Balancing science and belief
Ancient belief systems are like ancient maps. They have some historical value, but they are useless when navigating the world today.
Meghan O’Gieblyn’s article on faith (Technology’s answer to the God question, 12 May) clearly derives from her religious upbringing. Having been led into an ancient belief system, she has been troubled by its paradoxes and inconsistencies ever since. Then, flying from one extreme to another, she has turned to ideas of futuristic fantasies and found them equally troublesome. But people have been downloading their minds onto hard copy since the invention of books. There is no cause for alarm as we switch from paper to computer.
O’Gieblyn should apportion her beliefs to the evidence. Ancient tales of the supernatural and their futuristic equivalents lose their power to enthral when subjected to that test. Then, hopefully, she will contribute to the enlightenment of others, rather than adding to the present unnecessary confusion.
Les Reid
Edinburgh, UK
• Meghan O’Gieblyn offers a fascinating journey into the interface between science and faith. Will computer science achieve the eschatological (future) hope of resurrection the Gospel offers?
Her thesis could be seen as even closer to Christian orthodoxy than she outlines. She begins with a refreshingly clear description of the dispensational school of eschatology she was taught. Not all theologians would be emphatic about eschatology, though the terrestrial understanding she later describes from Pastor Christopher Benek is more common among some orthodox schools than she appears to have assumed. She also refers to arguments about whether the body or just the “soul” will be raised – the dualism that denies bodily resurrection is not really biblical.
She then touches on humility, which I think is the nub of what she is looking for. She mentions “the certitude of modern science”. I believe most scientists are humble enough to know that science is about the search for truth. One question is how vulnerable we software human beings will be to cyber-attack. She mentions the history of attempts to realise the promises of resurrection through human endeavour – is transhumanism an extension of the Enlightenment myth of “progress” that current atrocities show for what it is?
The real difference between faith and atheism is whether the future can be trusted to human progress, or whether all we can rely on in the end is the grace of God.
Martin Jewitt
Folkestone, UK
• Meghan O’Gieblyn’s article may be no more than a new attempt to avoid old death anxiety. Does transhumanism promise an uploading (resurrection) to an afterlife of virtual paradise? If so, same-same ... but no different!
Stewart Stubbs
Wentworth Falls, NSW, Australia
• Technology’s answer to the God question and the later Discovery article about extreme altruism should have been reversed to better serve the readership. The world needs more selfless people to donate organs, and less emphasis on the self-indulgent.
Stephen Banks
Birmingham, UK
A noun for our times?
HR McMaster, US national security adviser, said that president Donald Trump’s disclosure to the Russians of sensitive intelligence information was appropriate in the context of the conversation (Trump reportedly shared classified information with Russia, 19 May). Is this a cover-up for White House duplicity?
Surely it is time to bring forward a noun rarely used in the Americas. Trumpery (OED): practices or beliefs that are superficially or visually appealing but have little real value or worth. An appropriate word for the next four years, or less – please, much less!
William Emigh
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Briefly
• Nicky Jenner provides a fascinating explanation of why we must not give up on Mars (12 May). The main reasons seem to be that we have loved Mars for centuries and there is scientific curiosity. A few pages prior, in World roundup, we read that in Yemen “only 3 million people out of the 7 million people who were starving had been fed last month”. It is hard for liberals. We care. But we live too comfortably with our inconsistencies. Not easy to reconcile, but we owe it to our principles to try.
Bob Walsh
Wilton, Connecticut, US
• I noted the slump in the sales of ebooks (5 May) but can tell you that they have a place. They are a lifesaver for people with limited vision (adjustable font size and backlit) and for arthritic hands (easy to hold). You can take several books on a long trip. Here in New Zealand they have the advantage of price and availability. Their disadvantages: they are useless for diagrams; do not show photographs to advantage; the batteries need recharging; and, of course, you can’t pass them on.
Kitty Monk
Auckland, New Zealand
• I was taken aback by Andrew Rawnsley (28 April) on the UK general election and the notion that it’s “election time and the fibbin’ is easy”. Telling fibs to the electorate is all right. Do we agree with this? If so, there is no doubt in my mind as to why people are voting for so-called populist non-politicians.
George Hanna
Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand
Email letters for publication to weekly.letters@theguardian.com please include issue dates and headlines for articles referenced in your letter
