Archive for cosmology

Faith, Facts and Frustration

Posted in agnoticism, Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, culture, faith, freethought, history, random, religion, science, Social, thoughts with tags , , , , , , on April 11, 2011 by chouck017894

The “good book” tells us in the first chapter, verse 3, that light and darkness had already been established, and God had found the division to be good, and it was these which he called Day and Night.  Dry land did not appear by command until the second “day” (verse 9).  Consequently, the Earth came to be created before the luminaries of the Sun and the Moon, which occurred on day three (verse 16).  The assumption seemed to be that these later additions were something like polished balls put in place for Earth’s benefit.  But that had not been the general understanding which was taught in earlier cultures such as the Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, etc.  But then those ancient Pagan civilizations had not been divinely blessed with revealed wisdom such as spewed out of 8th century BCE Jerusalem. 

Even when God’s son was sent into the Roman Empire a few centuries later, Jesus found no need to explain cosmic principles as means of teaching how his father ran things throughout Creation.  Not even Jesus’ disciples were clued-in, which might have advanced man’s potential considerably.  Of course it may be that mankind was supposed to discover these creative principles on his own by following a few veiled hints.  That, however, required concentration on things other than material gratification.  In addition, the unconventional interpretation of Judaic traditions advocated by Jesus set a course of  understanding that would schism into a hierarchical faith system in which the “saved ones” were groomed to dominate the world.  Any scientific principles were consequently smothered under a blanket of politically structured spiritualism.

Under the faith system that developed as the Roman Empire began to decline, the high political office of that faith system which developed was woefully short of any scientific curiosity.  There would, of course, be those who would step forth to shore up the reputation of the political head of the faith system so people would not  start to question the reverent one too closely.  There was, for example, good old political minded “saint” Augustine (353-430) who was of blessed certainty that scientific mistakes in the pope’s  pronouncements did not invalidate religious authority unless there had been divine support for the errors the pope made.  Such a stance made it halfheartedly tolerable that the pope apparently did not receive regular updates on heavenly actions. 

Augustine’s maneuvering tactics could, for centuries after that, be used to excuse any of the embarrassingly awkward incidents that have revolved around various pope’s scientific and political pronouncements.  This reverent scheming makes it possible for the faithful to continue to defer to the “authority” of the church in its supposed superior understanding of ecclesiastical matters.  Such faith merely requires the sacrificing of one’s skepticism upon the church altar and abandoning any thought that perhaps this wobbly claim of holy word infallibility might put one’s soul in peril.

This political sidestepping would continue to help excuse such booboos as the 1633 affair when the mathematician/astronomer Galileo was summoned before the Inquisition in Rome and forced to recant his writing that Earth moved around the Sun.  Because Galileo had pointed the new invention of the telescope toward the heavens, he had dared to look upon truth.  Contrary to biblical implications, the Moon was not a smooth orb, the Sun was not a polished disc but a flame-covered inferno, and the planet known as Venus displayed itself in periodic phases!  For reporting these wonders to the world, Galileo was promptly found guilty of heresy by the Catholic Church.  Galileo could not deny the truth that he had witnessed, and during his trial remarked something to the effect, “The Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”

Galileo’s trial set the standard by which western religions brushed off any scientific endeavors.  Fortunately there were men who continued to feel intuitively that perhaps God had chosen not to reveal too much wisdom to man all at once, and the reason might be that man was to make himself worthy by seeking further wisdom.  Through the centuries men such as Isaac Newton (1642-1727) struggled to reconcile their scientific findings with religious texts, but there always seemed to be irreconcilable differences despite shared feelings of humbleness and awe when pondering the majesty of what we see as Creation.

Even one of the great minds of the 20th century, Albert Einstein, could not break free of the primal concept that some being must have fashioned the universe like some work of art or mechanism.  After decades of searching for the secrets of gravity, time-space, and quantum mechanics, Einstein would say it was not easy to catch a peek at God’s playing cards.  Typically, he would let “the Lord” off easy, saying that although the laws of Creation are subtle, “the  Lord” (creative law) was not malicious.  To a contemporary physicist, Niels Bohr (Danish), Einstein continued to refer to God more than was necessary, and he told Einstein to stop telling God what to do.  But perhaps Einstein’s speaking of God may not have been so much a statement of personal belief as it was the use of common beliefs to comfortably acquaint the unscientific pubic with the operational processes of the universe.  Certainly, in that timeframe, if Einstein had failed to acknowledge a “maker,” the public would have vilified him as  enthusiastically as they had glorified him. 

Today, in the 21st century, some astrophysicist may, in some interview, give mention to God when some newscaster questions how the laws of physics came into being.  It’s a loaded question, for as yet there is still no sufficient data or theory to give a satisfactory answer.  That does not mean, however, that the Bible gives a superior accounting of the creative  forces at work, for if any disguised scientific solutions to cosmic principles were embedded in those holy texts some astrophysicist would be mining them with celebrated results.

It is the magnificence of the living universe that keeps mankind’s faith systems and mankind’s sciences in wonderment and reverence.  Whatever man may deduce from his perspective of Creation, the truth is that there can be no center of infinity.  Most certainly planet Earth is not at its center; and it is even more certain that no man-invented, self-serving faith system is at its center.

Advertisements

Big Bang = Science Fiction

Posted in Astronomy, Atheist, culture, environment, life, nature, random, science, thoughts with tags , , , , , , , , , on September 22, 2009 by chouck017894

The biblical version of “beginning,” creation ex nihilo (Latin, “out of nothing”), has a strange counterpoint with the so-called Big Bang theory that has been clutched to the breasts of cosmologists and cosmogonists as virtually sacrosanct since around the 1920s.  That similarity of concept—a material universe out of nothing—has its link in Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, mathematician and astronomer who proposed a theory that came to be known, sarcastically at first, as the Big Bang.  Lemaitre’s idea of the origin of the universe was that it was from a “primeval atom” or “Cosmic Egg.”  The myths of numerous prehistory cultures had similar ideas of everything being brought forth from an “egg,” but Lemaitre explained the Cosmic Egg as “…exploding at the moment of the creation.”

Basically, the big bang and black holes and all the interlocking theories are closer to metaphysics or science fiction than documented science, but the media eats it up.   Totally ignored is the fact that the theory defies known physics principles and requires a belief in invisible and unproven “dark matter” and “dark energy” to shore up the theory.  Granted, there is much in the universe that mortal eyes cannot perceive, but space is not exactly a material object that can be warped as in Einstein’s geometric theory.  The universe, most likely, did not find it necessary to unfold through such a needlessly complicated indulgence as the bangers like to imagine.

Around the “science” of the bangers there hovers a shocking lack of explanation for the simplest phenomena associated with matter.  They remain totally mystified by such phenomena as mass, gravity, magnetism and light.  They can and do summon up complex mathematical descriptions to make a fit for any observable things, but mathematical exercises do not constitute an explanation of what we see as physical reality or how they were made manifest.  As with radical religionists, the mystery is their selling point, and it is their showmanship at telescopes and blackboards that brings the money into their coffers while those with more tangible answers have been effectively muzzled.

 There has long been a strange avoidance by the cosmology crowd against considering any other studies that could prove pertinent to their own field of interest.  They patently ignore, for example, high-energy experiments at Los Alamos National Laboratories and Sandia Laboratories in which have been observed results that show striking parallels with astronomical phenomena.  To the Big Bang advocates, those observable experiments show the heresy that suggests that the universe was initiated and shaped by electrical transference!  Worse for the bangers, there have been high-energy experiments that have reproduced the features of aurorae, sunspots, comets and similar mysteries that have constantly left cosmologists stymied.  But bangers loath the fact that the theory of a kind of cosmic circuitry better explains creative activity in the universe than does the esoteric theories of a big bang and galaxy-gobbling black holes.

Studying the behavior of electricity in gases may seem a long way from the sciences of astronomy-cosmology-cosmogony, but to watch the writhing life-like filaments in a container of plasma bears an uncanny likeness to the universal energies and their inclination for responsible life that we so yearn to understand.

  • Recommended reading: The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe by Eric J. Lerner.

Secrets of Enoch

Posted in Astronomy, Atheist, Bible, freethought with tags , , , , , , , on April 3, 2009 by chouck017894

Among the many books not included in the accepted “word of God” by Christian councils that chose their self-serving Gospels was an old book known as The Secrets of Enoch. Even though the book of Enoch was passed over as being unworthy of inclusion as “gospel,” it nonetheless exerted unquestionable influence upon the numerous writers of the New Testament collection. In fact, many dark passages of the N.T. are virtually inexplicable without its edifying aid.

There are peculiarities of speech in the book of Enoch that the church fathers probably could not comprehend, and that was enough to convince them that such verses would lead curious minds away from the church fathers’ concept of what constituted “true faith.” One such peculiar reference that pops up was in regard to the flood account; in the book of Enoch it states that Noah was “…born a bull and became a man.” Elsewhere the Enoch account goes on to say “…and one of those four went to the white bull (referring to Noah) and instructed him in secret.”

The Secrets of Enoch did indeed refer to knowledge that had be “lost,” or more likely had been deliberately concealed from the masses–knowledge that had once been given freely by using astronomical configurations (constellations) as focal points of lessons regarding the developmental processes of energy into matter forms. In other words, scientific explanations of creation and cosmology!

In the Secrets of Enoch, Noah served as the personification of the Life Principle that reaches the fourth stage–or energy stage that occurs as energy begins transforming  into material mass. This ancient teaching had once been given with constellation Taurus as its focus, and therefore it was not confusing to say that Noah, personifying the Life Principle moving into energy-matter form, was riding the flood of life toward physical form and could be said to have been “born a bull” or that he was the “bull…that became a man.”

The ancient lessons that had been alluded to in the Secrets of Enoch were based on startlingly accurate scientific principles, and without the scientific/astronomical knowledge referred to in The Secrets of Enoch to clarify the imagery used in that book, the Christian fathers were dumbfounded.  Rather than seek meaning they preferred instead to embrace the speculative upon which they could fashion a business machine.

It should be noted that the ancient lessons of creation processes once given with constellation Taurus, regarding the fourth stage of energy moving toward matter form, also accounts for the four rivers said to have issued out of Eden in the book of Genesis.

(All the ancient lessons using constellations as focal points can be found in the books: The Shiny Herd: Ancient Secrets Hidden in the Sky, IBSN: 1-56167-164-9; and in The Celestial Scriptures: Keys to the Suppressed Wisdom of the Ancients, ISBN 0-595-20913-0.