I am curious about the following that you wrote: "The only thing I'll say now is that you're obviously right
that `truth comes from the empirical investigation of the universe.' But who, really, believes that the sum
of all truth lies there?" I will answer that question: I do. The only people who don't believe that truth lies
there are philosophers and theologians who have for centuries insisted that the sum of all truth lies
somewhere "ineffable" or somewhere beyond. That is a pernicious myth that has only very recently begun
to be exposed as detrimental.
I am convinced that, in time, as we abolish the myth that truth is something larger than our naturalistic
investigations, fewer and fewer people will find it necessary to subscribe to the supernatural.
There is no sense of loss in acknowledging that what we dis cover is all that exists. It does not imply
that we have discovered everything in the universe-in fact it would be an error of judgment (played out
often in the history of Western civilization) to assume all is known already. But in advocating that we now
have a method for discovering the truth-naturalism-we can be filled with a sense of hope for the future of
our society and our children. This is an excellent replacement for the hopeless theological suggestion that
an unknown but somehow better life awaits us after we die.
If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch
doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond
subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would
anyone notice the smallest difference?
Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist (1998)
Now, no amount of science or naturalistic explanation can substitute for the human emotion that I feel
for my children or interpersonal relations. But that is not truth in any important measure of the word. That
is hardly even knowledge. Those are feelings and feelings aren't truth. Truth and knowledge are social
phenomena. They are a part of the collective activity of human social groups.
The religious "truth" that affects the social groups who think of themselves as religious is not useful for
human society.
In fact, more conflict has arisen over religious "truth" historically than any other factor. Real truth, the
kind discovered by naturalists, is useful for all mankind, and all social groups. It is not a replacement for
feelings, but feelings are totally individualistic, perceived and interpreted differently by each human
being.
Interpersonally, and perhaps even socially to some degree, it is crucial to maintain some form of
agreement about what good feelings and bad feelings are-that is the essence of morals, which are not
necessarily prescribed by religions. Those social agreements are often unwritten because of the similar
emotional systems that have evolved in our species.
You create your own reality And leave mine to me.Greg Graffin, "Leave Mine to Me," Stranger Than Fiction (1994)I think humans have a general predisposition to form similar ideas of what a good feeling is and what a
bad feeling is. That is why so many religions have similar "commandments," even though they were