Already the title of this blog has me cringing, but in this instance, I feel that Mr. O'Reilly, the Fox News scion of conservative bombast needs someone to agree with him that is not in his camp.
Recently Mr. O'Reilly posted a video commentary positing that the motion of the tides was proof of God's existance. Apparently some people took issue with this statement and called him on it, to which Mr. O'Reilly posted this response:
Bill O'Reilly on the Tides
Essentially, Mr. O'Reilly states that while we know that the moon causes the tides, we don't know where the moon came from, or where the solar system came from or anything.
Well, scientists were quick to jump all over these statements and label them as typical ignorant conservative creationist-theory rhetoric, thus perpetuating the kind of polarizing debate that Fox News and Mr. O'Reilly thrive upon.
But what is missed in this type of black and white, either/or debate is the subtlety that I think Mr. O'Reilly actually was pointing out, which is that while science can indeed explain how the tides are affected by the moon, and provide theories as to how the moon came to exist as a satellite around the earth, the thing that science has yet to explain if the overriding question of "why the universe (and everything within it) exists in the first place."
The universe is a incredibly complex and wondrous place, filled with intricate systems and processes that scientists have been exploring for centuries, and will continue to explore. As humans, we have been endowed with minds that are curious and driven to continually ask "Why?" and "How come?". As we learn more, we also discover that there is ever more to learn. In addition to our curiosity, humans have also been endowed with a remarkable capacity for faith, in essence faith is the ability to believe in things that cannot be scientifically proven, things like a greater intelligence or supreme being that is the ultimate creator of all things. This idea of a creator of the universe crosses almost all religions and cultures.
So why is it so hard to reconcile these two human capacities? Scientific exploration and faith in a supreme creator? The two are by no means mutually exclusive as some would argue, rather if we look at our scientific curiosity as a way to continually discover the incredibly sublime mechanisms and complexity of a universe that was created by an intelligence far far superior to our own, then these two human capacities of curiosity and faith can be reconciled.
I'll take the analogy down a few levels to where it is more clear for me to understand, maybe it will help. Say I have a natural aptitude for mechanics and come across a vehicle that I have never seen before. Being curious I start to examine the vehicle, even start to disassemble and reassemble it. Along the way I discover that it runs on a certain type of fuel, that it has a navigation mechanism, that it has safety features and other systems that regulate and optimize its operation. In short, I find out all sorts of things about this vehicle except for who made it.
Obviously it was made. Obviously the vehicle exists for me to examine, disassemble and reassemble, and obviously it was manufactured somehow,,,therefore implying a manufacturer. So, even though we are unable to identify the creator of the vehicle through examining its parts, we can imply that the creator exists.
The disconnect seems to come when that same analogy is applied to natural systems and objects. A tree, for instance, has many component parts, utilizes intricate systems that facilitates its growth and development, and the tree interacts with the environment around it, which in turn presents even more intricate systems and interactions. Scientists are still exploring these inter-dependencies and systems...but none of their discoveries identifies who the creator of those systems and inter-dependencies is.
Why then, is it so unacceptable to imply that there is indeed a creator, and then continue our explorations. Nothing is lost by accepting this idea, except that in accepting the idea that there is a supreme intelligence that ultimately created everything, we become humbled and awestruck by the possibility.
This is where the real divergence takes place. Some who are awestruck by this supreme intelligence, then decide that there is no reason or merit in further exploration, and thus shut down the curious part of their minds to just accept that all things were created by God. While others, who see this kind of behavior are appalled that someone would willingly close such a valuable human capacity without question...and thus, in a kind of retaliation, shut down the idea that such a creator can exist at all.
But the divergence does not have to take place. As humans, we are capable of reconciling these two capacities, faith and curiosity, and use both to fuel and drive the other. The more we discover about the workings of the universe, the more in awe we can feel of the omnipotent power of a supreme maker.
And perhaps one of the greatest realities of this reconciliation is that the discovery process is infinite.
So Bill O'Reilly is right, we don't know...but that doesn't mean that we won't keep trying to find out more.
Recently Mr. O'Reilly posted a video commentary positing that the motion of the tides was proof of God's existance. Apparently some people took issue with this statement and called him on it, to which Mr. O'Reilly posted this response:
Bill O'Reilly on the Tides
Essentially, Mr. O'Reilly states that while we know that the moon causes the tides, we don't know where the moon came from, or where the solar system came from or anything.
Well, scientists were quick to jump all over these statements and label them as typical ignorant conservative creationist-theory rhetoric, thus perpetuating the kind of polarizing debate that Fox News and Mr. O'Reilly thrive upon.
But what is missed in this type of black and white, either/or debate is the subtlety that I think Mr. O'Reilly actually was pointing out, which is that while science can indeed explain how the tides are affected by the moon, and provide theories as to how the moon came to exist as a satellite around the earth, the thing that science has yet to explain if the overriding question of "why the universe (and everything within it) exists in the first place."
The universe is a incredibly complex and wondrous place, filled with intricate systems and processes that scientists have been exploring for centuries, and will continue to explore. As humans, we have been endowed with minds that are curious and driven to continually ask "Why?" and "How come?". As we learn more, we also discover that there is ever more to learn. In addition to our curiosity, humans have also been endowed with a remarkable capacity for faith, in essence faith is the ability to believe in things that cannot be scientifically proven, things like a greater intelligence or supreme being that is the ultimate creator of all things. This idea of a creator of the universe crosses almost all religions and cultures.
So why is it so hard to reconcile these two human capacities? Scientific exploration and faith in a supreme creator? The two are by no means mutually exclusive as some would argue, rather if we look at our scientific curiosity as a way to continually discover the incredibly sublime mechanisms and complexity of a universe that was created by an intelligence far far superior to our own, then these two human capacities of curiosity and faith can be reconciled.
I'll take the analogy down a few levels to where it is more clear for me to understand, maybe it will help. Say I have a natural aptitude for mechanics and come across a vehicle that I have never seen before. Being curious I start to examine the vehicle, even start to disassemble and reassemble it. Along the way I discover that it runs on a certain type of fuel, that it has a navigation mechanism, that it has safety features and other systems that regulate and optimize its operation. In short, I find out all sorts of things about this vehicle except for who made it.
Obviously it was made. Obviously the vehicle exists for me to examine, disassemble and reassemble, and obviously it was manufactured somehow,,,therefore implying a manufacturer. So, even though we are unable to identify the creator of the vehicle through examining its parts, we can imply that the creator exists.
The disconnect seems to come when that same analogy is applied to natural systems and objects. A tree, for instance, has many component parts, utilizes intricate systems that facilitates its growth and development, and the tree interacts with the environment around it, which in turn presents even more intricate systems and interactions. Scientists are still exploring these inter-dependencies and systems...but none of their discoveries identifies who the creator of those systems and inter-dependencies is.
Why then, is it so unacceptable to imply that there is indeed a creator, and then continue our explorations. Nothing is lost by accepting this idea, except that in accepting the idea that there is a supreme intelligence that ultimately created everything, we become humbled and awestruck by the possibility.
This is where the real divergence takes place. Some who are awestruck by this supreme intelligence, then decide that there is no reason or merit in further exploration, and thus shut down the curious part of their minds to just accept that all things were created by God. While others, who see this kind of behavior are appalled that someone would willingly close such a valuable human capacity without question...and thus, in a kind of retaliation, shut down the idea that such a creator can exist at all.
But the divergence does not have to take place. As humans, we are capable of reconciling these two capacities, faith and curiosity, and use both to fuel and drive the other. The more we discover about the workings of the universe, the more in awe we can feel of the omnipotent power of a supreme maker.
And perhaps one of the greatest realities of this reconciliation is that the discovery process is infinite.
So Bill O'Reilly is right, we don't know...but that doesn't mean that we won't keep trying to find out more.
Posts
