written or oral records； and nowhere very different from places that we know。
We've tended in our cosmologies to make things familiar。 Despite all our best efforts； we've not been very inventive。 In the West； Heaven is placid and fluffy； and Hell is like the inside of a volcano。 In many stories； both realms are governed by dominance hierarchies headed by gods or devils。 Monotheists talked about the king of kings。 In every culture we imagined something like our own political system running the Universe。 Few found the similarity suspicious。
Then science came along and taught us that we are not the measure of all things； that there are wonders unimagined； that the Universe is not obliged to conform to what we consider fortable or plausible。 We have learned something about the idiosyncratic nature of our mon sense。 Science has carried human self…consciousness to a higher level。 This is surely a rite of passage； a step towards maturity。 It contrasts starkly with the childishness and narcissism of our pre…Copernican notions。
But why should we want to think that the Universe was made for us？ Why is the idea so appealing？ Why do we nurture it？ Is our self…esteem so precarious that nothing short of a universe custom…made for us will do？
Of course it appeals to our vanity。 〃What a man desires； he also imagines to be true；〃 said Demosthenes。 〃The light of faith makes us see what we believe；〃 cheerfully admitted St。 Thomas Aquinas。 But I think there may be something else。 There's a kind of ethnocentrism among primates。 To whichever little group we happen to be born； we owe passionate love and loyalty。 Members of other groups are beneath contempt； deserving of rejection and hostility。 That both groups are。 of the same species； that to an outside observer they are virtually indistinguishable； makes no difference。 This is certainly the pattern among the chimpanzees； our closest relatives in the animal kingdom。 Ann Druyan and I have described how this way of viewing the world may have made enormous evolutionary sense a few million years ago； however dangerous it has bee today。 Even members of hunter…gatherer groups—as far from the technological feats of our present global civilization as it is possible for humans to be—solemnly describe their little band； whichever it is； as 〃the people。〃 Everyone else is something different； something less than human。
If this is our natural way of viewing the world； then it should occasion no surprise that every time we make a naive judgment about our place in the Universe—one untempered by careful and skeptical scientific examination—we almost always opt for the centrality of our group and circumstance。 We want to believe； moreover； that these are objective facts； and not our prejudices finding a sanctioned vent。
So it's not much fun to have a gaggle of scientists incessantly haranguing us with 〃You're ordinary； you're unimportant your privileges are undeserved； there's nothing special about you。〃 Even unexcitable people might； after a while； grow annoyed at this incantation and those who insist on chanting it。 It almost seems that the scientists are getting some weird satisfaction out of putting humans down。 Why can't they find a way in which we're superior？ Lift our spirits！ Exalt us！ In such debates science； with its mantra of discouragement； feels cold and remote； dispassionate； detached； unresponsive to human needs。
And； again； if we're not important； not central； not the apple of God's eye； what is implied for our theologically based moral codes？ The discovery of our true bearings in the Cosmos was resisted for so long and to such a degree that many traces of the debate remain； sometimes with the motives of the geocentrists laid bare。 Here； for example； is a revealing unsigned mentary in the British review The Spectator in 1892：
＇I＇t is certain enough that the discovery of the heliocentric motion of the planets which reduced our earth to its proper 〃insignificance〃 in the solar system； did a good deal to reduce to a similar but far from proper 〃insignificance〃 the moral principles by which the predominant races of the earth had hitherto been guided and restrained。 Part of this effect was no doubt due to the evidence afforded that the physical science of various inspired writers was erroneous instead of being infallible；…a conviction which unduly shook the confidence felt even in their moral and religious teaching。 But a good deal of it was due only to the mere sense of 〃insignificance〃 with which man has contemplated himself； since he has discovered that he inhabits nothing but a very obscure corner of the universe； instead of the central world round which sun； moon； and stars alike revolved。 There can be no doubt that man may feel himself； and has often felt himself； a great deal too insignificant to be the object of any particular divine training or care。 If the earth be regarded as a sort of ant…hill； and the life and death of human beings as the life and death of so many ants which run into and out of so many holes in search of food and sunlight； it is quite certain that no adequate importance will be attached to the duties of human life； and that a profound fatalism and hopelessness； instead of new hopefulness； will attach to human effort 。 。 。
＇F＇or the present at least； our horizons are quite vast enough 。 。 。 ； till we can get used to the infinite horizons we already have； and not lose our balance so much as we usually do in contemplating them； the yearning for still wider horizons is premature。
WHAT DO WE REALLY WANT from philosophy and religion？ Palliatives？ Therapy？ fort？ Do we want reassuring fables or an understanding of our actual circumstances？ Dismay that the Universe does not conform to our preferences seems childish。 You might think that grown…ups would be ashamed to put such disappointments into print。 The fashionable way of doing this is not to blame the Universe—which seems truly pointless—but rather to blame the means by which we know the Universe； namely science。
George Bernard Shaw； in the preface to his play St。 Joan； described a sense of science preying on our credulity； forcing on us an alien worldview； intimidating belief：
In the Middle Ages； people believed that the Earth was flat； for which they had at least the evidence of their senses： we believe it to be round； not because as many as one per cent of us could give the physical reason for so quaint a belief； but because modern science has convinced us that nothing that is obvious is true； and that everything that is magical； improbable； extraordinary； gigantic； microscopic； heartless； or outrageous is scientific。
A more recent and very instructive example is Understanding the Present： Science and the Soul of Modern Man； by Bryan Appleyard； a British journalist。 This book makes explicit what many people feel； all over the world； but are too embarrassed to say。 Appleyard's candor is refreshing。 He is a true believer and will not let us slough over the contradictions between modern science and traditional religion：
〃Science has taken away our religion；〃 he laments。 And what sort of religion is it that he longs for？ One in which 〃the human race was the point； the heart； the final cause of the whole system。 It placed our selves definitively upon the universal map。〃 。 。 。 〃We were the end； the purpose； the rational axle around which the great aetherian shells rotated。〃 He longs for 〃the universe of Catholic orthodoxy〃 in which 〃the cosmos is shown to be a machine constructed around the drama of salvation〃—by which Appleyard means that； despite explicit orders to the contrary； a woman and a man once ate of an apple； and that this act of insubordination transformed the Universe into a contrivance for operant…conditioning their remote descendants。
By contrast； modern science 〃presents us as accidents。 We are caused by the cosmos； but we are not the cause of it。 Modem man is not finally anything； he has no role in creation。〃 Science is 〃spiritually corrosive； burning away ancient authorities and traditions。 It cannot really co…exist with anything。〃 。 。 。 〃Science； quietly and inexplicitly； is talking us into abandoning our selves； our true selves。〃 It reveals 〃the mute； alien spectacle of nature。〃 。 。 。 〃Human beings cannot live with such a revelation。 The only morality left is that of the consoling lie。〃 Anything is better than grappling with the unbearable burden of being tiny。
In a passage reminiscent of Plus IX； Appleyard even decries the fact that 〃a modern democracy can be expected to include a number of contradictory religious faiths which are obliged to agree on a certain limited number of general injunctions； but no more。 They must not burn each other's places of worship； but they may deny； even abuse each other's God。 This is the effective； scientific way of proceeding。〃
But what is the alternative？ Obdurately to pretend to certainty in an uncertain world？ To adopt a forting belief system； no matter how out of kilter with the facts it is？ If we don't know what's real； how can we deal with reality？ For practical reasons； we cannot live too much in fantasyland。 Shall we censor one another's religions and burn down one another's places of worship？ How can we be sure which of the thousands of human belief systems should bee unchallenged； ubiquitous； mandatory？
These quotations betray a failure of nerve before the Universe its grandeur and magnificence； but especially its indifference。 Science has taught us that； because we have a talent for deceiving ourselves； subjectivity may not freely reign。 This is one reason Appleyard so mistrusts science： It seems too reasoned； measured； and impersonal。 Its conclusions derive from the interrogation of Nature； and are not in all cases predesigned to satisfy our wants。 Appleyard deplores moderation。 He yearns for inerrant doctrine； release from the exercise of judgment； and an obligation to believe but not to question。 He has not grasped human fallibility。 He recognizes no need to institutionalize error…correcting machinery either in our social institutions or in our view of the Universe。
This is the anguished cry of the infant when the Parent does not e。 But most people eventually e to grips with reality； and with the painful absence of parents who will absolutely guarantee that no harm befalls the little ones so long as they do what they are told。 Eventually most people find ways to acmodate to the Universe—especially when given the tools to think straight。
〃All that we pass on to our children〃 in the scientific age； Appleyard plains； 〃is the conviction that nothing is true； final or enduring； including the culture from which they sprang。〃 How right he is about the inadequacy of our legacy。 But would it be enriched by adding baseless certainties？ He scorns 〃the pious hope that science and religion are independent realms which can easily be separated。〃 Instead； 〃science； as it is now； is absolutely not patible with religion。〃
But isn't Appleyard really saying that some religions now find it difficult to make unchallenged pronouncements on the nature of the world that are straight…out false？ We recognize that even revered religious leaders； the products of their time as we are of ours； may have made mistakes。 Religions contradict o