The Religion of Science

No, that title is not backwards.  It’s intentional.  My Caribbean friends, do not let me or anyone deceive you.  Where does common sense come from and do you have it?  Ask yourself that prior to reading this post.

By now most of you have read that scientists from the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN) have smashed sub-atomic particles into each other with record energy on Tuesday, creating thousands of  “bangs” like the theoretical primeval explosion (“big bang”) that many believe gave birth to the universe 13.7 billion years ago.

Scientists and engineers in control rooms across the sprawling CERN near Geneva burst into applause as the project to probe the origins of the cosmos scored its first big success.   Loosely named the “Big Bang” project, it cost about $9.4 billion.   It has stirred an age-long debate between religious zealots and non-religious zealots.  Of course most religious zealots oppose while most non-religious zealots support.  There’s a lot of biting sarcasm levied  by supporters and opponents.  In a sense, it’s beyond a debate.  People are mad (upset)!

Many of the scientists involved belong to an expanding and most-respectable branch of science called “Theoretical Physics”…  Think Nobel Prize Physics.  Yep, that one.

Theoretical Physics

According to Wikipedia (, “Theoretical physics is a branch of physics which employs mathematical models and abstractions  of physics  in an attempt to explain natural phenomena. Its central core is mathematical physics, though other conceptual techniques are also used. The goal is to rationalize, explain and predict physical phenomena. The advancement of science depends in general on the interplay between experimental  studies and theory. In some cases, theoretical physics adheres to standards of mathematical rigor while giving little weight to experiments and observations. For example, while developing special relativity, Albert Einstein was concerned with the Lorentz transformation which left Maxwell’s equations invariant, but was apparently uninterested in the Michelson-Morley experiment on Earth’s drift through a luminiferous ether. On the other hand, Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for explaining the photoelectric effect, previously an experimental result lacking a theoretical formulation.”

einsteinEveryone has taken the formula E=mc2 as fact and echo the praise for Einstein the genius. But, how do you prove such a theory?

Shepherds leading sheep astray

schepherdHave you seen the growing number of so-called “shepherds” in the Catholic and non-Catholic church leading their sheep astray, doing exactly what they aren’t supposed to do?  Like politicians ( C.Sharpe calls politicians “politricksters“), they belabor “points”, “issues”, and “messages” that benefit them.  For instance, politicians often say:

“the American people don’t want to see this… and don’t want to see that.  They want to see [whatever it is that the politician believes].”

“our founding fathers wanted or intended for us to [do something that supports what the politician believes].”

Blending an Angel Doolas song, Trickster, with C. Sharpe’s words I come up with, “You trickster… You poli-trickster…”

Well, you have priests, bishops, pastors, ministers and evangelicals, so-called “men of the cloth” who quote scriptures that benefit them and sometimes their family and church body, not necessarily you or your soul.  For example, some harp on “prosperity” while focusing on tithing and offerings which they commonly refer to as  “sowing seed”.  Keep in mind that “sowing seed” in the Bible is inteded to mean the Word, not necessarily money.

They forsake entire Matthew 23 while promoting Luke 6:38.

They forsake Matthew 25: 31-46 for Malachi 3: 8-10.

They forsake Matthew 6: 25-34 and the parts of the Perfect Law (Ten Commandments)… because “the Early Christians did so.

crowd1r2So, the sheep doesn’t get Mark 4: 1-20… because they didn’t hear nor read Matthew 23 to understand that they should “obey the word but not follow the actions of the one who delivers the word because the deliverer today is often just a speaker of the word, not a doer.

Are these scientists shepherds?  Let’s see.

Shepherds and Scientists

Many Scientists have different beliefs.  Some believe in a supernatural God, some are not sure, some do not believe in a supernatural God.  For each of the above categories we have different subcategories.  For example, of those who believe, they may have different religion or no religion at all.  Of those who are not sure, they may believe God or gods created everything and is absent or that the gods are actually aliens, “visitors from the future”.  Those who don’t believe say “science is the only truth” or “man has created gods” or “there is proof that the earth is billions of years old but there is no god”.  Variety!

The majority of scientists, particularly the theoretical kinds, seem to lean towards non-existence of a supreme creator.  In the process, they theorize and set out to prove various contradictions (whether deliberately or otherwise) because, in their view, the idea of a supreme creator is utterly ridiculous.

If I have a Theory I cannot prove but Evangelize…

There is a theory of black holes and a more far-fetched theory of the “opposing” white holes.  There’s a theory of the “Big Bang”.  None have been proven.  However, we have many in the scientific community evangelizing these unproven theories.  But, even more than the scientists are their sheep… er… followers, people who fall short of worshiping these theoretical scientists for their great but yet-to-be-proven theories.

Sounds familiar?  It should.  That’s the same thing Christian, Muslims, Jews, and people of other religions have been doing for well over a thousand years.   They have been evangelizing theories that there is a supreme God who is the way their religion says he is.  Interestingly, like the different theoretical scientists, all these theories have similarities and differences.

But What’s in a Theory Anyway

Faith is the belief or unwavering confidence  in a person, thing, or concept that is unseen or unproven, to the point that it is represented by the “believer” as fact.   But what’s in a theory anyway?  Theory and fact are two different things.   Theory is unproven.  Fact is proven.  However, believing it’s a fact doesn’t make it so… It may become fact, but it’s not until it’s proven.  So, until a science theory is proven, it cannot be called fact.  Theory can be faith.  So, in a sense, unproven /theoretical science is a religion.  Aaaaaawwwwww now, is Yowlink trying to stir up trouble?  Of course.  If we don’t do it on here, who will?

The Religion called Theoretical Science

There’s a huge difference between the religion called “Theoretical Science” and typical religions like Christianity.  The difference is that theoretical science tries to find out what the “truth” is while typical religions like Christianity mostly accept the theory as fact and often do not try to prove it because they do not see the need or they believe it’s impossible to prove.

However, there are big similarities.  Both are “theoretical” or “faith-based”.  Both have many followers or “believers”.  Both think their advancement will make the world MUCH better.  Some followers of the typical religions are cynical about Theoretical Science and vice-versa.   Within each religion, the followers have different branches with slightly to contrasting points of views.  Theoretical physicists, for example, have varying theories about certain unproven things.  So do different pastors, priests, imams, rabbis, etc.

This should garner some feedback.

My Yawdies, West-Indians and Haitians, and others, tell us what you think.  Don’t be shy.  This is a forum to discuss things after all.  What affect our lives today more than Science, Religion, and the Science Religion….  Well, I could include the politicians…  They do affect our lives, often negatively, but I digress.

Talk to me, Yow.images_shout





14 responses to “The Religion of Science”

Leave a Reply