As I write this I am enjoying a Cuban Montecristo. Your understanding of the difference between fine cigar and cheap cigarette tobacco is of little consequence to me. Your knowledge of second-hand smoke and the uneducated laws that have been passed regarding it are also small concerns to me. What does interest me is how the uneducated laws get passed. Real science and real information is what we, as intelligent people, can aspire to as we formulate laws and regulations. Money, trade and politics often get in the way of good government and good research. Unfortunately, science sometimes falls victim to the effects of filthy lucre. An equally vexing problem is that of personal bias to Either / Or thinking. The Either / Or approach to thinking has been and is very common. Creationists and some Evolutionists tend to see things as Either / Or. For example: "Either man evolved or he was specially created by God out of clay." This view of the world leaves very little to no room for a middle ground or a bigger, more complicated and logical picture. Robert Anton Wilson, in Cosmic Trigger, wrote, “It seems to be a hangover of the medieval Catholic era that causes most people, even the educated, to think that everybody must ‘believe’ something or other, that if one is not a theist, one must be a dogmatic atheist, and if one does not think Capitalism is perfect, one must believe fervently in Socialism, and if one does not have blind faith in X, one must alternatively have blind faith in not-X or the reverse of X. My own opinion is that belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence. The more certitude one assumes, the less there is left to think about, and a person sure of everything would never have any need to think about anything and might be considered clinically dead under current medical standards, where absence of brain activity is taken to mean that life has ended. Belief in the traditional sense, or certitude, or dogma, amounts to the grandiose delusion, ‘My current model’ -- or grid, or map, or reality-tunnel – ‘contains the whole universe and will never need to be revised.’ In terms of the history of science and knowledge in general, this appears absurd and arrogant to me, and I am perpetually astonished that so many people still manage to live with such a medieval attitude.” A common notion that many scientists subscribe to when they can't solve a mystery is the First Cause argument. This can also be seen in the Intelligent Design Theory. Creationists are not the only ones up to this, Quantum Physics is also a good example. Popular writers like Deepak Chopra and PH.D.s like Amit Goswami and Fred Alan Wolfe blend their science with Hindu and Buddhist teachings. This provides for interesting reading, no doubt, but often leads the reader down a rabbit hole of confusion. The confusion enters when the reader loses track of real science and enters the shadowlands of pseudo science and spiritualism. Science is not based some form of Eastern Mysticism or Judeo Creationism. Remember that Eastern Mysticism and Judeo Creationism are based on faith and miracles. Let's look at that for a moment. David Hume (1711-1776), the great Scottish Philosopher, wrote a maxim on miracles: The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), “That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of a such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which endeavors to establish.” When anyone tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion. ([1758] 1952, p. 491) I will give you an example of a good usage of Hume's Maxim: What is more fantastic and miraculous, that God should exist or not exist? Now I am persuaded that the belief that God doesn't exist is more fantastic and miraculous than the belief that God (at least in some form) does exist. Steve Allen said it like this: "My present position as to the existence of God is that though it seems utterly fantastic, I accept it because the alternative seems even more fantastic." I cannot prove that God exists but I cannot prove that God doesn't exist. Charles Darwin said, "It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man can be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist." Even Darwin saw it as possible to believe in God and at the same time accept evolution. Many religious people get hung up on the Either / Or argument. They can't see themselves believing in their god and considering the theory of evolution. The Either / Or argument may very well be an over simplistic view of God and nature. Unfortunately, most ancient and medieval (pre modern science) religious writings influence many modern religious (and non religious) people into an Either / Or world view. Perhaps the Either / Or argument may be far too simple and I suggest that it is. God, as a First Cause, has a flip side as well. John Stuart Mill said in his Autobiography, "My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?" Bertrand Russell said (1927), "If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, 'How about the tortoise?' the Indian said, 'Suppose we change the subject.' The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause." Obviously, the First Cause world view has limits as well. The Either / Or argument can be, and many times is, very limiting to understanding the universe. Whatever your personal view may be, your view is not the actual scene. That is, the map is not the territory. As I (and others) have said before, the map is what we create within us. We observe the territory then decide what the map should say. The rational, common sense thinker is more inclined to draw a map based on empirical observation and science is generally the preferred method. The believer is more inclined to draw a map based on religious teachings. Because the territory is far greater than us, our maps are limited in detail. By the same analogy, God, the universe and biology are vast territories and are described by many different observers. What people are really trying to convey about science (and god) is many times a problem of semantics. Sometimes people are trying to describe the same (or similar) idea while saying something very different. In the coming decades and centuries perhaps we will discover that Quantum Physics, I.D., and evolution are intrinsically related, perhaps not. The fools of the past are many. I remain unmarried to certainty. Always skeptical, always open to scientific study, the arts and the future.
