The 6000-Year Delusion and Climate Denial
Posted by Carl Martin on Apr 25 2010 | Comment now »
Thirty years ago, my father talked of the upcoming polarization that would be the cusp of a new age. To see that polarization in action on such a large scale is humbling. With the United States split on so many issues, with the government effectively crippled in that polarization — red state versus blue state — it could break my heart to see progress get so off track. But I suppose the Us’ans versus the Them’ans has to play out on its own. All anyone can do, I suppose, is to be a voice of reason, calm and neutrality in the midst of divisiveness.
Take for instance the ultra-conservative, fundamentalist Christian who believes with all their heart that scientists are evil, deluded sinners, full of evolutionary ideas that are contrary to the “Good Book.” Said in great enough numbers, this may eventually affect what more of our children are taught in school. Perhaps it won’t be full-blown creationism, at first. But as school boards ban books, rewrite text books (as they’re doing in Texas), and generally turn the focus of education toward a more fundamentalist point-of-view, the closer we come to an ideological meltdown that spells poison for us all. The religious freedom they enjoy, they may end up taking away from everyone else. The children of tomorrow, reading their new textbooks, will be the voters soon afterward, ready for yet another shift toward the darkness, incrementally into oblivion.
On the other side of the fence, the atheists and skeptics deride such religious claptrap as medieval nonsense. And they may be right, but attacking may not be the best approach.
I’ve looked at the apparent problem from a number of angles. On the subject of science (”evolutionists”) versus Bible-thumping fundamentalists (”faithful”), a solution may exist in hijacking Genesis. The Bible’s first book seems to be a major stumbling block, fueling the flames of divisiveness, and adding to the polarization we see on so many fronts. If we take that fuel away from the equation, then what’s to fight about?
Ignoring Reality Equals Delusion
What some “believers” do in the name of their religion only adds fuel to the weapons used by people like Richard Dawkins. Many scientists are embarrassed by Dawkins’ over-the-top theatrics against God and religion. Yet, if Richard Dawkins wants to do something for “reason,” fighting is perhaps the wrong way to go about it. Such arrogance on both sides of the fence only add to the feud.
Whether you are religious or not, consider this “thought problem:” If the Bible, particularly Genesis, contains divine wisdom, and if science gives us the relative truths from observation and logic, how can we resolve the fact that one seems to date humanity and the universe at 6,000 years, while the other (in all its dozens of disciplines) gives us 13.7 billion years for the cosmos, and at least 200,000 years for man?
Looking at the problem logically, we see one interpretation versus thousands. The conservative, fundamentalist interprets the Bible in a way that most Christians do not, yet there are many conflicting interpretations of scripture. Science, on the other hand, is in harmony, relatively speaking. There remain a great many things we do not understand, and for those puzzles, scientists remain moderately humble, something I’d like to say about the fundamentalists, but can’t. If thousands of experts, each from a different field, say that cosmos and man are old, yet one expert says it’s all less than 6,000 years of age, then I’d want to examine the one expert’s credentials.
Okay, we don’t need to get rowdy. The fundamentalist should be excited. The idea of discovering something new, and even more true about our sacred Bible, should thrill them. But alas, fear drives some of them. They are afraid to question anything, lest they lose their faith. Some are driven by ego. Being wrong, hurts, so they protect their ideas with outlandish claims.
Perhaps we can appeal to their sense of salvation. “Would Jesus want you to lose your way? Don’t depend too much on any one person’s interpretation. Let God lead your heart.” Or, “Don’t let faith depend on a lie. God doesn’t want that.” Yet, perhaps this requires someone with an IQ above 80. Alas! I fear some of them may not have intelligence on their side.
And that’s okay. The search for truth requires humility more than intelligence. I may get a great deal of guff for that statement. That’s okay. Just picture in your mind the attitude of someone who knows they’re right and won’t listen to anyone else’s ideas to the contrary, despite the proof that other person may be carrying. Do some scientists lose sight of truth like this? You bet they do. Ego is an equal opportunity destroyer.
Perhaps a widely publicized announcement: “Genesis found to say that humanity started 10,454,130 BC,” will shake up the fundamentalist camp. I can see the all-night prayer vigil, now. The idea, though, is not to sow seeds of doubt in their faith, but in their belief. The two are not the same thing. Faith in a loving power greater than ourselves does not depend on fallible belief. But hey, look at the plus side. “Now, those damn scientists are wrong for using too small a number!”
Perhaps as Christians, they may learn to love their supposed “enemies.” Do Christians really do that?
Skepticism as a Contagious Disease
Some forms of skepticism are ugly. The dyed-in-the-wool skeptic who loves science will take offense at this, forgetting the fact that true science doesn’t depend on doubt (a key ingredient in skepticism), but rather restraint — a measure of neutrality and humility in the search for truth. My father referred to this as “neutral affinity” — neither reaching for something nor shrinking from it — possessing neither fear nor desire. This is also the approach of spirit when it learns to loosen attachments to things, ideas and beliefs in search of a higher truth.
Anyone who knows me knows my love of science, logic and mathematics. These are beautiful tools, but sometimes they can be misapplied, especially when emotion is involved.
And some forms of skepticism are downright nasty. I’ve been witnessing this on dozens of forums online. Name calling, pseudo-logical arguments on how dumb the opposition is, and worse — ad hominem, non sequitur, arguments to ignorance, and other logical fallacies. Skepticism is an equal opportunity slave master. Neutral affinity, on the other hand, is the key to the door that leads out of such madness.
The internet is aiding in a meltdown. Push the polarization far enough and factions may split off and take action in the real world. Add to this the increased droughts and floods borne of climate change, fueled by global warming, and people may become desperate when food shortages appear, more disease crops up, and civilization’s infrastructure starts to crack. Alarmist? What happens when you see billowing smoke, and feel heat from beyond the next door? You pull the fire alarm, but you do it calmly and forcefully.
Perhaps you find a way to inject humor so that there is no pushing and shoving on the way to safety. “I’ll race you to the exit…. Not! Hahahaha.”
Climate Denial
One forum I belong to, RedState.com, seems to be a mix of right-wingers and extreme-right-wingers, conservatives and ultra-conservatives, bashing science, pretending to know science, being skeptical and sour against anyone or anything that disagrees with their point-of-view. And that’s understandable. Perhaps not all Republicans are fundamentalists, but bashing science seems to be growing in popularity there. Republicans are also pro-big business, especially big oil.
Fundamentalist Christians and greedy oil barons? Strange bed fellows. I wouldn’t doubt that some oil execs are looking at the fundamentalist Christian confusion over science, and wondering how they can add fuel to that fire. After all, the fundamentalists were already against science for disagreeing with their limiting, one-dimensional interpretation of Genesis. Along comes “global warming,” caused primarily by a dependence on fossil fuels, and “big oil” wants to protect their industry. Down with the “evolutionary” scientists and their silly “global warming” ideas, and keep my seat warm while I take my profits to the bank. (Wink!)
Recently, I read a good, level-headed article on Global Warming, Fact or Myth. I had to share this with my good friends at RedState.com. I think they needed a break from all their science-bashing and Al Gore pillorying. Their attacks can be exhausting work, especially with the zeal they display. I hope they get a good chuckle out of it. Laughter is good medicine.
Those guys at RedState.com don’t believe man is responsible for “global warming.” They think of it as a hoax. But I had to ask them, “Is man responsible for climate change, or is he irresponsible?”
Don’t laugh too long. Let’s do something about it.
An Unholy Alliance
Posted by Carl Martin on Apr 17 2010 | Comment now »
Today, I was reading a news article on how global warming may contribute to future volcanic eruptions in Iceland. Though the article makes it clear that the current eruption is likely not connected to melting glaciers, many of the comments jumped all over the article for associating the current eruption with the global warming hoax.
While some poke fun at Al Gore, others admit that we have global warming but say humanity has nothing to do with it. We’ve had global warming before the Industrial Age, they say, as if this proves their thesis.
What’s going on here? Certainly, things are rarely as simple as they seem, and this looks complex at first glance.
Like the recent presidential elections in the United States, divisiveness seems to be the order of the day. Al Gore lost his election by a handful of votes. We’ve always had divisions, but something seems to be cranking up the heat a bit. The internet makes news more available, but it also allows ideas to flow in the other direction. People get to speak out and to take sides.
Big business, like any entity, wants to survive and even thrive. It wants to protect and empower itself. What would they be willing to do to protect their market share? It’s only human nature that they do something about it.
Those with very little intelligence, frequently cannot understand things like science. The internet gives them a chance to voice their opinions — to feel smart. Ego at its worst leads them to put others down for being “deluded,” or “hoaxed.” The voice of reason will not dissuade them. The fact that scientists have given them the internet, the electricity over which the internet travels, the other marvels of technology that make up each part of the computer on which they type their ideas, they somehow have fun pillorying all scientists. “Wow, look at me. I’m smarter than those dumb scientists.”
Now, scientists are not perfect. They’re human and are subject to the same or similar human frailties. North American anthropology suffered through years of “Clovis first” ego, scientists afraid to dig below the Clovis horizon for fear of finding anything that could jeopardize their careers. Damn the truth; protect the dogma! So, the two-digit gang don’t have a monopoly on being “dumb.” Ego is an equal opportunity source of dumbness. The three-digit gang can be equally dumb, at times.
The guys who brought us the warm and fuzzy atomic bomb are shown in one episode of American Playhouse’s “Oppenheimer” to be quite human. The episode shows how scientists argued for some time over the effects of friction within the bomb, only to realize that friction was irrelevant. The parts did not need to remain pretty and friction-free, because they would be vaporized a millionth of a second later. Even scientists can lose site of things in their rush to be intelligent.
The human personality is driven by many things. The need to be right is perhaps one of the most seductive. Greed is also seductive. In fact, the “seven deadly sins” of religious lore make a good list of sources of bad effects. But each one comes back to ego.
Ego is that part of the human personality that needs to be right and feels injured if shown to be wrong. Frequently, ego drives people to make foolish statements in an attempt to protect their “rightness.” This seems to occur quite often with the two-digit gang who cannot fathom the arguments made against them, so they say things that are non sequitur or ad hominem to deflect the attention away from the revelation of their wrongness.
Why is this at all important?
People are taking sides. Society is being beset with dire challenges. Recently we’ve had economic chaos. We’ve also had greater turbulence in the global climate system (powered by, yes, global warming) — Katrina, droughts, floods and more. We’ve had wars and rumors of wars. Some people are getting bent out of shape over ideas of who’s right and who’s wrong. A lot is at stake, and people will do crazy things when they suspect someone is threatening their way of life.
In the taking of sides, policies are made, laws are passed, and social changes are made, like the changes to textbooks in Texas to be more conservative. Could science lose amidst such changes? Could sanity?
Recently, I re-watched the movie, “Die Hard 4,” about a “fire sale” attack on the American infrastructure. Civilization is vulnerable to changes in public opinion and legislated “dumbness.” It doesn’t take a greedy madman to bring civilization to its knees, though some may argue that we have plenty of greedy madmen running around already on Wall Street. What kind of a system is it that is powered by greed, fear and ego? If everyone is suffering, couldn’t an agreement between all parties end that suffering? But the members of Wall Street are not interested in everyone. Besides, who’s to say that such an agreement would really work, and there’s the too real possibility that “I” will end up with the short straw.
In my family, my intelligence was found to be below average. Amongst my brothers, I’m at the bottom of the totem pole. But hey, how important is IQ? Mine’s a lousy 139, borderline genius, so I’m told. That’s okay. I can still learn, if I have the humility to be open to learning.
The unholy alliance of ego and internet may get out of hand. The polarization is already underway. And, as in nature, when things become very polarized, there is the potential for great change. Just look at any lightning storm.
What do we do about it? Practice humility, instead of skepticism, doubt and ego. The creationists are skeptical of science, the Clovis first dogmatists were skeptical of earlier man, the hoaxists are skeptical of global warming. Despite the conventional “wisdom” about skepticism, humble restraint in deference to the truth, whatever that truth turns out to be, is a far better paradigm for everyone — scientists and laypersons alike. Skepticism helps some people feel right. It’s full of judgment and bias. It’s full of ego. Perhaps, one day we can have a little more internet, and a lot less ego.