{"id":2834,"date":"2021-01-07T13:05:04","date_gmt":"2021-01-07T12:05:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/predication.net\/?p=2834"},"modified":"2021-01-07T13:12:16","modified_gmt":"2021-01-07T12:12:16","slug":"natural-science-as-a-tool-for-testing-views-on-space","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/predication.net\/?p=2834","title":{"rendered":"Natural science as a tool for testing views on space"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
The idea that science could be the basis for confronting some religious theses is not new. Many important thinkers have tried to logically argue the basic theses of their views on the world, even in the past. In this connection, let us recall the well-known “five logical proofs” of God’s existence in the work of St. Thomas Aquinas. Dialectical materialism consistently declares itself to be based on science, so it is “a priori” a scientific worldview.<\/h2>\n
The power of modern science is not so much in verbal logic as in the fact that it can quantify its concepts, i.e., translate its reasoning into mathematical language, thus providing a chance to assess individual phenomena not only qualitatively but also quantitatively. The famous work of the well-known mathematician K. G\u00f6del entitled Ontological Proof of the Existence of God.75) serves as an illustration of such an approach.75) Its peculiarity is that although such an absolute proof cannot exist, mathematicians have not yet discovered a logical error in this work.<\/h2>\n
It follows from the above that in finding a base suitable for testing individual thought groups’ correctness, it is necessary to focus on quantifiable science, and such is modern physics because its language is mathematics. However, there is one relatively serious problem that representatives of individual religions like to point out. Their basic “truths” have not changed for hundreds or thousands of years, while physics has historically changed its basic notions of the world quite often. That is true, but now the situation is different. Today, physics has two theories that have yielded immensely new results and have resisted all attempts to challenge them for nearly a century. They are the General Theory of Relativity (developed by A. Einstein in 1915), which provides information mainly about SeaWorld, i.e., the universe as such, and quantum physics, the foundations almost simultaneously developed by E. Schr\u00f6dinger and W. Heisenberg in 1926. It describes processes in the microworld. All that is missing is the elaboration of a kind of super-unified theory, which would include both mentioned theories in the so-called Theories of everything that is being worked on hard. (Details of this can be found, for example, in S. Weinberg’s publication Dreaming on Final Theory.76))<\/h2>\n
Based on these theories, modern physics has already developed a detailed picture of the microworld and a detailed scenario of the origin and evolution of the universe (the so-called standard model), which shows signs of stability and high credibility, especially after the latest tests and research (via satellites and Hubble Telescope). One of today’s most prominent astronomers, M. Rees, says: “Until recently, I had 90 percent confidence that this model was correct; after the latest research, this confidence has changed to 99 percent.” This means that the time has come for it to look at all hitherto known theistic and atheistic concepts through the prism of modern physics and thus objectively assessed their views of the universe.<\/h2>\n
First of all, it will be necessary to assess the very relationship of individual worldview concepts to quantitative science, which, as we will see, can be very significant in terms of their adequacy.<\/h2>\n
When we examine the relationship of different philosophies to quantitative science, we are surprised to find that some of them directly exclude the existence of such science. What is necessary for quantitative science to exist? One of the most important contemporary physicists, S. Weinberg, puts it very clearly in words: “The only way to ensure the process of every science is to assume that there is no divine intervention and to look to see how far we can go without this premise.” everything is controlled directly because of his will (or rather an arbitrariness), then anything can happen at any time, so that the “intelligent observer” does not observe any regularity in these processes, which actually prevents the formulation of quantitative laws, and therefore quantitative science at all. We know that some major religions do hold such attitudes and push quantitative science to the margins.<\/h2>\n
Dialectical materialism and, surprisingly for many, Christian ideology can be described as an ideology with a clearly positive relationship to quantified science. Although not explicitly emphasized, Christian philosophy acknowledges (and traditionally applies) the thesis that God creates and governs the world – in addition to God’s direct immanent interaction with this world – through specific tools, which are both universal natural laws and so-called. “Secondary causes,” which modern physics interprets as certain small stimuli (“fluctuations”), which is realized in the so-called chaotic dynamics. This clearly defines a certain causality in nature in all material processes, which is a necessary condition for quantifiable science.<\/h2>\n
The well-known physicist S. Hawking commented obviously on this problem. In the bestseller A Brief History of Time, he says that once (because of the theory of everything) we will explain everything, what else<\/h2>\n
will the idea of \u200b\u200bGod be needed? However, to the numerous reactions blaming him on atheism, he publicly took the view that he did not need God as an “ad hoc” creator but as the author of natural laws. This statement is solemn because it turns out that the natural laws that govern our world have been chosen very carefully. If they had slightly different wording, we wouldn’t exist. For example, if the forces between material objects and electric charges did not decrease exactly to the square of the distance, stable solar or atomic systems could not be created. In this way, we could proceed from one natural law to another, and we would always come to the same conclusion.<\/h2>\n
It is an indisputable fact that Christian scientists first developed quantified natural science. (Signs of some quantification have already appeared in ancient Greek culture but have not received much acclaim or outstanding practical applications.) The first “quantifier” was Galileo Galilei, followed by one of the most important physicists, I. Newton, whose famous work Philosophize naturalist Mathematica laid the foundations of quantified physics. With the discovery of the law of force and gravity, he literally connected the “heavens with the earth” because he showed that all objects in our entire universe obey, without exception, the same laws of nature. Other famous physicists grew up on the ground of “Newtonianism,” most of whom professed the Christian faith, but – paradoxically – the same Newtonian ism, which was to celebrate according to its creator the Creator, also became the basis for atheistic materialism. Its origin is connected mainly with D. Diderot, B. d’Holbach, and later with the names of K. Marx, F. Engels, and others, which we have already discussed in more detail in paragraph 2.2.2. This only confirms the fact that for both Christianity and atheistic ideology, the existence of natural laws is essential.<\/h2>\n
The fact that A. Einstein’s well-known quotes are fundamental in the very foundations of the universe and that they must be linked to “infinite intelligence” testifies: “The most incomprehensible thing in this universe is that it is understandable” and “It is not possible so that there is no infinite intelligence behind it all. “<\/h2>\n
Based on these facts, science can be defined in the Christian understanding of the search for the laws that God has established for this world. Let us prove this once again with a quote from the famous physicist, W. H. Nernst: “The Bible tells us about what God has done, science is examining how He has done it.”<\/h2>\n
It can be stated that ideologies that ignored or even made quantified science impossible did not contribute to the current high standard of science and technology in an advanced society. An illustrative example of this can be Japan. While adhering to its old verbal ideology, it was one of the most backward states, but it became a world power when it adopted European quantitative science. And the truth is that Christianity has also made a significant contribution to European quantitative science (especially science) with its rational stance on natural laws’ existence.<\/h2>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"