Incompatibility

Among the most important of absolutes – and you already know I reject the concept of moral relativismⁱ – are right and wrong. “Although it's not always obvious what is right,” as I said last week, “if we're not all on the same page, chaos will result.”

We want to teach our children what is the proper road to travel. We want them to do what is right.ⁱⁱ Every time.ⁱⁱⁱ We want to educate them to do so, but as we seek the proper educational approach for them we want to choose one that reinforces our own beliefs. And in the United States^iv there are two primary approaches that need to be considered – scientific and religious.^v Both present rules; both offer structure; some of the rules however, if not the absolutes, overlap, but their explanations of the underlying “realities” differ.

Because any exploration of “rules-based” behavior is based on the absolutes and the realities that dictate that behavior, it seems reasonable to spend a moment^vi on the competing points of view on those points of view and the principles that govern them. In the case of the scientific model, the one used in public education and a large number of private schools, it is assumed that the universe and its contents came about through natural and logical means and are value-free. Proponents present mathematical and other scientific proofs which, even though we may not understand them, demonstrate how we got to where we are.

If science, however, bases all of existence, on “what” and “how” rather than “why,” if only “is” and not “should” makes any sense, then if its adherents follow some system of right and wrong, and values, they are products of their various societies, developing independently, and differing from place to place. And there is nothing that makes one set of rules superior to another. The rules, even if they are the same as those of others who reject their origin, are based on society's choices. Man is the measure of all things.

Those whose reality is a religious one, however, generally accept the idea of an unprovable system of creation with an unchangeable set of absolutes that apply to everyone irrespective of the society in which they live. Certain acts are “wrong” no mater where they take place, and they cannot be justified by local custom. “Right” is right and “Wrong” is wrong. It is a perspective that many view as irrational.^vii

Incomprehensible equations may be fascinating to scientists and they may view them as scientific gospel, but they clarify nothing and provide no guide to living on this earth and with our fellow humans. A cosmology that proposes that matter created itself and that the Big Bang was the beginning of all existence (except for the laws of physics that have always existed) and predated the beginning of time and matter is not satisfying to everyone.

The use of the Big Bang and evolution as tools by an eternal Creator who guided the formation of the universe as we know it, and who provided us with guidelines for living in the environment He created, and among the people who dwell in it, makes more sense to them, although most adherents freely admit that they don't understand all its features.^viii To the scientific, this view makes no sense at all.

There are, presumably, many other possibilities, but these are the two most commonly voiced now. Admittedly, using “sense” as a criterion for evaluating the “irrational” has problems, but in this case, while both have problems, it seems to me the “irrational” makes more sense than the “rational.”

So what is “right?” It comes back to the issues of predictability and chaos avoidance, as I mentioned above. To reach those goals, some absolutes, however they are derived, are necessary. There has to be predictability. It's mandatory. After all, there is only one answer to the “Ultimate Question” – the question that brings us the Ultimate Answer of Life, The Universe and Everything.^ix Don't panic. I'll get there and I'll tell you what to do. Every time.

Next episode: “All The Answers” – And my recommendations. A few new questions also.

I        I believe that there are certain principles by which we must all live, and what is absolute is absolute. Those who deny it are absolutely mistaken.

ii       At least most of us want that. “Right,” however is difficult to define. It's often simply what we do. If it's good enough for us it's good enough for our children.

iii      We all justify exceptions when it is convenient to do so, if only to excuse actions we, or those we favor, have taken. That doesn't make it right. The exception doesn't prove the rule. It only demonstrates our inability to follow it.

iv       Actually everywhere.

v        What the science advocates would label “rational” and “irrational.”

vi       I'll really spend the rest of this essay on that subject and return to the underlying issue next week.

vii      Or, at least, “non-rational.”

viii     There is no denying that different religions, and different strains within them, would have competing versions of the rules, but most would agree on the absolutes.

ix       Douglas Adams. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.