Diogenes of Oenoanda was an Epicurean Greek from the 2nd century AD who carved a summary of the philosophy of Epicurus onto a portico wall in the ancient city of Oenoanda in Lycia (modern day southwest Turkey). The surviving fragments of the wall, which originally extended about 80 meters, form an important source of Epicurean philosophy. The inscription sets out Epicurus' teachings on physics, epistemology, and ethics. It was originally about 25000 words along and filled 260 square meters of wall space. Diogenes built the wall so that all the citizens of his town could learn and be inspired from it. He said if there were one or two people that were lost he could educate them personally. But there are many. So he decided to put up the wall. According to Epicurus, in order to live wisely, it isn't enough to read a philosophical argument once or twice, we need constant reminders of it or we'll forget.
This blog is primarily for my own personal desire to accumulate, deliberate over and preserve critical thinking on philosophies and ideologies that have affected and continue to affect my thought life and beliefs. I welcome encouragement and criticism. An analyzed life is a wealthier, more fulfilled life.

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Science vs. Pseudo-Science, Rationale vs. Irrationality, Evolution vs. Creation

   When my two boys were young, like most children, they would occasionally get into some nasty disputes with each other. It became very evident that if my wife and I would listen to only one child’s explanation of what caused the dispute we would usually get a rather skewed picture of the actual event. After listening intently to both children, along with a few probing questions, we were typically able to glean enough truth to piece together what probably took place. Whether we’re dealing with children fighting, friends in the midst of divorce or social issues such as whether global warming is caused from human activity or a natural phenomenon, it can be difficult at the best of times to glean enough truth to form a rational opinion. Let alone, a comfortable conclusion. It’s all the more difficult when one of the two voices is particularly predominant over the other.
   Rationale, in our complex world, at times seems to be somewhat elusive. Ben Goldacre in his book “Bad Science” makes it alarmingly clear just how easily our minds can be deceived into believing absolutely in something that has no clear scientific validity what so ever. Coupled with clever advertising and the amazing power of placebo we can convince ourselves to believe in almost anything.   
    In spite of growing up in a religious family evolution or creation was rarely, if ever discussed in the home. In school, however evolution was scoffed at and ridiculed in the halls and as much as possible, avoided in the classroom. Creation was the predominant voice. I did not do well in most subjects except for science, at least on the occasion when I applied myself. So, it should have been no surprise that when religion became a passion in my early 20s that creation science would become something of an interest of mine. I read books, listened to tapes, watched documentaries and debated the topic regularly. It drove me crazy when I met fellow Christians that had “swallowed” evolution. I could not understand why it seemed that the most intelligent Christians were the ones that had no problems with combining their faith with evolution. It was clear to me that the Bible says God created the world in 6 days. That’s that, and there’s plenty of evidence to back it up. Or is there? I remember at one point I realized I was feeling a little smug in believing that so few people really new the truth, but I did. Then a thought crossed my mined. What if they are right and I’m wrong.
     OK, I’m rationalizing. That was a long time ago. Do you remember what it was like when you found out there’s no Santa Clause? Well, now I do too. I was always taught Santa wasn’t real.
     Its one thing to allow ourselves to think outside our little box, but it’s another thing altogether to stay out of the box. I have no intention of getting into a debate over evolution vs. creation or “Intelligent Design”. In my mind the fight was over a long time ago and a winner has clearly emerged. The mountains of evidence that continue to pile up daily only to be completely ignored by the six-day creationists is humorous to say the least. I do still find the topic interesting if not entertaining.
    The thing about scientists is that they like to criticize each others hypotheses. That’s a part of what makes science work. It’s self-correcting. When a hypothesis is consistently disproved it is eventually discarded and we all move on to new ideas and hopefully a better understanding based on real evidence. Creationism, on the other hand has been completely discredited, exposed, invalidated and had holes shot through it to the point of complete annihilation, and they still keep coming back for more. Gotta giv’em credit for tenacity, if nothing else. It reminds me of the Black Knight fight seen in Monty Python’s “The Holy Grail”. “It’s just a flesh wound!”
     If religion is the “opiate of the masses” maybe creationism is the placebo.
    I get it though. I understand why so many Christians want to hang on to this. While it took some 20 years for me to dismantle my faith by discarding unnecessary beliefs, creationism was, embarrassingly, one of the last to go.  As I eluded above, while many Christians have no issues with combining their faith with evolution, for me, it was one of the final blows to an already crumbling belief. There was simply nothing left for a god to be part of. The only exception was the psychological benefit of wishful thinking. And that’s just not enough.