archives

Science and Religion

This tag is associated with 2 posts

Cosmic Pickles

In the beginning, there was no space, and time was fuzzy. Oh and there was this Singularity.

This Singularity, being single, was granted extra syllables, which is how a simple word transforms into the infinitely complex creator of everything. Single becomes Singular becomes Singularity.

Try it out! Simple. Simplistic. Simplisticity. Ha! “Well, first we must understand the nature of simplisticity.” See how it works? We’re making science!

And this is how we deal with cosmic pickles. Like, where did everything come from? We have to account for the presence of matter, “which is neither created or destroyed,” which by definition suggests it is eternal. But nothing within the time-space continuum can be eternal, without being extra-dimensional. Matter is therefore not extra-dimensional, by definition. This, then, is a paradox.

When there is a paradox, we must find another explanation to resolve it, or else our current understanding is not balanced, not entirely cohesive. A theistic explanation satisfies by stating an extra-dimensional source of intellectual design is at play. However, an atheistic approach will never consider any acknowledgement of “design” which would allow for a “designer” (although I would argue that they do anyway, by assigning intelligence and omnipotence to “the singularity” and “evolution” and “nature”).

Everything in existence, we are told, is a product of random chaos (though we now know, even chaos possesses order). The model which most of “leading scientists” seem to promote is, in the beginning was The Singularity, a single point of time and space, which was all at once all-encompassing and non-existent, infinitely dense yet technically without mass. The concept, it seems, is that of a cosmic pustule stuck in the skin separating reality from non-reality. A great space vacuum or sort of phantom zone. There is no basis for this, except that an explanation must be made to explain what the atheistic model cannot explain through the lots-and-lots-of-time + lifeless-matter + random-chance = creation-of-everything model. The singularity, which didn’t exist, exploded, sending massive amounts of matter and energy into existence, causing the beginning of the universe, creating all the forces such as gravity and magnetism and electromagnetism.

And that, apparently, is how nothing created everything. That is one heck of a work of science.

The Religion of Science

To understand the world, you must understand what equations mean, and not just know mathematical constructs.

We have, in the palms of our hands, the sum total of all the collected knowledge in the history of the world. At any point during any day, regardless of location, we have access to this immense information via our smart phones. Why, then, does our understanding of the universe and our existence remain no more accurate than were the Mayans or the Babylonians?

I love science. I love learning and comprehending new concepts. How can one know how to live, if one does not know what life truly is? Science, as it is now, is like religion; less interested in facts than it is in the pursuit of Truth. Science is supposed to be based on observable laws, and in accordance to the scientific method, empirically proven in order to establish factuality. Explanation and meaning of the data is open to interpretation. Interpretation is based of the conclusions of the interpreter. The interpreter will conclude based on observation of the data, coupled with preconceived notions and a relative system of belief or paradigm. When a sizable consensus of “established” interpreters agree on an interpretation, it becomes “scientific”. And to become an “established” interpreter, one must first be in agreement with all that is considered “scientific”. And thus, what is scientific is subjective and based on interpretation.

For this reason, I never accept science on blind faith. Science is man-made, and man is not all-knowing. Unlike God. And since I believe God has revealed Himself in Scripture, anytime science conflicts with the source of Truth, science must be wrong.

I am constantly amused at the irony of scientists who disparage Scripture as erroneous and unscientific. There is more truth on any one page of Scripture than there is in most science books. The notion that religion should be kept out of science is laughable, because science is itself a religion, the current State Religion of the United States.

But, like any religion, there are elements of truth in science. It provides a good deal of useful equations and observations. And I find the shows on The Science Channel and the like quite entertaining for the most part, I suppose, to the level of entertainment an Atheist would probably derive from watching a show about Creation Science, except my mind is a little more open and receptive to nuggets of truth.

So, how can science become less religious? Well, how about just presenting the data. Stop preaching to us about what it means. Leave that for religions and philosophers. And please stop the absurdity of looking for evidence solely for the purpose of proving your own religion — just investigate what is plainly there, and not what you insist MUST BE THERE. Why must every study of astronomy center around the Big Bang or whether or not something might possibly contain a speck of life? Oh that’s right, because of evolution, the focal point of their religion, the creator of all life, the master of the universe. This will explain the reason that most of the time, they don’t have a clue WHAT they’re looking for, because in reality, since the Big Bang and macro evolution (and the process by which lifeless matter becomes complex living organisms) has never been observed or reproduced in a laboratory (via the scientific method), no one knows the process or how to find the proofs they’re looking for.

Scripture tells us where life came from and how the universe began. Life did not come from lifeless matter. Life came from life. Every cell comes from another cell. This fact has never been disproven. I consider myself far less religious than the establishment scientists, because unlike them, I am not seeking to prove my creator exists. I am only interested in understanding the facts. I don’t need to explain God or have someone else try to explain Him. How exactly does one explain a God who has no beginning and who creates something out of nothing, life from lifelessness?

Scripture, which contains the meaning of all things, allows us the opportunity to understand science and the universe in a way which is impossible otherwise. And while I appreciate the data which science provides, its current paradigm is absolutely useless to me. Facts are stubborn things.

Archives

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.