Life's mosaic...

I'm a mosaic - a fragmented, fractured collage of flotsam, jetsam and washed up driftwood. I'm not a clear fresh painting but a creation of doubts, questions and uncertainties. I do not understand those people who are so certain in their belief - or their unbelief - that they can dismiss questions and doubts without thinking, without consideration. I had a parish priest once - Father Best - who doubted. His homilies were not what the comfortable, certain congregation wanted - Father Best challenged his faith, questioned what it was all about, explored what it meant to believe. He doubted in public. And there were mutterings; "this isn't what we come to mass for, we come to be assured of our salvation not laden with doubts." What those certain folk do not understand is that doubt makes us human. Without doubt, without challenge, without question we become automata - mere machines stamping out our short time on earth to the rhythm of our masters, of whatever definite thing we choose to believe. Without doubt there is no magic, no discovery, no joy. And we must take the pain - the agony - of doubt with that joy. We must take it because it makes us what we are - independent, creative and exploring. There are those who would have us be machines. Who want us to march in step with the wisdom that they impart to us. Who wish us not to doubt. These people are the evil ones - the ones who would deny the truth of humanity. Whether it be politics, religion or science, we must never ever condemn those who doubt, who question, who challenge. They may seem mad - we may beleive them mistaken. But their doubt is more important than our certainty. I am a mosaic of doubts. I am certain only of the absence of certainty. And this imperfect pattern of bits and bats presents its face on the world - to challenge, to argue, to question and to say that your certainty is not so. And that fragmented, uneven picture lasts better than the smooth, unblemished coat of clear colour - it is real, living, a construct of doubt rather that certain truth. It is life's mosaic... ....

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.

....