The Scientific Faith

[erikd]

The Scientific Faith

In order to live one’s life within the faith one preaches, it is important not only to practice what one preaches, but to understand as fully as possible what is being preached. This statement pertains to one’s belief in God more than any other belief one might possess. After all, a theological belief in God is the basis for all other theological beliefs in one’s life. If, therefore, the belief is strong, the rest of the theological beliefs will be more fully understood causing one to have the capability of a stronger union with God. If one processes information in a scientific manner, a belief system based on nothing but spirituality may not be enough for a strong belief system. A scientific mind may require more scientific thought and explanation. A logical mind may require a more logical approach.

Faith is stronger when it is much more than just faith. If faith possesses a scientific, logical, or philosophical component, it has potential to become an overwhelming part of a believer’s life. Simply put, if you can explain it and it is more likely to make sense, faith will be much stronger then when it is questioned without logical answers. If, however, faith without understanding is held by the believer, all faith can be lost with one negative occurrence.

It is my belief that enough evidence exists in our lives to not only discredit the theory of atheism, but to prove the existence of a Supreme Being. Using very simple ideas from philosophy, one can prove that a higher being exists, than what science has found. It is the logic of philosophy that can help us find the answers to a better understanding of who we are and what we really believe.

This article is meant not only for the believer who is seeking more evidence for one’s belief, but also for the non-believer who should ask some tough questions using the philosophical logic explained below.

St. Thomas Aquinas said in his Summa Theologica:

“because since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist”

He also stated the following:

“motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality.”

newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

Two very important philosophical arguments are made here. First is the simple idea of cause and effect. We have all experienced cause and effect throughout our lives. If we push the gas pedal, the vehicle moves. The gas pedal must pre-exist and other factors must be present for this pre-existing cause to become an effect. If we walk, run, or move, our brains are sending electrical signals to the rest of our bodies to perform the act we are performing. Our brains must exist for this act to happen. We must possess the necessary body parts to perform the actions that our brains are commanding us to perform. If we drop a piece of fragile glass from 10 feet above ground, it will shatter. The glass must exist and someone has to drop it for the effect to take place. These are all simple examples of cause and effect.

The second philosophical argument made here is that motion is an actual, physical act that once was only a potential act. All the effects described above were only potential effects until the act had been committed. Once the pre-existing causes are present, these conditions only have potential effects. The effects become actual when the causes are put into action. If one studies for a test one has the potential to pass the test. If, however, one does not take the test after studying, the potential has not been realized and therefore the actuality of passing the test does not take place. These are simple ideas with tremendous implications. These are also philosophies that encompass all of life, as we know it on earth.

These two theories, well accepted within the scientific community have been used to explain everything from physics to modern medicine. They can also be used to discredit the idea of atheism or to strengthen the notion of the existence of God. It is my contention that a belief in God does not have to be purely spiritual but partly scientific, partly logical, and partly philosophical. All believers on earth are human, and our human nature implies imperfections. These imperfections can be detrimental to many aspects of our lives, especially our spiritual lives. While a believer’s mind may be set, it is never set in stone. Just as the vice president is a heartbeat away from the presidency, the believer is only one bad experience from becoming an unbeliever. If one can overcome the shortcomings of one’s own faith and belief system, it can only benefit the believer.

I will now apply the two theories above to one of the most accepted scientific beliefs which eliminate God from the equation. It is my belief that philosophical logic has to be applied to science in order for science to be accepted as legitimate and logical. It is also my belief that, when properly understood, scientific theories and theological beliefs can strengthen one’s faith beyond the realm of spirituality and into the realm of logic. If one can prove, logically, the existence of God, the possibility of one’s spiritual faith diminishing greatly decreases. It is also my contention that the greater understanding one has of God, the greater the opportunity to share in the full love and life that God offers to each one of us.

Continued on next post

 

[erikd]

Continued from previous post

Let’s explore the possibilities of the Big Bang Theory.

According to science, the universe is approximately 13.73 ± 0.12 billion years old. This calculation was derived using very precise measurements of light spectrum emitted from quasars and distant galaxies. Without going through the scientific data, which is very massive and at times perplexing, we will summarize that this is the most acceptable, scientific, theory of the creation of the universe. Please keep in mind that it is a theory that has yet to be proven. Before the big bang (theory) it is stated within the scientific community that the universe was exponentially expanding through what’s called “cosmic inflation”. This inflation was at the time caused by a negative pressure vacuum energy density.

The earliest part of the universe that science claims to understand, through theory, states that the universe was already moving. If, however, we apply this to our earlier philosophical comments, it must be suggested that a cause and effect is to be implied. Therefore, if the universe was already moving, this is being an effect, what was the cause? If one says that the negative pressure vacuum energy density caused this massive movement of the universe, what was the cause of this energy density? Energy density implies the existence of gases or other forms of matter. This form of matter came into being one way or another it didn’t just exist. How did it get there? If everything has a cause and effect, one must make the assertion that this state of matter would have a cause. Without a cause there would be no effect.

Applying our second philosophical principle would infer that the negative pressure vacuum energy density, had it existed, would only be potential energy until an act caused it to become actual. Remember, your arm won’t move until you tell it to. Your car won’t start until you turn the ignition. Why is this simple principle not addressed in the most widely accepted scientific explanation for the creation / evolution of our universe?

When accepting scientific studies and research as a valid explanation of the true state of events, all the studies, positive and negative should be taken to account. Here is the latest from the NASA web-site that explains some of the problems of modern day big bang theory:

• The Flatness Problem:
WMAP has determined the geometry of the universe to be nearly flat. However, under Big Bang cosmology, curvature grows with time. A universe as flat as we see it today would require an extreme fine-tuning of conditions in the past, which would be an unbelievable coincidence.
• The Horizon Problem:
Distant regions of space in opposite directions of the sky are so far apart that, assuming standard Big Bang expansion, they could never have been in causal contact with each other. This is because the light travel time between them exceeds the age of the universe. Yet the uniformity of the cosmic microwave background temperature tells us that these regions must have been in contact with each other in the past.
• The Monopole Problem:
Big Bang cosmology predicts that a very large number of heavy, stable “magnetic monopoles” should have been produced in the early universe. However, magnetic monopoles have never been observed, so if they exist at all, they are much more rare than the Big Bang theory predicts.

map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html

One more thought to consider. If everything has a cause and effect, one must make the assertion that everything started from something. This would imply that nothing begins on its own or without an underlying cause of action or matter. This, in itself, is contradictory to the scientific date of the universe of almost 14 billion years ago because it implies that something always existed to form the gases and matter that eventually formed this energy density. Yet, if something always existed then the universe has no beginning date. The beginning date of the universe implies that the universe started from nothing, while science and logic tell us that this is impossible. Faith, on the other hand, tells us it is.

The simple idea of cause and effect is logically pointing out the unavoidable fact that the big bang theory is just a theory that may be missing its key finding. Water cannot boil on its own, it needs fire. Fire cannot start, it needs a spark and oxygen. Vacuum energy density cannot exist unless it becomes that matter from other underlying causes.

Many questions still remain within the scientific community about the validity of the big bang theory, although many strides had been accomplished to validate parts of this theory. Whether one believes in this scientific theory, or whether one believes that the earth was created in six days, or whether one believes in intelligent design, the simple logical arguments can not be ignored as they point out the obvious fact that something within scientific theory has always been missing. In a theory as important as the creation of the universe, perhaps that missing link is to be found within the first Book of the Bible.

While this article is not meant to discourage the reader from the study of science, nor is it meant to discredit any scientific findings, it is meant to encourage the reader to read scientific findings with a critical eye. If a believer in God aims to strengthen his / her faith, one has to look no further than philosophy and logic. When put into perspective with science, it can be quite an eye-opener.