Wednesday, April 24, 2013

The "Big Bang Theory" and What It Tells Us about Man's Capabilities

This piece, by Ken Masugi, on the popular TV show "The Big Bang Theory," at The Library of Law and Liberty, goes far to explain why our post-modern/modernist culture (it doesn't matter what term you apply to it) has nothing to offer for mankind but the fragile and built-in frailties of man himself. Please do take the time to read it in its entirety, even if you are not a regular of The Big Bang Theory,  because it tells you all you need to know about the self-imposed inadequacies of science, per se, either to explain or to accommodate the primary aspects of our God-given reality.

Science excludes the hypothesis that there could be a God a priori [from the very outset], because it has no means by which to test such an hypothesis, given its assumed and agreed [i.e., a priori] methods of observation and experiment. The situation is precisely as though a group of scientists were to announce: "We shall base our entire observations and conclusions about the universe on what we can derive from the infrared spectrum, because our instruments do not allow us to detect any phenomena outside of that spectrum."

In fact, of course, scientists base their observations and conclusions about the universe on what they can derive from the entire electromagnetic spectrum, including the ultraviolet as well as the infrared -- and beyond. Since God, however, has not made any manifestations of His existence obvious within the complete span of the electromagnetic spectrum since the Resurrection (and its record preserved on the Turin Shroud), the scientists who have objectively examined the evidence of the Shroud are divided. Some say it embodies phenomena which science currently cannot explain. Others reject its evidence entirely, on the ground of its (faulty, but only) radio-carbon dating [NB: another scientific "hypothesis" masquerading as the "only admissible" evidence under the rules of science].

But as Ken Masugi so eloquently lays out, the sphere in which science offers us its data and conclusions is severely limited, by its own materialist hypotheses. And our society's mistake in accepting science's (within its realm) well-established conclusions is to assume (along with the scientists) that it must cover the entire realm of observable experience, because (by hypothesis) "if it is not 'observable' to us, then it cannot form the basis for science."

And please note (in the article linked above) how (on The Big Bang Theory) Sheldon Cooper's evangelical mother makes short shrift of that contention.

Indeed, to ask a question that Sheldon's mother might well ask: what is this "science" that demands we observe only what it can observe?

Answer: It is a construction of man himself.

That should be the end of the inquiry. "Science" is, in our day, no more and no less than the Tower of Babel was in its day -- an attempt by man to occupy the known universe, including the very heavens themselves, by dint of only his own efforts. God had no role to play in the erection of the Tower of Babel, and God has no role to play in today's "science." Let's see: from ca. 2000 BC to 2000 AD, there has been no change in man's evaluation of the role which God has to play in man's world -- yep, that is sure evidence of man's "progress", under his own head of steam.

Has the root contradiction of such a view escaped the reader thus far, due to the impersonal language employed? Let's begin again:

If God exists, then God is supreme in all respects of our human existence -- and God, as such, is the repository and source of all "knowledge" about this world and its existence to which humans could possibly attain (as well as with respect to many other possible things -- but we do not need to go there just now).

If God is supreme, as He must necessarily be if He exists, then man must be inferior to Him.

Therefore, man can never know all that God knows, or man would be capable of being omniscient as God is already omniscient.

What man knows to this date in the world is called by him "science."

But what God knows must necessarily be greater -- otherwise, man would be equal to God, which makes "God" superfluous, because then man can do it all himself.

Accordingly, what man's science knows cannot supply the entire picture of what is -- if God exists.

Thus, your entire world-view depends on how you regard God's existence: if you regard it as a given, then you acknowledge that you by definition are incapable of attaining to all His knowledge (including knowledge of whether He exists). But if you deny His existence from a priori (i.e., man-assumed) grounds, then you preclude yourself, equally a priori, from any knowledge of Him, or His existence.

It really is that simple. (Go back over the logic if you are not yet convinced.)

And for those who still deny God's existence on the evidence they have assessed to date, I have a simple proposition for you.

Please accept an invitation to what I assure you will be an excellent, multi-course dinner, with fine wines accompanying each course, at a place of the Curmudgeon's choosing. You will have no role to play, other than to show up at the agreed time and place.

But if you do accept the invitation, you must agree to come on the condition that the dinner will be at your expense if you cannot supply a rationally satisfactory answer to the following question:

"You have enjoyed this marvelous dinner and these wines with me here tonight. And I am grateful that you could share them with me. But as you see, I remained in your company the entire time, while the dinner and wines were brought to the table. Now, please explain: if you believe that you indeed consumed and enjoyed this food and this wine here tonight, do you believe that there was a cook? And do you believe that there was a winemaker?"

I rest my case -- Q.E.D.

P.S.: Please, in light of these remarks, do read the Masugi article in its entirety. If you are a regular fan of The Big Bang Theory, you will enjoy it even more. But even if you have never heard of the show, you will be able to relate what has been said above to what you will read in his post.


  1. As both a regular of The Big Bang Theory and a scientist (a physicist by training with published research in nuclear physics), I must take issue with your characterization of the self-claims of "science". While there are a few individual scientists who will make the unsupportable claim that everything true can be determined by the scientific method, most scientists and philosophers of science will readily agree that science is simply one tool for discovering truth and that its scope is properly limited to those questions for which objective, repeatable tests can be devised. Saying that "[s]cience excludes the hypothesis that there could be a God" imputes no more hubris to science than the equally valid statement that the question of the existence of God is outside the jurisdiction of the courts implies that all truth can be determined by jury.

  2. chrylis, I have no dispute with your characterization of science and scientists; nor did I intend to ascribe hubris to them. My full sentence was: "Science excludes the hypothesis that there could be a God a priori [from the very outset], because it has no means by which to test such an hypothesis, given its assumed and agreed [i.e., a priori] methods of observation and experiment." I was trying to make two simple, non-controvertible observations:
    (1) Science is self-limiting; and
    (2) God, being infinite, is unlimited

    --from which I drew the conclusion that one who confines himself only to science and its methods will not have any chance of discovering God, or the greater reality in which God has placed us -- so that we can discover Him, if we use our (non-scientific) abilities to look.

    I know that many scientists -- e.g., John Polkinghorne, Francis Collins -- are also deeply religious, and they illustrate my point, because they do not limit their methods and observations solely to what science allows.

    But it is the scientists like Richard Dawkins and Victor Stenger who are my object lessons: they are so resolutely and completely self-limiting in their approach that it makes their attempts at philosophy or theology risible.

  3. My brother, who resides with the angels at this time, was a Chairman of the College of a major University in the South. The School of Geography and Earth Sciences did a carbon dating on a particular artifact from an Indian site. As usual, it was passed around to three or four other Universities of prestige that also had CD capacity and experience.

    Four schools, four datings, ranging from 1,100 Anno Domini to 16,000 Before Christ.
    El Gringo Viejo

  4. Mr Haley,

    Thank you once again for a beautifully written article. I enjoyed reading it immensely and cannot help but admire the work of an organised and logical mind.

    Have you ever considered writing a book on any of these topics? Some of them deserve longer treatment, and I think you could really do them justice.

  5. extra large "dittos" for both chrylis and J. Landless

    El Gringo Viejo