Yet, cosmogonists (those who assume the universe had a
beginning) still believe all that stuff exploded out of nothing (or a “singularity,”
as the venerable Professor Hawking mathematized). But, as
soon as the first fuzz ball in the night sky was proven to be a galaxy containing
a trillion stars, similar to our own Sun, we had a choice:
1. The
universe exploded out of nothing, or
2. The
universe is infinite.
Neither of those can be completely proven, in the same way
our scientific faith that there are “causes for all effects” cannot be
completely proven. Infinity requires us to make assumptions.
While each thing in the universe had a beginning, the material for constructing
each of those things had to come from somewhere else. That is what the 2nd
choice provides us. The 1st choice is traditional and amounts to the
last gasp of creationism, a myopic construct centered on our pre-Copernican
selves.
Curiosity involves an inquiry outside oneself. The scientific “attitude” is based on the assumption that the truth may be known through observation and experiment. Dr. Chris Drew considers it the primary human instinct:
The seeking instinct is the instinct within all humans that make us want to explore. It’s built into us because it has evolutionary benefits: by seeking, we find food, shelter, and water. It helps us sustain ourselves. However, we can temporarily pause this instinct during times of fear and depression.
The nonscientific attitude is the belief
that truth already is known or that it may be known in ways that do not involve
interacting with the external world. The scientific attitude is inherently
progressive-and dangerous. The statement “Curiosity killed the cat” is not
without wisdom. On the other hand, without interacting with the outside world,
nothing gets done. Each step, each bite of food, is an “ex”-periment. The
upshot: We are all scientists.
One way to avoid the problems caused by curiosity is to look
the other way, like the cosmogonists do. Any examination of the external world
will challenge your religious faith while augmenting your scientific faith. Better you should look the other way. Pope
Francis sums up the religious viewpoint:
Photo Credit: Nacho Arteaga in Unsplash.
Excerpts from the Pope’s radio address in 2013 as
reported by Laura Ieraci:
“…we find ourselves before another spirit,
contrary to the wisdom of God: the spirit of curiosity. …The spirit of
curiosity distances us from the Spirit of wisdom. …And the spirit of curiosity
is not a good spirit. It is the spirit of dispersion, of distancing oneself
from God, the spirit of talking too much. …this spirit of curiosity, which is
worldly, leads us to confusion. …do not seek strange things, do not seek
novelties with this worldly curiosity.”
The “confusion” alluded to here is an enduring problem for
immaterialists who nonetheless must live in the material world. Would be
solipsists expect contact with the world to produce contradictions and
paradoxes. Like those who still believe the universe exploded out of nothing,
they have learned to live with the cognitive dissonance triggered by curiosity.
The alternative is to stifle the engine of science at an early age. ”Dr.” Joyce Meyer leads the battle:
Photo credit: Joyce Meyer.
The “battle” here amounts to the one between education and
miseducation. It shows up whenever reality is
dismissed in favor of dreams and imaginings. It shows up every time there
is a fascist demand to ban books that might upset the political/religious
applecart. It shows up when students are cloistered to prevent their
interactions with the external world. It shows up when xenophobia attempts to
prevent contact with people who are different. It shows up when a scientific
paradigm allows no criticism from outsiders or upstarts from within the ranks.
But, in the end, it is a losing battle. No portions of the
universe are completely isolated from the environment — including the people
within any particular portion. As the human population grows, interactions with
the external world become ever more intense, and therefore increasingly
scientific. Humanity’s curiosity and penchant for observation and experiment is
progressive. In the long run, the regression demanded by the Pope and by Meyer
is not possible. What we have seen cannot be unseen.
The myopism of the current cosmology is only a phase. Today, each examination of the universe adds trillions more cosmological objects, with no end in sight. Humanity’s curiosity, like the universe, knows no bounds.