I've been thinking about atheism over the last few days, after watching some videos on the web of the most prominent atheists in the world. And I've noticed a strange double standard. Atheists have chosen not to believe in GOD for at least one of the same reasons that believers have chosen to believe – a lack of evidence – faith.
Aside from the standard arguments of: there cannot be a man with scepter in hand lording over all of us as if we're puppets (ego, free will); there's no harm done in not believing, because it doesn't make you any less human (secular humanist); the world would be better off without religion (anti-religion); all that we see is a process of evolution, not creation (evolutionist); the Bible is folk lore, fable or modern popular delusion that changes slightly over time (nonsense), there is one argument that I hear repeated quite often with the atheists: “There's no proof” (scientific, or reason).
The two that make the most sense, of course, are the scientific arguments. The evolutionist will tell you that humans came from apes, who in turn came from the fishes in the ocean. Maybe it's true. Maybe it isn't. But the theory of evolution in and of itself doesn't eliminate the idea of a universal creator. Nor does science in its entirety, for that matter. It's simply a process that we are in the process of understanding. So far, all we have to study is what's here on planet earth. And given the size of the universe, we simply don't have enough information to decide one way or the other. Either about apes, or about the originating galactic “primordial ooze.” We still don't have even so much as a scale upon which to put into perspective the size of the universe. The size of a galaxy – yes. The distance between galaxies – yes. But not the entire known and still as yet unknown universe. We have no reference whatsoever for such grand distances. There's also something about the evolutionary time tables the evolutionists don't want you to know. They're full of holes. They have massive gaps during which no one understands what happened. The best we can do is make an educated guess. And in some cases, the outcome of these gaps is a profound jump in evolutionary standards. So I hope that no reasonable person has made up his or her mind about the existence of GOD based upon the evolution evidence, and lack of evolution evidence, that we have here on earth. That's horribly near-sighted, because there's so much more of the universe to study. So, for now, the size of our universe and the breadth of our future knowledge are beyond our comprehension. It might be best to just say we don't get it yet. But not so for the atheists.
So, the only rational argument I keep coming back to is: “There's no proof.” That's logical. And correct. There isn't. But this argument isn't scientifically responsible. Our scientists will be the first to tell us that “absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.” So atheists, many of whom claim to have very logical and scientific minds, are in essence, making up their minds that there cannot be a GOD, because of a lack of evidence – which isn't scientific. The most rational, responsible and scientific conclusion, ultimately, would be the one of the agnostics: Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know.
At the very least that position would keep a person's mind open, rather than shutting it down. Science is, after all, the process of inquiry. But, alas, this isn't the case for the atheists.
Ironically, it's also the identical rationale for the believers in GOD. They have decided to believe in spite of a lack of evidence. They believe that believing is better than not believing. But they're not using a science-based argument to help them make up their minds. They don't ask for proof. They have simply used the very essence of faith. So at least we can say that their final conclusion to believe is consistent with how they've made up their minds. Again, not so for the atheists, several of which I've watched belittle believers for using their same methodology.
Now don't take too much personal offense. I'm only beating up the atheists a little. They're used to it. Ultimately, I could care less what people believe, so long as they don't try to force their beliefs on me – something else the faithful and the atheists have in common in my experience. I'm just looking for consistency. And, in my humble opinion, atheists have some extra steps to take to remain logically consistent. The faithful, not so much. And I've often wondered about some other things.
Questions atheists should answer (not for me, for themselves):
Evolution implies intention. It's not sexual reproduction for the sake of propagating a species, but a specific direction. Intention toward something. A destination, if you will. How does evolution know which way to go? Doesn't evolution, in and of itself, imply a very specific brand of consciousness? Where does that come from?
According to modern evolutionary theory, evolution takes place in incremental steps over millions of years, and many generations. But according to modern medicine, we currently use less than 10 percent of our brains. How is it possible that we have developed 90 percent of something that appears to serve us no purpose? How can evolution rectify such a dilemma?
A single-celled organism that has no brain and no central nervous system also has the ability to understand when it's being attacked by another, and has the knowledge and ability to respond by defending itself. This implies external consciousness and knowledge of self. How is this possible without a brain or nervous system? Where does the consciousness come from? Is it “cellular” consciousness? And how can knowledge be applied without a brain?
Also, if matter cannot be created nor destroyed, what happens to the energy, which is in and of itself matter (E=MC2), located in our bodies? Where does it go? For that matter (pardon the pun) where did it come from?
In reference to the last question, there is another instance of energy disappearing. How can a black hole (also still theory) simply consume matter? Again, if energy cannot be created nor destroyed, where does it go? If there is, as our scientific community tells us, a “point of infinite implosion,” shouldn't there be, according to our own scientific laws, also a point of infinite explosion? Where is it? Where does the matter go?
The point I'm trying to make in the above two examples, is that there must be a place where the matter comes out, in one form or another. We don't know where that is, but we now take it for granted (faith, if you will) that it simply goes away. And that's not consistent – yet – with our scientific laws. I suppose to some the argument of basic matter coming and going seems irrelevant. We will probably find the answers soon enough. But to remain logically consistent in one's atheistic, scientific belief system, one must have evidence before one changes his or her mind. But basing a belief system on faith in science theory is just as logically irresponsible as faith in any other endeavor. Theorists are often very, very wrong.
Do you believe in the big bang? If not, your logic might be consistent. If so, there are other questions that need to be answered.
What existed before the big bang? What did the Big Bang explode into? It can't be "nothing." Empty space, mostly empty space, is what we have after the big bang. So a "nothing" argument isn't logical. And a “something” argument implies that (our) space itself has an edge (an end of our measurable time), and that there is something else beyond that edge (albeit mainly empty), which is, for our purposes, time independent. This also implies another dimension to our current reality that we have no knowledge about – a time independent reality – which itself implies another possible existence that we don't understand. So what did the Big Bang explode into?
Though we don't have any actual evidence of a galactic primordial ooze, our scientists accept, largely with total disregard to other theories (Steven Hawking has a good one), that everything in the universe came from such a primordial ooze. They claim that, given the current expansion rate of the universe, we must have this most primitive thing in our past. But observation of expansion now only means that we're expanding now. It doesn't necessarily mean that we've always been expanding from a central point in spacetime – especially since we have nothing more than theory on which to base our opinions.
In reference to the above statements, today science readily accepts the “primordial ooze” idea. The theory (yes, theory) posits that everything in existence today came from a point in our distant past that is smaller than the head of a pin – in fact, far, far smaller than the head of a pin. Given that we believe there are hundreds of billions, or possibly hundreds of trillions, of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars (the Milky Way alone has 200 to 400 billion), and hundreds of billions of planets (how many zeros is that?) within each galaxy, does this amount of mass squeezed into such a small space appear to be sound scientific logic? Or does it seem more logically plausible that all the mass in our universe came from another place?
And one last, slightly philosophical, question.
If the painting does not paint itself, the poem does not write itself, nor the sculpture carve itself, how did the universe create itself?
Boy, am I glad I got that out of my head. Maybe now I can concentrate on something worthwhile.
No comments:
Post a Comment