At one point
yesterday I had decided I wanted to share a personal scientific thought, inspired
by both my current research and past literature I have been reviewing on
related studies, through this blog. Contemplation though has guided me towards
a much grander endeavor (the nature of a study abroad semester is typically
very conducive to reflection and self-understanding); I took a step back from
this small mission and was astonished to see that it was really only a few
pixels of a much more valuable picture. In an effort to continue my learning
and curiosity, and also to encourage others to do the same, I want to open as
many of these thoughts as I can manage up to criticism.
I think, in
doing this, one can allow a very important step in the development of a theory
or idea, which works quite well in the world of physics—seen as the interplay
between theoretical and experimental physicists. I would like to similarly open my ideas
up to “testing,” so that I can return to the drawing board and continue
fine-tuning my view of the Universe. To me one of the greatest tragedies in
today’s human society is the loss of curiosity. It seems that this can often
happen because as people leave their childhood years, they start becoming more
sensitive to how the world views them. In a psychological sense, we see
children as particularly self-centered (egocentric), and I think for adults
this merely develops into more a face-centralized thought; they become more
concerned with themselves in the context of society. I will not propose a
mechanism for this change, but I think losing the urge to question our
perception of the Universe is absolutely detrimental to one’s intellectual
progress.
Oddly enough
I have come to the conclusion that God would be a perfect starting point in
this journey (as do creationists, but in an entirely different sense). From the
theoretical Big Bang until now, a timeframe said to be roughly 13.75 billion
years, the Universe has gone from nothing to something—gradual transitions from
concepts of physics to chemistry to, more recently, biology. Both of these
terms, nothing and something, are extremely vague, largely because much of what
they may mean is theoretical, but I’ll take a stab at outlining them for
discussion purposes. The importance in understanding the Universe is held in
our perception of it, so we can base our use of the words rudimentarily in
terms of matter, considering this is what we perceive. Nothing, a lack of
matter, or better described by modern theoretical physics as the equilibrium state
of matter and anti-matter, at some point became subject to an imbalance leading
to left over matter of which we are now composed.
What then
would I consider my religious view, you ask? And this first post I have
dedicated to telling you why I don’t label myself at all (which, to completely
contradict that statement, may best categorize me as agnostic). As humans, we
have evolved to think in terms of what we can perceive and measure. As I said
before, our understanding of the Universe is governed by our ability to
perceive it, so to improve our understanding we must question ideas based on
physical evidence. This is science. Because God is not based upon physical
evidence, and as of yet, no scientific experiments can be done to make his
existence any more plausible, to me God is completely irrelevant to our
understanding of the Universe and to science.
Science
cannot disprove God and I don’t claim his inexistence. What science does say
though is that based on the lack of any evidence whatsoever, his existence is
quite an improbable, and actually very convoluted alternative theory of the
Universe. For a long period of history, the existence of a creator would have
been useful to fill in many of the knowledge gaps describing how a complex
system such as biological life came to be. At first glance, these complex
interactions seem only possible if designed, but a closer look at the system
tells otherwise. This beautiful system has come to be after an amount of time
almost completely incomprehensible due to our relatively short lifespan. Our
growing evidence for alternative theories of the Universe though is beginning
to force religion out of the knowledge gaps. Due to scientific advancements,
God’s role in the Universe is becoming far more restricted. Where might there then
be room for him? Perhaps he had a role in the theoretical Big Bang, who
knows? But that’s the point; such a theory cannot be scientifically evaluated, because the idea is not based on our perceptual view of the Universe.
While religion may have been a sensible explanation for the complex systems
around us at one time, it has since then become increasingly based on faith
alone. This more modern idea of complete faith in religion, preceded long ago by
religious belief that was supported by true questioning of the Universe, is now
simply an evasion of the need for evidence while all the surrounding sciences
continually build upon their library of evidence.
Again, I don’t
deny the importance religion may hold, but it has no place in our understanding
of the Universe, unless it can be evaluated in a manner similar to other
theories. Scientific curiosity fuels the progression of such understanding, and
so when I have children, I’m not going to take away their opportunities in
questioning the Universe. I think every parent should make an effort to help
their child develop a scientific approach to the world, because without that,
many are stuck stagnant. I’m not against religion in itself, but I am against
the concept of blind faith; it forces an explanation upon someone without room
for questioning and begins a trend of fear to defy the common belief. It seems
to me that this fear would be utterly damaging to one’s confidence and
curiosity. With a little bit of childlike curiosity, we can all be as capable a
scientist as our 4-year-old counterparts.
More to come
soon! Please, feel free to criticize what I’ve said, argue back, or just let me
know what you think.
Source:
