Decorative discourse
I ran across this gem on the web:
Ask a physicist ‘what creates the universe’ and they say energy. Ask them to describe energy and they tell you,
‘It can never be created or destroyed; it always is, always has been and always will be; it is always flowing into form, through form and out of form.’
Now, ask a theologian ‘what creates the universe’ and they say God. Ask them to describe God and they might also tell you,
‘It can never be created or destroyed; it always is, always has been and always will be; it is always flowing into form, through form and out of form.’
The point presumably being that science and religion are really two different ways of saying the same thing. My first reaction was that this was a really stupid analogy. Energy is also limited by the laws of physics, it has no personality, no volition, no purpose, and it is utterly indifferent to human needs. Does the writer really want to go there?
Then I realized that this was not an analogy, not a logical argument at all. It was not aimed at readers who think logically. The words “God” and “energy” are simply decorations, and it is enough to put them near each other on the same page. The sentences don’t have to make sense, they just have to look like sentences.
I think of Rudy Giuliani, who decorates every other sentence with a reference to 9/11. Or most of the candidates, for that matter, decorating their speeches with the word “change”. Decorative discourse may explain a lot of things..