January 2, 2006
-
Let’s go back to the basics, shall we? Sometimes we really need
to start at the beginning in order to really piece things together.Though we have limited evidence of how everything began, we can make
some logical guesses based on what we do have. We do know that
the universe is here, that our world was created , and that life
somehow eventually sprung up. None of us were there at the
beginning, so none of us can know how
it all started, but we always try to guess anyway. I guess it is
in our nature as human beings. Some people take a logical,
scientific approach by saying that the Big Bang and evolution are
correct, some people take a philosophical/religious approach by saying
that God created it, and some people mix the two. Let’s explore
these possibilities, and see where they lead us, employing the Socratic
Method in our exploration.Let’s say that everything came about naturally, or as a result of a
chance clashing together of two atoms. All matter in the universe
suddenly came into existence as a result, forming stars and
planets. On the planet third in the orbit of Sol, conditions were
just right for life as we know it to develop, organic compounds started
forming, and eventually they became sentient. These sentient
compunds gradually grew more and more complex organisms, eventually
developing into animals, and these animals became more and more complex
until some of them became human beings. Through a gradual process
of natural selection, where the weaker forms are weeded out because
they are not capable of surviving in nature, intelligent beings
eventually surface. In analysis, we can see that this approach is
indeed very logical and incorporates the knowledge we have gained as a
species, and if you look at the rationale behind it, it makes
sense. Each succeeding step makes sense, granted you are willing
to accept a plethora of coincidences as fact. Opponents try to
counter with their own science and logic to the contrary, but often it
just comes down to ad hominem attacks:
“Well, it’s just stupid to think that we came from monkeys,” or “So I
hear that you believe in the big gaseous belch,” or even “You just
don’t want to believe in God.” The rationale behind these
arguments is that the idea is just so stupid that it is completely
unbelievable, but it is coming from personal bias and incredulity,
often as a result of indoctrination on some level, religious or
not. Opponents are not trying to be logical, they are just
refusing to believe because they think it is absurd. But just
because an idea is absurd does not mean that it isn’t true.Now let’s explore the philosophical/religious approach to the beginning
of the universe. A common religious approach says that God
created the universe and all of the life within it in six days
(literally or figuratively, just give it a rest). The intelligent
designer created intelligent beings, and He set everything in motion so
perfectly that it would work. Some take this idea further, saying
that the Creator took an active role in His Creation, which is where
you get the concept of religion. On a philosophical level, people
try to resolve the meaning of life and try to balance order and
chaos. There has to be some meaning for life, and so we must have
been put here for some reason. Some break off and go the
religious route, while some prefer to sit and ponder, using the power
of the human mind to figure it out. In analysis, we can see that
while this approach may not be as logical as its counterpart, it does
have its advantages, one of the key advantages being that since it is
all based on the supernatural or the power of the mind, it is difficult
to dispute. This does not mean it is wrong; it just means that it
cannot be proven (there is a difference). Opponents always
counter with logic and scientific fact, using it to say that a
supernatural explanation makes no sense, and to say that philosophy is
all built on the abstract and not the concrete. Again, however,
they tend to resort to ad hominem attacks:
“The idea of God is totally ludicrous,” “Religion is a crutch,” and
even, “You just don’t want to accept proven scientific facts.”The commonality in both of these approaches is that they make some wild
assumptions. Often times scientists are too quick to settle on an
answer when it comes to the origin of life, just because they are so
eager to find the answer. Based on limited amounts of evidence
they will piece together a theory, and tout it as fact. On the
other hand, religious people assume that there is a God, which is a
huge assumption all by itself, and philosophers assume that the
questions of life can actually be answered. The big assumption
that both make is that they both think the other approach is completely
absurd, and will not explore that approach because of their assumption.So how do we know what is true, and where do we go from there once we
find it? If we swallow the science/logic pill, then we have to
accept all of the coincidences and imperfect evidence that comes along
with it. We have to also then accept that since life occurred as
a result of chance, then it could cease just as easily as a result of
chance, and our lives are utterly meaningless because everything is
subject to chance. If we swallow the philosophy/religion pill,
then we have to accept the lack of logic and the purely
hypothetical. Life has some sort of meaning, but we have to
accept the fact that this meaning is more than likely going to be
completely subjective, and we also have to accept the fact that God
might be watching us, not to mention the big afterlife question. I suppose that we can try and mix the two,
but then the hard part is determining what the proper balance is.I guess it just comes down to this one question: what assumptions are you willing to make?
