What difference does it make?

The current political and economic turmoil seems to have rekindled the long dormant art of public debate.  As expected the roughly hundred year old debate on how we came to exist is a popular favorite.  Accordingly this has been the topic of discussion on several occasions of late where I have gathered with my fellow Americans to enjoy a cold beer, arguably mankind’s greatest creation.

The thing that has been most troubling for me as I have observed the debate is the lack of any middle ground, or competing third possibility.  It seems you must either be convinced the whole of existence came to be with an explosion some where far away and long ago.  Or you can be certain that a Supreme Being created the heavens and the earth and all that has happened since that creation is the will of said Supreme Being.

Let me preface this by saying I am sure some of the details are missing or inaccurate so don’t send me a blistering rant about how ignorant I am.  (Note:  If you went to a public school in America you may want to throttle back on calling other people ignorant in general.)

Just to sum up the debate.  On the one hand the cosmologists believe all of the stuff in the entire universe was compressed down into an incredibly hot single space and since the “Big Bang” the stuff has been expanding from the single space.  I have not been able to find the part of the theory that provides the explanation of where all the stuff was before the explosion.  It seems the primary support for this vast and complex scientific certainty is the way in which light shifts towards the red end of the spectrum as the source of the light moves away from the observer.  I think that is important to note that this is the latest in a long line of scientific certainties on the subject.  Previous certainties held the earth is the center of the universe.

On the other hand the creationists believe that a supreme being created the entire universe in total, the name of the being and manner of the creation varies based on the particular religion.  There are many different interpretations of the theme, again based on the dogma of the believer’s particular faith, but in broad general terms the theory is the same.  The primary support for this side of the debate is a series of texts created in the dim early days of recorded history that have been handed down over the years.  Most of these various texts contain some description of the creation, quite a bit of verbiage on how one’s life is to be conducted, and typically a fairly detailed account of how the end will come.  In fairness it is appropriate to point out that the Jim Jones, the scientologists, and other groups also have texts.  While these texts have not stood the test of time and do not enjoy the same wide support as the others, they are texts none the less.

Now that we have laid out the ground work let’s get on with the fun bits.  If you stick around for the end of the debate you will almost certainly hear the creationist ask the cosmologists this simple question. “Who lit the match?”  This is when you know the room is about to get small.  This assault on the obvious truth is more than the cosmologist can take (I suspect it is because he has no answer) and he goes off on a rant about the creationists obvious ignorance.  Something along these lines will come next.  “Really how crazy must you be to believe that God carved the laws of the land into stone with a lightning bolt?”  Undeterred the creations retorts “No crazier than someone that believes that there was nothing anywhere, then there was an explosion (of biblical proportion) of undetermined cause that created our world as it is today and that same lightning bolt struck a mud puddle causing a couple of molecules to get together and form a protein, from which we have all progressed.”  As the tone of the debate deteriorates the arrogance of each side is revealed by their complete contempt for the other possibility.

It has been my experience that arrogance is almost always accompanied by ignorance.  I have actually never seen arrogance without ignorance, but I am not arrogant enough to assume it cannot occur.  What is interesting to me is that each side is so completely sure that the other is nothing but a bunch of idiots and cannot possibly wrap their minds around the clear correctness of the opposing position.  As the debate lengthens each side becomes more entrenched in their respective ignorance, arrogantly asserting they cannot be wrong.  I call this The Paradox of Ignorance, and it is mechanics are similar to the paradox of thrift.  As each of us clings more tightly to our version of the truth, the amount of intellectual capital available for the search is lessened; this diminishes the likelihood of determining the truth.  This assumes the truth is a singularity and that it may be divined, both of which may be invalid.

Fortunately this bar room debate is of no great consequence and in most ways harmless.  It is, however, one of the most entertaining things you will see without having to buy a ticket, beats the mess out of reality TV.  Here is a question; what if both are wrong?  Another one, what if both are right and the Supreme Being struck the match?  Yet another; is it possible there are other possibilities?

Now change the terms creationist and cosmologist to conservative and liberal, and pick any major issue facing our nation or world today for substitution as the topic of debate.  Somehow it just does not seem as funny to watch, more of a dark comedy.  Given the state of the world and our republic, perhaps we should spend a little more time worrying about how we plan to survive and less time posturing about how obviously “right” we are and where to place the blame for our current situation.  Regrettably blame seems to be a resource of boundless proportion, fortunately so is optimism.  I suspect the path forward lies somewhere between the entrenched opposing camps.  I am also fairly certain there is more than one path.

That is just plain crazy talk!  What was I thinking about????