A few thoughts on creationism inspired by Wittgenstein's philosophy
I
Creationist Jews say that “G-d planted the fossils” and so really the world is only 5769 years old. They were put there as a test to see whether we would believe in the Torah’s account of creation. Religious Jews who believe in evolution will often give the feeble reply that “I don’t believe in a G-d who would deceive us”. Why, so the thought goes, would G-d give us such detailed and reliable evidence about the natural history of the world if it was false? He would be intentionally leading us the garden path and reneging on his promise that we can know him through studying creation.
Now, I have no business second-guessing G-d. “I don’t believe in a G-d who would prefer 20-20 cricket over test match cricket” but he might. I’m not sure how ascribing psychological motivations to G-d can lead us to have an opinion about the age of the world. Would he test us? Would he deceive us? G-d knows!
Let’s not say he wouldn’t deceive us. Instead, let us say that there is no such thing as deceiving us in this case.
Let’s not say that they are saying something false. Let us say, that they are saying nothing.
II
Consider chairs- and cucumbers. If I point to a chair and say “This is a cucumber”, it is clear that it is not a true assertion. But is it an assertion at all? Am I really making a claim about the object I am pointing to? What am I saying about it?
Let us say that a red-green colour blind man is a long way away from a red chair and has forgotten his glasses. Let us say that he is seeing its profile and is partially obscured and so can only see one of the prongs on the back of the chair. Let us say that next to the chair is a prize-winning, enormous tomato. If I then pointed to the chair and asked him what the object was, he might say “It a long, thin green thing that is part of a fruit collection- must be a cucumber”. This is a false assertion but an assertion nonetheless.
How about he situation where a normal sighted man is standing right by the chair and says “This is a cucumber”? I tell him that it is surely a chair. He replies:
It looks like a chair. It feels like a chair. It has the function of a chair. We bought it from a chair shop and we were told by the shop assistant that it was a chair. The label on the barcode says ‘chair’. But really it is a cucumber.
‘Really it’s a cucumber?’
Yes, the cucumber is disguised as a chair. It’s appearance, role and function are deceptive and hide its essence. I am most upset that the judges of the cucumber competition wouldn’t let me enter it. I can at least console myself that I am more in tune with reality than them.
How would we react to such a man? It surely wouldn’t be correct, unlike with the colour blind man, to try and prove him wrong. I could bring the colour-blind man closer to the chair, fetch his glasses, gather other people’s opinions and show him the chair in a fruit-free setting. But what of the second man? His perceptive organs are fully functioning and has been appraised of all the relevant definitions and facts. Any evidence you show him he can take in his stride. “Yes, it is indicative of it being a chair, something with those features is usually a chair, it would logically be a chair; BUT in this case it is not one.” As there is no pretence to the ‘claim’ being based on criteria, you cannot show the claim to be false by comparing it to any.
How then should we relate to the utterance? Well, I suppose it depends on the context. Maybe it is a joke (“freaked you out there mate”). Maybe it is art (“I’m trying to get you to consider things from another perspective, man”). Maybe it is an assertion of authority (“I can say what the hell I want. If I say a chair is a cucumber, you must agree”). Maybe it is part of nonsense poetry or prose (“I’m the new Lewis Carroll”). Or maybe it is just madness or mental illness (“I am the Sith Lord, King of Hooplah”).
Whatever it is- good or bad- they are not asserting a fact. It sounds like an assertion. In certain situations (like the one I contrived above) those very same words could be an assertion. But to point to a nearby chair and say “this is a cucumber”, is not to say anything about the object- true or false.
III
Now transpose this to the creation case. We are fooled into trying to argue against “The world is 5769 years old” because it sounds like a bona fide assertion about the age of the world. In the past, in the mouths of scientists, religious leaders and laymen alike, it could be such an assertion- albeit one that turned out to be false. This could also be the case -in certain circumstances- today. If someone is brought up in complete ignorance to the fossil record, he may be able to make that claim. Maybe a child can make the claim. But what of someone who is aware of the fossils and says that G-d planted them? This isn’t false- it’s nonsense. The same words are used- but they don’t have the same meaning.
If you bulk against this, just consider your reaction to someone who said “G-d created the world for the first time five minutes ago”. You might initially take this seriously and 1. tell them of your memories from 10 minutes ago 2. CCTV footage of what you did yesterday 3. testimony from your friends that you grew up together etc etc etc. But then this person insists that G-d planted these memories and the CCTV footage and all the other evidence. These memories are not “real”- only the last five minutes are “real”.
Your reaction wouldn’t be to continue to prove him wrong, would it? Much less would it be to say “G-d wouldn’t do that- he wouldn’t deceive us” or engage in theological psychology. Instead, you’d say “You what?” or “Stop kidding around” or “What you up to?” or “you need a good lie down” or “okaaayyyy…” or “whatever you say mate, let’s go down to starbucks” or “Idiot” or “Who you been speaking to?” or just give a comforting tap on the shoulder.
The reason for any of those reactions is that you are trying to figure out what the person is doing with those words. What function are they performing? One thing you are damn sure about is that they can’t – just can’t- be to say something true or false about the world- describing a state of affairs. It is just too wacky for that. The last resort is to say that they are not using them for any rational function and is clinically mad- there maybe a psychological function for the utterance.
So too with the world being 5769 years old. Jewish creationist are not mad and say it for a rational and admirable (although not conscious) reason. Once freed of philosophical and ethical irrelevance of evolution, they can start to think about what the Torah is trying to teach us with the creation story. Ignore the “Just-So” stories that evolution sometimes dreams up (especially in areas like psychology) and instead analyse the commentaries for the theological, ethical and philosophical lessons, just as we have always done.
However, don’t mistake an admirable reason for a real claim about the age of the world. You can physically observe from different geological strata that the age of world is older than that. There is no need for any detailed scientific training. It’s obvious. Standing in front of that and claiming a “new earth” is like standing in front of the chair and saying it’s a cucumber.
