Wednesday Whimsey: Metaphysics, gnostics, sceptics and a defence of creationism

Let me start, dear reader, with the one clear fact in all this – there is a “creation”. OK it could be an entirely accidental creation, it could be a glorious combination of accident and subtle external intervention or the Great Goddess Woo might have made it from tears at the death of her pet dog. What you believe here isn’t important – what is important is enquiry – asking the question.

And this is where we have to distinguish between the sceptic’s question and the Gnostic’s question. Not only to recognise the distinction but also to appreciate that the two questions are complementary rather than conflicting. The scientist asks how it all came about – what was it that start the ball rolling (or the big bang banging if you prefer). And this is an important question to which there is no true answer merely a search for truth through the raising of further questions.

Now the Gnostic question is different – it is a metaphysical question rather than a matter of sceptical or scientific enquiry. It is to ask why. And this is done in the same spirit of enquiry as the scientist’s question. But with one major difference in that this enquiry does not provide an answer because the question is phrased in a way that makes it impossible to answer. Thus asking, “is there a god”, allows us to explore both sceptical enquiry of this question and also to consider the idea of godhead and the meaning of existence.

I do not claim superiority for either of the two questions – if I want to understand the world so as to exploit the wonders of the creation then I require scientific enquiry. Metaphysics – despite the misplaced claims of some – does not cure disease, bring riches or provide food and shelter. What metaphysics does do is to provide a context for us to consider why we love our partner, why we value community and how we deal with birth or death. I do not believe that scientific enquiry can fully answer these questions. And, more importantly, to attempt to use scientific enquiry in these matters is to use it as a tool of metaphysical rather than sceptical enquiry.

Under these latter circumstances, sceptical enquiry is no better than Aristolean logic, rabbinical discourse or the various tools of theological enquiry – from gnosis to Augustinianism. Which is not to say that sceptical enquiry cannot be used to examine metaphysical questions but that such a method of enquiry does not provide a less faith-based answer to those questions than other tools of enquiry.

So when we attack “teaching creationism” from the basis of science, we are right only so long as we are concerned with the teaching of science. We cannot say that stories of creation – however told – have no value and should not be allowed. This is to cut off reasoned metaphysical enquiry using a range of methods by saying only one method – sceptical enquiry – is valid in the exploration of metaphysics (which rather contradicts the central tenets of scepticism, of course). The term “teaching creationism” requires qualification – the addition of other words: “as scientific fact” or “as part of a science course”, is needed for the criticism to be valid.

Trying to understand the magic of creation using only scientific or sceptical enquiry does not work. We can explain and describe bits of that creation but the full appreciation requires other methods and other tools. The scientist tells me that The Gentry are just an ancient myth but I know the truth of it, I know the scientists are wrong. There really are fairies at the bottom of my garden.

....

How do you measure "fair"?

OK so we are used to political campaigns, political parties and the media crying foul about one thing or another being “unfair”. You only need to look at the political slogans in this current election to see how important the word “fair” is to campaigning. “A Future Fair for All” cry the Labour Party, “Building a Fairer Britain” echo the Liberal Democrats and from the furthest corner pipes the Green Party with “Fair is Worth Fighting For!”

Now as my regular readers know, I have issues with the idea of fairness – not that I think we should set out to be “unfair” but that life is (as nearly everyone’s mum and dad says at some point) not fair. Some folk seem to be more fortunate, prettier, cleverer, wittier and less prone to saying stupid things when keeping one’s gob shut might be more sensible. But, since ‘fairness’ is so important, I thought I’d ask how we know whether this or that policy is actually making things more fair.

If I play Newmarket with you and clean up all the pennies – is that fair? If we both turn up for an interview and I get the job because the interviewer liked me and not you – is that fair? Is it fair to take something off Fred and give it to Joe because Fred has more of that something? And when Fred’s extra is the result of good fortune (or what we see as good fortune), what then?

Surely (and assuming we can define it) luck is normally distributed? Some people are very, very lucky and some unfortunate folk seem cursed with ill-fortune. Now the latter may be the result of getting on the wrong side of The Gentry but I suspect it more likely just the curse of mathematics – that bastard normal distribution curve again! It seems the only way to make things fairer is to compress the curve – to have fewer fortunates and fewer unfortunates.

Measuring fairness requires us to measure good fortune, to assess luck and to then take action to redress (in part) the negative impact of luck by removing from the lucky that which they have gained as a result of good fortune rather than some other means (hard work, for example). This is plainly nonsense – and perhaps explains why so many advocates of “fairness” reject out of hand any sensible quantitative approach to the assessment of Government policy. That it is seen as “fair” by these advocates is quite enough! We shouldn’t worry whether is really makes for better or happier lives – misery will be fairly distributed!