We shouldn’t be here. According to astrophysics, our Milky Way galaxy doesn’t contain enough stuff to ever have formed. But here we are, so that causes sort of a dilemma for scientists. To fix this problem, they’ve hypothesized a substance called dark matter. That’s all the extra stuff our galaxy needs to make it work right. But what is dark matter? There are some theories, and a couple of them go by names such as super symmetry and superstring theory. These are super names to match their super expectations. (Here's a video on super symmestry).
Super symmetry says there is another entire level of fundamental particles such as electrons and quarks. They would be very heavy, mirror particles called selectrons and squarks. Super symmetry has gained support from superstring theory, which is an attempt to explain particle physics, gravity, and relativity all in one big theory. And it had some nice provisions for super symmetry. There has been a lot of hope for super symmetry and superstrings, because another level of heavy particles would go a long way towards explaining all the dark matter in our galaxy, and that just for starters. Unfortunately, researchers at the Large Hadron Collider presented evidence last week that throws super symmetry and superstring theory into doubt. They observed one of the rarest events in particle physics, and it did not progress according to the expectations of those theories.
The possible failure of super symmetry and superstrings raises even bigger questions. Science distinguished itself from religion because those who practiced followed a strict regimen of experimentation, called the scientific method. But the cosmos has turned out to be stranger place than anyone ever expected. Quantum physics, relativity, dark matter, and dark energy have presented special challenges to traditional science. Physicists are in need of new ways of looking at the world around us, such as searching for the Theory of Everything. They are beginning to sound more like mystics. Many theories, such as the multiverse, branes, and superstring theory, share more with religion than science. Critics of the multiverse, for example, say there is no way conduct an experiment to test a multiverse hypothesis. Is this, then, still science? Some practitioners, rather than accepting the limitations of the scientific method, are blurring the boundaries and instead devising new religions. Science’s super dilemma, as I see it, is that science has limitations. Alone, it can never fully explain the world around us. Human beings will always need religion.
Bruce, as I’m sure you know by now, I totally agree that science will in no way be able to explain all there is in the universe. In fact they don’t have the tools or abilities to even see or measure all that is there. That is why science should try to exercise some degree of humility, which I feel is somewhat lacking these days.
Of course, when you stray away from repeatable, proveable experiments you are no longer talking about science, you are talking about a belief system. Athiest scientists would of course vehemently deny their theories be called a religion, but it is a belief system none the less. Their god may be themselves, or call it some unknown force, but they are exercising faith, not sight.
I’m fascinated by true science and the world and universe around us. It is breathtaking in it’s scope and precision. The thing is, it has been this way, and been able to exist and function in all it’s beauty, ferocity, majesty and precision even before we had a clue how to even begin analysing it!
Well said Dennis!
I don’t know if science can explain everything, but when it come to the origins and operation of the material universe, I’m going to trust a scientist with a big-ass telescope and bank of supercomputers a lot more than a 4,000 year old book written by nomadic shepherds.
I actually totally disagree that science will never be able to explain all there is in the universe. Now, WE might never be able explain everything that’s out there, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a scientific explanation for it. The flaw isn’t in science; it’s in our methods, technologies, and perceptions. I think that’s a subtle, but important distinction. And the thing about our culture of science is that, unlike religion (and in particular the contemporary strand of fundamentalism we’re seeing more and more), science welcomes and is thrilled with doubt. Scientists are excited to keep proving themselves and each other wrong. I totally agree that humans will always need religion, but I see that as less a conflict between science and religion than I do as evidence that the two compliment each other. I think we’ll always need both because they answer fundamentally different questions/problems. I get increasingly uncomfortable when I see our culture driving a wedge between science and religion. The famous and mainstream evangelicals on both sides have done us a huge disservice.
@Sam- Great point. I take Augustine’s view on Bible interpretation, which says that our interpretation should be informed with the latest from science and philosophy. Augustine himself relied heavily on Plato for biblical interpretation, and Thomas Aquinas relied on Aristotle. Likewise today we have a wealth of information at our fingertips that can help us better understand the universe that God has made and what the Bible does or does not say. We need to make full use of all of it. Science and religion are both important in our 21st century society. I think the problems come when science tries to make religion claims, and likewise when religions try to make their holy books out to be authoritative on matters of science, history, etc.
There’s only one truth, but it’s such a big truth that there’s plenty of room to spare for both science and religion.
Bruce, when exactly is science making religion claims? I have not really seen any ethical or spiritual directives come from any source of scientific knowledge. I think it’s a misconception largely promulgated by the religious right in order to discredit scientific learning among their own followers.
@Aaron- Thanks for your comment! There are a couple of things you might consider. One is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which says that physicists will never be able to measure both the trajectory and position of a particle with any certainty. To me it’s an indication of the limitations of science. They’ve actually made some progress in this regard recently, but a certain degree of limitation still stands, and I believe there will always be a degree of limitation. Think of mathematical pi as another example. We can get great accuracy, but we will never get it exact.
The second is the work of Immanuel Kant (18th century German philosopher) and his work The Critique of Pure Reason (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason) Kant concluded that science and reason really tell us more about the structure of our brains than they really tell us about the world around us. His work was groundbreaking and has been a hallmark of modern society.
@Sam- Check out Max Tegmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Tegmark) and some of his theories like the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis) and the Mulitverse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_(science)) for one. There are others also. String Theory almost becomes a religion, although there are some efforts to quantify and produce some testable hypothesis.
I don’t mind the theories, I actually welcome them. My point is that science has limitations and most likely these ideas will never come close to being testable, which makes them more like religion. There are some who believe that modern society doesn’t need religion anymore (such as Max Tegmark) since science can solve everything. My point is that as scientists grapple with the unknown, they are actually producing religions and not science, proving the point that society still and always will need religion.
It’s probably true that we are growing past needing religion though. Am I the only one seeing that in the tea leaves? I wouldn’t say it’s solely due to science, and I certainly don’t think spiritual and ethical wisdom will cease to be important to people. Organized religion as we know it is undeniably in serious decline though.
Hence Nietzsche’s statement “God is dead.” There are many who are able to look cold rational science in the face and say that is enough for them. But many more cannot live with God. The abyss of the universe is too terrifying for them. According to Karen Armstrong, this is the cause of fundamentalism. Look how many are willing to believe ridiculous things just to keep God in their life? Seven-day creation? Jonah swallowed by a fish? The reason people believe these silly things is because the alternative is too frightening. They convince themselves that these things are true just so they can have God in a rational scientific society. I don’t think organized religion is ever going away. It might change forms, it might appear different tomorrow, but it will never die. Remember that Nietzsche committed suicide.
Sam,
As to your firs comment, the 4000 year old anthology claims to be written by God Himself, not shepherds, and in fact, in human terms much of the NT was written by a Jewish scholar well trained in the disciplines of his day.
The text of the Bible is the most documented and reliable of any ancient text, and the results, the church of Jesus Christ, those who know and trust Him are one of the proofs. Having seen some of the dishonest, and deceitful tactics of some scientists to try to support their erroneous theories doesn’t earn any trust in my opinion. That’s not to put all in that basket, but I’ll put my trust in the God who sent the Lord Jesus Christ any day over a body of knowledge that’s totally incomplete, unable to explain reality or origins, and promises me nothing more than a dirt knap at the end of it. Not only that, my life with Christ has been full of hope, joy and fellowship with other brothers and sisters in Christ. Even if the gospel weren’t true, this kind of life surpasses the cold, animalistic, hopeless existence of the unbelieving athiest. I don’t begrudge them their choice, but rather grieve that men have convinced themselves that that is the better way.
@Dennis- You might want to check out some of Bart Ehrman’s work at http://www.bartdehrman.com. He’s one of the foremost scholars on the Bible today.
Dennis, you once thanked Eric for a rebuke, mentioning that you sometimes need it. I hope you meant that, because I’m about to do the same. Your last comment was rude and offensive, both in a general and personal way to me.
One of my very best friends is an atheist (in fact, MANY of my friends are atheists), and she is one of the kindest, happiest, most considerate and compassionate people I’ve ever met. When you make a broad statement about the “cold, animalistic, hopeless existence of the unbelieving athiest,” you are not only creating a simplistic and absurd caricature of a large group of diverse and complex people, you are personally insulting a very dear friend of mine, and that is completely unacceptable. I’d like to live in a world where a comment like that is beneath you.
Aaron,
It took me awhile to refind this thread. I read your rebuke and it is well taken. You are right, my last comment was wrong and unloving. Sometimes my rhetoric gets carried away and I apologize, to you, and to other athiests who might have read my comment. I’m trying to learn to get my point across without the sharp edges, and sometimes I succeed, others not. Again, I’m sorry.
Dennis
Listened to some interesting thoughts and commentary on C.S. Lewis and his thoughts on scientism, ID, and comments on some of his later works having to do with science. It’s posted on youtube, 30 minutes, entitled “The Magician’s Twin”. I checked your link, Bruce, you should check this one.:-)
Hi! I could have sworn I’ve been to this website before but after browsing through some of the post I realized it’s new to me. Nonetheless, I’m definitely delighted I found it and I’ll be bookmarking and checking back often!