In the beginning there was a ball of massive incomprehensible stuff that got bored and became the universe. Okay, I will take that, I mean it is the closest thing to an acknowledgement of a beginning of the universe one can expect from a scientific establishment that is bent on eliminating metaphysical references when talking about the universe. The problem is that scientists have run into a physical wall, a no man's land of sorts with regards to physical laws. All of the explanations for the Big Bang must abandon physics. I should acknowledge that I am reading a book by David Berlinski right now talking about the scientific consensus that God does not exist, or at least God should not exist. That being said I have been pondering the Big Bang and its paradoxes for quite a while. Hawking purports to be able to tunnel through the Big Bang to a prior state using a mathematical tool know as imaginary or complex numbers(remember the square root of -1 from high school math?). But that is still a technique and not a description of measurable science. Even with his little imaginary tunnel, he is brought to a place which just exists, until it decided to come out, there is nothing significant that can be said about that space and nothing can be said about the cause for its existence. If you think about the cosmological situation we see a return to a fundamental problem in scientific inquiry. Science uses conjecture then experiment to form statements about the physical world. Scientists, however, feel that they should be able to say things about non-physical events, and claim that to be a physical observation. Talking about events prior to the Big Bang is metaphysical, the laws of physics admittedly break down at the Big Bang, it is a singularity where no meaningful data can be assessed. To say that the universe had a state prior to the Big Bang is not within the realm of science. Maybe it is in the realm of advanced mathematics, but at that point the system described is not our universe but a logical entity, essentially a metaphysical system.
What astounds me is that many will fight vehemently to say that science has proved there is no God. It seems to me that it is not within the realm of scientific inquiry to prove such a claim. Perhaps science can assert that a physical reality which was purportedly caused by God has a physical cause, but it cannot prove God to not exist.
So what is it that pushes God-deniers forward? If their methods are not really scientific, why do they push the point? Because they believe it. The same reason that Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God, or Jews believe Abraham talked to God, or the Greeks believed the gods to have lived on Olympus. Believing in the assertion that God does not exist is just as much(if not more of) a matter of faith as believing God does exist. When one asks what caused the universe, one can say nothing, or one can say God (one can say other things, but logically they amount to nothing). It is the expedient answer to say God caused the universe, for there is no perceivable physical cause and our experience is that things do not come from nothing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I suppose I would be remiss to preface this response by saying I do not readily identify with any conceived notion of "god" that any major religion has ever written about, spoken of, gone to war for, or ascribed human characteristics to. Nevertheless, I challenge anyone who claims to "know" with any certainty that much of anything is truth, not theory. Any science, any religion, any band of people which presses forth stubbornly with the idea that their concept of the universe is true, gives me pause.
I wonder if part of the problem is that the course of humanity is primarily a reactionary one. It might be an oversimplification, but one can reasonably assert that each epoch of human history was a direct response to that which preceded it.
That having been said, it could be logical to deduce that thought shifts in much the same way. In the "real" beginning, that which we know to be "true" based on recorded human history of all kinds, scientific exploration of the world and the universe was paltry at best. Looking into the sky and conceiving of an entity or consciousness above the physical world must have been the only logical idea for those who concerned themselves with such thoughts.
Over time, many became fanatical with their ideas; vilified were those who even suggested that there might be something else going on besides Supreme Consciousness A coming down and forming humans out of mud. Galileo comes to mind. So it seems to me that the reaction might be for many in the scientific community to respond with as much conviction that there is no supreme entity as those who do believe in god had steadfastly held to their beliefs - and their beliefs alone - explained life, the universe, and everything.
I grew up knowing the two things one never discusses over the dinner table: politics and religion. As with many things I've been taught, I've rejected that notion, and replaced it with the idea that logical people can hold intellectual discussions about opposing views without succumbing to their own pathos. But, as with so many other things, social interactions tend to crawl toward microcosmic status.
I hope that one day fanatics on both sides can give up the cosmic fight and enjoy the gifts we have been given without worrying so damn much about who or what did the giving.
Consider it a Secret Santa of the highest degree.
I think in many ways you are right. My neck bristles when someone claims to have proved something outside of their power to prove. I am not fanatically concerned about whether or not a god made the world in 7 days or just set the process in motion. I have my own religious beliefs which I work out in private, in church, and occasionally on this blog.
I think your observation of the reactionary notion of human epochs is an apt one, Hegel develops this idea to an absurd degree in that he things the movements of history are progressive. I highly doubt that history has any progressive tendencies. I think that it is very easy for a barbarous tribe to destroy a fairly advanced society.
I think the idea of not discussing religion or politics at the dinner table is an okay rule, but not one I plan on implementing at my house. I will however advise my son that these topics are highly charged and one should feel out the audience before diving in.
Thanks for the discourse; I have unfortunately found it rare down here, save for my conversations with Carrie and - occasionally when the topic so sparks them - a few of my students.
It is appreciated. And welcomed.
Using that logic, I could purport a belief in a lot of things. :-)
I do think that art, philosophy, etc. is reactionary! Western society is progressive, to me, anyway. Not every aspect of it, but you can see this in the differences between open, educated societies and closed, uneducated societies. If you know what has come before, you have a better chance of not repeating it. Doesn't always hold up, but the farther you can spread progressive thought and proven truths, the greater the inroads they will make.
Of course that's dependent on what a society values--but I think the healthiest attitude is one of wait-and-see, rather than anything dogmatic on either side.
People have purported all sorts of beliefs, and defended them jealously like they are children.
To say something is reactionary is only to admit a causal connection between events. A reaction is no more than a resulting action from a specific event. When you divide up history into epochs or movements then you try to read a story into those movements you get a movements that are responding to earlier ones.
I understand what you mean by saying that our current time is progressive, that we are somehow getting "better", but the meaning of "better" is up to debate. Even if we do agree on a definition for better and acknowledge that our society as a whole(western society) is moving "forward", it still does not eliminate the possibility that we will be bombed into the stone ages by some backwards thinking group of people who think our society is perverse, or a threat. This happened to the Western Roman Empire, it happened to Byzantine, it happened to Classical Greece, it happened to Ancient Egypt, and so on. To grant Hegel this dialectic reading of history progressing toward some Utopian society is to stand opposed to the facts.
Many talk about how advanced the Maya were, but the Spanish showed up and conquered them with VD and guns. Now we only know that civilization through archaeology and myth.
Yeah, as I said, it depends what a society values. And of course there will be disagreements even within that. I don't see how history can NOT be said to be the result of all that comes before it. Not every little thing, obviously, but larger movements and trends, definitely.
As far as the possibility of us getting bombed into oblivion, of course I am aware that that could happen at any time. But that would also be the result of historical events. And would, in a sense of just the forward momentum of time, be progress. Not "progressive," but still progress. That word has now ceased to have any meaning for me! Ha!
Post a Comment