AtheismPoliticsMemesMindMattersRandomInteractFeedbackLinksForumHome |
I am coming up with a theory for the existence of god explanations. Our brain is wired-up by our evolutionary heritage to seek explanations in the form of whys and whos. Have you ever seen The Hunt for Red October? (Or read the book.) The computer in the US submarine detects something and it fails to recognize it, as a result the software drops down into a previous mode and spits out the answer “magma displacement”. It isn't the right answer, but it shows the way the software works. Human minds are very similar. Their underlying construction seeks to find answers and is only really happy in chasing down explanations that ask and answer a why question with a who answer. The human mind doesn't run on logic, it runs on emotion. The emotionally right answer is the answer that feels right and logic does not get a look-in. Science is mostly about how questions and how answers. There is no greater insight to be gained from studying the properties of internal combustion engines that go beyond a how answer. There's no point in a why question here and no need for a who answer. But how answers are inherently dull and unsatisfying. There is little thrill to be gained from any how answer. There is no such literary form as the howdunnit, at least not without a good dose of who and why to make the mix appeal to our human taste. Just think about how few people said to themselves or anybody else “ooh, less than ten pounds of high explosive. Well that's that then, I'm bored with this news story.” To our minds how answers are not exciting, we only get emotionally involved in questions which resolve themselves into an answer which addresses both who and why. We have minds that are only really satisfied with an answer than goes all the way back to answer the underlying why question and give an answer to the who question. The problem with this is that it assumes there must be a why answer and a who answer. It assumes why and who are always valid questions. Gods are, quite obviously, the answer(s) to ill framed why and who questions.
Theists insist on concentrating on their who answers to questions that science is still examining to see if they need answering. Science has found out that thunder, floods, disease, the dawn, childbirth, lust and millions of other natural things do not require any why answers let alone who answers. But theists keep on insisting that the unexplained always contains valid why questions and usually only their own pet who answers. Now there seems to be just two big questions left that might yet yield a who answer: the origin of the universe and the first appearance of life. By the historical nature of these issues it will almost certainly never be possible to provide a convincing explanation that will satisfy those who prefer their own satisfying answers to invalid questions. If people insist on asking the who and the why behind the how quite beyond the point at which it makes sense I only think it is right that we do the same and answer the why behind their why and the why behind their who. Gods provide a potentially satisfying answer to the invalid why and who questions. But when anybody starts asking why questions about their favourite who answer they always get very defensive and tell us that it isn't our place to ask why to their ultimate answer. How do they know? Why? And who said? |
© 1999 - 2010 by Martin Willett. |
mwillett.org: Debate Unlimited |