To the new atheists, the material world of physical beauty and the wonders of science are all the spiritual fulfilment they need. Dawkins writes that a ''proper understanding of the magnificence of the real world … can fill the inspirational role that religion has historically - and inadequately - usurped''.
Joel Kilgour refuses to describe himself as a spiritual person, but, ''if you ask if I have transcending moments, absolutely''. ''Sunset over the ocean, holding the hands of families or friends, looking into the face of my newborn niece … A lot of people claim spirituality for those moments … but I think people just like to feel they are special, that the universe was created specifically for them when, really, we're just a speck of dust.'' Michael Bachelard
Well, are we "just a speck of dust" any more than our planet is a speck of dust, or from a more distant vantage our sun or our galaxy or even our universe? The whole astonishing glorious spectacle of natural existence is wondrous, inspiring, magnificent, humbling, exalting... words do, really, pale. Our own existence is a natural miracle, and source of more "spiritual fulfillment" than any of us can adequately absorb. Of course we're special. Isn't that what Philip Pullman was talking about, with his "dust"? And Carl Sagan, with his "star-stuff"? And, with their clumsier way of re-branding, isn't that what the "Brights" are talking about too?
Charles Darwin (
Posts
1 comment:
My "speck-of-dust"-ness makes my head spin. I don't think these moments are any different than James' "religious moments," or any of the others. I agree deeply with the inadequacy of words, which is partly why the similarity among these moments of perceived "smallness" is more important to me than by what/whom we feel dwarfed. I know that entire wardrobes are purchased, snakes passed, chickens sacrificed, wars fought over exactly these differences, but I suspect (not KNOW, never KNOW) that in the bigger picture, the biggest picture, the differences are trivial.
Post a Comment