Religion and the Earth (and Delicious Tales of Perfection)

So, my current employer and his family all seem to be of the same religious persuasion. This has largely had no affect on me as I work- there's been too much happening (that's been negative) to be praising Jesus every fifteen minutes. However, every once in a while some of the discussion of religion slips through the cracks. In most cases, it's innocuous enough- a reference to God here, a blessing there. On Friday, however, my boss's wife was showing me pictures from a mildly famous local photographer she was going on a trip with. These were gorgeous prints of nature in the thick of it. My viewing pleasure was interrupted with a challenge that my mind didn't want to back down from:
"And this all started with the big bang." I wasn't sure if it was sardonic or not until it was followed immediately with, "No sir, it's just too perfect. It had to have been created by God."

I opted not to get into this discussion in person for fear of alienating someone partially responsible for my income. However, I have thoughts on the subject of perfection that I need an outlet on, so here we go.

Perfection, an entirely too subjective term, is being used here from an emotional perspective. Nature is aesthetically perfect in this case. This, of course, ignores all elements of nature that are not aesthetically pleasing, like perhaps some of the uglier plants that grow here, or some of our hideous creatures. With that in mind, it's not likely that the earth was created with the express intention of being aesthetically pleasing. Rather, that seems to be a pleasant side effect (it's at this point that we could even get into a long discussion about how humans' brains may have developed to find common elements of nature aesthetically pleasing, rather than nature growing to become aesthetically pleasing). So, if nature's not flawless in its beauty, what about its function?

That seems doomed to failure as well. Perfect functionality would mean a completely self-sustaining model that would likely use as few differing elements as possible in order to maintain homogeneity and, therefore, predictability. The more different species you have, the harder it is to predict the course of nature. Moreover, the more everything hates everything else. Take a look at humans- we couldn't last with a few different skin colors without trying to kill each other. Ants that share most characteristics have their loyalties in their colony- some will out and out murder other colonies/species for getting in their way.
Further, the existence of massive ice ages seems to suggest that nature is not interested in maintaining a strict balance at all times. Perfect functionality doesn't appear likely.

Of course, all this talk is on terms I would not choose in an ideal setting. We've been assuming that the earth was indeed created as it is- an idea I do not find particularly believable. Considering that we can prove the existence of evolution through simple observation and testing (introducing a colony of flies to a single colored food source and their children start to turn that color over time, for example), evolution would appear to be a virtual certitude. With that in mind, plant and animal variation is completely explained.

More to my point though, I think this is exactly why it's so beautiful. Plants and animals evolved in the specific directions they did purely by happenstance that worked well. We have the enormous plethora of plants and animals that we do because we got lucky. This variation allows for constant exploration and discovery, as well as the promise for continually new species to come into existence- it's so much more interesting than a self-sufficient model of consistency. I find it so much more perfect and enjoyable because it just sort of happened, rather than being created.

We would get bored if the world wasn't constantly changing.
But, consistency gives comfort. Change brings conflict and fear. Belief in a consistent, unchanging, perfect world gives people the belief that they don't have a responsibility to protect and savor what we have.
This shouldn't win out over intrigue and wonder- it really shouldn't, but the reaction is understandable...




Additionally, before I wrap up, there's a local Lexington church/business (I really don't know which) that has a fantastically catchy phrase in bold letters on their car and place of businship (business worship?)
"What if it's True?"

This is a misused attempt at Paschal's wager, which is a philosophical attempt at proving why believing in God is smart, regardless of your faith. If there's no God and you do believe, nothing happens. If there is a God and you do believe, you win. If there's no God and you don't believe, nothing happens. If there's a God and you don't believe, you "lose."

Seems airtight on the outside. Believing in God is, at worst, not bad, and at best, gets you into heaven.

However, both of these approaches ignore a few incredibly critical details about religion (and in particular, Christianity).
1. Believing in God because it's a statistically wise investment is the exact opposite of "faith." Meaning you've chosen God for selfish reasons and you may not actually have faith, an element often required (depending on your denomination) in order to ascend.
2. The existence of the possibility for something to be true isn't evidence or a good reason to actually believe in that thing. What if it's the case that all water in America is laced with mind control drugs? Are you going to suddenly stop drinking water just because the possibility exists?
3. (And this one's the big one) Other religions are completely ignored in this argument. So what if Christianity's true? It seems to have an equal or lesser chance of being true as compared to every older religion on the planet- and there are a lot of them. Many times, these religions suggest that you spend life in eternal torment for believing in the wrong God. This makes Paschal's wager completely useless, since it adds a strict third element that's very bad to the equation. Because non-religious people aren't holding any foreign Gods above the "real" God, it's actually possible that being non-religious is the statistically smarter choice here.

(This whole rant wasn't related, I really just wanted to be angry after seeing that company/church car)