 |
|
| What do you believe in? | | Date Created: Apr 04, 2005, 04:09 PM |
Lots of debates and discussions lately about beliefs. The Terri Shaivo case of course brought this up. The death of the Pope and what he stood for (good and bad).
And, I was having a discussion online with a guy whose theology is really not very different from mine (though I'd wager he would completely disagree with that statement!) The topic was evolution. (Uh oh!) We debated back and forth and I eventually realized there was no way he was going to even hear what I had to say. Why? Because he's closed minded? Maybe, but I don't think that was the biggest problem. The problem is that he simply has a completely different view of "beliefs" than I do. As I thought about it, I see that this difference is really at the core of many debates regarding faith.
The discussion was really quite silly because we were both arguing the same point. I'll sum it up for you: I said I didn't believe in evolution and he kept saying that I shouldn't believe in evolution. Stupid huh? Yeah, but I still occasionally get suckered into such silliness.
I don't believe in evolution. (I'll give you a second to pick yourself up off the floor.) Evolution is a scientific theory (neither a hypothesis, nor a law) that explains the origin of species through descent with modification and natural selection against traits that limit an organism's ability to pass on it's genetics to the next generation. It is currently the best theory we have that explains the greatest number of observations, and it has been a useful organizing principle in many areas of biology.
But it is entirely possible that our understanding of the origin of species will be very different 50 years from now. In fact, some discovery could be made tomorrow that could greatly change our present theories.
To me, science is changeable. And such changeable ideas are not for "believing in." I like to believe in constant things. This was the crux of the misunderstanding between the two of us. I think he finally began to understand my point, but then dismissed it as a pointless semantic debate.
I think it is neither pointless or semantic. I believe in God. To me, God is something worth believing in. Evolution is a useful theory, but science is too tenuous to make it a belief.
Unfortunately, I think we do a terrible job of describing the tenuous nature of science to our kids. Because of this, we end up with a citizenry that is either all too willing to believe anything someone in a lab coat says. Or, people feel forced to make up their own pseudo-science in order to combat the "beliefs" they think science teaches.
I'm not sure how we get beyond this. It was evident that there was no way beyond this impase with the guy I was having the discussion with. Is he representative? Or is there another way past?
Politics has become a game of "belief" one-up-manship. "My beliefs are better than yours." And unfortunately, some progressives have done such a terrible job of stating their beliefs that they appear to have none. But even when progressives (like me) clearly state their beliefs, others seem unable to understand. I'm not sure how we get past this. Or if it is even possible? Are we doomed to simply talk past each other? |
|
|
|
|
