Is Science based on Religious Justifications?

They say the Universe is constantly expanding. But if it is, what is it expanding into?

- Ferb Fletcher

Yes, that is a (reasonably accurate) quote from a cartoon character. And yes, too, it was said for the joke value. But as the best jokes have some truth to them, the idea behind the quip seems too good to leave alone.

What is one of the primary criticisms of the existence of God? Simply put, that the agnostic or atheist cannot accept that some being has just been around for all eternity. They cannot get a grasp on the infinite. Yet here we find a twofold example of science expecting that the believer accept pretty much the same thing, don't you think?

To begin away from young Mr. Fletcher's witticism, popular science (which we wonder might actually and only be a straw man used by atheists and Stephen Hawking to support their worldview) denies God by asking what was there before Him? Yet the corollary question, what was there before the ball of matter from which we had the Big Bang, appears unfair. It was just there, of course. But in those same minds, God could not have been 'just there' as philosophy (not religion, we feel compelled to add) may dictate.

Now Ferb's inquiry comes directly into play. If that ball of matter was just there, merely hanging around, what was it hanging around in? And if the Universe is constantly expanding, what is being displaced by the expansion? The obvious answer is that it can't be displacing anything. But then, where is space expanding, and how?

We did find the scientific answer, by the way, and it's almost quaint: it's just expanding. You can read a bit about that here: http://www.universetoday.com/1455/podcast-what-is-the-universe-expanding-into/ But we will say, at the risk of prejudicing you, that we think that author's assertion little but a mind game. The balloon/raisin bread analogy strikes us as weak; there is still something outside of the balloon or the bread which the areas of the balloon and the bread are displacing. Even the idea of understanding the expanding universe better if we were 4 dimensional beings feels lame. It sounds rather like attempting to justify a preexisting belief, quite frankly. And it profoundly fails to address the question of eternal being anyway.

However you view it, we are wont to believe that quite a lot of modern science is predicated upon exactly the same philosophic ideas as those behind the existence of God. When coming from purveyors of science, we're supposed to accept that things just are. When those same folks aim those same ideas at philosophy or religion, they're childish delusions.

We can't help wonder who is truly delusional.

Hawking May Be Right About Something

Eminent scientist Stephen Hawking has expressed concerns that extraterrestrial life may not be what we assume. Aliens may be dangerous rather than charitable and giving, he asserts in an upcoming Discovery Chanel special. If nothing else, cultures advanced enough to reach Earth may have an effect similar to the discovery by Europeans of the Americas: devastating to the so discovered.

Other scientists disagree: many believe a sophisticated alien race reaching our world could only be good.

Truth be told, we really don't know what to expect. Who's to say aliens would be bad? Or good? It's all simply presumption. That said, the only honest appraisal of contact with any given extraterrestrial life form would be the same as with meeting any given stranger on Earth: approach with caution, olive branch extended yet with the proper amount of reserve to counter their actions and intentions if need be.

Our science fiction has had a great propensity to view potential alien life as superior to ours in almost every way. It is good to see a prominent scientist point out that that may not be the case.

In the end it may all be conjecture. Presuming that other lives on other planets would face the same daunting tasks of physics as we do, interstellar travel itself may be little more than science fiction. The folks at SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, seem to think that the best we can hope for is hearing them through radio transmissions. That sounds like the most reasonable prediction on the matter.

In short, the possibility of sentient life other than us in the universe is fun to discuss but nothing is likely to come of it. Still, it is good that Professor Hawking has sought to balance the scales. There's no good assuming that technical superiority means morally advancement.

Heaven: Perhaps Stephen Hawking is a Fairy Story.

Stephen Hawking, the eminent theoretical physicist, says that Heaven is a 'fairy story' made up by those who fear death. One wonders where the scientific proof of that may be found, because, seeing as science depends on observation and testing, with empirically measurable results, it is fair to ask for his empirical proof that Heaven does not exist.

But let's take his assertion one step further just the same. What should we do with our lives without Heaven or an afterlife? We should, 'fulfil our potential on Earth by making good use of our lives.' Okay, well, how do we, Mr. Scientist, scientifically determine what is good? Why, empirically, of course, because you are a scientist, should we do good? What, solely in terms of empiricism, is good? Good speaks of virtue; it is a statement of value. What value is found by mere scientific observation?

In a word, none. Not one atom of good can be found in the Big Bang theory which itself is brought out by the Big Bang theory. Science, in and by itself, only tells us that things happen, perhaps even how they happen. But science never tells us why they happen, or offers even the least bit of evidence for why even science itself is good. Science as science, though a great and useful tool in our universe, is only that: a tool. Finding the value in what it discovers requires us to take the next step and analyze philosophically what, if any, good there is to it. We must use Reason for that, and the standard of evidence becomes different. It becomes rational rather than empirical.

Hawking and his cohorts will assert that God was not necessary to the creation of the universe, and as such, there is no God. They ignore the simple question: why should we be shocked that a God, in the act or acts of creation, would ensure that the science necessary for creation would be part of the equation from the start?

Hawking may well be the preeminent scientist of his generation. Yet we have come to venerate science so much that we have stopped requiring that scientists remain scientific. What Mr. Hawking has become, to use a term coined by the old newsman Edward Newman, is an anything expert. Because he is so well known as a great scientist, the popular notion is that he must know a great deal about everything.

Would you ask Stephen Hawking for advice on car repairs? The stock market? Dog grooming? Raising emus? Repairing your plumbing? No? Then why ask him what is good? He may well know the answers to all that, but not because he is a scientist. It would be because he would also be a mechanic, stock trader, vet, expert in animal husbandry, plumber, and philosopher.

As it is, he is none of those things. He is only a scientist. He may be very well versed in that. Yet that in itself fails to qualify him to speak on non-scientific matters. His recent statements attest to that very well.

Hawking: Ignoring God is Senseless

Steven Hawking, the eminent physicist, has a new book coming out tomorrow which purports to say that God was not necessary for the creation of the universe. Indeed, that many other universes may exist. But does all of this, if true, actually do away with the role God would play in creation?

Hawking and his fellow author Leonard Mlodinow appear to be saying that science alone can explain creation. Yet the scientific view they are trying to espouse is very new, conflicting, already finding ridicule in some scientific quarters. Craig Callender, a philosopher of physics at the University of California, San Diego, says that what the authors are doing is ultimately merely imaginative. It cannot be proven, Dr. Callender says. This from a fellow scientist, it should be noted.

The string theories upon which Hawking and Mlodinow's assertions are based are far from conclusive, according to many in the world of science. Callender himself calls it the 'wild speculation' needed to attract the media. Still, the book apparently does not actually address why God is not needed. Hawking says that our universe began with 'spontaneous creation'. In short, it just happened. That isn't scientific. It's simply a guess.

Hawking argues that the discovery of many other planets in the galaxy makes it less impressive that one should have sentient life. "If there are untold numbers of planets in the galaxy, it's less remarkable that there's one with conditions for human life," he asserts. Why? It brings to mind the infinite monkeys theory, where we should expect that with an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters one would eventually pound out Shakespeare.

We wouldn't be awed that a random ape actually did it? We would not question why, of all the primates happy at their keyboards, one actually gave us writing which made sense? Really, now. So even if there were only one planet with conscious life among thousands of planets and universes, why shouldn't we be impressed by that? It should not be shocking that when no other life existed, it existed here?

To be fair, Mlodinow does say that they are not arguing that there is no God, but only that one isn't necessary to explain the creation of our own or the potentially other universes they say might be out there somewhere. Still, what they say does indeed reek of philosophy rather than science. I stand by what I have said so many times before: science only explains science, they how things work side of the equation. It cannot address the why questions of how it may all have come to be.

What Hawking and Mlodinow have produced is not science but philosophy. Their work is subject to logic, not empiricism. Perhaps they are right in their scientific theories. But as to their philosophy, it is really just the same wish fulfillment they typically claim is the basis for religious belief.