There are many metaphors for the human tendency to assemble an
argument from useless or irrelevant fragments. "grasping at straws"
comes easily to mind but the desperation of a drowning person isn't a
prerequisite to finding order, a coherent narrative and even 'proof' of a
conjecture in randomness. At breakfast every morning I stare at a
granite counter top with as yet uncaffeinated eyes and see a myriad of
faces and recognizable forms. Evolution has designed our brains to
identify faces in the weeds and probably to identify other things that
are not there. Better after all to flee the tiger that isn't there than
to be eaten by the one that is.
Once you see that face,
it's hard thereafter to see it as random assemblages of feldspar or
mica or other minerals. The eye hangs on, the way we hang on to other
constructs we form out of the randomness of being. Once you've had
Orion pointed out in the sky, you'll always see those stars as the
hunter that isn't there and who never existed -- and apparently, once
you decide that some sentient physical entity caused for instance, a
particular Uranium nucleus to fission, it's nearly impossible to see it
any other way, even though it's so random there's no way to predict the
phenomenon. "If it happened, something caused it to happen" is the
genesis of theology and science emphatically does not support that
assertion. Something indeed does come out of nothing and "nothingness"
itself is a condition we imagine but does not exist.
It
becomes increasingly obvious that what we call the "Big Bang" occurred
nearly 14 billion years ago and what we now see as the Universe expanded
from a singularity at an incomprehensibly high rate: so much faster in
the first instant that it's current limits are far beyond the distance
we will ever be able to see. A discovery announced Monday of ripples in
space-time or gravity waves are said to be evidence for that brief time
of rapid inflation in the nanoseconds after "the beginning" which seems
to be another piece of evidence that Einsteins predictions were right
and "inflation" occurred. It's said to fit in with models including
multiple universes. It's a profound moment for cosmology and for the
prevailing model of how the universe we perceive began.
But
wouldn't you know it, the faithful see it otherwise -- as proof of the
idea that a sentient entity who looks like us is behind it all. It's
proof, says Leslie A. Wickman, special to CNN.com of the Biblical
Genesis story. It's nothing of the sort, of course, but in a construct
some will not recognize as a decoy, Wickman asserts that the results of
this new development offers "strong support for biblical beliefs."
and that "it adds scientific support to the idea that the universe was
caused – or created – by something or someone outside it and not
dependent on it."
If in fact some argue that universes
arise from some random fluctuations in other universes, inflating into
themselves as they separate forever from the host universe, it hardly
fits the assumption of a God of any description. No condition that
created all we see can persist as an entity today any more than we can
travel to another universe. It's more than a stretch to say that the
observations of polarized light through an Antarctic telescope have
anything to do with a god, anthropomorphic, Biblical or not. But such is
the parasitic nature of religion, changing our eyes to see prescribed
patterns in randomness, to see proof of God -- of a certain God in yet
another piece of evidence that there is nothing even vaguely like that
in this universe or elsewhere, nor is such an entity necessary or even
useful to describe it's origins. The implication that we can somehow
attach all the ancient baggage we are liable to find in the Bible to a
fallacious fabrication erroneously based on intentionally misunderstood
scientific observation gives, I think, "strong support" to the idea of
our precious and often beautiful theology as hokum riding on conjecture
born of blind ignorance.
The notion that the
increasingly substantiated model of the Big Bang answers any kind of
ontological question like "who caused it," stems from the assertion
that for something to happen, something or someone must cause it,
is the kind of common sense notion prevents us from seeing beyond our
tiny frame of reference. Just as I see faces, usually human faces in the
stone, we see in nature what isn't there and what we see is a
reflection of us. In fact the stone contains nothing, and we are not
able to see in it what we can't recognize elsewhere.
If
it's indeed possible that some human may be able to create a new
universe that immediately detaches from ours and inflates into itself
like ours, it doesn't suggest that he who flips the switch is God or
that she has any further influence on the course of history contained in
that new place forever inaccessible to us. Even less does the
possibility that this is a natural and universal condition with
universes budding off into some unimaginable hyperverse argue for
"Biblical Beliefs." It argues for some staggering sense of awe inherent
in the infinite not in how we reduce the infinite to fit our biological
limits. If there is some universe of universe that may even be a mote
itself in other universes -- if there is a reality in the infinitely
small where nothing is true and everything is permitted, it hardly
argues for anything whatever in our religions. It argues instead that
what we see has mostly to do with what we want to see. We want to see
our significance and the significance of what we do and think and what
we are.
So is there a God? Is that in fact a
question or an attempt to package a vast number of conjectures as an
answer? Maybe the answer is in the question: "what do you mean by God?"
After all, the very word God is a concept smaller than the
limitlessness of reality. Do atheists believe in nothing at all? As Frank Moraes
says so pithily: "So we have our gods, they just aren't anything that
would be recognized by theists." Perhaps reality itself isn't
recognizable by Theists or the the faces in the stone aren't faces or
in the stone.
It is a world of great wonder. And the laws of physics and nature with their mathematical symmetry and perfection make for some of the most exciting research of our times. Pop told me that one of the scientists who worked on BICEP-1 and BICEP-2 is one of our UC San Diego profs currently at CASS, the Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences. Apparently the department granted a very nice interview to the local rag. The paper has at other times run features on important researchers from the University. This article has nice graphics and explanation for the layperson. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/mar/17/bigbang-universe-UCSD/
ReplyDeleteA world of great wonder indeed. The oceans, rivers, clouds, precipitation, forests, mountains, every one of a myriad of life forms, thousands upon thousands of ecosystems all dependent upon one another, countless agricultural crops and edible fruits. Every where we look is another great miracle of life and creation. I guess its up to the individual exactly how to explain or attribute these beautiful things. They are not really in and of themselves proof of a God or intelligent creator. Someone who paints the sunsets by hand all across the earth or sends the rains. But it really is a beautiful planet in a magnificent universe.
You would think that this one world that we have to live upon really could be enough for all of us.
Good website!
ReplyDeleteIt is indeed a great wonder. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and for centuries Westerners were taught to see "the world" as ugly and corrupt and 'fallen' and also as being here to be exploited, despoiled and used up. Some still do. Of course the eye is part of the whole thing as we ourselves are. If existence is beautiful, then we should remember that we are an integral part of it.
Some people will see proof for what they want to believe in anything -- even in things that disprove it. Remember when Condoleeza told us that the lack of WMD in Iraq was proof we needed to invade? False pattern recognition is a human failing that pervades our vision of everything.
Am I finding proof that humans are barely and infrequently incapable of rational thought and prefer to select facts and gerrymander evidence to support their beliefs and see proof where it isn't? To me we seem to proclaim our weakness and failures constantly despite the success of a few in delving into the most profound mystery.