"The Real Culture War"

An interesting article recently caught my eye because it was written by David Brin, one of my fave sci-fi authors. It proves to be very thought-provoking:
http://www.davidbrin.com/realculturewar1.html

For those who may not have time to read the whole article, a pertinent excerpt is included below. This portion of the article appears to touch on a core of the matter of divisiveness we seem to be experiencing as a race. I have, sadly, found this divisiveness in a variety of encounters with other people. One of those encounters is included below. Also, in the excerpt, as well as the entire article, Brin is pretty scathing of the fundamentalist/Biblical literalist world view. Those of delicate sensibilities should stay away! You have been warned! Basically, the battle ground is Creationism vs. Evolution (Neo-Darwinism).

And as usual, a blog entry from me cannot be complete without some thoughts and/or rants and/or a homily of my own! And, as always, I welcome positive response, as well as rebuttal. (the excerpt is separated by a line consisting of hyphens if you wish to bypass my quite possibly banal commentary) (BTW, ditto the "delicate sensibilities" warning for my ramble as well)

I recently had a discussion about the human race and its future with a friend who is a gentle, loving mother of two delightful, intelligent boys of 4 and 6 1/2 -- that represent the future in their very youth -- yet she doesn't believe that the human race can improve itself in the future, that we'll be wiped out in some Apocryphal Angry God Disaster as punishment for being so awful and sinful.

I take a different view -- My personal beliefs/spirituality simply cannot encompass a Diety who would send me to eternal damnation if I happen to swipe a pen from work and don't repent my thievery (I guess I'm kinda brazen that way). I don't think that that Diety would send even those who we perceive as bringers of genocide (Hitler, etc.) to Ye Olde Firey Pitte.

There's dissonance in her beliefs and in that dissonance, I find continuing hope. That mother truly does believe in an Apocryphal Angry God. However, she took a huge leap of faith in our continuance as a species by bearing those boys and bringing them into this world. That, and why bring those children into this world if, by some misstep, they're going to end up going to Heck in the end? I hope that some day she will perceive the leap of joyful faith she took in a hopeful future and a loving diety (rather than her somewhat Hobbesian view of life as nasty, brutish and short...).

"Good vs. Evil," "Black vs. White" and Apocryphal Occurrences -- Back to Hitler for a moment:

Remember: if you're on the winning side, history is written to reflect that: All those that are on that winning side become the "good guys" wiping out the "bad guys," who, in most cases, were people just like you and me, with parents, families and communities that they wanted to return to. They liked, loved, hated, laughed, and cried just like the "good guys."

I emphatically DO NOT wish to diminish the genocide that Hitler and Co. committed as anything less than an evil atrocity. However, we, as the United States did a small bit of annihilating as well, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in that same war, but our destruction is perceived as good because it stopped the continuation of WWII.

This is a conundrum indeed, in doing evil, we create good. In view of that same conundrum, if we step back to the example of Hitler again for a moment, he and his followers sincerely believed they were doing good (by doing evil) for the German people by attempting to create an Aryan Superrace.

Hmmm. No easy, black 'n' white answers here.

Conundrums aside, I just cannot and do not believe we be destroyed by an Upset Diety, we are quite capable of doing a damn fine job of it ourselves: It appears to me that the issue at hand is to gain the wisdom to set aside those uses of technology that are that destructive, whether all at once (atomic war) or more slowly and cumulatively (pollution in its many forms, whether as artificial additives that we are gradually developing an intolerance for, or greenhouse gases, etc., etc.) .

From my world-view, this gaining of wisdom is going to be one hellaciously long process at the rate we're going. But if (and that's a big IF because of the fulcrum point we have been balancing on for the past few centuries and continue to balance on yet today) we manage not to blow ourselves back to the Dark Ages, or annihilate ourselves completely in the next several centuries, I believe we will make it over this difficult, adolescent time of our species. And, unless something happens to cause us to have some sort of "conversion experience"‡ as a species , this WILL be the work of centuries! But we can do the best we can to plant seeds for a wisdom-filled future now in our life time!

‡(Who knows! Those darn Tabloid-Newspaper Gray Aliens may land yet, and drastically rearrange our world view that is still a Earth-centrist view of the universe, which is espoused by many adherents to our major western religions, and change it to a more universal view.)

As per my usual style, I have dealt with sweeping generalities above (I'd go on for a frightfully much, MUCH LONGER ramble if I got down to the microscopic level of that sort of discussion -- you really, really DON'T want that!). However, I do have great hopes for the gifts we have been given/have evolved into that, using those gifts, we might not destroy ourselves as a species (and all other species around us) and will continue evolving into something better than we can even imagine.

NOW -- on to the excerpt!

--------- Excerpt from "The Real Culture War"-------------

...I ask: With whom should you ally yourself? Someone who shares your immediate political campaign, while disagreeing with you utterly over long-term goals? Or someone who shares your deep agenda for a better world, but disagrees over immediate tactics?

Most people -- when it is posed that way -- choose the latter. After all, tactics are a matter for pragmatic debate. We can try out all sorts of methods. Success may call for a mix of your way and mine.

But how can we work together when we disagree over the very nature of the universe and of the future? Or over the very possibility -- the desirability -- of human improvability?

Suppose you perceive -- through evidence and scientific consensus -- that the universe is about 13 billion years old, containing a trillion-trillion stars, some of which may be visited by your descendants: People who (you hope) will be greater, better, wiser than ourselves. You look forward to incremental steps in that direction, whether fostered by social benevolence or fecund competitive markets.

Perhaps those descendants -- while carefully overcoming challenges -- will even find important work to do, worthy of their ever-rising stature in a vast and ongoing universe. Does that sound good to you?

Then do you really want to put civilization's decision-making process in the hands of people who believe that native tribes had a better vision of the cosmos than modern science? (Left-handed mysticism.) Or people who actively yearn for an imminent apocalypse that will end a cramped, 6,000 year-old Creation in fire and damnation for everybody who uses different incantations than they do? (Right-handed mysticism.)

It sounds silly. Yet that is what some of our finest intellectuals do each day, from Jared Diamond and Kim Stanley Robinson to William F. Buckley and George Will. Oh, they grouse about some of the maniacs who are now running their parties. Then they close ranks, rationalizing that you ultimately have to ally yourself with fellow members of the right or the left.

But this election has shown, at last, that America just is not divided that way.

Rather, we seem divided between those who feel alienated toward -- or enthusiastic for -- a 21st Century filled with change.

---------------------------

End of the Excerpt. For those of you have made it this far, I pose a challenge:

It appears to me that in order to co-exist peacebly, we need to be more inclusive, to be able to agree to disagree with those who think differently from us -- perhaps have a vigorous debate about how we disagree rather than pulling weapons (whether actual or more subtly coercive by gradually legislating, creating laws that support their belief system, and punish those who do not support that system) on each other.

This creates a problem: those who would take an exclusionary view (if you don't believe in my God/Theology/Holy Book, you're gonna pay for it/suffer/burn, whatever) would need to change their viewpoint/belief to include those who do not see the world this way. Which then changes their viewpoint, thus resulting in the death of belief in a Retributory Diety (RD).

How can we encourage this world view change in those whose belief in a(n) RD goes so deep that they would:

a) force others to believe the way they do, quite possibly doing this in a peaceable manner by legislating it, rather than open warfare (for example, those of a rather more fundamental persuasion who get themselves elected to national government)

and/or

b) destroy themselves and others in worshiping/showing their love and devotion to their RD (for example, suicide bombers),

and/or

c) ultimately be destroyed themselves (whether mentally or actually destroying themselves physically in pursuit of their belief in their RD) in some way by being unable to accept a more inclusive world view?