The Earth is just a Childhood Memory of the Universe
I have only a couple of tulips planted in my yard and they aren't anything particularly special. On the other hand, when I was out in the garden late last week I observed the tulips in bud and was mesmerized by the mostly green buds tipped in deep pink. I may have almost fallen off my raised bed in a swoon. I mean, I might have, had I been the type of female that goes into swoons. I sometimes think I may have had better luck as a youth with boyfriends had I had much smaller feet and established swoon-ability. 
I was gearing up for two follow up posts on the whole food philosophy mess: Angelina's food philosophy versus the Paleo Man food philosophy. I ended up writing a very long message to my friend, with whom this whole discussion originally unfolded, to explain more concisely my viewpoint because I wasn't quite ready to present my case on my blog here and thought it was important for the sake of friendship to hasten through to the other side (of our discussion), as one dead rock-star once suggested doing.
My message was intended to state much more specifically than I had before the questions that his food philosophy had yet to satisfactorily answer. I also presented it as an opportunity to answer my questions and doubts - promising to really listen this time.
Well, I haven't heard from him and while I don't know what that means, I imagine it means it's time to shelve this discussion for the moment.
However, this has all got me thinking about how I may mistakenly give the impression that I believe in science as a kind of religious replacement for God.
I don't believe in God and I don't think science is the infallible truth.
Remember back when I was still friends with a homeschooling Christian? Back then the uneasy subject of evolution cropped up and I was flummoxed by her comment that she's not entirely sure she believes in evolution....because she wasn't there. I find it awesome* that anyone could "not believe in evolution" because they weren't there** yet believe in the bible which they (presumably, hopefully) weren't present for either.
She went on to point out that science has been wrong before so it could be wrong about evolution.
I wanted to dig in and find out how a person who considered herself to be a rational person could dismiss science so breezily...the bones? Luckily I knew that this was just one more topic upon which no good discussion could come. I'm glad we shut down the conversation like a couple of repressed people and moved on.
Later, when relating this discussion to Philip (or possibly someone else not-religious), after I said with great emphasis "I know that science might possibly not have dating bones completely hashed out but you can't- no one can possibly-explain away the dinosaur bones?!" it was brought to my attention that some Christians believe that the devil himself put those bones on earth to lead Christians astray.
Which is when I realized that humans are just tiny tiny little beings living only in the childhood memory of the universe and that earth has already exploded long ago, being unable to support an animal species as GULLIBLE and as STUPID as the humans.
I still refuse to believe that any people really believe this is literally how the big ancient bones buried in the earth got here. And if anyone I know believes this in their hearts, please don't tell me. I don't want to think that anyone I know and love believes in the devil playing dirty bone tricks to lead people away from the path of God more than they are willing to believe in carbon dating.
Anyway, my point is, I believe that with science we are able to answer many things but we can only put the information we uncover into a context that includes what we already know, and there is always new information to challenge the previous things we thought based on the information we had. Science, like the earth, like all arts, like Rock and Roll, is always evolving. So I know that things I used to believe were proved may be disproved eventually, or rather, put into a more complete context, which will change how we see the older information.
But the thing about science is that it really takes time to put new findings into perspective and it often takes many studies by many different groups in order for an agreement to occur in the scientific community. There is corruption of studies and money being given to specifically prove certain theories that companies want to prove in order to sell their own brand of crap.
Just like religion and politics, science is filled with lies and misleading information and attempts to change your life view.
My philosophy, therefore, is to not trust science that is too new. I don't trust science that is "earth shattering" or that challenges everything people have ever believed about one particular subject. I know that if something is scientifically true, it will eventually have enough evidence and scientists backing it up to show itself to be sound. And even then, something new will come along and challenge the previously "wild" theories that have, in their own turn, become accepted and mainstream.
Truth, as I see it, is constantly evolving. What used to be true of people, of earth, of religion, won't stay true forever. Which is why I don't believe in holding on tightly to the constitution in its original form as a model of the perfect government. What was an ideal government over two centuries ago is not likely to be an ideal government today, suitable to an exploded population and not enough resources for that same population. It 's childlike to think that rules for living in society 2,000 or 3,000 years ago is going to account for all the changes that have happened since then.
I do believe there are a few basics that never really stop being applicable such as killing being a pretty bad way to get along amongst fellow human beings. Other people just don't feel comfortable around humans who kill their neighbors when they get unhappy or greedy, or whatever. That's just common sense though and the kind of thing I expect any self respecting parent to teach their children.
Common sense is better than religion. It travels well through time. Science has yet to prove wrong our general sense that when a fist heads for your nose it's probably a good idea to duck. God might make all kinds of lofty pronouncements about this or that but it's all pretty simple and doesn't need to be dressed up with tales of rape and sodom and violence and ignoring everything Jesus supposedly believed which is what I observe many Christians do.
My Friday afternoon, thus frittered away on more philosophical thoughts, has altered my original plan to commence with my dandelion wine project. I'll have to tell you about that next time. I might just have time to rush off to the wine making supply place here in town, and procure some beer, and another Eddie Izzard DVD. I'm in a mood to laugh and he's the guy to do the job. Plus I do love a funny transvestite who likes the Chaos Theory.
My message was intended to state much more specifically than I had before the questions that his food philosophy had yet to satisfactorily answer. I also presented it as an opportunity to answer my questions and doubts - promising to really listen this time.
Well, I haven't heard from him and while I don't know what that means, I imagine it means it's time to shelve this discussion for the moment.
However, this has all got me thinking about how I may mistakenly give the impression that I believe in science as a kind of religious replacement for God.
I don't believe in God and I don't think science is the infallible truth.
Remember back when I was still friends with a homeschooling Christian? Back then the uneasy subject of evolution cropped up and I was flummoxed by her comment that she's not entirely sure she believes in evolution....because she wasn't there. I find it awesome* that anyone could "not believe in evolution" because they weren't there** yet believe in the bible which they (presumably, hopefully) weren't present for either.
She went on to point out that science has been wrong before so it could be wrong about evolution.
I wanted to dig in and find out how a person who considered herself to be a rational person could dismiss science so breezily...the bones? Luckily I knew that this was just one more topic upon which no good discussion could come. I'm glad we shut down the conversation like a couple of repressed people and moved on.
Later, when relating this discussion to Philip (or possibly someone else not-religious), after I said with great emphasis "I know that science might possibly not have dating bones completely hashed out but you can't- no one can possibly-explain away the dinosaur bones?!" it was brought to my attention that some Christians believe that the devil himself put those bones on earth to lead Christians astray.
Which is when I realized that humans are just tiny tiny little beings living only in the childhood memory of the universe and that earth has already exploded long ago, being unable to support an animal species as GULLIBLE and as STUPID as the humans.
I still refuse to believe that any people really believe this is literally how the big ancient bones buried in the earth got here. And if anyone I know believes this in their hearts, please don't tell me. I don't want to think that anyone I know and love believes in the devil playing dirty bone tricks to lead people away from the path of God more than they are willing to believe in carbon dating.
Anyway, my point is, I believe that with science we are able to answer many things but we can only put the information we uncover into a context that includes what we already know, and there is always new information to challenge the previous things we thought based on the information we had. Science, like the earth, like all arts, like Rock and Roll, is always evolving. So I know that things I used to believe were proved may be disproved eventually, or rather, put into a more complete context, which will change how we see the older information.
But the thing about science is that it really takes time to put new findings into perspective and it often takes many studies by many different groups in order for an agreement to occur in the scientific community. There is corruption of studies and money being given to specifically prove certain theories that companies want to prove in order to sell their own brand of crap.
Just like religion and politics, science is filled with lies and misleading information and attempts to change your life view.
My philosophy, therefore, is to not trust science that is too new. I don't trust science that is "earth shattering" or that challenges everything people have ever believed about one particular subject. I know that if something is scientifically true, it will eventually have enough evidence and scientists backing it up to show itself to be sound. And even then, something new will come along and challenge the previously "wild" theories that have, in their own turn, become accepted and mainstream.
Truth, as I see it, is constantly evolving. What used to be true of people, of earth, of religion, won't stay true forever. Which is why I don't believe in holding on tightly to the constitution in its original form as a model of the perfect government. What was an ideal government over two centuries ago is not likely to be an ideal government today, suitable to an exploded population and not enough resources for that same population. It 's childlike to think that rules for living in society 2,000 or 3,000 years ago is going to account for all the changes that have happened since then.
I do believe there are a few basics that never really stop being applicable such as killing being a pretty bad way to get along amongst fellow human beings. Other people just don't feel comfortable around humans who kill their neighbors when they get unhappy or greedy, or whatever. That's just common sense though and the kind of thing I expect any self respecting parent to teach their children.
Common sense is better than religion. It travels well through time. Science has yet to prove wrong our general sense that when a fist heads for your nose it's probably a good idea to duck. God might make all kinds of lofty pronouncements about this or that but it's all pretty simple and doesn't need to be dressed up with tales of rape and sodom and violence and ignoring everything Jesus supposedly believed which is what I observe many Christians do.
My Friday afternoon, thus frittered away on more philosophical thoughts, has altered my original plan to commence with my dandelion wine project. I'll have to tell you about that next time. I might just have time to rush off to the wine making supply place here in town, and procure some beer, and another Eddie Izzard DVD. I'm in a mood to laugh and he's the guy to do the job. Plus I do love a funny transvestite who likes the Chaos Theory.
*That use of "awesome" is especially for Eddie Izzard- it's the original meaning, not the new one.
**I'd like to know why people think that evolution is something that happened only to explain dinosaurs? Evolution isn't something that happened and then stopped. It's happening all the time. There is overwhelming evidence to prove that evolution is a natural process of change that different life-forms on earth experience in order to adapt to changing environments- the evidence is all around us both in the past and the present.
Furthermore, there's no reason for people to have to choose between God or evolution- is there any doctrine that says God doesn't believe (or didn't create) this crazy-ass concept of change? If God wasn't capable of creating beings with an ability to change as needed with an environment in order to survive, then he is not the "great almighty" people like to think he is. In fact, if religious people think their God incapable of creating a planet covered in life with the ability to change I'd have to say they are practically calling him retarded*** and should drop in prayer and beg forgiveness right now.
***My use of this word is intended to be taken exactly as the dictionary describes it and if it seems libelous I would like to point out that I'm not the one suggesting that God is too much of a simpleton to know that an ability to change with experience is necessary for the survival of any life-form.
Comments (1)
I like you. That is all.
Posted by More Strawberry | March 29, 2010 11:18 AM
Posted on March 29, 2010 11:18