The Pursuit of Knowledge

First up, if you're an evangelist or pentecostal, go read something else. You won't like this post. Go on, git! You've been cautioned.

I work at a medical research lab as my day job, and I know I need to keep an open mind about things, just because the right answer isn't always in the first place you look. The scientific method requires one to present reproducible, unequivocal, empirical evidence to prove any theory or process; saying something cannot be determined at a particular time doesn't make for very convincing reading, and it most certainly won't win you any Nobel prizes.

So I was a little surprised when I was invited to a church thing by some PhD students over lunchtime some while ago. I have some major issues with organized religion and the three major Abrahamic ones that have been at odds for the last few millenia, but I rarely mention it unless I'm provoked. I'd prefer not to be part of something that's caused so much strife and suffering in the world, and has been used and abused by those in power to manipulate women and other minorities.

Anyway, I decided to tell them politely that I was busy, and that I wasn't really a churchgoing person anyway. Naturally this prompted questions on why I didn't believe, and what I did, if not the "one true god". Attempts to explain the reasons above came to naught, because you can't reason with people who will use the ineffability of the divine to stonewall any counterargument. What's worse is if they surreptitiously lead subsequent conversations towards the subject, which pretty much ruins a perfectly civil lunch break.

Firstly, purely from an organizational point of view, this could count as harassment. As they say, if it's not on, it's not on. No good will come of constantly trying to press the point, and if they don't respect my preferences on religion, they're well in contravention of equal employment opportunity guidelines and the Institute's policy on maintaining a pleasant, non-judgemental workplace. This is why I've taken to eating my lunch at my desk and away from the lunchroom. It's tiring to bear the burden of having to prove the non-existence of the divine while trying to take a break from work (see 'scientific method' above).

Which brings me to my own opinion on science versus religion. Using the ineffable to explain that which can't be understood yet is tantamount to cutting oneself off from further enquiry. The divine by its very nature, cannot be questioned, so how can one keep oneself open to non-theological explanations? Simply put, we can't (see 'stonewalling' above). I sometimes wonder how convinced these students are of their own work if they trust their faith so much. One must question to progress.

Everything would be perfect in heaven, they once said to me. The universe is constantly changing, and there can never be perfection in the physical world because of this constant flux in our surroundings (enthalpy, entropy and chaos theory). It is only by adapting to change that organisms can maintain their place in the world. Perfect equilibrium and steady state means that nothing changes, and in effect the cyclic and competitive attributes of nature that give rise to biodiversity and natural beauty would be meaningless. Nature would collapse, and everything would be dead. It would be such a terrible shame.

On a more mundane level, I resent being seen as a heathen that needs to be saved. Such conceit to think that one's system of belief is better than another's! And such small-mindedness to threaten me with damnation if I don't clutch on to some arbitrary lifeline out of so many others. I would live free and die in flame rather than face an eternity bound in fear of an unseen and patriarchal god.

If there be sons of Adam and daughters of Eve, I would live as a child of Lilith and be free to be myself. Amen to that.