To the Shores of Tripoli

There is a battle of intelligence. It has and will be waged in the social circles, and its soldiers will take refuge in the halls of academia and the isolation of the unknown. We are all trained to do what we must do.

I'm sure it's pretty obvious the distinction. This revolution of science and enlightenment has been growing for so long that some of its followers believe its just always been around. And it makes sense. With such an upsurge in popularity, it's easy to accept its credibility without any other real test. It's also easy to see how those who don't follow it would be labeled 'stupid' or 'backward' or (my favorite English word) 'antediluvian'.

It is a war between Free thinkers and those Shackled by an ethos. Science sets us free. Religion makes us slaves. There's been a steady fine line between these concepts of freedom for quite some time. This whole argument comes with a sort of haughtiness about it - an assumption that to be religious, one must be incredibly stupid. Too stupid to listen to reason. So blindly naive.

This is true. There is a certain foolishness in religion. But I would think that followers would relish that foolishness - it's a unique attribute to life, and it certainly makes it more colorful. I think the fault of the fight lies with those religious people who don't know how to respond to the allegations. Instead of being comfortable in their own foolishness, they get defensive and make the mistake of trying to play "science" in order to receive credibility. Intelligent design (and any other programs like it) actually weaken the religious argument by weakening the role of faith. The only response to science's onslaught for the religious person should be, "Isn't it a lovely day? I think I'll go for a walk."

But a defense mechanism kicks in - perhaps to prove their faith to themselves a bit? - and the argument is already lost.

I think about soldiers.

There are people who would say that soldiers are like robots, obeying blindly the orders of someone higher up. This is not a flattering view - it's meant to dehumanize, make them out to be stupid, to create automatons from them. I think they are just efficient human beings. We are all trained to do what we must do.

Soldiers are not unthinking. They've already done the thinking so that when the time comes for quick action, they can handle it. Some might argue that the thinking has been done for them, but not so much more so than any other person's thinking is handled for them somewhere in life. Their friends. Trends. Television. Books. Our thinking is so collective, that it's hard to separate anyone, really, from robots.

But we don't live that way. The day to day is a beautiful portrait of humanity. We are all still soldiers, but the fight is one that is going on outside of us if we think about it the right way. When the fight comes to our doorsteps, we can get on the defensive or deny completely to fight. Mental pacifism wins the day. In not joining in on a meaningless debate - one of whether religion is foolish - we are free to explore other rich, dynamic debates. Or take a nice long nap, secure in our own beliefs.

After all, isn't alright not to fight sometimes? To leave yourself out of it? How many times have you been egged on to fight only to realize that its a waste of your time? Your intellect?

Those who would draw you into the trap of this type of argument are probably so insecure in their own position that any critical view of it would be devastating. Wouldn't it be better not to ruin their view for them? To retreat into the isolation of the unknown and let them scurry back to the halls of academia?

Waving the white flag, I think I'll try to live somewhere in the middle.