The God gene
November 14, 2005
Science and Religion Share Fascination in Things Unseen - New York Times
Scientists know that without experimental vindication their proposals are likely to wither. Moreover, a single definitive “null experiment,” like the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 that dispensed with the long-sought-after ether, could sweep away the whole idea.
Religious belief that the universe is the handiwork of an all-powerful being is not subject to refutation. This sort of reliance on faith may itself have an evolutionary basis. There has been talk of a “god gene”: the idea of an early advantage in the struggle for survival for those endowed with a belief in a hidden patrimony that gives order, purpose and meaning to the universe we experience.
I agree that both science and religion are concerned with things unseen, but the idea of a “god gene” betrays a faith in science that is just as real as the Christian’s faith in a creator God.
Only one of those faiths has been attested continuously and consistently by thinking persons for thousands of years. I rest my case.
Dave, still filling assorted voids in his understanding.
Comments
2 Responses to “The God gene”
Got something to say?
Isn’t there a famous philosopher who proved the existence of God? So case closed, right? WHO was that? Kant? He had a pretty strong argument just from a logical, not faith-based premise.
Many have tried, but it seems to me that the existence of God is unprovable, in the scientific sense.