The only common ground that I see is the one that was approached by Darwin himself. Religious belief itself is an adaptation that has evolved because we're hard-wired to form tribalistic religions. Religion is intensely tribalistic. A devout Christian or Muslim doesn't say one religion is as good as another. It gives them faith in the particular group to which they belong and that set of beliefs and moral views.
What about the sense of awe, of wonder? That's something you hear about all the time among religious people. And you also hear about it from some scientists as well.
Well, you do. You hear about it from me. Awe is hard to put into words. But it certainly involves a sense of the mightiness and splendor and almost indecipherable intricacy of something greater than ourselves. A lot of religious mysticism arises directly from it. But it's equally experienced by the secularist whose mind opens to the splendor and intricacy of the material universe.




Comments
Thanks a lot for this interview! It made my work day fly by.
A "provisional deist" that claims religion stems from tribalism. Heh... More amusing is when he (a materialist) indulges in value statements, moral imperatives and aesthetic judgements. Admittedly, he's not as obnoxious as Dawkins so he does have that going for him.
Post a comment