Science interprets the reality of the bible

I was baptized Episcopalean, then later, when my mother changed churches, attended a lutheran parochial school and was “confirmed”, which meant that I had meorized all the dogmatic clap-trap that the church felt was most important.  My dad attended religious services as a “good example”, but, it turns out, had more naturalistic beliefs, and preferred that I come to my own conclusions.  Thanks dad, for not forcing something down my throat.

Subsequently, starting in high school and more so after, I read up about other religions and figured out that almost all of them boiled down to the Golden Rule: treat others like they would like to be treated; with respect and dignity.  i was never a scholar about it, just reading enough to satisfy my curiosity.

But despite eventually abandoning my religion, I still believe in a god, something beyond us, something the universe is all a part of.  Then I learned about the “Big Bang” and the ancient origin of the universe.  Astrophysicists assure us we are all made of star dust.  For real.   They tell us that the first generations of stars that, after they created a bunch of more complex elements from hydrogen atoms (one electron, one proton) crashing into each other, went nova and exploded outward.  This formed new stars and new galaxies.  And these astrophysicists said this all started happening some thirteen or fourteen billion years ago.  And yet, I wondered what, or whom existed fefore the ‘big bang’?

But the “Good Book” that I had been supposed to believe in blindly says it happened in seven days.  And theologians say the universe is only six thousand years old.  What gives?  Turns out some Irish archbishop (James Ussher) in the 1600s had been given the task of compiling a probable age of the universe based on bilical passages.  You know, adding up all the ‘begats’, plus, of course, the original ‘seven days’. 

Who to believe?  What to beleive?

Starting with Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden.  Biblical scholars point to it maybe had been somewhere between the Tigres and Euphrates rivers.

But what if our distant ancestors expressed their understanding of their world — and the stars beyond through parables and metaphors?  Does that give lie to the bible?  No one back then had access to microscopes or telescopes, so these ideas had to be expressed in a way that people could understand.  And if god gave us brains, did he or she expect us to use such a wondrous machine?

Science is our way of finding the reality behind the parables and metaphors.

Advertisement

Protected: About art, creativity and its antithesis

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

Living creative in a “product (oriented?) -ive” world

As a creative person who works in many media, including drawing and painting, sculpture and cartooning as well as writing, I consider myself on the “supply side” of things.  This is an especially strong feeling when I attend conventions that relate to the medias and genres I focus on.  At SF conventions, I’m mentally aligned with the writers and artists, not the fans, though I have many friends who are fans.  That’s where I started out, as have all writers and artists.  Same with comic book cons.  I’m one of the creators of the material the public comes to see and/or buy.  I’m comfortable in that role.  I do admire other writer’s and artist’s work and sometimes buy them (when I can afford to).

However, outside those environments, I am forced to sit in the peanut gallery, with the “demand side” of the economy.  Yes I am a consumer, and outside of my art and writing, there are a huge number of things I need that I can’t or am unable to produce for myself practically.

This role I’m forced to play would not be as uncomfortable as it is if it were not for the attitude of the supply side people who inhabit the upper floor offices of corporations.  As consumers, we are looked at as a means to an end — their bottom line.  If the environment we have to live in, breathe and work in is polluted and poisoned, pfa! it’s the cost of doing business.  The rivers that flow past even moderate sized cities are unfit to drink from, and the fish taken out of them are unfit to eat.  We are the collateral damage in the battle for the almighty bottom line that the executives do battle for.

I have not  really been politicized much since our argument  against the Viet Nam war in the sixties and early seventies, but the reports coming out of Washington and Wall Street vex me like little has since the old days.  I believe we were clear-seeing in our assessment of Viet Nam as an unjust war, though we believed that World War two was well justified on any moral ground one could occupy.  The draft board didn’t see it that way; if we were against Viet Nam, we should be against all wars to be classified as a conscientious objector, and the distinction of one war being just and another unjust was not seen as rational by the board.  Oh, well.  I am surprised there aren’t any protests against the current mid-east wars (police actions, really) until I realize that there is no longer a draft, and no one enlists against their wills.

As a creative person in this economic/political environment, I feel marginalized and undervalued.  “It must be so much fun to create such interesting paintings/novels/political cartoons that you shouldn’t be paid its value since you must enjoy it so much.  It looks like play and play shouldn’t be rewarded.”  Then there’s the fact that a weak economy abandons the arts in the schools and, outside of entertainment, art sales plummet.  Traditional dead tree publishers are feeling the growth pains of e-publishing and that crimps their old ways of business.  The writer has to scramble for alternative markets while the old time publishers scramble to maintain the bottom line.

I don’t see any change in this trend toward valuing business sense and devaluing creative thinking.

My world, no, my whole universe view.

Personally I believe in science as the best way humans can discover how the world works. I know that science doesn’t have all the answers — yet. And its current explanations aren’t necessarily the ultimate truth. How many times has a new discovery caused the books to be rewritten? [Current evidence now shows that many dinosaurs had at least proto-feathers, probably including the Tyrannosaurus. Who’da thunk?] I also believe that the “Big Bang” was most likely the way the universe started. No one can say, based on any evidence, what was there BEFORE the Bang. I believe it was ONE THING. Call it god, call it the god particle, call it the resonance that fills the universe. You, me, the mosquito, the quark, the solar system and everything beyond, are part of some one thing. Could the subatomic particles fit together in certain ways to always form certain atoms consistently in a totally random universe? Could atoms from different parts of the periodic chart always combine in the same way when they meet – if things were indeed random? Science explains what is on this side of the Big Bang, but what started it out and organized the rules that govern the behavior of sub – and full atomic particles? I imagine a snowball set to roll down a slope just to see what happened – what the results would be. Creationism? Bah! Why wold something that has eternity to work with, take a stupid short cut that defies all the observable evidence? I sure don’t feel random. I don’t believe intelligence, the mind — is random. Maybe it’s not the only path nature could take to get here. But the universe does have structure, and I sure as hell can’t learn about it all through any religion.