lines

The idea that we all fall somewhere along a 'gay/straight line' (with totally gay at one end and totally straight at the other) is one that most sensible people agree with these days. You know how it works - it depends where on the line you fall that dictates whether you are a fan of your own sex, the opposite one, or both. It's an elegant theory that, rather than assigning a black or white 'gay gene' or blaming society, makes balanced sense unless you're a homophobe or too insecure to accept it.

I'm wondering if such scales are applicable to other things in life. Specifically, I wonder if there is a 'sceptic/believer line'. I recon there is. Everyone has a threshold past which they default to a non-answer, an assumption or mere nonchalance.

sceptic-----------------x--believer

Given suitably high odds against something occuring, some people decide it 'must' have been dictated by an intelligence. They can't fathom the numbers involved so can't picture a scenario in which it could happen outside their frame of reference - namely the human-centric view that things only occur if previously decided upon by something sentient. Intelligent Design, for example. These people are at the believer end of the line and it doesn't take much to make them resort to assumptions.

sceptic----------x---------believer

Other people will take the same high odds and improbable occurance and simply shrug their shoulders. They can't grasp it, so they don't think about it. Alternatively, maybe they assign it a halfway explanation. For example, 'new age' healing techniques which mix diluted ancient beliefs with pseudo-scientific justifications. The justifier isn't quite happy with their answer for the improbable occurance so swing from the comfort of the arcane to the use of big words as a mask. These people are somewhere in the middle of the line and they teeter between questioning and acceptance.

sceptic--x-----------------believer

Another group of people see the odds and the improbable occurance and start breaking it down in to more understandable, rational chunks. If they can understand the processes that lead to the occurance, they can assign it meaning based on evidence. These people are at the sceptical end of the line. If they are very close to the end of the line their threshold is tiny and they will find it very hard to settle on any idea or theory for long, as everything is constantly questioned.


I'd say I am about here on the line: sceptic----x----------------believer. I very, very rarely default to an assumption or half-answer, or stop caring about a problem just because I can't understand it. But neither do I question everything to the extent that it makes me unanchored and confused to the point of unhappiness or madness! I know that things go on that are beyond my comprehension, but I don't need to lump them into a hazy and ill-defined catch-all category in order to make me feel better. My position on the sceptic-believer line means I see the universe as a beautiful, incomprehendible system. There are parts I'm fairly sure about, parts I'm not, and parts I haven't even considered yet. The closer I look the murkier it gets, but the more connected I feel and the better I can accept the mystery.