When will this cold weather end? Spring Break is next week, and it’s still getting into the thirties every night. This Florida boy gets pretty cranky when exposed to the cold for too long. Besides, we want to begin planting our garden.
Yesterday, in my New Media seminar, we began talking — perhaps a bit off-topic — about how the media has made debates out of issues that are not actively debated by those coming from the same premises. Indeed, if you are to ever have a meaningful discussion that actually goes somewhere, you must start at an agreed-upon location. For example, the scientific community does not debate evolution and global climate change — currently two big controversial topics in the media. Science sees truth from without — something to be observed, measured, calculated, quantified, and reported. If the observations reported by one scientist can be replicated by the community, it becomes a theory. A scientific theory is another word for “local truth.” What a theory states is that all evidence here and now point to this conclusion.
Other truths come from within, like religious truths. As an anti-theist, I do not believe in the reality of these truths, but I do see their power and presence is others’ lives. In fact, it seems like religious truths do more damage to us as human beings than they help. This is not to say that I dislike religious people: I know and admire many people who consider themselves devout. But, to my point. Religious truths, or “faith,” or “belief,” comes from within. These beliefs are usually called Truths by the faithful — they are rules and dicta given by God, never to be questioned, only followed. You know, like commandments.
So when religious Truth and scientific truth seem to be discussing the same thing, they really aren’t because they don’t starting from the same premise. The scientific community does not doubt the billions of pieces of evidence that supports evolution and are therefore not arguing about it. But a religious conviction — stemming from their investment in a particular world view — makes them cloak their creation narrative into a pseudo-scientific sounding approach — Creationism or Intelligent Design — in order to dupe the general public into believing that creation myths hold the same scientific weight as evolution.
And the twenty-four-hour news media falls right into their hands. You gotta fill 24 hours with something.
Now don’t get me wrong. I’m a student of literature, so I’m a proponent of narrative, and mythology fascinates me. Stories contain the essence of who we are and who aspire to be, but I don’t think there’s anything intrinsically universal about a narrative. Stories, like science, are situated in a particular place and time — and they always speak to us from there and then. We might, like the Poet asks the Muse, to sing it to us for our time, but we must keep in mind the local hopes and dreams from which narratives flow. Narrative is about translating reality into our language — about explaining the universe around us and how we fit into it.
Both science and religion, therefore, have the same goal. They just begin from a different place. Both narratives are valid, but they shouldn’t pretend to be what they’re not.
Another example of confused narratives is global warming. The theory of global warming is simple: we humans, by rapidly burning fossil fuels, release an excess of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which acts as a greenhouse, trapping excess heat and raising the earth’s global mean temperature. The goal: find out why the world is getting hotter. Science explains it’s because our technologically driven society unearths and burns all the carbon that the earth has buried in the ground over millions of years. The rapid release of carbon dioxide is warming the planet: more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means higher mean global temperatures.
The other narrative claims that global warming is not caused by the rapid burning of fossil fuels — that global temperature change is a naturally occuring phenomenon. Again, this is an invented narrative — one that is not part of the scientific discourse on global warming — but one that has entered the public media space as a viable and logical counterpoint to the facts. One based on faith, if you will. The consequences range from sad to sadder.
Several years ago, I had a discussion with Mr. Al (that’s what my wife calls him), a local friend of my wife’s family. Mr. Al suggested that he and I meet to discuss ways that I might win over Autumn’s father. While the bulk of this story is one for another blog, Mr. Al told me about the time that Jesus appeared to him in his truck. If I remember correctly, Mr. Al was having profound doubts about his Christian faith, and he was driving down a country road in the middle of a moral crisis. It was a stormy day, but suddenly the clouds broke, and a ray of sunshine seemed to shower his truck with heavenly light. Mr. Al noticed that Jesus sat next to him in the passenger’s seat. Mr. Al stoped the truck, and Jesus told him not to veer from the path. “Since that day,” Mr. Al waved some cancelled checks in his hand, “I have given as much as I can to the church.” The checks did have pretty sizable sums printed on them. Mr. Al has done well for himself. And Jesus.
The point of the lesson was clear: his investment in this narrative is extensive. One does not just walk away from such a huge outpouring of venture capital.
Our investment in our way of life is important. Our economy thrives on the burning of fossil fuels, and those who have controlled the means are not willing to consider alternatives. So let’s muddle the debate, mix our metaphors, just say no.
But, Jerry, you started this entry talking about how cold it is and you end with global warming? In fact, this is the coldest winter I remember. Well?
Hm, that is weird. Brrr.
GRL Archive 