“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve”.
“But, my child, let me give you some further advice: Be careful, for writing books is endless, and much study wears you out. That's the whole story. Here now is my final conclusion: Fear God and obey his commands, for this is everyone's duty”.
Credit: Google Images
Our paradigms consists of our accumulated Knowledge, influenced by related Theories and hopefully tempered by acquired Wisdom and basic Logic, that you utilize to interpret Reality.
Reality according to Wikipedia: “In philosophy, reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined. In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still more broad definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist. The truth refers to what is real, while falsity refers to what is not”.
Dictionary definition of Reality: “The quality or state of being actual or true”.
The question of course is : How true is our interpretation regarding ultimate reality given the fact that our interpretations have themselves been unavoidably modified by our own particular paradigm?
Unfortunately many good learned folk are so caught up in developing theories regarding life-and-matter bound up in their own particular Paradigm of knowledge that they may lose sight of Basic Logic and Common Sense. Here is a case in point. The headlines of Yahoo Science News ran the following post the other day:
Will Science Someday Rule Out the Possibility of God?
By Natalie Wolchover | LiveScience.com
This provocative headline has of course been deliberately formulated with the obvious intention of stirring up controversy. The media, by its nature, thrives on controversies and the reactions they provoke. One must accept that this journalist was just doing her job and, granted, she does attempt to insert a degree of impartiality by posing the question further on:
“But could science really eventually explain everything?”
My problem, though, lies with the statements of two scientists that she quotes in the article. The first quote is from Sean Carroll, a theoretical cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology. Carrol wrote regarding the evolution of the universe, everything from nothing:
1. "Nothing in the fact that there is a first moment of time, in other words, necessitates that an external something is required to bring the universe about at that moment.”
The writer then goes on to also quote Alex Filippenko, an astrophysicist at the University of California, Berkeley, who is reported to have stated the following at a conference earlier this year:
2. "The Big Bang could've occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there. With the laws of physics, you can get universes."
When applying Logic to these statements a number of important questions come to the surface:
1. Where is the logic behind the statement that no “external something” is required to bring about the “existence of the universe at that first Moment”?
2. This statement: "The Big Bang could've occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there. With the laws of physics, you can get universes," must also be said to be completely devoid of logic!
How can we be asked to accept that the Fixed “Laws” of Nature (Note: not random accidental processes, but strict and fixed determining “laws”) spontaneously formulated themselves – instantaneously, all encompassing, without motivation or direction, to regulate everything that occurs or ever has occurred throughout the universe?
One could possibly concede that it could be argued that certain chemical processes could have developed over time through the dynamics of chemical reactions that eventually come to regulate these processes.
Here however we have to do with even as yet barely understood dynamics governing the behavior of even the minutest sub-atomic particles which determine the very nature of all matter and energy (both seen and unseen) throughout the universe.
There is no Logic in claiming that forces so diverse and incomprehensible in their minutest detail could have spontaneously self-formulated themselves, of their own volition and fully fledged, in the course of a micro-millisecond!
I have the greatest respect for the bona fides of these two gentlemen regarding their intellect and qualifications pertaining to their respective fields of expertise. I am the first to admit that their mathematical reasoning would be way over my head.
The problem however is that here they move away from their particular fields of expertise and enter the realm of pure speculation, not substantiated by fact, and therefore not even qualified to be labeled as “theories”.
Regardless of their academic genius, these statements are nothing more than opinions arrived at from paradigms that have obviously been consciously pre-determined to preclude any possibility of God and the Supernatural. Both gentlemen are fully entitled to their opinions of course, but that is actually all they are – opinions!
This is the same hypothesis we are continually being fed. “Everything from Nothing, within a Millisecond, purely by Chance”! But no proof – just an expressed opinion that it will someday be proven, but in the meantime being broadcast as knowledgeable fact!
Knowledge in itself is valuable, but
Paradigms based on knowledge that has
been tempered by Wisdom and Logic is priceless!
Your thoughts and opinions matter! Please share them with us!