Religion: Can We Know God? (13)-Science

    Ninety per-cent of the matter in the (known) universe is "dark" matter. We cannot find it, so it is dark matter. We know it must exist because the gravitational equations on which we base the rest of our knowledge simply do not work out at all if the ninety per cent of matter we cannot find (yet) is not there at all. So, though we cannot see it or sense it at all except through a few thousand posited equations, we can rest easy tonight, believing by faith the rest of the universe does exist.

   We have some really good people at work in the hunt. For instance, there are more than one thousand physicists at work in Illinois right now. According to their most recent report, a large portion of the larger portion of the largest portion we cannot actually find is still not locatable but they have eliminated, by consensus, one of the several millions of places it could be if it exists at all.

   The Higgs boson is not hiding between the range of 158 to 175 billion electron volts. At  least, if it is there, we cannot find it there, if it exists at all. If it does not exist at all, it is probably not there, according to recent reports, or it could just be somewhere else.

   As a policy statement here at aintsobad, Science (as in scientific research) should be funded liberally, if not lavishly. New technologies, as yet undeveloped, new data yet un-retrieved, yet wait for us in the vastness of space and time. Humankind probably does not have the power or the resources to discover all it wants to find but nothing in our inabilities should prevent the use of our abilities to find out whatever is next.

   Science must not be worshiped or adored. Science does not present us with data to prove the existence of God but no machination of theoretical data, no matter how closely observed, disproves the existence of God. Science over reaches when it begins to express itself in ethical terms, while at the same time insisting its research, in no way linked to values determination, negates the idea of a Purpose for life. Ethics cannot be based on empirical data. There must be something more and other.

   Science can tell us a lot. Science cannot offer us the characteristics of a good person, or tell us who is actually well off or tell us how to get to be a good person. Please do not tell me that none of these searches have anything to do with the "hard" sciences if in your next breath you prepare to tell me the "hard sciences" predictably prove there is nothing to life more than a few years and a death rattle.

   Science is not the be-all, end-all, for that is reserved for God. God knows where the other nine-tenths of the universe is located. 

   If this planet (a small one in the 10% we can locate; if it exists at all) will go from a present population of 6.7 billion to 9.4 billion by the year 2050, we will need some technological innovations Science might be able to help us find. To be taken seriously, Science will have to stop "fudging its facts" to fit its ends, as in the Climate Change Fiasco. An ethical person would have known to be honest with the piles of information available, so that there would not be the impulse to include fictionalized information in huge reports, with the apparent belief that no one would read the fine print. 

   "Report your findings," one might say to Empiricists who both overstep their limits and fudge their facts. "You will have less to explain later."

   One of the ways to become a Good Person is to realize there is a difference between Good and Bad or (Evil). You may not be able to find the genetic strain for evil yet but if you cannot tell evil when you see it, you are not the fellow who needs to have his finger on the "Destroy Earth" button. If you cannot readily discern Good when it stands next to Evil, you cannot claim to be a fully educated or even fully civilized person. Forget your high sounding statements about who is and who is not a thinking person. You are not capable to make that designation if you cannot distinguish between good and evil.

   To become a Good Person, you have to  understand that Good helps and Evil harms. Selfishness should be classified as evil not because it is petty and small but because of its potential for harm. Selfish people (self-absorbed, narcissistic people) hurtle through life, careening off others, objectifying all they strike, gaining personal momentum as they carom off the life of another person, who they somehow feel "owes me something." 

   Nietzche hated the Christian distinction between good and evil. He counted Christian love as a weakness or a sickness humankind could not afford. The genius had to adored. Lesser beings were to serve the (often self-appointed) Primary Man. There was to be no limit set on what the Genius could do. He never had to settle on what Good or Evil pushed him to do because he was the source of all Good and Evil. 

   One should note Nietzche was the favorite philosopher of Hitlerism in Germany. The Loyalty Oath forced on all Nazi troops during WWII descended directly from the thoughts of Nietzche filtered through the Hitler Party.

   One should never say that Man will someday outgrow his racial infantilism. There is no historical reason to believe Man will individually become so technologicalyl advanced he can leave behind his racial tendencies to do evil rather than good.

     Man will always need Religion. The sooner Man gets to the One, True Faith, the better.

Opinions expressed here are mine alone.

2 thoughts on “Religion: Can We Know God? (13)-Science”

  1. Science has become a god in jurisprudence and legislation. Increasingly the sole acceptable way to argue for ‘good’ (or against ‘bad’) in those spheres is with empirical data. (Well, conclusions wrested from some empirical data of the day, as reported in a tertiary source — e.g., newspaper opinion column — then contorted into a useful sound bite and read into the Congressional Record or quoted in the majority opinion … but that’s a separate issue).
    Reading famous court opinions and legal documents through the centuries shows this clearly. Maybe in the future we’ll just turn it over to a sophisticated computer program.

  2. It would seem that Chaucer’s character the ‘Preacher’ was poorly described as two dimensional and simple while most of his others were fairly flat and incomplete.
    Otherwise YAH-AH-AH-AH-AH-AH!? RUN FOR THE HILLS! or in reality it is the way it has always been and will be for time.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.