Blind faith

There is something to be said for contemplating life. I'm just not sure what, and there in lies the charm. It's such a hugely vast subject that you could make up some random piffle, stick a question mark at the end of it and label it as a deeply profound reflection upon anything at all.

For example, if someone asks, 'Where do we come from?', you can easily cobble something together in reply: 'Ask yourself, do flowers yearn to hide in the ground or reach to touch the sky?' I've no idea what that means and yet, if you say it with a deep voice, a humble look in your eyes and a glow-in-the-dark halo held over your head, people will nod in understanding. Or throw rocks at you. Either one's an acceptable reaction to faux wisdom.

I have been contemplating blind faith (in both science and religion) because of an article I read this week about Creationism and its critics. Apparently it's making a comeback, Britney-style, though hopefully Creationism won't similarly be made to stumble up and down a stage under threat of electric cattle prod (though it seems she was in a better state this year, Gawd bless 'er, apples and pears, knees up muvver Braaaahn).

There was one particular part that intrigued me:

The Rev Greg Haslam, who preaches the creationist Christian creed to his 400-strong congregation at Westminster Chapel in London, welcomes the determination of Muslims to impart a religious-based view of the world.

"Science does not have to be taught in conflict with faith or religion," he says. "I believe the current debate over creationism versus evolution is beginning to draw more and people over to our side of the argument

"The materialist explanation of the creation has nothing to offer - if we came from nothing and go into nothing, then that encourages people to lead reckless and materialistic lifestyles.

I'm not going to argue the obvious problems posed by not defining which kind of Muslims he's agreeing with (i.e. the ones who live a better life through their spirituality and the few who want to kill people for drawing offensive cartoons). I agree that discussion of religion's conflicts with science causes mankind to move forward.

However, I have a two major problems with Creationism. One is that it shouldn't be taught in a science based environment. I'm not saying ban its mention as that path leads to Hitler impersonations (and, according to my friends, I already have something in common with him. I hope they mean I'm growing a moustache and not that I'm going to massacre millions of people as, frankly, who has that kind of time? Hitler, that's who). I encourage its mention so that differences can be drawn.

I may be preaching to the perverted here, but if science is about evidence and proof then religion, which always lists pure faith as its essential ingredient, has no place to be taught there as a scientific theory. I wouldn't expect to hear in church about how Jesus walking on water isn't physically possible, so why should Creationism get a look in during a class on evolution? By the way, it always amuses me that the physically impossible is interpreted in different ways by science and religion (science - it's physically impossible, so it didn't happen; religion - it's physically impossible, so it's a miracle and proof of divine power).

And here in lies the real problem because evolution is also a theory yet we extend it a courtesy to its flaws that we do not allow to religious beliefs. It has gaps - the missing link, for example. Creationists always jump on this as proof that evolution is rubbish. I might add that talking snakes are, in contrast, completely legit. Obviously. However, it is also general accepted opinion to believe in evolution, often without working out why you believe in it.

You see, the funny thing is, science can be every bit as reactionary as religion. Professer Michael Reiss, who also happens to be a Church of England minister as well as a director of Education at the Royal Society, stepped down from his position at the Royal Society as some of his comments about Creationism could be "open to misinterpretation", according to them. As far as I can tell, he just said that if someone brought up the issue in a science class then it should be addressed. He didn't say it should be taught as a part of the curriculum, which is what the society was jumping up and down about. If we encourage students to ask questions (I personally don't because I like to finish early), no matter how foolish they may feel, how can you ban the idea that perhaps we aren't right? Scientists at the Hadron Collider are going to be excited if all they find is nothing, because it'll show that what they thought was wrong and that there are still things to discover. Perhaps the Hadron Collider will be able to tell us some answers within the year because a part of me does think, "Actually, yes, maybe it did just happen. Maybe we're just one of a cycle of universes, continuously exploding and imploding, each Earth different from the last." Just because something's hideously unlikely doesn't mean it's divine.

One other issue I have with Creationists is this assumption:

"The materialist explanation of the creation has nothing to offer - if we came from nothing and go into nothing, then that encourages people to lead reckless and materialistic lifestyles.

I know plenty of atheists and they seem to live good lives without resorting to Grand Theft Auto lifestyles. What encourages people to lead terrible lives is a lack of belief in anything or anyone, not just God. Anyway, what's wrong with being "reckless and materialistic" for a time? I lead a "reckless and materialistic" life (I have a deep love of dvds, for example), but I also rescue puppies and kittens from bad owners (ok, no I don't, but I have the slight inclination to do so and that at least indicates a heart).

My point is, you can be "reckless and materialistic", but that doesn't mean you live that way forever. Maybe you start a family and believe in that. Maybe you find the strength to be better thanks to amazing friends. Christians would argue that this is proof of God working through people but that sounds a little bit like an over-eager father taking total credit for his football-sensation son's achievements.

Creationists shouldn't get all het up about people arguing against their beliefs, but then again, neither should scientists. The problem is when they both just go along with what they're told without pausing to think objectively. I was recently reminded of the Milgram experiment conducted many years ago. Milgram was an unethical genius. His experiment was designed to find out just how much people would follow an authority figure (I believe it was influenced by the Nazi example). A subject was placed in a room in front of a device which was hooked up to another person in a different room. A man in a white coast instructed the subject to shock the other person if they got an answer wrong to the questions they were asked. The subject was able to hear the other person's reactions to the shock. As more questions were answered incorrectly, the shock level would be increased, despite growing pleas from the person next door. The dial went up to dangerous levels and the majority of subjects, though hesitant, would continue the shocks up to dangerous levels, despite the agonising cries from the other person. This was because the man in the white coat told them to keep going.

I might add that there was no other person, that it was faked. However, the subject didn't know that. They just kept going because an authority figure told them to, even when the other person went silent after crying he was having a heart attack. This is kind of how I view people who listen only to science or religion with no room for discussion - subjects going along with whatever's handed to them because actually thinking about things is up to the higher authority, be it God or a scientific institution.

I have to take the view that people who hide behind blind belief in religion or science deserve every argument that comes their way. 47% of America, for example, believes in Creationism and I have to assume that, in the great U.S of A, it's not just the other 53% who occasionally do bad things. It's possible that religion or science aren't responsible for people leading good lives or doing hideous things and that religion or science as an explanation for how you act is just an excuse. Maybe, if you're going to believe blindly in science or religion, you shouldn't be surprised when you have to defend it.