HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
July 29, 2005 One issue that seems to arise again and again in the discussion on whether or not there exists such a being as God, as described in either the Jewish Bible or the New Testament, is the so-called Big Bang. As a teen-ager I probably would have been enthusiastic about the Big Bang. That was a period in my life when I was keenly interested is astronomy and also, of course, science fiction. What made science fiction fascinating was the idea that interstellar travel and the gleaming civilizations that it would put within our reach were things we could reasonably look forward to. Some science fiction stories even advanced such exciting notions as teleportation and psychic communication with extragalactic beings. In fact, in writing my own novel, which is about a wonderful planet in another galaxy, the vagrant thought entered my mind that perhaps the wonderful planet really existed and I was getting messages. But, of course, I reluctantly forwent the pleasure of indulging in such fantasies. Whether I try to publish the novel or not remains to be seen. Anyway, by the time I was 22 or so, I realized with utmost clarity that there would be no interstellar travel in foreseeable time and that I would never visit the magnificent civilizations I had envisioned. I also lost interest in astronomy, though as recently as 1998 I went laboriously through a book on astrophysics, working the problems and trying to grasp the significance of the equations. This was more in the nature of a mathematical exercise for me however. At some time or another, I heard of the Big Bang, and I may have glanced perfunctorily at an article or two. My immediate ideas were, firstly, that reconstructing what went on billions of years ago is educated guesswork at best, and, secondly, that it didn’t make a particle of difference, at least to me, in my efforts to survive and enjoy myself in doing so. So I never pursued the Big Bang at all. Nor do I feel an urge to do so now that I see that some people consider it an important factor in the proof or God’s existence or non-existence. Adducing the Big Bang as proof of the non-existence of God is fallacious, and refuting the Big Bang as proof of the existence of God is equally fallacious. This is Saint Thomas Aquinas’ argument all over. We don’t know that the Universe is not eternal; it may always have existed. Nor do we know that it’s not eternal, it may have come into existence at some time or another. Either way though, God may well be that which makes the existence of the Universe a fact, and I think we all agree that the Universe is a fact. But if God, thus defined, exists, we know nothing of him except what we can deduce from observation of reality. Discerning the laws of Nature then reveals the will of God, if we use that word in the sense these considerations require. We see that the law of gravity always works. Everyone still alive has implicit faith in the law of gravity; no one jumps off a building expecting to be saved miraculously. When we use the word “faith”, we must carefully distinguish between what somebody really believes and what somebody professes to believe. Real faith, like faith in the law of gravity, no one needs to profess; it’s obvious and instinctive. Professions of faith in such things as the Exodus or the Resurrection do not constitute genuine faith. No one still alive behaves as if he thinks he can depend upon miracles to save him in times of danger. No one steps nonchalantly in front of an onrushing car, confiding in God to shield him from harm. People do not depend on faith of this kind. Professions of this kind of faith are bluster and braggadocio. People who profess this kind of faith do so to win the approval of their subjects, friends, relatives and associates, or to spite their enemies or rivals. This, for example, is what makes a Pope pray before millions of people in the most ostentatious, vainglorious and egotistical way, instead of going into his closet to pray silently and secretly as Jesus supposedly instructed. So if we limit our conception of God to what can be demonstrated empirically, we see that the Bible’s portrayal of God is entirely erroneous. So to avoid confusion, it’s better for you not to use the word “God” at all, whereupon perforce you become an atheist. Why belabour preserving an ambiguous word? Just say, “There is no God.” ------------ About the author Thomas Keyes: I have written two books: A SOJOURN IN ASIA (non-fiction) and A TALE OF UNG (fiction), neither published so far. I have studied languages for years and traveled extensively on five continents. Email: udikeyes@yahoo.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
