To the editor:

In the current public discourse concerning intelligent design, science and religion, here are a few things I’ve considered:

¢ Science begins all inquiries from the point via negativa, or unknowing. If science does not teach that there is a creator it is because a creator has not yet been scientifically discovered. If, on the other hand, some religions insist on a creator taught in the scientific sphere then perhaps they could scientifically prove that creator.

¢ We should remember science is basically unfinished business. This point is often forgotten, and science, like religion, can become embedded in rigid dogmatism.

¢ Not all religions assume an anthropomorphic creator. Still this is a meaningful universe. Consider Buddhism’s idea of interdependent arising: Each thing exists because everything else exists – no one thing is independently existing apart from anything else. “This is because that is.”

¢ So much of the violence of the world, whether it is physical, social, psychic or emotional, is caused by a narrow religious mindset. One example is this attitude: “Believing what I believe is the only way to be saved and to avoid hell.” Is much of religion just ego clinging to a contrived identity: “we,” who will be saved because we’re right and “they,” who will be damned because they’re wrong.

Isn’t religion really about actualizing great love including everyone – friends, enemies, or strangers? Or is it about being right and forcing everyone to agree with you?

Joe Mentesana,

Lawrence