Six Of One

According to chaos theory, a small action may have large effects in this slavishly deterministic universe. One thing invariably leads into another. It's called the “butterfly effect.” The effects may not be desired, but they are predictable.

According to another scientific field – quantum physics – events can only be described in terms of probability. An individual occurrence is unpredictable, but as a whole you can predict events since you have statistics on your side. That's “randomness.”

If we follow the implications of Heisinger's view, however, we can't really know what is happening anyway, since observing or measuring something changes it. We know that truth as the “uncertainty principle.”

So what should we accept? Are things determined or random? Yes. Are they probable or unpredictable? Yes. Do we know what's happening or don't we? Yes. And you're right, too. Schrödinger's cat is alive and Schrödinger's cat is dead.

That's the beauty of science. Everything can be proved. Even if the things it proves contradict each other. Both must be true.

In addition there's no need to decide what is morally or ethically right, and what is wrong. Consequently societal biases are irrelevant. There can be no such thing as a cultural norm in such a system. “Belief” is not an issue in it. There are only absolutes. All that science does is to tell us what is. So now we know. Science is rational, and all rational beings should accept it.

While there are differences – and oft times violent disagreements and arguments – science is very much like religion. Religion, too, rejects the idea of cultural norms in favor of absolutes. Perhaps they are not the same absolutes that scientists promote, but the principle is the same. As is the view of Heisenberg. He maintained that we could neither know nor measure everything. Once again, while the reasons for the idea differ, both science and religion recognize that some things are unknowable.ⁱ

And notwithstanding the claim that belief is not an issue, many of those who reject religion in favor of science – who deem religion “irrational” – accept science with a zeal well beyond that of many who follow religious precepts. But the ideas they accept are also counter-intuitive. From their perspective, creatio ex nihilo isn't rational, but the “Big Bang,” a “singularity,” is perfectly reasonable as an explanation for the Universe; an eternal deity is mythology, but eternal laws of physics make complete sense; and the creation of time and space by G-d should be replaced by the concept of an eternal cosmos.

Another problem of science – at least for amateurs like me – is the idea that the fastest possible speed is the speed of light. Estimates of the size of the universe far exceed what would be expected if expansion were at light speed. It has been hypothesized that there was a period of “inflation” of the universe very early in the first second that followed the Big Bang. In that extraordinarily short period of time the speed limitation obviously didn't exist. Which means that the laws of physics are not immutable.

The contention that science is rational and religion irrational is difficult for me to credit. That, of course, is my problem, but understanding “rational” to mean logical, reasonable, and consistent, while “irrational” means the opposite, itself seems inconsistent with the arguments presented. From my perspective – and I accept the idea that I lack information and do not understand all the issues involved – both concepts are extra-rational. And both those who believe in science and religion will admit that there are many things they don't understand.

But there is a difference. For those who accept religious doctrine, there is much that is unknowable, except to G-d, and it is our function to follow what He teaches us. For those who believe in the religion of science, there is only that which is not yet known. It will eventually be explained by them or their descendants. There will be a time when they know everything. A general theory of everything will be proposed and found to be correct, and there will be nothing we don't know.ⁱⁱ But I don't expect that to happen. Science will absorb a significant portion of the taxes we pay in the search for answers, answers they are certain exist.

In the meantime however – and I believe that will be forever (whatever that means) – the idea of a Creator makes at least as much sense as anything the scientists have to offer. It's as rational as anything they have to offer.

Or as irrational.

Next episode: “Rational, Irrational, Extra-rational, Or None Of The Above” – Or maybe something else.

I        Actually, that's probably an overstatement. Science would maintain that there is nothing that is unknowable, even if there are many things that are unknown. The problem, however, is that since we don't know what we don't know, it is, at least for now, unknowable. Of course we don't know if that's true. (Only the Shadow knows – even if it's not evil.)

ii       See note #i. In truth, I already know everything. But I'm not telling.