Rampant Anomie

Why am I telling you all this? It’s not a confession as I’ve done nothing wrong by my own standards and I don’t hold myself accountable by yours. Nor do I need you to believe me, persuasive and debonair as I am. Even if I played and won some elaborate mind-games with you, or showed you some of my niftier toys, it would still resemble trickery that could just about be faked in your world. It would require hypnotic suggestion, mind-altering drugs and Oscar-winning CGI, but it could be done. You’re intelligent, sceptical and movie-literate. You know I’m too like you to really come from another dimension, a concept which in any case is as lazy and implausible a science-fiction cliché as faster-than-light space travel or teleportation.

I’m telling you because you’ll put it on record. If things go badly between my compatriot and me, I want you to know what he is and how I tried and failed to stop him. If you too are tragically snuffed from existence, I know you’ll have made sure that this can be goggled on your interweb, or whatever your crude equivalent of Consensus calls itself. If enough outlandish people connect his impossible activities to this improbable journal, perhaps something can be done.

I know you won’t neglect the possibility that I’m manipulating you for reasons of my own. Even if you did believe I was a dimensional traveller, I could still be the first and have sinister designs on your stagnant puddle of a world. You could be right, but only if you added hubris to your list of deficiencies. Extraordinarily bright as you are by local standards, what with all those baggy jumpers, letters after your name and progressive jazz records, you’re hardly a mover or a shaker. You may understand the basic physics of my presence here but, beyond featuring on a GCHQ watch-list for your excessive use of the words ‘Rubicon’ and ‘rapprochement’ in telephone conversations, you are bereft of any influence, leverage or savvy in matters that matter. The mould on the windowsills of your bed-sit is more culturally attuned than you are.

Let’s call him the Founding Father. I’ll have to keep moving; I can’t rule out the possibility that he’s developed tachyon detectors to alert him to interlopers. I’ll need you to drop your job and your friends. I know they mean very little to you and once I’m up to speed with your crude infotech, I’ll ensure that you’re well remunerated. Apologies. The narrative got a bit terse there for a moment. I’m barking orders at you and snubbing your culture and I still owe you some narrative. Where were we? They propel me through spacetime when I can’t even find my way around a simple narrative.

TBC

Isn’t it high-time that Creationism was filed away with Shamanism, Alchemy, Astrology and Scientology in the annals of hokum, bunk and pseudo-science? It has endured this long because it is a comfort blanket, hiding the difficult complexities of the universe while remaining impervious to reason and entirely divorced from any moral purpose. How else can its appeal be explained?

Christianity as a vision for the greater good of mankind cannot easily be separated from the moral fabric of Western societies. Indeed, from a secular viewpoint the most respectable Christians are those who put their moral code into practice for the good of others. There is a very distinct difference between those who manifest their belief by staffing soup kitchens or leper colonies, and those who devote themselves to harassing gays and scoffing at dinosaurs.

The difference is not strength of belief, but focus of belief. To some, the practice of philanthropy is more important than belief without action. To others, belief is everything: Nothing can be more vital than unquestioning obeisance to their jealous desert god’s every word and the personal salvation this will bring, and any unbeliever deserves eternal torment regardless of their moral character.

Not only does Creationism defy reason, it cannot serve any moral purpose unless we are to assume that every shibboleth and nugget of bloodthirsty bigotry in the Old Testament is a complete and coherent guide to life. Perhaps the real purpose of Creationism is more Orwellian. Is it a variety of Doublethink, a knowing acceptance of an impossible lie to train the mind to believe anything it is told to believe?

Science doesn’t have all the answers, nor does it pretend to. It is a constantly evolving system of hypothesis, enquiry and experiment, open to criticism, debate and competition. The truth shifts from generation to generation because our ways of seeing become more acute, and the ends to which we use science vary. Like any other discipline, evolutionary theory is likely to evolve as our view of the universe and our means of seeing it are refined.

Creationism has none of these drawbacks. In the absence of logic, it has the benefit of a self-fulfilling loop of faith. It presents the most outrageous and unlikely explanation for the creation of life and arrogates all claims to the truth by insisting that faith renders proof irrelevant and wrong. In what other branch of science would that pass muster? Would a Creationist welcome such an approach from their child’s doctor? Evolutionary theory has logic and rigour in place of blind belief and desperate faith.

Cosmology has no easy answers to the origins of all matter. As insignificant as we are in this infinitesimal universe, the big answers may be forever beyond our range and intellect. But it doesn’t follow that we should stop thinking and simply ascribe it all to an anthropomorphic deity of our choosing. That would be hubris on a cosmic scale.

If you live in a pre-industrial age and your neighbour’s olive grove and the utterances of your village elders form your boundaries, a simplistic and figurative view of how the world came to be might pass for truth well enough. In the 21st century however, Creationist myopia requires such a perverse effort of will that this debate may thrive for generations. If Christianity really wants to shore up its identity against the challenges to come, it will need far more credibility than Creationism can give it. Perhaps the debate will end when we've evolved a little more.