official site of Author, Composer, and Poet, David Robertson Miller
June 28, 2020
HELLO AGAIN!
For those of you who might be new here, welcome. Glad to have you. For the past several months we have been discussing the conflict between Religion and Science. This discussion has been related to my book, “Thou Shalt Not Scoff, a Rational Unity of Religion and Science.” If you want to catch up with us you can follow the links (starting here). For the rest of you who have been with me here, thanks, and welcome back. Keep those emails coming!
RELIGION AND SCIENCE
In last week’s post, Science posed the question, “if there really is a God, why is it that people have so many different views and opinions about the nature of God?” Science suggests that Religion would be easier to believe if everyone could agree on who and what God is. But….
TURNABOUT’S FAIR PLAY
If we accept this as a fair question, then it is likewise fair for Religion to turn the question back around. Science too, would be easier to believe if everyone could agree on everything. For example, Religion could well point to such things as exposure to the sun. Is the sun good for you or bad for you? People can’t quite seem to agree, and the story has changed from time to time. It was long thought that the sun was good simply because it felt good. Warm feels better than cold; when it’s warm and sunny, knees and necks don’t hurt as much; tan looks better than pale.
But then, Science made the correlation of exposure to the sun and skin cancer. Suddenly, the sun was bad. People started walking around with umbrellas on sunny days, which in prior times would have raised some eyebrows! Sales of sunscreen soared!
Then, Science determined that exposure to the sun stimulates the body’s production of Vitamin D, supports stronger bones, healthier immune system, better sleep, and elevated mood, as well as many other benefits. Now, all of a sudden, the sunshine is good again.
And Religion calls shenanigans! Is sunshine good or bad? You all can’t even make up your minds. You don’t know what you are talking about! The same argument can be made of red wine, carbohydrates, vaccinations, and so on. Science is bogus! Right?
Wrong!
IT’S ABOUT MODERATION
What Religion, and the public at large, often fail to take into consideration is the simple word: moderation. Yes, overexposure to the sun’s ultraviolet rays can lead to skin cancer, and other health ramifications. But, underexposure can lead to such health problems as jaundice, rickets, etc. The solution, obviously, is that we need some sunlight exposure, just not too much.
A similar, and very serious issue might be that of climate change. There are those who view global warming as an impending cataclysm. They have the idea that if only we would put our milk cartons and tin cans in a separate trash can and drive Yugo’s, we would save the planet! These people often label anyone who disagrees with them as a selfish boorish oaf, misinformed or shortsighted.
All-or-nothing!
There are others who see the whole issue as a farce, a cynical and bogus ploy contrived for someone’s political and economic gain. They see the other side as gullible little greenie-weenies, mindlessly following the flock.
All-or-nothing!
As with many issues, the truth certainly lies somewhere between these extremes. We could, for example, acknowledge climate change exists, that it is a serious issue, and that that human activity could be reasonably assumed to be some part of the cause, while also recognizing that the process of climate fluctuation has been going on for millions of years, irrespective of human participation.
Unfortunately, this sort of recognition does not play well with our innate tendency toward the all-or-nothing mentality. Nor does it provide sensationalist headlines or fiery campaign speeches
JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS
There is also the notion of inference as in this scenario: Ralph sees Andy standing ten feet to his left. He closes his eyes for a minute, and when he opens them, he sees Andy standing ten feet to his right. Ralph then infers that Andy has walked the twenty feet. Perfectly logical, right?
Yes it is. It is perfectly logical up until the point where we learn that Zac, who lives on the next block, just saw Andy running by. We realize that our initial conclusion, the Step-To-The-Other-Side theory, is probably incorrect; Andy did not walk twenty feet; he ran around the block. A closer observation also reveals that Andy is sweaty and panting, further evidence in favor of the Run-Around-The-Block theory.
Subsequently though, we learn that Andy is overly sensitive to heat and tends to have trouble catching his breath on hot days. Since it is over a hundred degrees today, this new fact must also be taken into consideration. Then, we learn that Andy has an identical twin brother, Alan, and it was Alan that Zac actually saw running. Now we are back to the Step-To-The-Other-Side theory.
“See, see! You call can’t make up your minds. Ralph is bogus! Right?
Wrong!
The issue is not that Ralph cannot make up his mind; he is simply an open-minded individual, and allows his thinking to evolve as new evidence comes to light.
THE EVOLUTION OF IDEAS
It was once thought that the sky was a huge dome with hundreds of holes punched in it, soaring high above the flat disc of the earth. When the sun (which obviously circled the earth) went down, the dome went black, and through the hundreds of holes, we saw the light of Heaven shining through.
But then Eratosthenes stuck a stick in the ground. Using its shadow, some elementary geometry, and his considerable genius, he determined that the earth was in fact round, and calculated its circumference to an amazingly accurate degree. Columbus and/or the Vikings, discovered the New World. Magellan circumnavigated the globe. The Dutch eyeglass maker, Hans Lippershey stuck two lenses together and thus invented the telescope. Galileo, Newton, and Edwin Hubble all made subsequent improvements to its design. Galileo pointed his telescope to the heavens and found that the planets were actually worlds much like our own (except for Saturn, which had “ears”), that the moon had craters, and the hundreds of stars in existence suddenly became thousands of them.
Telescopes have become increasingly bigger and bigger, their technology more and more advanced; measuring techniques have become more and more precise. At every turn, as more and more knowledge presents itself, theories are altered or discarded. Does that mean the previous Science was bogus? No. these people were brilliant and courageous. If we see farther than our predecessors, it is because we are standing on their shoulders, as future generations will stand on ours as more and more knowledge is attained, more and more secrets revealed. Thousands of stars became million, then billions, then trillions!
As we peered through our telescopes and took our measurements, one thing became obvious: The Universe is expanding. Regardless of which direction we looked, distant stars and galaxies were moving away from us, at about the same rate. Some then deduced that we are, literally, the center of the Universe. But that is really not the case. Expanding space is like the surface of a polka-dotted balloon. As the balloon inflates, the spots move further and further away from each other, but none can be singled out as the “center” from which all of the others move. Similarly, although you have to step up to a new dimension, as space expands all bodies appear to recede from all other bodies, with none called the center.
KISS! (KEEP IS SIMPLE, SCIENCE)
Science generally tends to look for the simplest, most parsimonious solution to most questions, Except perhaps the Let-There-Be-Light one. So, if the Universe is expanding, it stands to reason that if you trace the arrow of time backward, it contracts, becoming smaller and more dense. The most logical inference would be that it all began at a very small, and unimaginably dense singularity.
And, ka-BOOM! The Big Bang theory! And in 1965, Bell Laboratory engineers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson serendipitously discovered the microwave background radiation (MBR), and that sealed the deal. Right?
Not quite.
JUST ONE THEORY?
Here’s the turnabout part.)
While the Big Bang is the most commonly accepted theory, and so far seems to be the most logical inference, it is not the only one out there.
There is, for example, the Steady State theory. Albert Einstein actually attempted to support this theory by introducing into his equations the Cosmological Constant, which he later deemed the worst mistake of his career. Although all but debunked now, this was once the predominant model of the Universe. It posits that as the Universe expands, new matter is created to fill the voids. While this seems to violate the Conservation of Matter, which states that the matter and energy of the Universe are neither created nor destroyed, proponents said the anomaly was acceptable because the new matter created begins with particles small enough to be governed by quantum mechanics, and that would certainly not be the strangest thing to come out of quantum mechanics!
It was also thought that the particles at the outer expanses of the cosmos could dissipate in order to maintain the balance of Conservation. Or, those particles were worm-holed inward in a never-ending cycle. Or, perhaps, expanding spacetime could act as sort of a sponge, sucking particles over from another dimension!
(In truth, I just made that last one up myself. But is it less plausible, at least on the surface, than any of the other positions stated?)
Either way, over the course of billions of years, the Universe maintains pretty much the same structure and appearance. Always has. Always will.
There are those, too, who espouse a model known as the Eternal Expansion theory. This is sort of an offshoot of the Big Bang. The difference is that the Big Bang predicts a smooth, consistent, symmetrical Universe, while Eternal Expansion proposes the existence of quantum fluctuations causing the density of energy and matter to vary in different points of space. These areas of diversity expand at different rate. The faster ones ultimately dominate the Universe. This phenomenon leads to the formation of “miniature universes” which expand at their own rate, causally separated from one another. Each of these mini-verses subsequently produces multiple mini-verses, which produce still more. Thus, our Universe is but one of an exponentially increasing number of others in an eternally expanding multi-verse.
Still other scientists speculate that black holes could act as portals to parallel Universes. In this model, our Universe spawned as a “white hole” on the other side of a black hole in a different dimension, and the black holes we observe emerge as new Universes on the other side.
Whew!
Even since the book came out there have been more and more theories and ideas. It seems every time I go online, I read about a new paper, a new theory, a new idea. I can’t keep up! So, will new evidence emerge that will support one or the other of these theories, or will they point to another model we have not even thought of yet?
Who knows?
Either way, the point of all of this is simply to demonstrate that just as Religions of the world may disagree on the concept or character of God, varying factions of Science disagree on the concepts or character of physical existence. Once again, an open-minded consideration shows that Science and Religion parallel, rather than contradict one another
STAY TUNED NEXT WEEK
Next week I think we’re going to get serious again. I want to look at another point of contention, not just between Religion and Science, but between the various religions of the world. In Genesis 1, God says, “Let us create man in our image.” What exactly does that mean? Like so much of this stuff I don’t presume to know the answer, but I’ve got some ideas that might interest you.
Let’s put it this way, I’m anticipating a lot of email! If you want to get a head start on your argument, click here to pick up a Kindle e-book of my book, Thou Shalt Not Scoff! Or if you prefer the paperback version click here. While you’re at it, check out the rest of my stuff. (Hey, choir directors out there, you’re going to be picking your Christmas Cantatas soon, right?)
As I have said before, whether you agree with what I’m saying here, or totally disagree, I’d love to hear from you. You can leave your good or bad comments below. Then, I will go ahead and put you on my spam-free email list and keep you up to date with what’s going on here. If you don’t want to be on the list, that’s fine, just tell me so.
Spoilsport!