Homo Sapiens are a predominantly emotional species. So much so that they rarely want reason or rationale to interfere with satisfying their need to feel good about themselves. Thus it is true that emotional solutions can often be more relevant than the intellectual solution, because emotional problems so often masquerade as intellectual problems.
An example of an emotional problem that masquerades as an intellectual problem is showcased by a discussion between myself and a lecture theatre full of Creationists, plus a few scattered sceptics. The talk was held at Prince Philip Theatre, Architecture Building, University of Melbourne, between 13:00-14:00 on the 28th of March 1995. The speaker was introduced as Charles Phallaghy, biology lecturer at La Trobe University by the Students for Christ who were hosting the talk.
I participated in a theological discussion when question time wandered off topic at about 14:15. Every scientific counter-argument to this point had been dodged by the introduction of new, albeit unverifiable Creationist "evidence" and no-one was making any ground. As we were now on theological grounds, I decided to open up the case against literalism given that Creationism is based in Biblical literalism. The transcript of this part of the discussion is as follows:
CASEY: “There are a few passages in the New Testament that warn
against literal interpretation.”
PHALLAGHY: “Indeed there are passages in the Bible that must be
interpreted but it is only by the revelation of the Holy Spirit that one may
discern which to interpret and what they mean.”
CASEY: “It is rather a matter of purpose. To paraphrase Matthew 7/12
the purpose of religion is that people must love one-another. The quote states
‘In all things, do unto others as you would that others should do unto you, for
this is The Law and The Prophets’. It must be remembered that the ‘Law and the
Prophets’ was what the Bible was called in the time of Jesus.”
Amazed at this concept, the speaker asked of my beliefs...
PHALLAGHY: “What church are you from?”
CASEY: “I am a Baha’i.”
PHALLAGHY: “So you don’t accept Christ.”
CASEY: “I do accept Christ, as do all Baha’is.”
A “Student for Christ” came to the speaker’s rescue and rounded on me accusing
STUDENT FOR CHRIST: “But you do not accept the teachings of Christ!”
CASEY: “The teaching of Christ is no more than to love one-another.
Wherefore do I deny this teaching?”
STUDENT FOR CHRIST: “Do you not believe that the Holy Spirit lives in
each one of us?”
CASEY: “The Holy Spirit does live in each of us, but no man is
infallible nor can any man infallibly judge what comes to him from the Holy
Spirit or what comes to him from himself.”
STUDENT FOR CHRIST: “What meaning has the sacrifice of the cross?”
CASEY: “The meaning is in the action of Jesus when he forgave his
oppressors as an example to all of us of how to obtain salvation - Forgive
others and you will be forgiven.”
STUDENT FOR CHRIST: “Is not the confession of faith in Jesus Christ,
in the sacrifice of the cross, and in the resurrection, the means of salvation?”
CASEY: “As stated in James, faith is defined by action not lip
service.”
His question in reply was smug, exultant, and seemingly anticipating victory.
STUDENT FOR CHRIST: “But how do you deal with sin?!!!”
CASEY: “It is a matter of simple logic: If you forgive others, God
will forgive you - In a truly just world that is.”
With no answer, the valiant saviour of the speaker conceded with a simple “O.
K.”
His help blown clean out of the water, the speaker was speechless and thereby closed the meeting only twenty minutes into question time (as opposed to 60 minutes plus by other speakers). Even the non-Creationist audience had nothing to add.
I had neither resolved the scientific nor intellectual conundrums that the speaker had created and I had offered no proof, nor accusation of fraud. However, when I presented a solution to the underlying emotional conundrum (fear of damnation) that motivates the desire to prove Creationism, there were no more glib answers. This indicates that by solving the emotional issue, the intellectual issue became redundant.