Rant Warning – Don’t Hate me Because I Suck
Well I am finally getting around to reading Stephen Hawking’s, A Brief History of Time. Yeah, it’s about 2 decades too late, I know. While I completely lack scientific know-how, I am taunted by an ever-growing curiosity of what makes our Universe tick. Sadly, I am crippled by mathematical ineptitude, and my laziness has done nothing to correct that. So here I sit, pontificating as an armchair physicist (you should probably stop reading now).
Enter Hawking; his watered-down writing style welcomes scientific know-nothings like myself into the fold. My desire to know more without the willingness to work hard is validated by Hawking’s simplistic overview of our elegant Universe. Happily reading along, pretending to understand, the path to the big bang was unfolding nicely until I arrived at the Solid State Theory. Then bam, Hawking’s words sprung from the page and slapped me in my metaphorical face.
Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention. (The Catholic Church, on the other hand, seized on the big bang model and in 1951 officially pronounced it to be in accordance with the Bible.) There were therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a big bang. The proposal that gained the widest support was called the steady state theory.
The Initial Shock
There is no way in hell the Vatican would come to its senses and jump on board with a scientific theory so readily. I mean this is the benevolent organization that brought about such joy with Indulgences and Inquisitions. Not to mention the death grip it slipped around scientific discovery throughout the Middle Ages. I found it remarkable that the Holy See would acquiesce with Science in such a manner. Ignoring its great pastime of censorship on all things; still, I cannot put a finger on what is driving my skepticism in the first place…
Which Leads me to my Next Point
Why in God’s name would real scientists get so bent by the idea of divine intervention. So bent in fact that they were driven by biased motivation to dispute good science? I understand it is the role of scientists to be skeptical and ensure that theories make good predictions, and then follow through on said predictions with quantitative data. But to actively seek something better because the Church actually sees the light is just bad science.
It is clear that old grudges die hard, and two wrongs still do not make a right. Of course science has taken obscene abuse at the hands of the Church for centuries, but come on, are knee-jerk reactions necessary among professionals? Why can’t scientists take the high road, and not stoop to the level of their oppressor? All of this proves is childish behavior still dominates our better judgment.
Science and Religion Continue to Step on Each Other’s Toes
Science and Religion both seek the same answers to the ‘Big Question’. Yet there is a key fundamental difference. Science asks how, while Religion asks why. Scientists could care less about why we are here, and all the morality that lies within. It is our theists that seek the why, they seek need, they seek purpose. Their fear of being inconsequential veils better judgment and preys upon human nature’s need for purpose.
Still, there is something noble there. It makes perfect sense to want to be apart of something bigger than ourselves. We all want to be apart of a job, apart of a group, apart of friendship, and apart of family. Science ignores our predisposition to belong, and does not allow that bias to penetrate its theories. As I mentioned, it only seeks the how, while ruling out the why. However, in the instance of the Solid State Theory it brings the bias of why back into the equation. Since some scientists were essentially saying, why support the big bang (a great theory) because it is tainted by religious backing?
On that sole premise scientists sought to pursue a better theory, one that excised the divine intervention to which Hawking referred. So how about this proposition, why can’t science and religion seek their answers in peace, without being concerned about what the ‘opposition’ thinks? It is time to let bygones be bygones and stay focused on using logic instead of past feelings to drive your future developments.
Perhaps someday, religion will see the value of having science explain some of its long held beliefs. In much the same way that science should seek to resolve some of the long standing mysteries of the Bible. I know I am idealistic, but I bet both parties would be surprised by what they could learn from each other.
Rant over.
I just had my first interview today (these guys are in Las Vegas now) and was so...
9 Comments
Great article! You clearly have some sharp thinking abilities. Seems like it’s getting harder to find people who are able to express themselves like that these days.
However… (unfortunately not related to your topic) there are numerous grammatical errors in your article that cause me to wonder about the state of literacy in general. I too am too lazy to go about doing any research to see if English is not your native language, but if it is, well then, we need to talk.
One glaring example is where you write, “We all want to be apart of a job”, then go on to say we want to be ‘apart’ of a whole bunch of other things. The part about ‘apart.’ The word ‘apart’ means basically the opposite of the phrase ‘a part.’ You meant the opposite of what you wrote. That’s just one example.
This type of thing is so incredibly common in blogs and even more often in the mainstream written media. It makes me and many others like me who try hard (try hard does not equal perfect by the way, so don’t bother pointing out any errors that may exist in this comment)to be accurate and correct in writing frustrated and saddened at those who just don’t seem to care.
If I may ask, to what do you attribute the significant (meaning more than three) number of grammatical errors in your writing?
Thanks a lot for your honesty, I really appreciate constructive criticism.
I would attribute the flaws in my grammar to a lack of practice in writing. An effort to improve my poor skills is one of the main reasons I decided to get involved in blogging. Obviously putting yourself out into the public eye is a great way to get feedback, and hopefully improve with practice. But to be perfectly honest, I should just be more careful when I proofread.
Thanks again!
Greg, for the answers to your ponderings regarding science and religion, see Prof. Frank J. Tipler’s below paper, which among other things demonstrates that the known laws of physics (i.e., general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) require that the universe end in the Omega Point (the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity identified as being God):
F. J. Tipler, “The structure of the world from pure numbers,” Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as “Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything,” arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276
Reports on Progress in Physics, in which the above paper was published, is peer-reviewed and the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, England’s main professional body for physicists.
See also the below resources for further information on the Omega Point Theory:
Theophysics http://geocities.com/theophysics/
“Omega Point (Tipler),” Wikipedia, January 23, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Point_%28Tipler%29&oldid=186311623
“Frank J. Tipler,” Wikipedia, January 5, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_J._Tipler&oldid=182407923
———-
The modern discipline of science is a product of the Christian institutions of the universities, and Christian theological training has traditionally placed heavy emphasis on training in the natural sciences. For much more on this, see the below article and book by Prof. Thomas E. Woods, Jr.:
“How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization,” LewRockwell.com, May 2, 2005 http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods40.html
How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2005) http://www.amazon.com/dp/0895260387
Below one can obtain Chapter 3: “How the Monks Saved Civilization” from the above book for free:
http://www.catholicchurchbook.com/offers/offer.php?id=CH001
For the reasons behind the Galileo Galilei and Catholic Church affair, see:
Prof. Jerry Bergman, “The Great Galileo Myth,” Investigator, No. 95 (March 2004), pp. 36-47 http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/ReligGalileoMyth95.htm
Unfortunately, the inversion of that organization popularly calling itself the Christian church occured with the pagan Roman government’s takeover of said group under Constantine I, himself a lifelong pagan, bloodthirsty tyrant, and unrepentant murderer of his eldest son Crispus and his wife Fausta, to say nothing of all the plebeians he murdered. Since that time, the organizations commonly calling themselves “Christian” have typically acted in the role of intellectual and spiritual bodyguards of the state, and hence have been hostilely opposed to actually applying all of Jesus Christ’s teachings, since said teachings are incompatible with government and its frequent activities (e.g., war, the inversion of genuine moral understanding, the sowing of needless discord and strife among the populace [i.e., divide and rule], taxation, etc.).
That is to say, the depredations by the Roman Catholic Church were in spite of Christianity (i.e., the teachings of Christ), not because of it. Having wedded itself to the state, the Catholic Church proceeded to act as all states do, i.e., the attainment of power became its goal, and Christ’s clear teachings on such matters were ignored. The persecutions by the Catholic Church were simply a continuation of the tactics of power used by the pagan Roman government (lest we forget the tortures inflicted upon the early Christians by that government, with such niceties inflicted upon them as being fed to lions, burned alive as living torches, crucifixion, etc.), and indeed all governments before and since to greater or lesser extent.
For much more on the above, see the below articles:
“A Military Chaplain Repents,” an interview of Rev. George B. Zabelka, the Catholic chaplain who blessed the pilots who dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, by Rev. Emmanuel Charles McCarthy, conducted circa 1984, published on LewRockwell.com on April 13, 2007 http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/mccarthy5.html
“Jesus Is an Anarchist,” James Redford, revised and expanded edition, June 1, 2006 (originally published December 19, 2001) http://praxeology.net/anarchist-jesus.pdf
“Existential Truth,” TetrahedronOmega, March 14, 2007 http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=118&mforum=libertyandtruth
———-
The quote you provided of Prof. Stephen Hawking is quite revealing. It’s that antagonism for religion on the part of the scientific community that Hawking mentions which greatly held up the acceptance of the Big Bang (for some 40 years), due to said scientific community regarding it as lending credence to the traditional theological position of creatio ex nihilo. The originator of the Big Bang theory, circa 1930, was Roman Catholic priest and physicist Prof. Georges Lemaître; and it was enthusiastically endorsed by Pope Pius XII in 1951, long before the scientific community finally came to accept it. In an article by Prof. Tipler, he points out that many in the field of physics abandon physical law when it produces results they’re uncomfortable with, i.e., in reference to religion. As regards the Big Bang, Tipler gives the following example involving no less than physicist Prof. Steven Weinberg:
“”
The most radical ideas are those that are perceived to support religion, specifically Judaism and Christianity. When I was a student at MIT in the late 1960s, I audited a course in cosmology from the physics Nobelist Steven Weinberg. He told his class that of the theories of cosmology, he preferred the Steady State Theory because “it *least* resembled the account in Genesis” (my emphasis). In his book *The First Three Minutes* (chapter 6), Weinberg explains his earlier rejection of the Big Bang Theory: “[O]ur mistake is not that we take our theories too seriously, but that we do not take them seriously enough. It is always hard to realize that these numbers and equations we play with at our desks have something to do with the real world. Even worse, there often seems to be a general agreement that certain phenomena are just not fit subjects for respectable theoretical and experimental effort.” [My emphasis--J. R.]
… But as [Weinberg] himself points out in his book, the Big Bang Theory was an automatic consequence of standard thermodynamics, standard gravity theory, and standard nuclear physics. All of the basic physics one needs for the Big Bang Theory was well established in the 1930s, some two decades before the theory was worked out. Weinberg rejected this standard physics not because he didn’t take the equations of physics seriously, but because he did not like the religious implications of the laws of physics. …
“”
For that and a number of other such examples, see:
Frank J. Tipler, “Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?,” Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID), Vols. 2.1 and 2.2 (January-June 2003) http://www.iscid.org/papers/Tipler_PeerReview_070103.pdf
That was an immense comment.
So…..maybe I missed the explanation, but what is solid state theory?
James, thank you for taking the time to bring some great information to the table.
Found it…Ok, so steady state theory just tries to explain the observable expansion of the universe within the confines of an eternally present universe that neither crunches into nor explodes out of infinite density.
Greg, I’m not clear on what you mean by “…in the instance of the Solid State Theory, it (Science) brings the bias of why back into the equation. Since some scientists were essentially saying, why support the big bang (a great theory) because it is tainted by religious backing?”
Are you trying to say that by avoiding a theory (the big bang) that could potentially answer the Big Why, science was essentially implying their own answer to that Question, and by so doing proved themselves to be biased?
Also, the Big Bang comes nowhere near answering the Big Why even if you bring religion into the picture. Even if you believe God set the universe in motion via the Big Bang, that does nothing but state the How of our existence and the How of our relationship to God. All these theories still leave the potential seed for an existential crisis.
Andrew, Steady State is actually different. The Solid State Theory essentially said that as the Universe expands outwards (i.e. galaxies moving away from each other) more matter and ultimately galaxies are created in the same area of space-time that was once occupied by the galaxies that have since moved out. Imagine it like putting a new box on a conveyor belt, to replace the earlier box that you watch move away. This keeps steady positioning in the Universe, since the Universe appears to always look the same in all directions.
The problem with this theory was that it violated the point that matter and energy cannot be created. The Solid State Theory was finally vanquished in 1965 when Penzias and Wilson proved that the Universe was far denser in the past. Thus eliminating any possibility of matter appearing in the vacated space of prior matter.
Hawking just made it seem that some scientists were turned off by the fact that the Church supported the Big Bang, and sought a new theory just because they did not want to be in agreement with the Church. Instead of seeking a new theory for the purpose of better predictions driven by real data.
And you echo my point, the Big Bang does not address the Big Why, and I made the point that science seeks out how things work, not necessarily the why or the motive. It is religion’s job (for better or for worse) to tell us why we are here.
Finally, our Physics break down at the point of the Big Bang, or any singularity for that matter. Our Laws as we know them, no longer apply.
Sorry if I cannot explain this well, as I said I am no scientist.
It clarified a lot, thank you. Now that I know exactly what Solid State Theory is, I can definitely say your post is aptly named.
hey
its very unconventional point of view.
Good post.
realy gj
thx
One Trackback
[...] Solid State Theory: A Lesson in Bad Science Rant Warning – Don’t Hate me Because I Suck Well I am finally getting around to reading Stephen Hawking’s, A Brief History of Time. Yeah, it’s about 2 decades too late, I know. While I completely lack scientific know-how, I am taunted by an ever-growing curiosity of what makes our Universe tick. Sadly, I am crippled by mathematical ineptitude, and my laziness has done nothing to correct that. So here I sit, pontificating as an armchair physicist (you should probably stop reading now). Enter H [...]