I Really Don’t Mean To Be A Pain

Some recent discussion on my site has gotten me thinking a lot about the dynamics of blogging.  I entered into the blog world with the idea of exchanging thoughts, gleaning insights from others and testing my own ideas by sending them out there to see how they fare in the highly charged world of opinion and debate. It is fascinating to me that there is an entire world of bloggers out there. I could not resist making the plunge.

For the most part things have been peaceful here in my humble little blog. I do not get a great deal of traffic. The views usually trickle in at anywhere between 10 and 25 views a day. Comments are fairly sparse. There were noticeable yet meager spikes for four of my posts, “Getting It Wrong In Iran”, “Restless Here In My Shire”, “‘Stop Reading’, ‘Stop Thinking’: My Apostasy From the Canon of Science” and finally “The Holy Crusade Of Science”.

While the comments on the first two were quite friendly, those of the latter two had a somewhat different tone as there were some dissenting opinions expressed. This was fully expected. I suppose this is what I would like to discuss.

First of all, I do sincerely appreciate hearing opinions that differ from my own. This helps me to think outside my own paradigm and subject my own ideas to the rigor of careful analysis. Even more than this, though, it has made me think about my manner of speaking and of conveying ideas. It has made me carefully consider my words. It has even made me look inward to try and discern my ultimate intent for this blog. I have chosen the name “A Friend To Humanity”. I have expressed many times my desires to understand people, to look outside my own little world and try to stretch the bounds of my paradigm to embrace other views. But, in this, there is a paradox. This may have become apparent in my latest discussions with one commenter.

So let me try to explain this little paradox, this internal struggle that I have. I believe that by nature I am a pretty mild mannered person. I love discussion and I am not so fond of confrontation and heated debate. And yet, under certain conditions, my personality can be somewhat inflammatory. On certain topics, I can be extremely opinionated. This is not to say that, under certain conditions, I like confrontation. I despise it. Debate for the sake of debate is a foreign concept to me. But this does not yet explain the full depth of the paradox. I guess what is really ironic is that I feel an urge to pursue such debate, to discuss sensitive topics like science and religion. In doing so, I tend to want to use language that seems a bit extreme, perhaps over-the-top. Thus, I speak of things like “The Holy Crusade of Science” or “My Apostasy From the Canon of Science”. I use strong metaphorical language because of the imagery that it conveys. In my discussions of science and religion, I have intentionally mingled religious terminology with scientific, “holy crusade”, “apostasy”, “canon of science”. This has really gotten under the skin of at least one person who has commented on my site. My intention was not to annoy, but to break down some of the barriers that we build up in our minds. For many, there tends to be a wall between science and religion. I think the same may be true for Islam and Christianity, hence my motivation for writing “Christian and a Friend of Islam”.

Yet other sensitive topics exist within the realm of Christianity that have direct relevance to myself as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (better known under the misnomer of the “Mormons”). This, I have been bracing myself for, but as of yet no one has approached the topic of the “non-Christianity” of my nevertheless Christian affiliation. There is, indeed, a whole world of potential discussion on this topic. I will not throw it upon you, but I do anticipate someone, at some time, broaching the subject. Just a note on this, there are certain worn-out, sensationalistic topics as it regards “the Mormons” that I will probably choose not to discuss because of their irrelevancy to the bigger picture of this Christian denomination and to Christianity more broadly. You must understand that I prefer to look at the big picture, the histories of Judaism and Christianity, general principles about God’s dealings with the human family through the ages, and so forth. But try me, nevertheless, and I will tell you whether or not I will answer.

Anyway, to the point! I will often choose my words, not to annoy, but rather to disassemble and break down misunderstandings, preconceived notions, biases and such. I wish to challenge the very foundations of belief and knowledge. What I am talking about here are the things that have become rooted in our minds, without perception, and which govern our choices, our actions, the way we look at the world, the way we treat certain people, the personal crusades that we take on. As it was when the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth, there are yet things in our minds that are as flawed and potentially far more dangerous as it pertains to the peace and survival of the human family. Surely I have my own as well, but for now, in writing this post, my intent is to explain myself, my manner of speaking and my motivation in keeping this blog.

To conclude, I just want to respond to some comments made somewhat recently (on “The Holy Crusade of Science” and “‘Stop Reading’, ‘Stop Thinking’…”) since this may help illustrate what I am talking about.

“What do you mean by an unscientific way a theory is born? Inspiration and intuition have been a part of science since its inception. Or is there another point you are trying to make?”

No there is not another point I am trying to make. Indeed, you have made my point for me. You use the words “inspiration” and “intuition” so naturally in connection with science and, yet, these words are ironically quite at home (indeed I would say more at home) within the realm of religion. At least the word “intuition” could be argued to have a solid physical or biological foundation. We have an intuitive feel for how something that we are relatively unfamiliar with might operate by comparing it, consciously or unconsiously, to objects or situations that operate on similar principles or rules. But “inspiration”…now there you are getting uncomfortably close to the idea of revelation. Scientists inadvertantly make these sorts of faux pas all the time. I will refrain from explicitly giving my opinion on this matter and leave it to the readers to come to their own conclusions one way or the other. I do love these sorts of ironies, though.

So now to the other comment that I wanted to respond to, this one was made on “The Holy Crusade of Science”:

“Most of the quotations you supply describe scientists’ views that science explains the story of the universe better than religious mythology does. None of them imply that science should have any role in dictating love and respect, and so on. As I have said before, and as would seem to be obvious to most, science and religion have different roles. It is silly for you to repeat your point that there are matters that science does not address. You seem quite proud to proclaim that science does not address all areas, as if you are the first to discover this.

“Your writing is very good, but your arguments are sloppy, and they detract from whatever point you’re trying to make.”

First of all, I want to make sure that everyone understands that I am not trying to follow any formal structure of debate. I guess you could say that I prefer a more literary approach. As I said, I prefer figurative language over the dry formalities of argument, counter-argument type discussion. I prefer to evoke impressions and images in people’s minds because I think they convey ideas more powerfully.

As for being proud to proclaim the inadequacies of science in explaining things of a less tangible nature such as love, respect, self-sacrifice and so forth, it seems that my point was missed entirely. Scientists must understand the implications of removing God and all forms of religious belief from the picture. For scientists to completely purge the world of “religious mythology”, they must necessarily fill the void with very tangible and concrete scientific explanations. Even then, if they succeed in providing a plausible explanation, I think this still misses the point. How would that constitute what Dr. Weinberg describes as “our [i.e. scientists’] greatest contribution to civilization”? How will reducing the entirety of human thought and emotion to molecules and electrical impulses help us to resolve the serious social conflicts and crises that exist in the world? For now, the principles of peace, service, self-sacrifice, love, humility, forgiveness and so forth taught in the great and wonderful religions of the world provide far more promise in this regard than does science. Thank you for agreeing with me, that my statement was so obvious that it was even silly for me to repeat my point…yet another irony in this debate.

As I have said in the title, I really don’t mean to be a pain. I love imagery. I love metaphors that evoke powerful impressions that might not be conveyed in any other way. I love irony. I love to challenge “knowledge” and the subtle biases that lay hidden in our thinking. This is my only intent.