A few years back I was on a trip, and we were somewhere over middle America in the wee hours of the morning at thirty-some thousand feet. It was a spectacular night, with no restrictions on visibility, and there were a billion stars visible from our privileged vantage point 2/3 of the way to outer space (by atmospheric mass).
The co-pilot (I was an engineer at the time) looked out the window and remarked how unfathomable it all was. Much as I agreed with that sentiment, I always tense up at a comment like this in my work environment, since I feel pretty sure an answer will come that is either depressing or offensive to me. First, because pilots as a general rule have answers for everything, no matter the subject matter, and second because they likely will have been fed those answers from sunday school or Fox News, two organizations noteworthy for not having sincerely informed anyone about anything.
In confirmation of my every prejudice, we were quickly serenaded by a whole lotta wacky. The Captain of the flight immediately chimed in about his church, which followed the teachings of a 17th Century Swedish mystic who bequeathed us a sheaf of "visions" gleaned while in various chemically-induced trances. This mystic "talked" to the people involved and confirmed the Bible's story.
He actually stated this out loud.
I chimed in, like a turd in the hot tub, that invoking a "creator" (much less a coked-up prophet from the Dark Ages) was like getting drunk to solve your problems: when you come back to sanity, you have the same problems and now a drinking problem to boot. Invoking a god is no fix when your solution is utterly untestable, unknowable and beyond the pale of observation; all you're left with is a bigger unexplained phenomenon (and thus no answer to the first question either). "Well, how do YOU think this all got here?!" he asked, playing his trump card.
My response, which was not in the requisite ten words or less, didn't change anyone's mind (though, as I recall, the co-pilot remained silent for the rest of the conversation). But naturally I thought about the question again later as I replayed the whole evening in my mind. Was his challenge really something that nagged at people in their beds at night? Or was it just what they thought would be a "big gun" to use when the conversation became uncomfortable? With a moment to think about it, there seemed to be four parts to the answer:
1. What's the point of asking? What an individual thinks on a subject like this is almost completely pointless (at least, to the extent that their convictions propose to answer anything). Personal feelings, which are always tied up with hopes and desires (many of them created and fed by institutions who seek to benefit from them), are not evidence or answers.
2. I most certainly do not know the answer to his question; but it goes without saying that INVENTING an answer is not, in fact, an answer. Certainly, if your curiosity is genuine, being told an answer from someone who can't POSSIBLY know is no solution. Indeed, none of us knows the answer to this question and we're not going to in our lifetimes and likely for a very long time to come--possibly ever. This is one of the great disservices done to us by religion, this selling of "truth" and absolutes that are complete illusions. The scientist knows that all knowledge is provisional, and while there are proven facts in the world, much of what we know is actually theoretical, conclusions that are supported by data; but when data supports a different conclusion, then knowledge moves forward. This methodology is fundamental to almost everything in life, even for wacky people.
3. In that light, the evidence points toward the universe having had a beginning, and toward a universe which is evolving and changing. Whether that beginning is called the "big bang" or not is immaterial. If the universe is expanding, as we observe, then running the clock backward shows it retracting back to a single point. That's not a definitive answer to this question; it's simply what observation and informed speculation points toward. It's not a fact, it's a scientific theory. We can't possibly know what preceded this event. Our hands are full trying to make sense of what we do know, and what we can observe and measure. We have seen firsthand the formation of stars and galaxies (and, by inference, planets), and there is little reason to think these phenomena are not illustrative. The pieces slot together satisfyingly, and the theory is stable and predictive. For now, this is what we "know."
4. Lastly, it's not really a sincere question, because for the same people who haven't really made an effort to research what we do know about the subject--and indeed for most of us--the answer doesn't matter. What matters is how our kids are doing in school, how our job is going, whether we have enough money in the checkbook to meet this month's bills, what's up with our cholesterol level. No normal average citizen is in the least concerned about where the universe came from, and the answer THIS versus THAT changes exactly nothing in our lives.
I had occasion to think about all this the other night when, again in an airplane cockpit, the subject came up. It didn't go very far on this occasion--luckily there were no Swedish mystics clouding our judgment this time. Baby steps.
10 comments:
I can certainly understand the wonder at how everything all got here, but I can't imagine a less satisfying attempt at an answer than to simply say that some all-powerful being created it. It seems especially absurd when you are looking out at the billions of stars to think that somehow ours is special and we were put here by a being that cares about us (and even more absurd - looks like us).
I imagine the question 'Well, what do you believe?' is not so much an expression of interest in what you think as a less-than-witty retort in response to your 'attack' on his beliefs. You are right that folks probably don't really care what someone else believes, and for sure it is not going to change anyone's mind about their own beliefs.
What disappoints me most about these pointless debates with people who hold unfounded beliefs on faith alone is that they really have no capacity to explain the reasons why they hold such beliefs. I always wonder how someone who otherwise seems to be quite educated and intelligent can persist in believing such a fairy tale. I have yet to find anyone who can talk about it rationally and give me any sort of explanation. I realize that for most folks this was force-fed to them during their early formative years, and it is now so ingrained that it is hard to shake, but still it would seem that they ought to be able to provide some reasonable explanation for why they continue to hold such an illogical and inconsistent set of beliefs.
I never can tell if folks can not discuss the topic rationally because they have never thought critically about what they believe, or if they are afraid they will realize that have no justification for their beliefs.
All in all it seems to be a pretty frustrating topic to talk with most folks about.
Next time you find yourself under a canopy of stars and someone feels the needs to comment on grandeur of it all you can steer them instead to a safe, but no less interesting scientific discussion. Point out that those billions of stars actually number far less than 10,000. There are around 9,000 total stars that are visible from Earth under ideal conditions by unaided eyes. At least half will always be obscured by the Earth itself (unless you REALLY find yourself at an extreme altitude), so if you can actually see 4,000 you are doing pretty well. If the numbers themselves aren't of enough interest there are many other star facts that you could bring up - the vast distances, or the long time ago that the light left these stars, or the immense power output (which is the original source of ALL of the energy we consume).
If astronomy is not really of interest and they insist on religious philosophizing you could see whether they think that the holy figment of their imagination might have planted life on the billions of worlds that are orbiting those billions of stars and whether that life might be made in the image of that deity or something else entirely. Or maybe they'd like to give their guesses about where in the heavens we might find Heaven, given that it doesn't appear to be visible anywhere in the known universe.
Let us know if you manage to extract any enlightening thoughts.
Ironically, I found myself engaged last night during the sort with two other pilots in a discussion of these very topics for two and a half hours. I began to write a post about it, and then wondered what the point was? I'd heard all these arguments before, find them unsatisfying, and could not change the mind of someone whose first allegiance is to keeping his faith intact.
It was an interesting but pointless discussion.
I'll spare everyone the post.
I think you might find the book "The Singularity is Near" to be very interesting. You don't really describe your beliefs here, but they sound like they could be similar to mine, which happen to be very similar to those described in the book. It's also just a great book for broadening your horizons.
Your post, and the dialog you included in it, is quite entertaining.
I don't disagree with anything in your post specifically so much as I just can't muster the energy to go much beyond more practical, tangible matters. And that precludes me having much to say about what I BELIEVE, versus my constant, acrid rebuttal of what OTHERS believe.
I just think what we believe individually on these subjects simply doesn't matter. And what we see in public about these religious matters is mostly political / power manipulation and not any honest attempt to find truth. The clever leading the gullible.
Recently, I was "fortunate" enough to go on a business trip with my boss, one of the few Christians I know who actually understands the bible, and tries to live by the "rules" it lays out. While in Denver, he introduced me to his nephew, who is a seminary student.
You see, he wants to show me the way. I am too intellegent, he says, not to believe in God.
But, I thought, I was prepared. I read "End of Faith" by Sam Harris (reviewed here, I think) and "The Case for Chirst" by Lee Strobel. I am fair, if nothing else.
He had just started the book by Strobel, and every so often he would look up from it, read something it had said, and then sort of stare at me and wait. I would say I had read that, too, and that it seemed to be the evidence was supported by itself. He would get sad, and read a bit more.
On the drive home from the airport (5 hours) though, he decided to let the floodgates open. How, he asked, could I have read that entire book and STILL not believe. The evidence was right in front of me! Thousands of documents dug up by the church on one hand, and nothing but lies on the other hand. It was so obvious!
Five. Hours.
And normally, this is one of the most intellegent people I know. He is thoughtful, studies topics before he debates them, argues well, and actually is learning to concede points when he feels wrong, or does not know enough to continue.
But on this topic, he is unmovable, and adamantly resolved, regardless of the stance taken. Further, he refuses to even study those authors who have alternate views. He challenges everything negative towards it as ignorance, bias, or lies.
What causes an otherwise likable, thought provoking man to fall so far into irrationality that he becomes unbearable? (FIVE HOURS) What possesses him to turn off those functions and stand behind a wall of archaic concepts and emotion?
It seems until we can answer that question with certainty, and apply it towards a solution, we are all destined to have these encounters.
Godspeed.
Ugh. I feel your pain, Mr. Joshua. Believe me, I do. Five hours--you ARE a saint!
St. Joshua. (It has a nice ring.)
My pilots' arguments from the other night--the one guy in particular--suffered the same flaw as that of your workmate: the obsessive skepticism and fault-finding with anything that smells of science, but no skepticism whatsoever (nay, complete, child-like credulity) at the "evidence" for the myth onto which he holds so tightly. There is so much energy spent getting one's mental machinery aligned to an obviously untrue story, when a fraction of that energy would actually educate us about what IS known.
And that would be a start.
But it's a measure of how the myth has evolved that the evidence we require in all other forms of life (indeed, your workmate looks at his book as evidence!) is ingeniously determined to be not required here, and is sometimes even a bad thing (e.g. Doubting Thomas).
Wunelle, thanks for visiting my blog. I like the way you logically follow an argument to its conclusion and consider all the possibilities. You remind me very much of two of my other blogger friends Cyber Kitten (http://www.cyberkittenspot.blogspot.com) and Free Thinker (http://www.freethoughtguy.com) Stop by and check them out. They're both athiests and they both love dissecting arguments.
VV--thanks for the visit and recommends. I'll take a look right now!
Hi you live 20 minutes from Lambeau feild and I live over on the east side of town. How funny is that. LOL... I found you through VV's blog. Take care and stop by my blog anytime.
Hi, Tweety. I'm actually in Appleton, so I'm one step removed from the Lambeau E-Lite. But I'm close enough to feel the heat!
Post a Comment