Rebuffing Science

There are those in the Christian world who strongly refute science and prefer to replace it with a belief in a supernatural creator who, according to them, is in control of everything that happens and/or has happened.

Some go so far as to deny things about this world/earth that science has proven (with incontrovertible evidence) to be true. As an example, they will deny the earth is a sphere or that it revolves around the sun. Further, they will deny evolution and cling to their belief that Adam and his rib-wife were the first humans to exist on this planet.

Yet they take advantage of a world surrounded by the science they rebuff. Nearly everyone drives a car, uses a microwave, makes calls on a cell phone, sends messages via computer, watches television, keeps cool or warm with air conditioning, records events and people with cameras, stays healthy (or gets well) through medicine … and other scientific activities too numerous to mention.

One can’t help but wonder — since so many choose to cling to beliefs prevalent during biblical times, why then do they not live like the Amish people, who reject “modern conveniences” and live a more simple life? Or more to the point, why don’t they take seriously the words found in their revered book, such as

Look at the birds in the sky. They don’t plant or harvest or gather food into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. You are more valuable than they are, aren’t you?

So don’t ever worry by saying, ‘What are we going to eat?’ or ‘What are we going to drink?’ or ‘What are we going to wear?’ … Surely your heavenly Father knows that you need all of them! 

And my God will meet all your needs according to the riches of his glory in Christ Jesus.

It seems apparent that when push comes to shove,  the primary reason behind a belief in a supernatural entity is because it assuages one’s conscience, i.e., it makes one “feel good.” And so long as it doesn’t take away the enjoyments offered by modern living, it’s totally acceptable to hold onto the archaic beliefs put forth in an 2000+ year old book.

Advertisements

The Big Bang Singularity

I recently started following a very talented poet/writer. I don’t recall how I came across his blog, but I have really enjoyed his posts. I was particularly intrigued by one of his newer ones that he entitled, “Possibilities? Forget it.” After you read the post, I think you’ll appreciate his choice of words for the title.

I decided not to simply “reblog” what he wrote because (1) it’s not very long, and (2) I hoped by sharing it here, you will be more inclined to comment. However if you want to take a closer look, here is the link to the posting. Now … read and enjoy.

Do you believe in the Big Bang Theory? I’m not talking about the infantile and incredibly irritating television show, to be clear.

I’m no scientist but it seems to me that if everything originated from that singularity ( I mean everything) then everything can be traced back to it.

I just had a glass of water. Why? I was thirsty. Why was I thirsty? Because it’s been a hot day. Why has it been a hot day? Well … this time of year the planet’s relative position to the sun ….. blah, blah, blah, blah, why? why? why? why?

Answer: The Big Bang. You can save a lot of time with those endless kids questions by skipping straight to this at the first mention of the word ‘why’.

Let’s look at it from the other direction. Let’s start at the Big Bang.

Kapow! Light and matter come into existence. One bit of matter hits another bit of matter and then there’s little collisions everywhere. Cause and effect. Cause and effect. Cause and effect. So everyone of these little incidents through the eons leads to a hot day after which I poured myself a glass of water. Along the way planets were formed, species were developed, Kings married Queens, and so on. I delude myself that it is my decision whether or not to drink the glass of water. Rubbish. The events leading up to the inevitability of me drinking the water were set in motion at the Big Bang.

So …… there are no possibilities. There aren’t even any probabilities. Everything is a certainty. If I could feed the whole thing into some sort of super computer I could tell you in advance what colour socks you are going to wear tomorrow (blue, by the way). But, then again, if I was in a position to predict everyone’s sock colour then I should have been in a position to predict that I could predict everyone’s sock colour. I admit that it can all get a bit confusing. But so it was always meant to be. And it is possible that, in an act of civil disobedience, you choose to defy me and pick another sock colour. Have I changed the course of history by making predictions about it? No. That was always going to happen.

I think I might have spoken about this all before. I’m sorry that I am so fucking boring. And predictable.

And if you find all of this a bit depressing then let me assure you that it can get worse. Do a google search for ‘Big Bang Theory’. The first five pages will mention nothing about the nature of reality. All they will want to talk about is that fucking stupid television show.

But maybe that, in itself, is an observation upon the nature of reality.

Reblog: Other Ways of Knowing

Steve has written what I consider an EXCELLENT post related to “scientism” — a word that is often flung around on some Christian blogs.

So now you know …

Class Warfare Blog

In the on-going conflict between science and religion that either doesn’t exist (because the two are compatible) or shouldn’t exist (because the two are incompatible), science types, like me, are accused of scientism, the thrusting of science into areas of human discourse where it doesn’t belong and, more specifically, stepping on religion’s toes. How dare, the critics say, science tell us anything about morality or aesthetics or … religion?

There are, they say, “other ways of knowing” than science. With regard to religion, specifically. they mention: faith, dogma, scripture, personal experience, and revelation.

So, let’s look at this.

First, what we call science is what originally was called “natural philosophy,” which was a branch of philosophy, just like ethics, politics, epistemology, logic, metaphysics, and aesthetics. When the scientific method was devised to make studying the natural world more effective, many of the categories of nature (chemistry—the study of the…

View original post 1,371 more words