The Big Questions

One of the frequent make-nice statements between religionists-who-aren't-creationist-nuts and scientists-who'd-rather-work-than-argue is that science can handle the explicable, but religion is there for "The Big Questions." I'm totally for more accord and less name-calling, and I think agreeing to mind your own business is a damn fine way of getting work done, as long as the business you're ignoring isn't really nasty. But I have a deep-seated problem with the assertion that religion is there to handle "The Big Questions." For one, I always thought the whole issue of black holes and galaxies and all was pretty damn big. More importantly, I seem to have fundamental issues with "The Big Questions" themselves.

Not the answers. The questions.

When you ask "So, what ARE the big questions?" chances are the first is "Why are we here?" I have an answer for that one; it's the same as my answer to that other philosophical stumper, "What is art?" Ready?

I don't care.

That's the short answer. I'm far more interested in what we're going to do now than in why we're here, and saying that I don't care makes the point. There's another level of response though, which is that I don't really understand the question. That we are here is evident*. There doesn't HAVE to be a reason why. There's a how, there's an approximate when, but asking 'why' is baffling to me.

This all came up because I spent the weekend with my twin three-and-a-half-year-old cousins, who are well and truly into the 'why' phase. We were walking through the kitchen when one spied a box, stopped in total fascination, and asked "Sarah, Why is Baking Soda?"

The bafflement I felt then was just about the same as the bafflement I feel about "Why are we here?"



*You may disagree, but the only real disagreements are based on very tiresome sophomoric philosophy, and I've no time for them.