Nature Abhors a Vacuum

It's a given in physics -- Nature abhors a vacuum. Aristotle suggested it. Experience proves it. The natural world will do anything it can, it seems, to fill in empty space. It is, for instance, the basic premise of a pump. Instead of following gravity, liquid will actually rise to fill a vacuum in a pump. It's also the basic premise of the straw you use to drink that soda. Still question it? Then consider this. Try putting a running vacuum cleaner next to a sleeping cat. Oh, yeah, that won't be a sleeping cat anymore. (Get it? "Nature abhors a vacuum." Never mind.) Okay ... bad example. But you see how it works. So, how about this? Think of kids with nothing to do. That's a type of vacuum, and they hate it. It's also the reason that our world has become over-stimulated and under-fulfilled. As television and entertainment has gotten larger and larger and free time has increased, we've felt the need to fill the empty spaces with more stuff, events, stimulation, and whatever else we can find. It's the reason for "rebound romance" when someone suddenly terminates a long-term relationship. It's the reason that so many people are seeking self-fulfillment. It's the reason for the mid-life crisis. Nature abhors a vacuum.

Consider, then, the suggestion of the New Atheists (no, I'm not making up that term) who are currently on the scene. You know the ones. They're actually fairly well known names like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris along with a host of smaller but equally beligerent voices. They stand for "Intolerance of ignorance, myth and superstition" and "disregard for the tolerance of religion." Again, not my words; theirs. They are suggesting, sometimes quite loudly, things like the indoctrination of children into religion is child abuse.

What do they offer instead? The idea would be to replace the existing freedom of parents to teach their kids about their own faith with the "absolute certainty" of naturalism. Specifically, they want to remove such things as teachings about heaven and hell or any idea that a Divine Lawgiver is the source of morality. What would replace these things? Well, actually, nothing. Truly magnificent morality, they say, is when you are good simply because you choose to be rather than because you either hope to gain heaven or fear to fall into hell. Religion, they hold, leads to bigotry because you are taught that you are correct and those who disagree are wrong. Replace that with ... well, nothing ... you know, so you won't be bigoted. To be fair, some would wish to teach ... everything. They'd like to place the "Jewish creation myth" alongside the "Babylonian creation myth" as they compare to Darwinism so kids could see for themselves that Darwinism is right while those others are wrong. On teaching children ethics, Dawkins writes, "When the religious education class turns to ethics, I don't think science actually has a lot to say, and I would replace it with rational moral philosophy." So he would ask them questions. "Should we value human life above all other life? ... When, in our evolutionary descent from our common ancestor with chimpanzees, did the fence suddenly rear itself up?" And they would carefully replace any underlying value of human life with ... nothing.

Now, I ask you. The suggestion here is to replace religion with naturalism, replace any future hope or fear with oblivion, replace ethics with personal choice, and replace the value of human life with nothing. If nature abhors a vacuum and human nature is included in that, what do you suppose will be the next step? If today's kids operate on the theory that "Anything I can get away with is legal", what foundation will that generation work with? In a world without a Lawgiver, on what basis can you possibly suggest morality? The suggestion is that it would be an improvement. It seems to me that replacing what is, shaky as it can be, with nothing will simply promote anarchy, and that can't be called "improvement", can it?