Our understanding of our own nature shapes the kind of world we live in, from an individual perspective to a global perspective. Many well-known philosophers in ancient times, armed with their own biases (via the social milieu at the time), have attempted to examine the underlying character of human nature. Unfortunately, in using this approach, it perpetuates the idea that human nature is static, and therefore, unchangeable, at least on a grand scale. This assumption has incredibly stifling consequences, not the least of which is excusing the most deplorable acts of violence as simply "the way of things," usually by way of pessimistic fatalism. This attitude will ruin our species if it is left to fester unchecked. Specifically, Abrahamic religions that preach we are at the mercy of a single deity (with some divine plan) virtually absolves us of the responsibility of ending our own suffering. And so it shall continue!
But wait a minute - can't science rescue us from these harmful beliefs? Richard Dawkins specifically states in the 30th Anniversary Edition of The Selfish Gene that "It was such widely disseminated misunderstandings of Darwinism that originally provoked me to write [The Selfish Gene]." He was referring to this thought particularly: "A central debate within Darwinism concerns the unit that is actually selected: what kind of entity is it that survives, or does not survive, as a consequence of natural selection. That unit will become, more or less by definition, 'selfish'." Dawkins suggests that natural selection occurs between genes, not individuals or groups. Here, even Dawkins was attempting to clarify his word choice in the title of his own book!
With everyone misunderstanding or misinterpreting facts and data, how could science possibly save us from the ailments of religion? Perhaps too many people are struggling with their own reluctance to leave their outdated worldviews behind. Perhaps they're clinging to any and all "aha!" or "gotcha!" moments that science will occasionally toss out which (on the surface) proves the existence of god, justifies their own selfish lifestyle, or somehow makes it okay for them to continue not giving a damn. There are definitely messages in Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species and Richard Dawkin's The Selfish Gene, but I'm not convinced either of these texts should be used as proof that our lives are strictly determined by our genes. In fact, this article suggests that Charles Darwin intended to assist in the abolishment of slavery. Survival of the fittest? Interesting.
Well, fine then. If that's the way it is going to be, those who find it their mission to create a new ethic and spoon-feed it to the lazy perhaps should do so! We can interpret scientific data in such a way that has practical (and positive) applications that will advance our species in the future. What world do you want to live in, one in which rampant capitalism runs amok and the middle class disappears, where wars and violence are commonplace? Or one of peace and equal opportunities for all? It's not a fantasy. It can happen. We can engineer our own future, but it will require cooperation and practicality. It will start with a new way of thinking and living. Have you ever gone to a therapist who tried to help you overcome your persistent negative thoughts and emotions? Did they ever tell you the way to achieve that is by entertaining those (usually outlandish) ideas? Of course not! It has been said that the mark of insanity is continuing to do things as you've always done and expecting different results. What does war and violence ever get us but more war and violence, possibly separated by periods of silent fear?
More to come on this topic: Stay tuned!