To talk about God and science in the same sentence is odd.
Science is a way of learning: posit a hypothesis--a possibility--
for how things work, and then test the idea. If it seems to work,
call it a theory, perhaps, and test it again. And again.
"Where did the universe come from? I don't know, really,
but it seems to have exploded somehow about 14 billion years ago.
A Big Bang! That sort of thing." So you collect data, test it,
and think about it some more. The process is never done.
To say that God caused the universe to be (as an example)
is to say that you are stumped for any other explanation,
and that there must have been a very intelligent mind at work,
somewhere else. Not us. Out there. No evidence. Just
an affirmation. "How else?", we say. "How else?"
In some ways, it is comical for Stephen Hawking to engage
people who simply telling us what they believe: that there is
a non-material being responsible for all this material. That isn't
what scientists do: agree with, or refute, faith assertions.
Scientists look at things. Think about them. Wonder how.
Suggest possibilities. Test the ideas. Revise them. Stay tentative.
Scientists cannot test gods. Gods aren't testable. They are,
by the definition of their creators, not testable. Imagine, they say,
a non-material being. . . . O.K. Now what? One cannot
understand what is defined, at the onset, as beyond understanding.
It is as futile as trying to lift a bald-headed man by the hair,
or trying to show your imaginary friend to your mechanic.
It is fair and honest to admit that we do not know things.
It is sad that we stop trying to understand, and call our ignorance,
or our limitations, God, especially if we insist we stop thinking.
That preacher down in Florida says God is telling him what to do,
because he cannot sensibly explain himself any other way.
It is a delight to know that we have come to the place,
and are one of the instances, in which matter and energy,
having come this long way, stand and look around,
and thinks about itself, and wonders at it all.
Science is a way of learning: posit a hypothesis--a possibility--
for how things work, and then test the idea. If it seems to work,
call it a theory, perhaps, and test it again. And again.
"Where did the universe come from? I don't know, really,
but it seems to have exploded somehow about 14 billion years ago.
A Big Bang! That sort of thing." So you collect data, test it,
and think about it some more. The process is never done.
To say that God caused the universe to be (as an example)
is to say that you are stumped for any other explanation,
and that there must have been a very intelligent mind at work,
somewhere else. Not us. Out there. No evidence. Just
an affirmation. "How else?", we say. "How else?"
In some ways, it is comical for Stephen Hawking to engage
people who simply telling us what they believe: that there is
a non-material being responsible for all this material. That isn't
what scientists do: agree with, or refute, faith assertions.
Scientists look at things. Think about them. Wonder how.
Suggest possibilities. Test the ideas. Revise them. Stay tentative.
Scientists cannot test gods. Gods aren't testable. They are,
by the definition of their creators, not testable. Imagine, they say,
a non-material being. . . . O.K. Now what? One cannot
understand what is defined, at the onset, as beyond understanding.
It is as futile as trying to lift a bald-headed man by the hair,
or trying to show your imaginary friend to your mechanic.
It is fair and honest to admit that we do not know things.
It is sad that we stop trying to understand, and call our ignorance,
or our limitations, God, especially if we insist we stop thinking.
That preacher down in Florida says God is telling him what to do,
because he cannot sensibly explain himself any other way.
It is a delight to know that we have come to the place,
and are one of the instances, in which matter and energy,
having come this long way, stand and look around,
and thinks about itself, and wonders at it all.
Comments
Post a Comment