Many years ago I was in the library and came across a book titled something like Archeology Proves the Bible True. I said "hmm" and settled down to skim the book. I found to my astonishment that there was no proof that King David ever lived. Now I have no problem believing that David and Solomon or a host of other biblical characters actually existed - I just don't believe in their deity - so the fact that, according to the book, an archaeologist found the remains of an ancient stable with a brick or plaque with the name David didn't seem to me to prove anything. I mean when Heinrich Schliemann dug up Troy I don't recall reading about anyone declaring that this meant that Zeus or Apollo or the rest of the Olympians were real. So David existed; so what? It didn't mean his deity existed.
I thought about it and wondered what it would take to get me to believe in the biblical god. Currently there are people roaming Mt Ararat looking for the remains of Noah's Ark. Now even assuming they are exploring the correct Mt Ararat (it came to rest on the Mountains of Ararat - what's the matter don't these true believers read their Bible?) how would they prove the remains were that of Noah's ark? They'd have to leave it in situ to show archaeologists that it's been there for millennium and not planted there and let them take samples to test how old the wood is.
Since the story of Noah is not unique - there was Ziusudra the Sumerian hero of a great flood, Utnapishtilim the Babylonian version, the Greek Deucalion and several others - I highly doubt anything will ever be found and certainly not anything that can be scientifically proven to have been the ark that belonged to Noah.
There is another biblical item of curiosity that's intriguing, in fact another ark, this one the Ark of the Covenant currently claimed by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church to be in Axum. If the object is revealed (it's only been seen by a select few over the centuries) to match the description in the Bible it must again be proven scientifically to be that ancient chest containing (or once containing) the tablets of the laws of Moses.
My actual interest comes from the idea that Jehovah was some sort of being from outer space, a version promulgated by Erich von Däniken and others. They hypothesize that the ark was some sort of communications device or weapon given to the Israelites way back when. Now if that proved true it would truly be turn our notions of religion upside down...on both sides of the atheist/believer divide.
I guess the only way I could ever believe in the Biblical god would be if he appeared before me and did a few miracles while the Amazing Randi and Penn and Teller verified that there was no Earthly way these miracles could be done (and even then I suspect I would have my doubts).
Monday, May 30, 2011
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Science vs Religion
As I've posted, I think one of the main, yet unacknowledged, reasons that the deeply religious are antagonistic towards science is that science is denying us our place as the center of everything. Once upon a time it was believed that the Earth and moon and sun and stars were created just for us and revolved around us. We were speshul. Then Galileo came along and said not so fast - the Earth orbits the sun. The church decreed this was heresy and it took until 1992 for it to admit he was right. As more and more evidence confirmed that the Earth did indeed orbit the sun, despite all the declarations to the contrary by the church, people were placated by the idea that everything else still revolved around the Earth/Sun combo.
In the succeeding centuries it was found that our sun was one of many in what we called the Milky Way and that we were not at the center (fortunately for us - it's a violent galaxy out there) but out in the boondocks some 30,000 ly from the hub. Another blow came in 1922 when Edwin Hubble discovered that the nebulae seen in the sky were actually other island galaxies and we now know that there may be 100 to 200 billion or more galaxies each containing billions of stars. We could ignore that because we still lived in the only known solar system...until about 20 years ago when the first exoplanet was discovered. Nowadays it seems that everywhere we look there are planetary systems.
Biologists know we are not made out of some rare element like unobtainium but are carbon-based which is the 4th most common element in the universe. We are about 75% water which is the most common compound in the universe as it's made of hydrogen, the most common element in the universe, and oxygen, which is the third most common element. Life is versatile and tenacious; on Earth life can be found in a broad range of environments: deep in the Earth, in hot springs, in radioactive pools of water etc. Living organisms such as tardigrades can even survive traveling unshielded in space which suggests that theories dealing with panspermia may not be that farfetched and the beginning of life may have come from elsewhere (one way or another we are indeed star stuff). There may be life on Mars and/or the outer moons; in all probability there is life elsewhere in our galaxy. Whether or not there is intelligent life (does it exist even here on Earth?) elsewhere remains to be seen. However given the sheer amount of planets not only in the Milky Way but in the other billions of galaxies I feel positive that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe and, for all we know, believe they were created in their deity's image. Science has diminished our place in creation - we are part of a biofilm clinging to the third rock orbiting a rather ordinary yellow dwarf star in a rather nice, symmetrical spiral galaxy among billions of other galaxies.
There are many who find this unacceptable and wish to deny it and the sciences that contradict their beliefs but, like King Canute demonstrated, the tide and the universe does not accede to our beliefs no matter how fervently desired. Science is a process by which we learn and understand the universe by replicable experiments; we no longer have to take things on faith. Science didn't set out to negate religion; it has no interest in religion nor people's faith in them but when the religious attempt to impose their impossible-to-prove beliefs and claim they are facts, science must deny them their delusions.
In the succeeding centuries it was found that our sun was one of many in what we called the Milky Way and that we were not at the center (fortunately for us - it's a violent galaxy out there) but out in the boondocks some 30,000 ly from the hub. Another blow came in 1922 when Edwin Hubble discovered that the nebulae seen in the sky were actually other island galaxies and we now know that there may be 100 to 200 billion or more galaxies each containing billions of stars. We could ignore that because we still lived in the only known solar system...until about 20 years ago when the first exoplanet was discovered. Nowadays it seems that everywhere we look there are planetary systems.
Biologists know we are not made out of some rare element like unobtainium but are carbon-based which is the 4th most common element in the universe. We are about 75% water which is the most common compound in the universe as it's made of hydrogen, the most common element in the universe, and oxygen, which is the third most common element. Life is versatile and tenacious; on Earth life can be found in a broad range of environments: deep in the Earth, in hot springs, in radioactive pools of water etc. Living organisms such as tardigrades can even survive traveling unshielded in space which suggests that theories dealing with panspermia may not be that farfetched and the beginning of life may have come from elsewhere (one way or another we are indeed star stuff). There may be life on Mars and/or the outer moons; in all probability there is life elsewhere in our galaxy. Whether or not there is intelligent life (does it exist even here on Earth?) elsewhere remains to be seen. However given the sheer amount of planets not only in the Milky Way but in the other billions of galaxies I feel positive that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe and, for all we know, believe they were created in their deity's image. Science has diminished our place in creation - we are part of a biofilm clinging to the third rock orbiting a rather ordinary yellow dwarf star in a rather nice, symmetrical spiral galaxy among billions of other galaxies.
There are many who find this unacceptable and wish to deny it and the sciences that contradict their beliefs but, like King Canute demonstrated, the tide and the universe does not accede to our beliefs no matter how fervently desired. Science is a process by which we learn and understand the universe by replicable experiments; we no longer have to take things on faith. Science didn't set out to negate religion; it has no interest in religion nor people's faith in them but when the religious attempt to impose their impossible-to-prove beliefs and claim they are facts, science must deny them their delusions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)