The asker of questions and the seeker of answers.

Afternoon All,

We're all thinking about science today as CERN start off their Large Hadron Collider on the France/Switzerland border.It made me think about what the make up of the scientific mindset is.

In the shower (a great brain starting tool) I thought a lot about this particular dichotomy. The two are not perhaps as mutually exclusive as I will depict them, but let me explain the two separate personality types to you;

The seeker of answers believes that there is a fundamental answer to all of his/her questions.

The asker of questions believes that we learn more about our world using questions as a tool.

Now, as I have described them the fundamental difference is clear. For one there are no absolute answers and for one there are. The difference is not so great, you may think, since both are inquisitive types who want to know more about the universe and look at some of the fundamental things that make it up.

And I agree as far as that goes. The issue here is one of "when to stop?"

The seeker for answers will often find an answer that fits and set about defending it against all coming counter arguments and the seeker of questions will find an answer and ask questions about it to test it - make it more solid or make it fall down.

Now, consider these real world examples; creationism is an answer that for thousands of years answered the biggest questions of all, "where did we come from?" & "Why are we here?" and is held onto with extreme force by those who expound upon its theories.

Now, many creationist arguments are formed using the following method:

1. The world was created by God
2. What evidence supports this?

Contrast that with a scientific approach, from the asker of questions

1. Was there a creating God?
2. What does the evidence say?

Now, the one hand states a given and then supports it, the other denies that there are ANY givens in this world, and only supporting and contradictory evidences.

At this stage. I will draw your attention to this little gem of a link to "Answers In Genesis", in which lots of counter arguments to mine can be found and if you like, believed in.

The central argument of this theory is that since the Bible is the word of God, then it must be true, therefore everything it says is true.

Being the inquisitive sort that I am means that I am honour bound here to point out that since the statement that the bible is the word of God is included in the bible then the whole thing is a classic circular argument, a favourite technique of those obsessed with answers above all else.

Now, if we all were content simply to be given answers that comfort us and make us feel important, that would be that, but it due to the inquisitive scientific mind of the questioners that advances are made, often at the express discomfort of the church.

I'm reverting to type as an atheist polemicist again, but really this applies to anyone so convinced their theory is right that they will cling to it, no matter any evidence to the contrary. This argument can be made at atheists expense too, so allow me to do that.

"My disbelief in God is just a refusal to be swayed by the evidence to the contrary"

Let's look at the evidence to the contrary then. From "answers in genesis", here is their first and most supported argument for creationism;

The authority for Answers in Genesis is the infallible Word of God, the Bible (see Q&A: Bible).

Now, what should a self respecting "asker of questions" do with the bible? Test its claims, question its conclusions and study the ramifications of its statements. Of course, the Bible is immune to such questioning from the scientific establishment since it is "infallible".

The protection of Bible "truth" makes for a great way of calling people narrow minded when in fact they are anything but. As I stated before, I looked into God as an answer, I asked myself the questions and came to my conclusion decades ago. There is nothing in the Bible, according to my study and questioning, for which there is not a better answer elsewhere. Better that is, by a factor of millions.

Add to this that I have had no moments of personal revelation, no voices from heaven, no experiences or feelings of any kind similar to those expounded by the religious sector of society and I have absolutely NO evidence to the contrary to ignore. To say I am refusing to be swayed by it is like claiming I refuse to be swayed by the blue bananas that rule Westminster. There simply isn't anything to be swayed by!

Now, as a next step the faithful will possibly argue that I am simply disregarding as evidence the millions of people who do believe in God. I will at this stage point out that having lots of people agree with you doesn't make your hypothesis correct. All that millions of believers prove is that millions of people believe - they are not evidence for or against God.

Now, if new "evidence" turns up I always take an active interest. I am always disappointed. A weeping statue turns out to be rusty, a piece of toast that has a face that looks like the modern idea of Jesus on it (a simple probability argument put paid to this) etc.

And yet Creationists are viewed with some extra respect because they have "faith". Ick. Even Sarah Palin, VP candidate and general nutbar, was selected partly BECAUSE she was a creationist and a "christian fundamentalist" (maybe also because she's quite hot, in a soft-porn-secretary sort of way). This makes me even more adamant that her and McCain would be disastrous for the whole world, and set the most powerful country in the world on the path towards Theocracy.

In conclusion; a seeker of answers is content with the best answer (s)he can find when (s)he needs it, a questioner is never satisfied with any. I hope I tend towards the latter. What do you think?

A