SCIENCE UPRISING: No, We Human Beings Are Not Just Accidental Specks In A Universe Without A Purpose
Let’s get real about the most basic question of all – Why is there something rather than nothing? Or to put it another way, why does the universe exist and how did we living, thinking, feeling human beings get here?
Screenshot from YouTube.
At the most basic level, there are only three possible answers: The universe has always been here and always will be, the universe “popped” into existence through a natural process or the universe was created by a being outside of it.
Since an eternal universe by definition is impossible to verify, set that one aside and focus on the other two.
Popular science culture says natural processes explain the existence of the universe, so there is no need for a designing deity. We humans then are simply products of unconscious processes, either “accidents of nature” or unintentional byproducts of matter in motion.
Those who believe the universe was created point to the fine-tuning of multiple characteristics that are essential conditions for the beginning and sustaining of life, and they further note that it’s mathematically all-but-impossible for all of those conditions to happen correctly by chance, therefore there must be designer.
But are we human beings mere accidents, just specks of matter that come and go, disappearing after a while without reason or purpose? Check out the following “Science Uprising” video, then come back and share your thoughts in the comments section.
i’ve always wondered, if it’s such a 1 in a gazillion chance that this universe gets it right and all the constants align for creation & sustaining life, well, if the Big Bang happened once, what’s to say it didn’t happen a gazillion times before, just that this time we hit the lottery and BINGO? the universe could have exploded from a black hole, expanded, contracted, and exploded again, who knows how many times, in a cycle, each time slightly off balance until the last one…and here we are…
but i guess i’ll get all my final answers when i lay down to sleep forever… 🙂
Wise words from Vatican scientists:
https://youtu.be/idjqV45Q6XA
tldr: People of faith can (and do) respect and value both philosophical and naturalistic modes of inquiry — while respecting and valuing the distinction between them.
Fr. George: “I’m a scientist. I try and understand the universe. My [scientific] understanding of the universe does not need God….[W]hen we find that our science is inadequate to understanding certain events that we observe in the universe, we tend to want to bring in God as a god of explanation, a “god of the gaps”….If we’re religious believers, we’re constantly tempted to do that. And every time we do it, we’re diminishing God and diminishing science.”
Br. Guy: “What you wind up doing is turning God into a pagan god.”
_______
The God of the Bible says, “Let it be”, not “Here are the blueprints.” He says, I AM, not “I’m the engineer.”
Perhaps He did provide the blueprints throughout the Bible, Old and New Testaments. Just two examples: Romans 1:20 – “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” And Psalm 19:1-3 – “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above[a] proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.”
Yes, by all means, let us marvel at creation. Let us treasure the poetry of the Psalms and the theological insights of St. Paul. The mistake comes when we try to import these lofty images and insights into the mundane methodology of science.
It’s a matter of keeping the apples apart from the oranges. One need not become a heathen to see the value in that.
But let us hope that the Creator isn’t finished with us yet, and that at some later stage of human development (perhaps after encountering more advanced civilizations) we may come to see these issues much more clearly.
First I don’t think conflating the suitability of Earth to earth live and the tuning of the cosmological constants is particularly useful. They are two very different things. How the universe came into being and why it is the way it is is, in all fairness, something that science doesn’t have a real answer for, ideas and possibilities are there but we don’t have the tools to really observe and we certainly don’t have an way to experiment. That means of course it could have been a supernatural act, but it doesn’t mean it must have been a supernatural act.
One thing I have never understood though is the contention that if we are accidental we can’t have a purpose. If we are accidental we can instead choose are own purpose (I happen to believe we can choose are purpose whether accidental or not, but that is beside the point.) Being merely the product of somethings plan and only existing to serve their purpose doesn’t seem particularly glorious or affirming.