Resonance and Truth-

Why do people become Republicans? Democrats? Christians? Buddhists? Why do they adopt particular affiliations associated with things (propositions, statements, ideas) considered to be true or even Truth?

Based on subjective experience and observation, I would contend it is largely resonance. A proposition just feels right. Granted, a portion of the population of humans will investigate propositions and make thought out decisions with regard to those propositions. Most, however, are the consequence of resonance.

Even the process of investigation can be (and probably mostly is) guided by this resonance. This alternative feels better than that alternative. Some might be associative. "My family has always been Republican Democrat Christian Buddhist Insert Your Own Thing Here." Some the consequence of extended hours of diligent comparison.

At some point, however, a decision has to be made. I would contend that resonance is the ultimate deciding factor. A lot of the study associated with this resonant choice becomes apologetics. "I am right and here is why" kind of study and argument.

When you think about it, thinking about it takes a lot of time. How many people have selected their political party through diligent and dispassionate study of all of the available literature? History, opinion pieces, analysis and dissection. How long would a truly exhaustive study of political parties take? Could one actually arrive at an unbiased conclusion and subsequent decision using this method?

How about religion? The complete and exhaustive study of one religion is more than a lifetime worth of work, much less every major religion and then consideration of the multitude of sects and sub-devisions. It might be possible, but I cannot see it being done. I doubt that it has been done.

Amazingly (but not surprisingly) people can be so intense in their beliefs as to die for them. More troublesome, they have throughout history been willing to kill for them. That is some serious resonance.

Discord is a consequence of incompatible resonances. Harmony is the joining together of various resonances in a manner that is appealing. The melding of truths can be discordant or harmonious, as well. Some of us like to believe that there is a conductor for this symphony that is the life experience. Others don't find that idea resonating in their own frequency. They fail to see it as truth.

It does take a degree of faith to believe that the conductor can incorporate the seeming discord into a larger harmony. Evidence often does imply the contrary. Some would argue that it proves the alternative, though I would contend that they have not examined enough evidence. They can't. They are too finite and the problem too large.

But that's alright. I choose to believe that their discord is part of a greater harmony. I don't really have any evidence. The idea just resonates with me. Oh, there are evidences that I also find compatibly resonant, and I will share them with others when opportunity arises. I don't expect to argue anyone into harmony, however.

Harmony is the job of the conductor.

Evolution vs Creation in Education-

I find this debate terribly sad. It is sad because most of the players have very good intentions. It is sad because there is no compromise. It is sad because someone must lose something of value in the end.

The parents promoting creation/intelligent design wish to protect their children from a godless science. Not necessarily from science, but from a science that excludes God from the issue of creation. This is a genuine desire to protect, and the drive to protect offspring is powerful.

On the other side are scientists, striving to protect science education from being polluted by bad science. Unfortunately, God does not readily submit to scientific inquiry, and so good science will most likely be Godless. Not that all scientists are godless. Those who believe, however, cannot derive their faith from science.

Sadly, from what I have seen the creation/intelligent design faction does indeed promote bad science. This does not mean that they promote something that is not true. It does mean that creation/intelligent design may well belong in another venue.

I do not know if believers in God can begin with the evidence available through years of scientific inquiry and present a set of arguments that will pass the rigours of established scientific review. I an not so sure that they should.

I am still not convinced that science is the final arbiter with regard to what is true. It has proven valuable in building human knowledge and building a better world. It is worthy of a place of great honor. I am not convinced that it is ultimate.

A large part of the issue in this debate is good stewardship. Strangely, I find both the creation side and the science side are striving for good use of public funds in education. The scientist don't want to see public funds spent on teaching bad science. The creationists don't want what they view to be truth excluded from the education process for which they must pay through taxes.

Nobody wants children confused by different views of what is held to be true. However, lacking a consensus on what is true with regard to how things came into being, the educators are caught between waring factions. The children are destined to seek their own answers on the matter.

Perhaps that is the real focus. A system of education that teaches thinking, not just indoctrination. This is dangerous, of course. It will produce children who will not always think as parents may wish. It may produce children who think outside the box called "science," as well.

A generation of rogue thinkers might prove very interesting.

Dangerous children. Worth the investment.