I just got done watching a show on the Discovery Channel called "Curiosity".
This episode was narrated by Stephen Hawking and delved into the topic "Did God Create the Universe".
Now, I myself am NOT a smart person, if compared to Mr. Hawking. However, I like to think that I am an open-minded person.
In the same breath, I am not a religious person.
Overall, his explanation is that before the time of the Big Bang, there was no 'time', hence no time for God to even exist, hence the Universe created itself.
Now, he also used an example of making a cup of coffee.
While, various masses go into the making a cup of coffee, if you can travel to the micro MICRO universe, there are "pops" of creation from basically nothing.
This interested me, and I found that I 'got' this idea right away.
To us, a "pop", like that of a balloon, is instantaneous because of the scale of existence we are to this particular "pop".
Now, concerning the fact that the Big Bang is basically a "pop" of creationism, if you take into account the scale of the universe compared to the Big Bang, it can be viewed as a "pop" that is on a continuing path.
(not bad for a high school drop out, eh?).
Using more quotes from this episode, consider the Vikings. The Nordic. Not the Minnesotan.
Back in their time, they viewed a solar eclipse the work of a Wolf God. A belief.
Later in time, a solar eclipse was explained using science, resulting in fact.
If we look back into the role of the church, at one point, any word against that of the church was viewed as heresy. Even though science was afoot, and proving theories, it was "illegal" to think this way. Meaning, if you thought God was in control of the universe, more than likely you wouldn't be stoned to death.
All I can think about is a statement made by Stephen Hawking:science does not dismiss religion, but rather offer factual explanations.
To me, science is based on fact while religion is based on stories.
Science takes "stories", and searches for the facts to support said stories.
Religion takes "stories" that were based on facts and creates beliefs that support the will of man.
Now, like science, I don't dismiss religion.
But if you look throughout history, how often has religion dismissed science?
I think there may be another episode down the line on that.
I believe that
1 comment:
I think that the sciencetific method is not currently equiped to answer questions concerning mystical or spiritual experiences. The scientific method involves matter interacting with other matter. However, There are many people who have had some extraordinary, "unexplained" or "otherwordly" type experiences that defy what we know to be real in our physical world.
Post a Comment