God Found! He's in your genes

The Evolution of the God Gene

There have been a couple of shots-across-the-bow directed at the neo-Atheists and others who delight in kneeling at the altar of reason. The above article points up the growing evidence that religion and spirituality have imparted an evolutionary advantage to our species:

...This and other research is pointing to a new perspective on religion, one that seeks to explain why religious behavior has occurred in societies at every stage of development and in every region of the world. Religion has the hallmarks of an evolved behavior, meaning that it exists because it was favored by natural selection. It is universal because it was wired into our neural circuitry before the ancestral human population dispersed from its African homeland.

Here's the part that will sting the biological determinists (oops, I mean neo-Atheists):

...For atheists, it is not a particularly welcome thought that religion evolved because it conferred essential benefits on early human societies and their successors. If religion is a lifebelt, it is hard to portray it as useless.

But don't feel so self assured, devout monotheists:

...For believers, it may seem threatening to think that the mind has been shaped to believe in gods, since the actual existence of the divine may then seem less likely.

Now Pagans, Rejoice :

...But the evolutionary perspective on religion does not necessarily threaten the central position of either side. That religious behavior was favored by natural selection neither proves nor disproves the existence of gods...

Carl Sagan was right when he said in "Cosmos" that the interior of the cell nucleus housed the 'holy of holies'. But I've quoted too much from this excellent article by Nicholas Wade. Please give it a read. There's also Karen Armstrong's book "The Case for God":

...The time, in other words, is ripe for a book like “The Case for God,” which wraps a rebuke to the more militant sort of atheism in an engaging survey of Western religious thought. Karen Armstrong, a former nun turned prolific popular historian, wants to rescue the idea of God from its cultured despisers and its more literal-minded adherents alike. To that end, she doesn’t just argue that her preferred approach to religion — which emphasizes the pursuit of an unknowable Deity, rather than the quest for theological correctness — is compatible with a liberal, scientific, technologically advanced society...

Amen! Er, I mean--Amon! Armstrong argues for a point of view which many Pagans are familiar with (and something I've discussed here and on other blogs):

...Both modern believers and modern atheists, Armstrong contends, have come to understand religion primarily as a set of propositions to be assented to, or a catalog of specific facts about the nature of God, the world and human life. But this approach to piety would be foreign to many premodern religious thinkers, including the greatest minds of the Christian past, from the early Fathers of the Church to medieval eminences like Thomas Aquinas...These and other thinkers, she writes, understood faith primarily as a practice, rather than as a system — not as “something that people thought but something they did.” Their God was not a being to be defined or a proposition to be tested, but an ultimate reality to be approached through myth, ritual and “apophatic” theology, which practices “a deliberate and principled reticence about God and/or the sacred” and emphasizes what we can’t know about the divine...

What we do, or how we act, is more important than what we believe.

EO Wilson, of Ants and Humans

Taking a Cue From Ants on Evolution of Humans

Harvard entomologist EO Wilson just celebrated his birthday. He is in his 80's, yet does not shy away from a fight, although he rarely goes looking for one. But this is an exception:

...The issue is the level at which evolution operates. Many evolutionary biologists have been persuaded, by works like “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins, that the gene is the only level at which natural selection acts. Dr. Wilson, changing his mind because of new data about the genetics of ant colonies, now believes that natural selection operates at many levels, including at the level of a social group....

Soon after Wilson and co-author David Sloan Wilson published this work, they were attacked by Richard Dawkins:

...Their statement evoked a heated response from Dr. Dawkins in New Scientist; he accused them of lying on a minor point and demanded an apology...

You know you must be on the right track, when you illicit personal attacks from Atheist front-man Dawkins! Wilson's hypothesis basically boils down to this:

...It is through multilevel or group-level selection — favoring the survival of one group of organisms over another — that evolution has in Dr. Wilson’s view brought into being the many essential genes that benefit the group at the individual’s expense. In humans, these may include genes that underlie generosity, moral constraints, even religious behavior. Such traits are difficult to account for, though not impossible, on the view that natural selection favors only behaviors that help the individual to survive and leave more children...

This flies in the face of "selfish gene" advocates (like Dawkins) who at best feel religion and spirituality are archaic traits of no use today (such as our appendix), or at worst dangerous virus-like mutations which need to be immunized against.

“...Groups with men of quality — brave, strong, innovative, smart and altruistic — would tend to prevail, as Darwin said, over those groups that do not have those qualities so well developed,” Dr. Wilson said...“I believe that deep in their heart everyone working on social insects is aware that the selection that created them is multilevel selection,” Dr. Wilson said...

Don't you love that a fellow who studies ants (well, admittedly he is the world's leading authority on the critters) can cause such a ruckus!

I always encourage any new Pagan or Wiccan to immerse themselves in the study of nature. Pick some '...ology' and read all you can on it. Birding is great. So is gardening. How 'bout rocks and minerals? But in my humble opinion, the two most valuable fields to embrace are entomology and astronomy. And both are open to people of limited funds and time, and amateurs are welcome and can even make contributions.

2nd Annual Carl Sagan Blog-a-thon: Carl's marching orders

I can't remember exactly where I first read this Sagan quote. But Carl was finishing a lecture when an inquisitive student came forward with a question. "I have many interests," she said, " I'm not sure what I should study or what I should do. But I really want to make a difference in this world." Carl replied, "Anything else you're interested in is not going to happen if you can't breathe the air and drink the water. Don't sit this one out. DO SOMETHING."

Those words always stuck in my mind. But what can I do? I have many interests, but am I actually contributing anything to this planet?

This year, a friend told me about a workshop by an entomologist who studies dragonflies. I've had a life long obsession with insects and spiders, even participating in some research and collecting expeditions, but I knew little about dragonflies--so I decided to go.

Well, now I'm an official 'volunteer entomologist' for the State of New York in the "New York Dragonfly And Damselfly Survey". The goal of this project is to survey the "Odonate" (dragonflies and damselflies) populations of the state. Although NYState has a rich population of these insects, no thorough survey has ever been conducted.

These are significant insects. For one--they eat mosquitoes! Even your most bug-phobic friend will be enamored with that fact! Because the immature stages of Odonates are aquatic, they are indicators of water quality. Although some species can tolerate a mild pollution, most tend to be sensitive to water quality issues. A sudden drop in diversity might indicate someone is dumping something nasty into your swimming hole, recreational lake, or water supply. In a broad sense, a healthy and diverse population of dragonflies may mean a healthy and diverse local environment.

Interest by the general public for these insects is growing, some claiming "dragon watching" is nearly as popular as bird watching. And no wonder! Dragonflies are swift predators, catching their prey on the wing. They exhibit complex behaviors, such as guarding territories and performing unusual mating rituals. Close-up, many are revealed to be beautifully colored with lovely wing patters. Not only that, these insects are completely harmless: they don't have stingers. Even if carelessly handled, the largest ones are only capable of a feeble bite.

If you have a knack for bugs, a love a nature or some time to contribute, consider joining the project. It's funded through 2008. Click on the DDNYS link, and that will get you started.

Even if you are not interested in the survey, dragon watching is a great hobby. If you are a deep bio-geek like I am, you know nature focused hobbies are only as good as their field guides. Up till recently, there was not much in the book department to help the amateur identify these insects. Fortunately, that is changing. Here's two recommendations if you live in the Northeast:

"Damselflies of the Northeast: a Guide to the species of Eastern Canada and the Northeast" by E. Lam. EO Wilson described this book as "a small masterpiece". This is one of the most beautiful guide books I have ever seen. The artwork is stunning.

"A Field Guide to the Dragonflies and Damselflies of Massachusetts" by B. Nikula, J. Ryan, and M. Burne. This book is considered the bible among Odonate fans in the Northeast. There's great macrophotography and detailed drawings to help you key-out the more problematic species.

Click on the titles to find out how to order the books. They are small press, so you order them directly from the publisher.

A more general guide is "Dragonflies through Binoculars" by S. Dunkle. Although not as detailed as the above two books, it covers the entire USA. It's a good book to start with if you just want to test the waters. It's available from online booksellers.

Among us Neo-Pagans, Carl Sagan is considered something of an Avitar, a special individual of great power who brings an important message. (If you think Dalai Lama or Ghandi, you'll have an idea what we mean by Avatar.) When I was new to Wicca, I remember mentioning Sagan and his 'Cosmos' series at a meeting. The entire room got quite at the mention of his name! I asked someone about this later. She rolled her eyes a bit, kidding me about my newbie question. "Of couse" she said, "Sagan was an amazing man, he's an incredible source of inspiration."

One of the primary characteristics of Neo-Paganism is a love of and identification with the Earth. We perform our Sabbats and Rituals to the tune this planet plays. Why not do more than pay lip service to helping the Goddess. She has done so much and shown us so much. Yet it's now so clear she needs our help. In my small way, I think now I have found an area where I can contribute. Whether it's planting trees, saving the whales...whatever, all of us should try to find some niche where we can contribute.

So Wiccans and Neo-Pagans who are reading this, listen to Carl Sagan: DO SOMETHING!

(Check out Joel's Page for more information on Carl Sagan blog-a-thon. Pic from the cover of Ed Lam's "Damselfies of the Norheast")

Science and Religion for 2007

Cosmic resolutions for 2007

A great opinion piece by Howard Smith, a senior astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, past chairman of the astronomy department at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum in Washington:

...This year Dawkins, in "The God Delusion," argued for replacing righteousness with a blend of Darwinian personal ethos and rational calculation. Unfortunately, he makes his case while chastising the faithful with boundless hubris. His indifferent reductionist philosophy peremptorily discards the morality of religion. Dawkins' book tries to quantify human attitudes and rationalize human spirit, but in so doing it leaves the creation without an ethical context, and thoughtful religious believers dismayed if not a bit bewildered...

I think this is the problem many people have with Dawkins. But I can understand why so many scientist are upset. They have had to endure years of dim witted, yet rather effective, attacks by members of the anti-science and Theocon crowd. In some ways, it's good to see scientists finally goaded into action. Yet the sharpness of Dawkin's attacks are reminiscent of an overly intelligent enraged child, in love with his words and careless of who he hurts. There are many religious and spiritual people who embrace the findings of science. They don't like what the Theocons and Absolutists are doing--any more than scientists do! To pretend otherwise denies some wonderful and powerful allies, who have considerable experience in this fight. Smith goes on:

...it is possible to appreciate both the insights of religion and the lessons of science... Their perspectives, while different, are not necessarily contradictory. Their moral imperatives can enrich and motivate both rational and righteous behavior...

Smith is right. I find the dialog of scientists such as the entomologist E. O. Wilson to be much more helpful than Dawkins. Wilson explores this technique in "The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth", an effort to get the two camps to join forces in fighting our common enemies. Smith concludes:

...In 2007, I hope that science and religion can cooperate, not clash, to solve social problems. I hope we listen with tolerance to opposing opinions, and replace hostile, defensive rhetoric with thoughtful analyses. And, not least, we need to become better informed about our marvelous, blessed world...

What a nice wish for the coming New Year!