I’ve decided to be a philosopher. I made this decision after reading “A Brief History of Time”, by Stephen Hawking. One of my classmates, Dr. Eddie D., recommended it to me after listening to me postulate about my opinion that there are valid arguments for both creation theories, and evolution. I say that, in that manner, because theories, I learned, cannot be proven and evolution is a fact. I believe that all things are the result of “creavolution”, a new word that I just made up.
That’s what I thought until I looked it up on the internet and found that I’m not the first. Dang! It didn’t surprise me that the person under whose name I found it used it for the same reason I did.
According to my readings (which are few), and delvings (which are numerous), I’ve determined that I agree with most of the scientists and theologians who have espoused their theories and thoughts in countless publications throughout history. I can only believe all of them do this in their tireless efforts to convince everyone else that their beliefs, and/or theories are the only correct ones. Once in a while a few of them will agree and gang up on anyone who doesn’t “buy” their view of “things”.
Most of those who agree do so because of empirical evidence which cannot be disputed. We call the majority of those people scientiests. Some of the more well known scientists have the added benefit (in my opinion) of believing that some things are just beyond our comprehension, and that’s OK. Sadly, lots of those folks will take a header off the deep end of the universe in their efforts to define theoretical events in a logical manner. They can see the results of an “event”, but they don’t know what the event is, or was and it drives them nuts, crazy, whacko.
Because of that tendancy I’ve abandoned all efforts to prove those theories. Instead, I just make up theories. I have lots of them, but they’re hard to remember. Only one comes to mind, at this moment in time, and it isn’t one that I’m normally allowed to share because Diane frowns on it. But, I’m going to tell you anyway, and perhaps one of you adventurous folks who read this will step up and go about proving it. Personally, I’m just going to leave it as a theory for someone else to ponder …
The Napkin Theory: Most meals come with napkins which we teach our children to place neatly in their laps to ensure food does not soil their clothing and which they should use to dab away stray bits of gravy, or other food from their lips, or the backs of their hands. We do this because that’s what we were taught to do by Emily Post. I propose that it you eat your napkin after every meal, and the napkin is of a very good quality, and tastes worthy of being eaten, you would never need toilet paper as the napkin would be the last thing out, cleansing both the digestive tract as well as the difficult to reach parts of our anatomy, to which bits of processed food adhere, as it exits our body.
Think about that a bit. The only problem I can see with it is that prodigious eaters may have two or three napkins transiting their innards at any given time. But, if this theory is proven, and the napkins are really, really good, it may well be the solution to overeating because there would be no between meal snacking. The napkins can be engineered to ensure that that undesireable eating gene is removed by breeding it out of the human race. That smacks a bit of evolution, but that’s OK. We do that. Everything does that.
I do not expect anyone to take this up as a challenge because it’s a bit beyond unbelievable … at least for now. That’s because napkins are either made to break down quickly in a damp environment, or they’re made to be washed after being used. I suppose my theory could be proven by using a washable napkin, but what’s the point of that, unless their going to be shipped to a different country after being washed. I don’t think I’d be using one of those more than once having the knowledge of how it was used the last time. Perhaps some of you think differently about that, but I truly doubt it. Unless your freakishly weird.
So, most theories cannot be proven, or there aren’t enough people willing to prove them publicly, which would move them into the empirical category, which brings me to theologians.
Theologians thrive on theory which is, perhaps, why their title uses most of the letters in that word … theo. I actually know a person named Theo which causes me to wonder if he’s just someone that can’t be proven, or if he’s someone who can’t prove he exists. I shook his hand, and I talked with him, so I believe he exists. But wait! Was he just a figment of my imagination, of which I have many, or was he trying to prove to himself that others could actually see and touch him? I may never know because at this moment all he is is a memory. Perhaps that’s all he ever was. Maybe I’m the only person in the entire universe and everything I feel, do, see, taste, smell, hear, or whatever, is just my mind making stuff up. Yeah, that’s it. It has to be …
The reason, of course, is because there is no emperical evidence that explains how all this, the stuff around us, other people, earth, planets, etc., began. Big Bang? Probably, but what was there before that?
In conclustion, there’s comfort in the belief of a higher being, perhaps God, and that it’s OK to treat everyone with respect and kindness. It’s unfortunate that all the bad in the world, at least the worst of the bad, is the result of misguided religious beliefs.
Perhaps each of us conjures up everything in existence, and we all see it just a little differently through our chosen lens and belief system.
Perhaps each of us, in our own way, is a bit of God that was scattered all over the place during an experiment gone wrong that resulted in the Big Bang.
Perhaps the end result of all this is that we will eventually find our way back to wholeness when the universe collapses into a singularity … and we realize what it’s all about … just before it blows up again.