Religion and science: need there be a clash?

So how can we redefine a human being?

Humans are social beings, capable of perceiving and communicating concepts, which they do not or cannot directly observe, and are able to generate and control energy.

Whatever happened about 40,000 years ago, humans have acquired those special capabilities, which set them apart from what went before.

Every part of this definition of a human being has extensive connotations. Even the relatively simple concept of being social has to be clarified. Many animals and insects are, undoubtedly, social. They are social either for foraging, hunting or for defensive purposes. In addition to these purposes humans are social for creative reasons. To say that a human is social means certain characteristics, which add to the “social value” of an individual, are more advantageous in an evolutionary sense than when these characteristics are limited or absent.

One of the clearest examples of the ability to perceive and to communicate concepts that humans do not or cannot observe is that of Einstein’s mathematical proof of the existence of the power locked in atoms, long before it was proved to be so. Another example is the mathematical proof of the heliocentric nature of our solar system, without anyone being able to physically observe it from outside the system.

Regarding the ability to generate and to control energy, it ranges from making simple fires, to the creation and the control of atomic power. Even the ancient Greeks realised the importance of fire when, in their mythology, Prometheus gave it to humans.

Conclusions

Perceptions matter, not only on a personal level, but more importantly, in our world-view. The way we understand things guides our beliefs, and in turn, it determines our actions. If our perception is incomplete, our actions will be flawed. Conversely, if we draw the wrong conclusions from our actions, our perception will remain flawed. It can become a vicious circle. One reason for the demise of past civilisations was their inability to break out of their belief system. Therefore, it is important that, periodically, we re-examine our perceptions, whether it relates to individual interactions, or more importantly, if it relates to our commonly held view. The notions we hold about creation or evolution are some of those important perceptions.

Some scientists, who may deride those who tend to believe in ancient texts, may like to reflect on the possibility that they may not have fully considered all the facts pertaining to why religious belief systems persists. They may also like to consider that the current interpretation of evolution in the public domain may not be sufficiently adequate. The original message was “modification by descent”. Somehow the expression “survival of the fittest” gained prominence. (Probably it was a better sound bite.) The real meaning was “survival of the most adaptable”. (The most adaptable happens to be fitter in the general sense.) This has completely different connotations. Another point worth considering is the sheer time-scale involved in evolution, which is not readily appreciated by those who did not have the benefit of scientific training (which is the vast majority of people).

A fresh look at the definition of a human being would go a long way towards refocusing our worth, and our intentions.