Our little niece, Savannah, came home the other day and said God does not exist because the Big Bang created the world. How did she come up with the idea? Who told her? What does a 7 year old child know about physics, astrophysics, metaphysics or cosmology, their differences and how to evaluate critically a scientific theory? No, she came up with that statement because she has been told and I suspect her science teacher told her. This is typical of secularism.

Before I go further let me define what I mean by secularism (I will deal with its political and ideological aspect another time). Secularism is a worldview that supports its position by claiming to be a rational system and to base its rationality on the rationality of science therefore excluding all references to God. For secularism all religions and references to God, because they are not based on science, are therefore irrational, based on opinions and should be excluded from all public debate. [1] One accusation to support the above position is that Christianity and the Catholic Church are against science (“see what happened to Galileo”) showing the irrational aspect of religion. Secularism is essentially an atheist worldview. [2]

Let’s go back to Savannah’s comments. So what’s wrong with what her teacher said?

  1. First, the Big Bang was discovered by a Belgian Catholic priest, father Georges Lemaitre. [3] The theory is based on Edwin P. Hubble’s spectral shift of galaxies and Albert Einstein’s general relativity. Discovering the big-bang apparently did not deny the existence of God, at least in father Lemaitre’s mind.
  2. Second, Einstein, who first did not believe in the expansion of the universe, finally accepted the big-bang theory. Einstein was not a practicing Jew but he still believed in God. If Einstein did not see any problem between the big-bang and the existence of God, that’s good enough for me. Is Savannah’s teacher smarter than Einstein?
  3. Third, the only thing that the big-bang theory claims is that the universe has a beginning. [4]
  4. Fourth, if the big-bang happened 15 billion years ago and the existence of God depends on it we must therefore say that the mathematical probability of God’s existence is 1 chance He does not exist against 15 billions chances He does exist. If I were a betting man guess which odd I would take? Which odds will you take?

Despite the above, the secularism “rational” anti-religious sentiment persists since the Galileo incident. Before I explain what happened to Galileo let me ask a question here. This question seems unrelated but it is very telling of the “rational” mind set of our culture. A pot of water is on the stove and is boiling. Why is the water boiling? Please, take a minute to consider your answer.

Because the Catholic Church censored Galileo she is accused of opposing science. This is the most ridiculous accusation ever. If Galileo was censored, both Copernicus (a Catholic priest) and Kepler (a Lutheran) were not censored. From Saint Albert the Great (the father of chemistry) to Louis Pasteur (the father of microbiology) to Georges Lemaître (the priest who discovered the big-bang) the history of science is full of Christian scientists. Consider the calendar used throughout the world today, the Gregorian calendar. It is named after the Pope who promulgated it (Gregory XIII - 1582). This happened also around the time of Galileo and was released after the calculations made by the Vatican Observatory. [5]

So why was Galileo censored? Contrary to popular (secular) myth Galileo was not censored for believing that the earth revolves around the sun. First, Copernicus came up with this theory 50 years before Galileo. Second, that is scientifically wrong. Kepler, later proved that the earth does not go around the sun in a circle but in an ellipse. Actually, at that time, Saint Robert Bellarmine who was in charge of Galileo’s case was also a scientist. The pope Urban VIII, who was a personal friend of Galileo, was also a scientist. Both agreed with Galileo’s observations. Science was not Galileo’s problem.

Galileo’s problem was the statement he made to his friend, pope Urban VIII who had amicably warned him to be careful with his teachings. Galileo said that when a scientific fact contradicts scriptures, the understanding of the scriptures must be revised not science. The pope told him to stick to science and leave theology to theologians. But Galileo was a stubborn man.

As I can imagine, some people will not see a problem with Galileo’s statement. Not only they do not see the problem but they will insist that Galileo was right. Was he right when he said he could see the Earth move around the sun (eppur si muove)? Was he right when Kepler proved him wrong only a few years later?

Let’s go back to the question above. A pot of water is on the stove and is boiling. Why is the water boiling? I suspect that your answer went like this. The stove is hot because it is on. As the flame heats the pot and the heat transfers from the pot to the water the heated water slowly is evaporated into gas. Gas forms bubbles that reach to the surface of the water as it boils.

Our first impulse is to give a physical and chemical explanation. But there is still another more simple explanation. Here it is:

Aunt Tillie wants a cup of tea. [6]

We have been conditioned to think in a “scientific” “rational” way. In itself this is not a problem. The problem is when we think that there is only a “scientific” explanation or that if an explanation is “scientific” the explanation must be true. That’s Galileo’s error.

  1. First, we must see that there is no contradiction between the scientific explanation of the boiling water and aunt Tillie’s will. Both are true at the same time.
  2. Thermodynamics does not explain aunt Tillie’s will.
  3. Without aunt Tillie’s will there would be no boiling water.
  4. We are dealing here with two different domains (science and theology) which use a different cognitive mapping. [7]
  5. Cognitive mapping is tightly linked to prior knowledge. Most of what we know is based on faith not on fact. I trust my science teacher who told me that Copernicus, Newton, Einstein and Hawking are right; not that I know any one of them or that I can redo their experiments to build up my own scientific knowledge from scratch.
  6. Science can be relied only up to a certain point: a. The Galileo and Copernican heliocentric system gives an example of the limited “truth” of science. b. The sun is not at the center of the universe; it is not even at the center of our planetary system as the planets do not move in a circle but in an elliptical orbit. Copernicus contradicted the prevalent scholastic views and was in turn contradicted by Kepler. c. Einstein refusal to believe at first in an expanding universe (spectral shift of galaxies and big-bang) would be another example of the changing nature of scientific evidence. Scientific theories are not self evident and are always in a state of flux. d. That’s why reputable scientists are required to submit their findings in professional journals for peer review. Why? Just because a scientist says he has observed something does not necessarily mean it is true. How many medical diets and findings are published and publicized only to be contradicted by another scientific study a few years later? e. Findings can be distorted and biased. Pride can get in the way (see the South Korean doctor Hwang who falsified his stem cell research). [8]
  7. As far as the big-bang theory is concerned, it does not prove that God does not exist.
  8. On the contrary it does prove that there was a beginning to time and space, a creation.
  9. Time and space being the subject of physics and all other scientific knowledge, the big-bang theory only shows the limit our empirical knowledge. Scientifically, we cannot know beyond that point. [9]
  10. Trying to go beyond the point of the big-bang is not the domain of physics but the domain of metaphysics. Here we have reached the point of pope Urban VIII advice to Galileo: stick to science and leave theology to theologians.

I would like to expand a little on the reliability of science.

There are certain Christians who have developed a creation theory based on the book of Genesis. Their approach is the big-bang and other theories are wrong because when you calculate the generations in the Bible they add up to 6000 or 12000 years only not 15 billion years. My Christian brothers, this is wrong. The Bible is not a history book nor a scientific book.

Even though it is historical it concentrates in telling the history of salvation not the history of the world. It is the history of Israel (God’s family), not the history of Israel (the nation). In this sense it is does not recount all the facts of history but only the facts that are relevant to salvation. Adding up the generations will not give us the full history of the earth.

Genesis as well as the whole Bible is not a scientific book. Some Christians will present arguments like the following: “Another suggestion is that the speed of light at the time of the Creation was infinite, and that a “shock wave” went out from the earth at the time of the Curse, slowing the speed of light down to its present value.” [10] How do you define “the Curse” in scientific terms? Where is the evidence? When Christians insist on reading the Bible as history or science they are doing bad science and bad theology.

But the worst is that with arguments of this nature they are shutting down those they are trying to reach. This is bad evangelization.

The themes of the whole Bible are Sabbath, liturgy, sacrifices, and salvation. The moral of Genesis’ creation story is the Sabbath: Revelation begins on the Lord’s day; Israel was sent into captivity because they broke the Sabbath; Jesus was killed because as God he claimed to be Lord of the Sabbath [11] ; Leviticus, Psalms, Hebrews are concerned with liturgical worship; the books of the prophets can only be understood as preaching and homilies not as historical books. The only historical books in the Bible are Kings, Chronicles, Maccabees, the Gospels and Acts. Everything else is liturgy and worship.

After speaking about the errors of some of my Christian brothers I must speak about my secular brothers who believe like Galileo that we must accept as truth scientific empirical observations. They say science is the measure of truth and I must believe science theories as facts. Let’s take an example that everyone can understand because it is a commonly experienced physical phenomenon: gravity.

Tell me this, o my empirical, scientific, secular, atheist friend: is gravitation a force that attracts physical masses or is it a curvature of space and time? What should I believe Newton’s gravitation theory or Einstein’s? [12] Has the nature of gravity changed between the 17th and the 20th century? If both theories are right then we must conclude that the nature of gravity has changed. If the nature of gravity has not changed then we must conclude that either Newton or Einstein is wrong. Who should I believe? [13] If I believe Einstein instead of Newton how do I know that someone else will not come 50 years from now and tell me something different like string and quantum theories? [14] If scientific facts, proofs or theories change how can I believe in science? If science is based on facts, proofs or theories that keep changing then science requires as much faith as religion.

Secularism believes scientific theories as facts. The above shows it is not so. Science is not reality. Science is a rational construct based on falsiable experimentation to explain reality. It is a representation of reality not reality itself. Unfortunately not understanding the limits of science is secularism’s fall. To accept science as reality one must be out of his mind. [15] The only true reality about gravity is what my mother used to tell me: “don’t jump on the bed, you will hurt yourself.” She was right, her mother was right and all generations before them were right. And my mother does not hold any Ph.D. in astrophysics.

Another problem with the secularism worldview is the belief that truth is only found in science and that, because something is scientifically true, it is therefore good for society. Opposing science is opposing truth and progress. One example given by secularism is the medical progress and societal good that could be done with embryonic stem cell research. To which I reply what medical progress and societal good resulted from Joseph Mengele’s medical experiments at Auschwitz and what happened to those who opposed the truth and progress of science? Science is not reality, nor is it truth nor the basis for a moral compass of good and evil. François Rabelais’ statement is still true today as it was in the 15th century or in Nazi Germany: “science sans conscience n’est que ruine de l’âme” (science without conscience is only the ruin of the soul).

Science is not the truth or reality. Science does not prove God does not exist. Science requires faith. God forbid we should follow scientific standards as moral standards.

I don’t have a problem with science or scientists. The problem I have is with the fundamentalist pretense that secularism is rational and religion is not, and with the systematic, dogmatic secular indoctrination and proselytism of our children in public secular schools.

Alithos Anesti!

NOTES[1] Let me ask this: since when is the public debate (politics) really based on rationality?
http://www.europe-et-laicite.org/MEL-Objectifs.html
http://www.laicite-republique.org

[2] When a person calls himself a Christian, but subscribes to some secularism idea, he acts essentially as a practical atheist. This is most often seen with some politicians.

[3] http://users.skynet.be/fa274406/rubriques/univers/bigbang.htm

[4] i.e. it was created.

[5] Accurate within one day per 3300 years.

[6] http://www.kencollins.com/bible-i4.htm

[7] http://intraspec.ca/cogmap.php

[8] http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/skoreahealthstemcell;_ylt=AkCpUyi58qHuuHMvgfEDj8KVVdgA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

[9] http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html

[10] http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=214

[11] Matthew 12:8

[12] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/relativity http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/GenRelativity.html

[13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

[14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

[15] I can represent Napoleon in a play but I am not Napoleon. If I start believing I am Napoleon I have a definite psychological problem. What physical real object is E=mc2? It does indeed represent something of the relationship between energy, mass and light. It does measure energy, mass and light but it is neither energy, nor mass, nor light. We must give here some credit to Galileo. He must be considered as the father of empirically based science. This means we base science on measuring phenomena and deducting theories, rational explanations that end up being essentially mathematical in nature (see Einstein’s equation). Galileo’s problem is that he did not understand the limits of science and mathematics. He did not understand the difference between reality and its representation. Understanding science and mathematics as reality is losing touch with reality, a sign of insanity. Not understanding the limits of science is secularism’s fall.