Well, the „enlightened men of science have spoken. If we are to survive as a species we must drop our pretentious religious beliefs. Granted, some abominable things have been done in the name of God. But let‚s step back a bit. What things have been done in the name of atheism, or at least without drawing upon belief in any God: The pogroms of the Soviet Union, the mass executions in China, North Korea, Albania, Bosnia, Serbia, Uganda, Liberia, Rwanda, not to mention the genocide committed by the Nazis, the list goes on and on. What‚s the count? Fifty, a hundred million dead? I doubt if the atrocities committed in the name of religion (and there are plenty) can compete with those committed in the name of the „collective, but, OK, we‚re all going to die in the name of religious zealotry within a few years, right? What the esteemed men of science don‚t seem to touch upon is the real argument. Is there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong? We know there is a right and wrong relative to an individual. We also know there is a right and wrong relative to the „collective. Where does the function of an absolute right or wrong enter the picture? Without it, or at least if it had not existed over the past two centuries, I doubt that humankind would have survived this long, at least not anything close to its present condition.
The esteemed men of science rebuke the Catholic Pope for speaking for a billion Catholics, even though the Catholics don‚t seem to act as a theocratic body who‚s every thought is regulated dogma meted out by the Vatican. Catholics are divorced, use condoms, some are even homosexual. Maybe this is less of a sign of hypocrisy, or a shriveling belief system, and more a sign of that most Christ-like of traits, „tolerance. Anyway, these esteemed men point out that anyone who believes in the unprovable, non-empirically determined, existence of a greater being who occupies the position of „God, are suckers, marks, throw backs, and dim witted advocates of hustlers and charlatans. Why? Because if you can‚t see it, touch it, hear it, smell it, or taste it, it doesn‚t exist. Forgetting for the moment that more than half the world‚s population believes in a greater God, and that for a huge fraction, the belief in religion may be the only comfort that they may ever know. And forgetting for the moment that ultimately more evil (sorry, but I couldn‚t come up with a better word for it, but for you atheists, just substitute Œcrimes against humanity‚) has been committed outside the bounds of Œreligion‚, let‚s just try a little „thought experiment, as the physicists like to say: One basic tenet of Quantum Physics is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Now the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle simply put states that for any discrete subatomic particle, to Œknow‚ the certainty of that particle‚s exact velocity or position term is inversely proportional to the certainty of the other term. Now, on face value this is pretty simple. A scientist can‚t get a Œfix‚ on one term without affecting the other. But the philosophical quandary this creates is staggering. By experimentation, it has been proven that subatomic particles react in ways that they are Œneeded‚. Photons can react as particles or waves, depending on how they are offered the opportunity to react. A photon‚s polarity can change, and instantaneously another photon from the same source will also change polarity, as if they can communicate. The formation of subatomic particles, which are produced from quarks (and where do they come from?), are 99.99999999999999 (many nines here) percent NOTHING in forming atoms and molecules! Yet they produce solids. In quantum theory, the interaction of these subatomic particles is dependent upon the perspective of the observer, as the particles only have tendencies to behave in tangible ways, depending upon how they are acted upon (the uncertainty principle). In fact it is possible that all matter may be composed of the same electron moving back and forth through time, endlessly. We move in a space time continuum that involves and is dependent upon change. Richard Feynman theorized that this reality should be only one of an infinite number of possible existences (i.e. Feynman diagrams). Most of these could involve any lack of coherent behavior by the particles we take for granted (after all, who is the observer in these other existences?). Yes, who is the observer? Is it us? Me? You? The esteemed men of science? In this expanding universe, which behaves in ways we haven‚t even touched yet, if the basic tenet of all that is, is based upon the existence of an observer, who is that observer? To assume that we are not propelled through this space time continuum which must re-invent itself in infinitely small increments of change, and in infinite ways (and in an infinite number of possibilities) by ourselves and that this occurs without some power greater than ourselves is pretty arrogant. But OK. What do these „esteemed men of science offer in exchange, anyway? I would hate to be exterminated as part of a pogrom because my beliefs weren‚t exactly compatible with the interests of the collective at some point in time. But, if left to their own devices, what are men to do?
Peter McKenna
