The Creation Myth

[Voegelin]

TCSDaily
By John Farrell

This June 22 marks the 40th anniversary of the death of one of the Twentieth Century's most far-sighted scientists. But Georges Lemaître, in addition to being a first-rate mathematician and physicist, was also a diocesan Catholic priest . . .Lemaître is credited with being the Father of the Big Bang theory . . but in fact, his contribution to the theory was almost an afterthought to his real achievement. Lemaître was in essence the first cosmologist, meaning, the first physicist not only conversant with Einstein's field equations of general relativity, but also the first to deliberately train himself in astronomy and astrophysics to find proof of what the equations suggested to him -- that the universe could be dynamic, expanding . . .

Nobel Laureate Paul Michael Dirac had a chance to discuss the expanding universe with Lemaître. Dirac was an atheist, and yet later he recalled, "When I was talking with Lemaître about this subject and feeling stimulated by the grandeur of the picture that he has given us, I told him that I thought cosmology was the branch of science that lies closest to religion. However Lemaître did not agree with me. After thinking it over he suggested psychology as lying closest to religion."

This is fascinating, not because Dirac was an atheist and feeling mystical stirrings when he contemplated the cosmos, but because Lemaitre was a priest -- and he did not . . .

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=062206E

 

[ebia]

This is fascinating, not because Dirac was an atheist and feeling mystical stirrings when he contemplated the cosmos, but because Lemaitre was a priest -- and he did not . .

Says who? "Cosmology isn't religion" doesn't equate to "The cosmos isn't awe inspiring".

 

[Virgil the Roman]

why does it matter what the priest appears to be inspired by? It matters, what he truly believes.

 

[XTE]

why does it matter what the priest appears to be inspired by? It matters, what he truly believes.

I often have what I could call a religious experience contemplating the Cosmos. It's so huge and then you have these numbers and you shrink it and put them together and you see that there are puzzle peices that fit and relativity is at play in everything and you feel like you can move back and forth from one thought to the next KNOWING you have the net of information figured out. That's always awesome. Realizing you know a lot more than you think you do based off of a few principles makes my head dizzy sometimes.

Anyone else feel like this?

 

[shernren]

Today in physics we started the chapter on "photons", right after an intensive two weeks on the wave phenomena of light (interference and diffraction). He was starting with the explanation of how some light phenomena can only be explained in terms of particles. All of a sudden our resident class comedian (who, among other things, hits on our math teacher ) went:

"So sir, you're saying that light is, like, a wave? And it's a particle?"

"Yep."

"But, I mean, if it's a particle, how can it be a wave?"

"That's a very good question!"

You could hear the cogs jam for a second in his brain as the universe pulled a fast one on him; he sounded partly like a boy who's been dumped by a girl and doesn't understand "why?" The utter sincerity - naivete, almost - in how he asked it, was really refreshing to me. I've lived with this duality so long that I've become numb to its sheer wonder. A particle? And then a wave? Feynman (or Dirac? Can't remember) said something to the effect of "if you aren't disturbed by quantum physics, you don't fully understand it". And I think I need a refresher.

I think people who think evolution is disturbing haven't even heard anything about the frontier work of quantum physics. But both, in their way, are majestic in their incomprehensibility. Only an infinite God would've been wacky enough to, like, do these things.

 

[Voegelin]

I think people who think evolution is disturbing haven't even heard anything about the frontier work of quantum physics.

Unlikely we will see Social Quantumist, if there are any, run amok as we have seen Social Darwinists run amok. That is the objection most have to evolution--not the science but the pseudo-science and ideologies crackpots such as Ernst Haeckel, Margaret Sanger and Peter Singer derived from Darwin. The only interest many have in evolution is they think it undermines religion. Don't believe it? How many times have you heard someone so interested in "science" that they discuss Darwin constantly on these boards mention Faraday, Mendel or Pasteur? If we are talking 19th century science, any one of those three had a far more profound effect, science-wise, on the world than Darwin.

 

[shernren]

Unlikely we will see Social Quantumist, if there are any, run amok as we have seen Social Darwinists run amok. That is the objection most have to evolution--not the science but the pseudo-science and ideologies crackpots such as Ernst Haeckel, Margaret Sanger and Peter Singer derived from Darwin.

Which just goes to show that many Christians miss the forest for the trees when it comes to science. In my mind quantum theory is the far greater danger because it is being heavily interpreted by New Age practitioners heavily in their favour. One particular interpretation, for example, says that there is actually no such thing as causality, and I think it's blindingly obvious how much that would damage Christianity: if I can't cause anything, how can I be responsible for anything? There are also those who will compare wave-particle duality to a Buddhist koan (very loaded image that nature has no meaningful revelation: contrast Romans 1) and the interconnectedness of quantum representations to devotional imagery from one of the Buddhist sutras. One of my first books on quantum physics was called The Dancing Wu Li Masters, you can't get any more Eastern exotic than that.

Next to this, I personally think evolutionism is like a bee's sting. There are already well-developed Christian responses to evolution, it's just that creationists don't think they're valid. But I don't see any strong Christian response and interpretation to the kind of reality-bending phenomena quantum physics is reporting.

 

[artybloke]

But I don't see any strong Christian response and interpretation to the kind of reality-bending phenomena quantum physics is reporting.

Not entirely surprising. The maths involved in quantum mech is seriously scarey, and getting your head round theoretical models like string theory would tax the best nonscientific brain...

...but maybe you could start the process?

 

[shernren]

Which is one of the reasons I'm aiming for a career in the field of theoretical physics. I definitely can't start it at my level right now, but given a few years and God's grace, who knows?

 

[Voegelin]

Which just goes to show that many Christians miss the forest for the trees when it comes to science. In my mind quantum theory is the far greater danger because it is being heavily interpreted by New Age practitioners heavily in their favour. One particular interpretation, for example, says that there is actually no such thing as causality, and I think it's blindingly obvious how much that would damage Christianity . . .

At one time I had over 150 New Age stores as customers on both coasts. Nice people. Well meaning but shallow. None I met were a danger to Christianity. Their own thoughts are too inchoate to critique anything .Most drift in due to lack of education and drift out because there is nothing there but vague feelings of spirituality. Yes, there are the leaders with their fads and endless new improved sales pitches but few follow them for long.

Social Darwinists were and are another matter. They have ideologies. They know where they want to go. And some of them have the scientific background (which New Agers as a rule do not) to get funding for their crackpot agendas. In addition, the wealthy have historically been willing to fund those who believe some lives are less valuable than others. You get a hundred Otto Herman Kahns, Warren Buffets, George Soros' and Ted Turners to every Shirley MacLaine.

Social Darwinism sells because it fills a primitive desire. Gives those who want to get over on others justification for doing so. Preaches that all is permitted. No one is going to follow an evangelist who touts causality doesn't exist because quantum physics teaches such and such. First of all they can see what happens in real life. Second it doesn't enrich or let them get over on anyone.