Creation and the Big Bang: Religion vs Science (Part 2)

Consider Zen Buddhism. The meditation of ZEN (Zazen) calls for quieting the mind, so as to not think about any thing. Some people get it wrong and believe it calls for one to think about nothing.  But it really calls for one not to think. Actually, I think it is not truly possible for a human being to “not think,” unless one is in a coma (perhaps) or not functioning at all (dead?). As long as we are human, our brain, if you accept it as an organ of the thinking faculty, does what it does, i.e. it thinks. Zazen is to keep focusing on nothing, as if looking into a space that contains nothing and doesn’t think about it.

In any event, if one can consider the thought of a “no thought” and a thing of “no thing” you’ve got it made. We just cannot, however. So we are talking here about meta-thinking or “thinking about thought.” That’s a brick wall surrounding us humans and preventing knowing (using a faculty of the mind) nothingness. This is why I believe we physical creatures cannot know God, as this principle IS called. The best I have come up with to ease my dis-ease of not being able to stop doing what I am “built” to do is to go metaphysical to a concept of a creating force that “causes” everything to exist.

Before any thing existed, I envision or consider a possible existence of a “force” that simply exists. Now, force is a measurement we have as a concept that causes things to act, or move, or change from one “thing” to another. This is all nonsense, of course, but is our physical way to picture something that causes what we experience physically. It’s all we’ve got or least is the farthest we have gotten to relate to the universe as best we can. It’s a pretty good way to get by our physical systems to an unphysical one, I think. Check out my next leap … it’s one of faith, not science.

Conceive of a force existing all alone, without any substance anywhere for it to act on. It is a force of some kind. We physical things have to have a concept of what kind of force it is and how it acts on us physical things, in fact, on all and any physical things. I suggest the way this force acts on physical things is to bring them into existence. This means, in a way, that the force doesn’t exist either unless it has physical things to act upon. But its action is to bring physical things into existence, … BOOM … there they are! They just come into existence at the “will” of this force.

And what “comes” into existence? The simple answer: everything. Physical things are not there and then … BANG … then they are. I think you will grant me that it is a pretty big bang in order for all the stuff we know about (and lots we don’t, I suppose) to exist at one moment in what we call “time.” And whatever  that stuff is made of is just basic stuff, created (BOOM) by the force that creates in the very first of moments (BANG). The entire part of that physical existence is created by that non-physical existence that “creates” stuff. And that leads to a rather complex system of any and all physical stuff interacting with all the physical stuff that coexists.

Small pieces of stuff smash into other small pieces of stuff; stuff pulls at stuff; stuff moves around, smashing, pulling, pushing, etc. and as it moves it defines the extent of “where” it exists. And every bit of it has, at its metaphysical core, the existence of that force that created it. The force, and the object it caused to be (its essence, or in Latin “esse”) are there as a unit. The physical doesn’t exist without the force creating it, and the force doesn’t exist without the stuff it creates.

If you can truly understand this bit, you’re not human. We only work with the physical and can only think physically. We only understand what we can sense with some instrument or other, and that leaves out forces. With forces we only understand by observing what the forces does to stuff. And then we have a belief (or “faith”) in that force --- that it exists in some way and that it causes the interactions we observe in some way.

So, we believe (without any real “proof”) that all those little pieces of stuff eventually became larger and larger pieces of more and more complicated stuff (stars, galaxies, planets, plants, animals, and us, with all the other stuff as well (air, water, heat, light, complex atoms, compounds, and on and on). We detect with our senses and instruments the motions and interactions between stuff #1 and stuff #2 and so on, and develop a theory to explain how stuff interacts with stuff, and then convince ourselves by repeated observations through experience or tests we devise that our explanations are “correct” and can be relied on. This is science. But our insistence that we got it right, and that it is just what we said, is faith. In this sense I think Chemistry is as much a religion as a science. And either one could be “right” or “wrong.” And they could both be “right” or “wrong” at the same time!

Now, I can decide to call that creative force that I am suggesting is as good an explanation as any, one (or more) of the following: God, Love, Prime Matter, sub-atomic particle energy levels, and so on, and come to the conclusion (we are so good at that!) that this creative force must be in/with/part of each piece of stuff. If it (the force) ceased to exist, so would the piece of stuff. It’s always there in everything we believe exists. So, to put it in the simplest terms: God is everywhere. (I define “everywhere” as “anywhere there is some stuff.”) Another simple term: God is Love. Hmmmm. Could that be right?

Is there a conflict between Religion and Science? Maybe not. It’s just two ways of looking at the same stuff. And the Universe? The sum total of all the stuff and the interactions between each piece of stuff and all the others. So how do we talk or think about the stuff we can detect? Well, science tells little stores about how specific groups or types of stuff interact with other stuff. Religion tells us little stories about how specific groups or types of stuff interact with other stuff. Science use mathematics, diagrams, tables, etc. to tell the stories. Religion uses parables, signs, symbols, and human interactions to tell the stories. Science mostly sticks to interactions between stuff as being “natural” or “required.” Religion mostly sticks to interactions between humans and “the creative force” or between humans and humans: these are morals and ethics. So far, so good.

Where problems develop is when science tries to make conclusions about morals and ethics, and religion tries to make conclusions about physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc. You guessed it: conflict. Remember, science makes up its stories using its tools, and religion makes up its stories using its tools.

“Laws” of science? Miracles of religion? Is there any wonder there are conflicts? In this framework they have to happen.  More on this matter later.

Creation vs The Big Bang: Religion VS Science (Part 1)

For good historical reasons science and religion have clashed and struggled for “dominance.” While science continues to construct and test theories of various kinds and religions continue to develop dogma that must be accepted, there will always be conflicts between some of the two. The real surprise for me is that often they can both be “right” because they are talking about two different determinations of “truth.”

What I learned in school was that truth is “that which corresponds to reality.” Two words here require some understanding: “ corresponds” and “reality.” The basic idea is to get to an understanding of what one means when two suggested “truths” correspond. Is it just when they agree completely and are identical? Can one be in terms of physical observation and the other the result of philosophical reasoning? Can one just be believed because of a majority of human common sense and experience and the other from isolated revelations? Does one believe in causative factors which are not fully understood and the other relies on innate belief?

Had enough trouble? Let’s look at “reality.” Is that the object of identical physiological reactions in a majority of people. C an they be measured with instruments that scan the electrical and chemical processes of human brains and nervous systems? Or is reality an approximate agreement, expressed with sounds and physical markings that we call “language” that seem to indicate two or more humans are having approximately the same “physical experience?” Or is an approximate emotional experience, also identified through language or perhaps based on the reaction of a number of people from exposure to the “reality?” Or is “reality” an interpretation (and perhaps unique to each individual) to sensory inputs to each person?

My answer: I don’t know.

Over the years, however, I have been struggling to understand, for myself, what this whole concept could mean. I can’t say with certainty (another slippery concept) that what I currently believe is IT, or if it will still be at the point where I die and cease to wonder ….. maybe!  But here I go.

Sometimes, I think, two things that appear to be in conflict don’t have to be, and perhaps are not. I’ll look at just one example. Christians, for the most part believe that Jesus was born of a virgin. [A huge aside: I believe this came to be stated as such through a mistranslation of a word in one of the Hebrew scriptures during the course of copying and translating the Hebrew writings to Aramaic and/or Greek by scribe after scribe into what would become a Christian Gospel . I also think the passage used was not prophetic in any way, but was a statement of a completed event, namely, the birth of a child from a young woman who had not had any children previously. Don’t quote me that mistranslation as “proof.”]

Science would tell us that a virgin cannot give birth. Birth requires development of a human being, or any animal that requires contribution of egg and sperm, from two different animals. How about religion? Christians will tell you that since God is the creator, and created the universe as a result of will, God can do anything in the universe, including causing an egg of an animal to be “impregnated” with a created sperm and become a decendent of that animal. In this case, a human son of a woman. And why not? With a basic belief that there was a creator of everything we can perceive or reason to, we can accept (and could even be right) that a woman can become pregnant with a “holy” operative development of a person. Here I use the term “holy” in its full sense of something that is separate from the non-holy; in this case it would be the spiritual from the physical.

This isn’t a completely unheard of idea. Many pagan religions tell stories of persons who were part human and part god-like through a human/god sexual joining; the Greeks and Romans accepted this as a legitimate concept and the stories become part of their scriptures, which we call “myth.”

So here science and religion co-exist as both being “true.” One is based strictly on human experience and the other is basic on faith and a logical requirement to other events and relationships that are known or also believed. My point here is that both can co-exist and be “true” in their own conceptual framework.

I remember my stumbling around in my own mind trying to understand my teacher telling me that one can say “two things plus two things are four things … unless you are talking about vectors.” Which, in that case of course, can be anything from minus four to plus four.

I will follow this ranting with the creation event of the Big Bang in the frameworks of science and religion with my own wrinkle that makes them compatible in my next post.

Two incorrect notions

Two incorrect notions

Lately there have been postings on news sites saying "Islam is a religion" and you bad people are "racists," during debates in comments sections. I would like to shout at them: "DEFINE YOUR TERMS!" Then I realize that I believe some things that I think people get all wrong because they don't bother to study them. Well, here's my comments in a nutshell. I can go into more details ... but it's taken me years of reading and discussion to come to these current ideas. I'm willing to change, but the discussion better be well-researched to convince me otherwise at this point. But it will have to be good. (Hint: no name calling. I know it's satisfying, but it doesn't change minds.)

The two incorrect notions: ISLAM is a religion. There are different RACES.

1.Islam is not a religion. It is a polity, and shows all the problems with a mixing of religion and government. This is the very thing the American experience is trying to separate. And, I think, has gone too far and overboard in trying to achieve. The first amendment forbids the government process from making laws that call for a specific, single religion to be “official” and allows citizens to practice the religion of their choice, unless one of these choices interferes with other citizens' guaranteed freedoms. For example: A religion demanding death to others who practice a different religion is a no-no. (Isn't it?)

2.Race is a myth. It was a created notion that was meant to divide one group of persons from another based on some characteristic (or several). A characteristic is considered “superior” or “inferior” according to some measure (height, IQ, blood type, skin color, hair color, eye color, religion, food preference, etc.) and then allows the “stronger” to dominate the “weaker.” It’s all a fake idea. I prefer to treat humans the same way we treat birds: one species with many varieties of subtle differences (wing size, colors, flocking behaviors, etc.) called sub-species. These are usually naturally adapted from generation to generation to provide survival needs in changing environments. It would be better to describe humans as “featherless bipeds.”

But the whole idea of human “races” is a hoax.

So, now we can talk about our government, the laws we want or don't want, and how people can interact with one another. Let's leave out Islam and Race as concepts to guide our lawmaking. They only seem to help tyrants, dictators, idolized leaders, and fascists of all stripes. 

And I hate that.