The New God In Town

11/13/2012

There’s a new God in town and he’s been throwing his weight around lately.  Seems that he wants to have no other gods before us.  The name of the new God… is science.

With apologies to my scientific friends, I have a bone to pick with science.  It’s not that I don’t like science, I do.  I even agree with some of their new theories.  It’s a matter of perspective to be sure, but I can’t tell if I’m the problem or they are.

It all started for me recently when I saw a YouTube video of a speech given by Jerry Coyne.  Now, Jerry Coyne is a biologist and he’s also an author, having written a book on evolution.  I guess that since he’s now an author that this automatically makes him an expert on the subject.  At least he seems to think so, inasmuch as he is quite dismissive towards many of his peers who believe in other paradigms.

What I reacted to in his video is that he kept using the word “proof” with respect to his research.  Now, evidence is one thing, but proof is quite another.  His chain of reasoning was that since there was proof, then his theory was a fact.  Now, that’s truly amazing!  A theory that’s a fact.

Unfortunately, science has progressed to the point where proof is hard to find.  By that, I mean that science is suppose to be a process of observation. Since many new theories like a Multiverse are unobservable, science has been reduced to scribbling a bunch of formulas on a chalkboard.  As a result, there can be no proof because there is no observation.

In the end, we are reduced to staring into the unknown, trying to define eternity.  What makes us think that our finite minds can  comprehend the infinite, anyway?  Now, this kind of arrogance is a strange and beautiful thing. You display your incredible intelligence only to demonstrate how stupid you can truly be.  I guess that’s why I have a bone to pick with science.

“Science has proof without any certainty….”

-Ashley Montagu

Advertisements

6 Responses to “The New God In Town”

  1. “In the end, we are reduced to staring into the unknown, trying to define eternity. What makes us think that our finite minds can comprehend the infinite, anyway?”
    You mean the universe, I assume? Is the idea of god not eternal and infinite also? If this is your train of logic, why should you concern yourself with God? Or is it that you just want scientists to stop looking for answers because you think it’s tiresome?

    • chicagoja said

      Thank you for your comments. A couple of thoughts based upon same:
      (1) No, I didn’t mean universe. I meant the totality of creation. The universe is observable to some extent. The rest of creation beyond our universe is
      essentially unobservable.
      (2) Yes, the concept of God is infinite (at least mine).
      (3) The issue of God , or no God, is a primary consideration in viewing the purpose of life and your place in creation.
      (4) Scientists should keep searching for the truth; however, they should stop pretending that they have already found it.

      Hope that clarifies my comments.

  2. If the issue of God, or no God, is a primary consideration in viewing the purpose of life and your place in creation, then why did you say that we should not concern ourselves with such infinite ideas?

    On your last point, I agree, you cannot assert a theory such as the multiverse one as fact – there simply isn’t ample evidence. However, the meaning of the word theory changes greatly when you put the word scientific in front of it – like with evolution, it is indeed widely acknowledge by fact, only not by those who refuse to examine the evidence or because their religious ideals forbids them from accepting it. The evidence, which is in fact proof, definitively points to evolutionary processes having taken place, and we have directly observed it in microorganisms – the reason it is so much faster is because all biological processes in microorganisms are hundreds of thousands times faster than those in macro organisms. However such direct observation is not always possible, so we must rely on the indirect observations for many theories. As long as the evidence we do have is solid, any tests used are repeatable, and no other evidence absolutely disproves it, and no major gaps in knowledge definitively prevent you from asserting that your observation point to a specific event(for example, if evolution did not have the fossil record that shows trends in species mutations over vast amounts of time, then it wouldn’t be considered fact at all, just a hypothesis), then it is fact. That is how we determine what a fact is.

    • chicagoja said

      I didn’t mean to imply that we should not contemplate the divine, only that it was unknowable and unprovable (despite what some people say).

      • I think eventually Science may eventually prove intelligent design. There are so many patterns in the universe, if law is a concept that requires consciousness then that shows consciousness is the source of things.

      • chicagoja said

        Thank you for your comment. Proof of intelligent design is not possible. Evidence, possibly, where you observe the effect but not the cause. God being the first cause is therefore unobservable by any definition. I wouldn’t leave it up to scientists to try and prove God anyway because too many of them don’t believe that he exists.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: