Gods Are Crazy But Is Science Going Mad?

[andrea_f...@live.com]

http://freiboden.blogspot.com/2009/01/gods-are-crazy-but-is-science-going-mad.html


Advanced Physics and the Irrationality of Religion.

Religion has come in many shapes and sizes. Even within a single
religion, there are many schools of interpretation. For instance, in
the Old Testament God is intemperate and unpredictable; He willfully
and erratically interferes in our affairs or plays dice with the
cosmos. But, others have argued that God created the universe
according to set of rules, and so, the universe is governed by those
rules–such as gravity and so on. In some religions, the divine forces
are, if not always gentle or friendly, systematic and well-patterned.
Consider the ancient Egyptian religion which believed that the change
of seasons and the flow of the Nile reflected the stability of the
universe as governed by gods. On the other hand, the gods worshiped
and feared by civilizations along the Euphrates and Tigris were
believed to be unpredictable, violent, and fearsome. Historians think
these differences reflected the physical environments of Egyptians and
Mesopotamia. The ebb and flow of the Nile followed the similar
patterns year after year, encouraging the notion gods prefer order
over chaos, and that the universe is governed by stable laws. As the
rivers of Mesopotamia violently alternated year after year,
civilizations along them were inclined to believe in violent gods and
a chaotic universe(or perhaps gods were themselves not powerless
against the unwieldy universe).

Anyway, as the Jewish narrative progressed, an idea arose that God
created the universe according to certain principles. And, God
gradually removed Himself from the affairs of man. God existed, of
course but didn’t interfere with the clockwork functioning of the
universe. Since He already told us what we must do, it was up to us–
with our free will–to choose good over evil.
This view of the universe complemented certain scientific assumptions.
Though we credit the pagan polytheistic ancient Greeks with the
invention of science, science-as-search-for-the-universal-laws-of-the-
cosmos was deemed perfectly acceptable in the Christian world. Science
wasn’t seen as challenging or refuting God but a way to appreciate and
admire the genius of God’s design. Indeed, many scientists thought the
order in the universe could not have been possible without a Maker.
But, as science progressed, it took on a life of its own. It became
its own master. If reason based on evidence was the source of all
knowledge and truth, shouldn’t God’s existence also be questioned and
put to the test? What was the evidence for the existence of God or
that God created the universe? How can the notion of some deity
without shape or form with supreme power coexist with Reason? Isn’t
God a matter of traditional belief or Faith? Or worse, a delusion?

Science sought to find the laws of the universe and order in all
things. According to science, even chaos had or hid its own logic or
order. Nothing can exist or operate outside the laws of the cosmos.
For instance, primitive peoples look upon lightning and thunder as
crazy or crazed manifestations of nature or godly rage. Science tells
us that even the most cataclysmic phenomena–floods, earthquakes,
forest fires, etc–happen for a reason. Lightning is electricity.
Earthquakes happen because of pressures built along geologic fault-
lines. Asteroids hit the Earth because our gravity attracts flying
pieces of space objects. And, we now know that there are simple
reasons for infections–germs. So, if we use our reason, we can find
the order or the hidden laws behind any phenomenon, no matter how
‘crazy’ it may seem to ordinary senses. A primitive man who’s never
seen a TV or heard a radio would surely be startled and confuse what
he sees or hears as magic. But, we know that a TV or radio is a
machine made by man along certain scientific principles.

Christians were not averse to science as it was a form of respecting
God. Christians had a similar concept about art. Art would be an
appreciation of God’s beautiful creations and the nobility of nature
and man. Artistic genius was seen as a gift bestowed unto man by God.
God has the grand artistic talent to create the wonders of the world.
Man’s art would appreciate and replicate this beauty in a humble way.
In pre-modern times, even the most ambitious artists served the vision
and power of God.

To be sure, the very notion of art and science didn’t sit well with
some religious folks. In the Old Testament, it’s forbidden to make
idols of man or animals for such would blaspheme God’s lone creative
powers. Life can only multiply through sex, a mechanism equipped in
all living forms by God. Man may procreate but not create. Creation
was the lone power of God. According to this view, a sculpture or
painting of a living being was a sign of hubris on part of man, as if
he had the same powers as God. In the area of science, many religious
folks feared that any exploration of the workings of the universe was
disrespectful to God; God made the world the way He saw fit, and it
was our duty only to live in His world with gratitude and humility,
not nosily look around to see how everything works.

But, especially with the Renaissance, Christian Europe came to
appreciate the role and significance of art and science. Even so, most
Renaissance painters focused on religious subjects and themes; they
also dwelt on pagan themes but were careful in that regard lest they
incur the wrath of religious authorities. Kings, noblemen, and rising
business class were more ambivalent. Narcissistic and vain in their
love of beautiful things, many could not resist the beauty and charms
of sensual paganist art. Even the religious authorities–the privileged
ones anyway–found roundabout ways to collect and appreciate sensual
art–as long as such were said to be within good taste and a tribute to
God’s eye for natural and human beauty. But, strong-willed artists
wanted more freedom, and at times ran up against the orthodoxy of
religious powers.
Same was true of the scientific community. As long as scientists
offered up discoveries that confirmed the view of the church, they
were honored and sponsored. But, when Galileo argued that the Earth
revolved around the Sun and not the other way around, he got himself
into trouble. Christians wanted to believe God had placed Earth at the
center of the universe–just as the Chinese across the millenia had
believed that China was the Middle Kingdom, the center of both mankind
and the universe.
Anyway, mounting evidence proved that the Earth was not the center of
the universe. Eventually, the Church accepted Galileo’s discoveries,
believing that such did not, in any real sense, call into question the
authority of God. Just because Earth wasn’t at the center of the
universe didn’t mean that God wasn’t at its center. Besides, Galileo’s
impeccable models showed that there is a perfect mechanism governing
the stars and planets. So, there was a Maker after all who designed
the universe to function like clockwork; we just didn’t happen to be
at the center of it anymore. Besides, what did it matter? Why do WE
have to be at the center of anything as long as God is at the center
(and everywhere)in the universe?

But, there was no guarantee that science would continue to serve God
or only reveal the glory of God. Science, based on curiosity, endless
questions, and reason, was also bound to call into question the very
existence and authority of God. Could God be proven or discovered
through science–based on facts and use of reason? For science to be
truly independent and free, this question had to be asked. The more it
was asked, the more science became a thing unto itself. If Galileo was
said to have only ‘discovered’ few of God’s truth, Einstein was said
to have ‘conquered the universe’ when awarded with the Nobel Prize. Of
course, conquering the universe isn’t quite the same as creating the
universe, but IF there is no god and the universe just happen to have
‘created’ itself, couldn’t it be argued that the man who figures out
its laws is the greatest being that could ever exist?
The two scientific areas where religion was most profoundly challenged
were in physics and biology. Physics asked the most profound questions
about time and space, about the infinitely large and infinitely small.
It searched far and wide, it looked into very nook/cranny of the
universe. It didn’t find God anywhere. It found bigger and bigger
stars and smaller and smaller particles. It found funny things
happening to time and space in other dimensions. But, where was God?
As for biology, it questioned one of the most sacred ideas in the
Bible, namely that God created life and that life is sacred. Also,
Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions believed that man was a separate
creation all unto himself. If Darwin had proven that evolution applied
to only non-human life, his theory might have been more acceptable to
Christians. But, Darwin went whole hog and said man too evolved from
lower forms of life. Not all religions found these notions anathema,
but Christianity naturally did due to its creation myth where God
created man to rule over nature. Was man just a product of nature?

As the Western World advanced through modernity, the ‘progress’ of Art
followed much the same pattern as that of science. It became more a
thing unto itself than a craft devoted to glorifying God and his
creations. Of course, all great artists had always partly been into
art-for-art’s-sake, but their great talent still dutifully and
reverently served some ‘higher’ authority or theme.
But, already by Beethoven, this was no longer the case. Beethoven
believed in God but also believed that his creative powers were equal
to that of God. So, Beethoven wasn’t so much serving God–as Bach had
done–as competing with Him. This outlook eventually led to the secular
sanctification of the artist. Art became the religion for many people
in the late 19th and 20th centuries. Unmoored from old certitudes and
sacred subjects, artists became their own subjects. Their grand,
brilliant, dark, violent, and/or sensual expressions and visions
became the new heavens and hell for late modern man.
A genius was not just a smart talented person who learned how the
universe worked or who replicated, in art, the beauty created by God.
He was a discoverer of new universes of knowledge, the creator of new
ways of seeing the world. He would do for science or art what Napoleon
did for politics. Such greatness was also said to have the moral or
amoral authority to change the world. The vision of the Great Man
embodying the new spirit in knowledge, creativity, and politics was
Nietzsche’s superman. This great Superior Man had the will and power
to create Gods, not just meekly serve some already pre-packaged God.

Of course, this is also where the Age of Reason breaks apart. Freedom
in art and creativity didn’t necessarily co-exist peacefully with
freedom in science. Science is about finding out what really is;
creativity is about what one feels, what one imagines. Civilization is
the product of both fantasy and technology.
Reason promised truth and justice based on what the mind teaches us.
Reason demanded more freedom. But, more freedom also meant greater
freedom to feel, to emote, to imagine, to fantasize. The rise of
Romanticism struck a blow on the citadel of Reason. Romantics argued
that man is not mind alone but feelings, creativity, sensuality,
imagination, and even madness. Indeed, madness and even diseases–such
as tuberculosis–became fashionable and romanticized in artistic
circles.
Of course, the tragi-comic aspect of all great 20th century radical
revolutions was they expounded on reason but won power and support
through political romantics. Leninism, Stalinism, Hitlerism, Maoism,
Che-ism, and etc all played on the emotions and imagination of the
masses. Much of it was kitschy and ridiculous but also grand, awesome,
and magnificent. To add to the irony, there were both the themes of
desecration and consecration. As rebel ideologies, they challenged the
notion of the sacred(as defined by conservative or traditional powers)
but also erected new gods and engraved new orthodoxies.

Anyway, it seems we’ve backtracked a great deal from the original
point, which was that science and reason would show us the orderly way
of the universe as opposed to religion, which posited that the laws of
the universe were created by an all-powerful God--implying that God
himself could bend those rules at his will. Initially, science was
content to figure out and understand–rather humbly–the laws as devised
by God. As Reason grew in power and gained in confidence, it sought to
prove that there is and can be nothing outside the laws of the
universe. God, whether He existed or not, could not violate or
circumvent universal or cosmic laws. Einstein said, "God does not play
dice", which was another way of saying that He canNOT play dice. Even
God is subject to a power greater than He–the laws of nature.

Science sought to show that every corner of the universe was subject
to these universal laws. The power of Reason would bring man closer
and closer to the ultimate truth. Perhaps one day, we would know all
the laws governing matter, energy, life, and humanity. Or, even if we
could never know all the answers, we would know increasingly more and
make advances that would improve civilization by leaps and bounds.
Reason would reveal the mechanism of stars, life forms, society,
history, etc. Karl Marx, for example, thought he figured out the
secret dynamics of history. Having gained such ‘scientific’ knowledge,
he thought his kind should have the power(even total power) to change
society. If expert doctors are the ones to perform surgeries, if
expert auto mechanics should repair cars, why shouldn’t expert
philosophers of history handle political and macro-economic affairs?

Though fascism is considered an irrational ideology, there is a
rationalist twist to its theories. Fascism is essentially a rational
understanding and use of the core irrational nature of man. If Marx
focused on the economic forces in history/society, Mussolini and
Hitler focused on psychological forces in history/society.
In a way, both the radical left and the radical right thought they had
rationally figured out the irrational nature of economic and psycho-
political behavior. Marx thought he unearthed the irrationality of
elite economic behavior. He observed how the rich and powerful advance
economic processes wherein they themselves are ground to dust. The
rich and powerful seek greater power and wealth, but their means
eventually favors the people they ‘exploit’. The kings and noblemen
sought to only use the bourgeoisie, but the bourgeoisie came to
supplant the kings and noblemen. The bourgeoisie ‘exploit’ the working
class(and the peasant class uprooted from the soil and forced to work
in factories), but this very process would only lead to the expansion
and revolt of the working class against the capitalist class. Though
the rich and powerful ‘rationally’ sought to maintain their power and
privilege, the very system they’ve created and operate will lead to
their demise. Marx thought he rationally understood this irrational
behavior on the part of the rich/powerful, who in their desire for
more wealth and power, only end up digging their own graves. Lenin, in
a similar vein, said the bourgeoisie would supply the revolutionaries
with the ropes to hang them with.

If Marx focused on economics, Mussolini and Hitler focused on
psychology. (To be sure, Mussolini started out as a socialist, so he
was the product of both the radical left and right, much more so than
Hitler whose socialism was basically practical than ideological).
Mussolini and Hitler saw politics as art and theater, as communal
mythmaking. Both were skeptical of the power or ability of The People
to ‘think’ rationally. Individuals could think rationally perhaps, but
then everyone disagrees anyway on what is good for society.
So, Mussolini and Hitler thought political unity and national strength
should fundamentally be founded on holistic, emotion-bound, and sacred
concepts of the nation, state, destiny, tradition, and/or race. Both
leaders thought the essentially mythical and religious nature of man
was a given, a fixed constant. (Liberals plagiarized a big page out of
this book in their grooming and marketing of Obama. Though a secular
leftist, Obama played the spiritualist game, and the media coverage of
him has been very sacramental and messianic. Also, the cult of Martin
Luther King makes a mockery of all rational and skeptical principles
presumably held by liberals. King is not remembered or understood as a
political or historical figure but as a divine figure, a kind of
modern prophet. And, of course, the cult of personality surrounding
Che Guevara has nothing to do with rationalism. But, this is a reality
that goes back to Marx and Lenin. Before the charisma cult of
Mussolini and Hitler, there was already the deification of communist
thinkers and leaders. And, recall that the French Revolution, that
supposedly great struggle for the triumph of Reason, gave us the first
great modern god-man Napoleon. And, certain artists, especially
Wagner, gained almost a god-like cult in the 19th century. Cult of
personality seems almost universal. We can see it in the worship of
Jesus and the iconography of emperors.

The cult of Jesus was a rather great and troubling development because
it deified humility and elevated equality. Jesus was said to be a man
who didn’t care for wealth or power. He ate simple food and cared for
the poor. Yet, the Jesus cult made him out to be not only a prophet or
son-of-god but the equal of God Himself. In a way, Jesus cult has
served as the template for the tyrants of the 20th century. It being
the age of the masses, the tyrants had to be a man-of-the-people, both
humble and god-like, both ‘one of us’ and ‘the one and only’.
It had always been understood that Kings were better than the people.
The modern ideology said the People are the bosses, and so the leader
must reflect the will of the people, must be one of the people. If so,
why must the leader be elevated above the people far beyond any king
or duke in the past? Perhaps, this is the most troubling thing about
the rise of Obama. America had been cautious in its choice and
perceptions of its presidents. Even Teddy Roosevelt the tough guy knew
his limits, and he had to deal with the opposition like anyone else.
In the US, the media and academia are owned and run mostly by liberal
Jews. Blacks, the victors in sports and pop music, are held in awe and
reverence by ‘faggoty ass white boys and jungle-feverish white girls’.
So, Obama has become the god-man of America. Even Republicans say they
are much more optimistic since Obama became President. This isn’t
rational or sensible. Cult of Personality has taken over America, and
there is nothing to oppose it but some scattered opposition in the
media. Most people don’t read conservative journals. Most people get
their news from TV. Most kids get their views of the world from
schools taught by liberal teachers who themselves have been weaned on
the cult of Martin Luther King, the religion of white guilt, and the
worship of the Superior Badass Negro.

Anyway, I digress again. So, we return to science and religion once
more. Science was going to reveal the order of the universe and human
society. More discoveries would dispel all notions that anything could
happen by chance or that there could be divine intervention(or even
the existence of God) as such would violate the fixed laws of the
universe.
But, 20th century led to some funny discoveries. The theory of
relativity went far beyond Newtonian physics. This theory was (mis)
applied to culture, society, and philosophy(mainly by those who didn’t
even understand its math). In some ways, cultural relativism was an
outgrowth of this theory. On the other hand, I would argue cultural
relativism would have come along anyway, Einstein or no Einstein. It
was the inevitable product of Western anthropologists’ exploration and
study of other cultures--the realization that ‘reality’ always exists
within a certain paradigm. Cultural relativism doesn’t necessarily say
all perceptions/conceptions of reality are equally valid; it merely
says reality is as it is to those ‘trapped’ in their particular
paradigms.

Even so, even the theory of relativity didn’t violate the concept of
order in the universe; it merely showed that cosmic laws were far
stranger than we thought. And, though Einstein’s idea of matter and
energy being interchangeable was alarming to some, it could be
demonstrated by a neat mathematical formula. It could be proven and
measured.
But, the theory of quantum mechanics was altogether stranger. It
posited that in the realm of subatomic matter, randomness and chaos
prevailed. And, there seemed to be no way of bridging the laws of
nature between Big reality and Little reality. Though this was purely
a scientific matter, it was bound to have metaphysical and spiritual
implications. Didn’t Reason promise us a vision of perfect order
through science? This seemed to be the case with science up to the
early theories of Einstein. But, the theory of quantum mechanics threw
a monkey wrench into the whole notion of a unified universe governed
by the same rules. The rules of the ‘normal’ universe didn’t seem to
jibe with the random ‘rules’ of the subatomic universe. So, is our
seemingly ordered universe merely a thin layer of a much crazier
universe beyond the penetration of reason?
A sort of parallel developed in the arts as well. Art, of course, was
never rational, but it had its rules and conventions passed down as
tradition. Also, it had its favored subjects, generally sacred and
spiritual. The Age of Reason embraced political and social revolution
but didn’t dispense with the notion of art having conventions and
serving a ‘higher’ purpose. There had been many great individual
artists throughout Western history whose personal genius cannot be
denied, but they were serving ideals and subjects bigger than
themselves.
With the rise of Romanticism, the artist’s own genius and personal
vision became the central theme of Art. He didn’t have to imagine God
or the Noble Ideals or Beauty. Rather, his main obsession was to reach
within his soul and unleash all the creative powers within.
Romanticism embraced the opening of the creative pandora’s box. Even
so, 19th century Romantics could only build upon what had come before
them, and therefore, their great passions and obsessions did serve
themes of beauty, passion, nobility, purity, etc despite some of the
mad quality. Romanticism was new and different, but also a continuum.
It was still very much part of the grand tradition. Wagner’s music was
ultimately the sublime twilight of Old Music than the dawn of New
Music.
What we call ‘modern art’ that arose in the 20th century was a clean
break from the past. It was to Art what quantum mechanics was to
science. If the theory of relativity was still related to Newtonian
physics through a loopy mathematical formula, quantum mechanics was a
break from both and existed in a world of its own.
In the arts, avant-garde art of the 20th century was a clear break
from the creative past. The concept of Art serving themes or primarily
replicating reality was gone. Rather, Art explored its own subatomics.
It fragmented and divided into smaller and more abstract parts. In
some ways, it turned more into an intellectual exercise than an
artistic enterprise. At its most far-reaching, it wasn’t even
intellectual nor recognizably sensual. It was like watching the
elements of creativity spun around and around in a nuclear accelerator
and then blasted onto a canvas. The results were often particular(as
in ‘like particles’). Indeed, even the concept of Art was shattered
and lost. Today, much of Art is really a deconstruction of not only
art but of all the forces–social, economic, political, academic, etc–
that play a role in determining what is ‘art’ and what its value is.
It’s about "a-r-t" with many more quotations and parantheses around
it.
Anyway, what does the most advanced science say about reality? All the
Newtonian scientific laws still govern and apply to what we consider
99.99% of reality. Theory of relativity makes us understand stars and
galaxies. But, is there any set of laws governing the realm of the
infinitely small? Yes or no, aren’t all big things made of small
things? If there are no rules in the small world, and if big things
are made up of small things, is the basic core of reality beyond
order, beyond laws we can fathom?
This is not what Reason promised us. Scientists mocked religious
people as believing that any part of the universe could be beyond the
laws of nature.
Of course, quantum mechanics doesn’t say there are no laws of nature,
but it does tell us that the laws of nature in the subatomic world are
nothing like what we might define as ‘laws’. Can laws be anarchic and
random? In quantum mechanics, we have an observation of reality but no
understandings of its laws if there are, indeed, any.
Of course, I’m not in anyway suggesting this proves the existence of
God. It’s merely to point out that science finally ended up with a
discovery which is even more ‘nonsensical’ than what religious people
believe. The very people who mock religious people for believing in a
God willfully violates cosmic laws now believe that chaotic randomness
reigns in the realm of subatomic matter beyond the reach of rational
measurement.

Of course, the String Theory and others like it have tried to finally
unify theories governing the big and small. And, if its formulations
are correct, we finally seem to have the answer. But, its implications
are even more ‘nonsensical’. String Theory says there is more than one
plane of reality; there are parallel universes, maybe 5, 9, 12, 24,
infinitum. What you don’t do in one universe, you do in another, and
so on and so on. String Theory may make mathematical sense, but its
theories are crazier than any religion.
This is where scientific truth becomes insane; indeed, far more
ludicrous than anything taught by religion. I do not oppose or blame
science or scientists in anyway. All I’m pointing out is that the
strongest argument used against religion by science goes out the
window with String Theory–and more such theories down the pipeline.
For all I know, String Theory may well be true, but if it is true, the
cosmos is a madhouse.
The notion of religious folks believing in crazy stuff as opposed to
scientists discovering & believing in orderly stuff is no longer
tenable. The methods of science and mathematics may be as valid,
sound, and legitimate as ever but what if they tell us, at the end of
the day, that ultimate reality defies and mocks at all notions we’ve
built up around science? And, if there can be a million parallel
universes, who’s to say one might not actually have God?
Richard Dawkins and others like him deserve great respect as
scientists as they carefully and impeccably–and arrogantly and
haughtily–make their rational argument to persuade us that laws of
nature govern everything, and these laws can be understood with anyone
with an open mind and open to reason. In biology, this is true enough.
But, it’s physics that explores the ultimate reality, and what it’s
telling us is beyond reason though it’s reason that is taking us to
that conclusion. ‘Mad scientist’ may be an unfair stereotype but
physics is turning into mad science–not because it’s bad science but
because the more we know through legitimate scientific and
mathematical methods tells us that ultimate reality defies all our
concepts about laws of nature and cosmic order.