Throughout the world of education, a raging argument has begun between many different sects of religions, and scientists of varied disciplines. That of course does not limit people of faith to 'fighting' science, but also allows them to fight themselves, and scientists to fight themselves. While the situations are innumerable, one clarification generically stands the strongest: A belief in god versus a disbelief in god. I will take this moment to clarify the discussion point-- perhaps it is more appropriate to call this a analysis of what people are commonly arguing about, specifically who is right. Does/do a god(s) exist, or is/are there simply no god(s)? Argument after argument, day after day, intellectuals(and non-intellectuals) combat each other graciously and/or defiantly to prove one another wrong. I'm here to analyse their behaviour.
On one hand, we have most commonly an atheist who attempts to use science, logic, and other mechanisms of reason(some also use things that shouldn't be used, like "you're just wrong", and those people should be ignored) to disprove a religious belief. On the other, we have a religious person who defines faith and can use pretty much the same tools that the atheist would use(less often than the atheist does, I find, but that's changing for some reason. Perhaps someone would like to try to explain that change legitimately?) so the playing ground is set up. Using science and other tools, both parties launch fierce attacks upon one another. I however do not believe that most in the argument realise something fairly simple, fairly obvious, and very evident to this argument:
They're arguing with ideals. Ideals are strong,, resilient, and pressing viruses that invade the minds of otherwise unsuspecting humans, and plant themselves to grow. Those ideas are highly subject to change, but change is not always predictable, nor is it always large or small. Having established that neat little definition, you'll know that while ideals change, they do not fundamentally break until several core elements of their design are completely eradicated. That means, for example terrorism-- to effectively eradicate terrorism(which is an idea) one would have to destroy all of those with whom that ideal rests within. There are other more severely distorted methods of change in ideals, though they would take an incredibly long amount of time, and are not effective on such high levels.
If an ideal is wrong, what happens to it? Truly. By "wrong", I mean not functional, not productive, nonsensical and worthless to any prospect of life or continuation. What happens to an ideal of that kind? It's quite simple. It decays. It rots. It dies. While it takes time, it happens inevitably, and has happened inevitably for tens of thousands of years of human existence. You could almost classify mutations in biology "ideas", they are nature's "ideas" . . possible solutions to evident problems in need of attention via adaptation to one's environment. No one said (popular misconception) that the solutions proposed would work indefinitely. It was simply a proposed solution. What happens to those solutions when they utterly fail? Over time, they decay . . usually quickly in the scheme of evolution considering the hostile nature of a negative mutation. If speciation occurred, and that new species is incapable of reproduction to sustain those genes because of mutation, game over. Extinction. An ideal is no less susceptible to this constraint. If an idea does not work, if it fails utterly, it will only persevere so long as the last failures are not weeded out systematically by the nature of its failure. An ideal that is no longer valid, no longer productive, and is in fact counterproductive will destroy itself and can not persevere as every other element moves on-- new ideas are formed(we shall call this process ideal genesis, or ideciation for jokes) and branch off to create ore complex dendrite connection networks, more intense neurotic reaction, et cetera. Ideals are immensely strong, just like the microscopic networks of cellulose that are impossible to digest except by special enzymes.
Consider this for a moment. Whether religion is "wrong" or "right", whether science is "wrong" or "right", will truly be determined by the resilience of the ideals they represent. How resilient is religion? How resilient is science? One idea must be better than the other, if there is so much conflict. One idea may actually help another, however, the conflict arose as if both were always opposed to one another. The longer these ideals are expanded and collaborated, cross-examined, redefined, processed and handled, the more they will be tested in their resilience to the new and brilliant level of human thought.
Our minds are evolving. Our technologies and understanding are becoming further and further intricate. this process will destroy ideals that are unable to compete and stand to the new found discoveries of the human mind. If religion is proven by science or other means yet to be discovered, it will have survived the test of resilience that an ideal must survive to continue to thrive. If science continues as a thriving, resilient ideal and process, then it too shall remain it's own testimony to its resilience as an idea. These two functional pieces of human society will be tested rigorously in the coming decades, as human minds progress further and further into the unknown of this universe. Most of us, in our lifetimes, may witness the birth and death of many ideals, strong and weak. As we continue to argue these things, perhaps we should realise just how futile the argument will be if one or the other will generate the beauty of resilience that an ideal will generate-- not sheerly from argument. You will not destroy an idea simply by arguing about it. Ideals destroy themselves, with progression and innovation. Ideas are meant to be adaptive, and if they cannot be, they fail.
This is somewhat a note to all of you who argue without consistency and with the aim to "win" or "lose"; you stand as nothing against the resilience of an ideal. So carefully consider these things before you begin an 'attack' on another human being.
No comments:
Post a Comment