« New LDS blogs | Main | Happy Thoughts--April 26, 2004 »

"the foolishness of men...when they are learned they think they are wise!"

Here's the latest entries in the Things-That-Have-No-Scientific-Explanation-Even-Though-There-Is-Supposed-To-Be-A-Scientific-Explanation-For-Everything catagory: dark matter and dark energy.

If you're not up on the latest science, here's a quick summary.

Dark matter is matter that's invisible and can't be detected by any known scientific method. It was 'discovered' when scientists tried to calculate the total mass of galaxies based on their gravitational pull on other galaxies and found out that the number they reached was ten times higher than the total mass they could account for by adding up all the stars and other visible objects in the galaxy. Hence, the conclusion that not only must some new kind of matter that can't be detected exist, but that this new 'dark matter' in fact, composes 90% of the total mass in a galaxy. In other words, approximately 90% of the matter in the universe can't be located...

(For a summary of 'dark matter', see this article)

Related to dark matter (perhaps) is 'dark energy', which also cannot be detected, measured, or analyzed by any known scientific method. Under 'Big Bang' theory, the universe was formed by a large explosion of sorts in which matter expanded and radiated out from a single point and then formed into stars, galaxies, and other heavenly bodies. Under this theory the matter in the universe should have been sent sailing away from the starting point, projected by the forces from the Big Bang, but after this initial period was over, the forces of gravity should be pulling back on all the matter in the universe, and the rate of speed in which individual galaxies are moving away from each other and from the central starting point should be decreasing. But it's not. In fact, it's increasing...Galaxies are moving faster and faster away from each other, in direct contradiction to the force of gravity pulling them together. By the Force = Mass * Acceleration equation, this shows that there is some force or energy (stronger than and directly opposed to gravity) pushing the galaxies apart faster and faster, and it can't be explained through any force or energy known to man. Hence, 'dark energy'. (For a primer on dark energy, see here)

So, let's summarize...Science can't find 90% of the matter in the universe. Science also can't find one of the major sources of energy in the universe. Even though they know it has to be there, science has no way or method to detect or analyze either dark matter or dark energy.

What's the point? Read this article--a survery of scientists' belief in God (or lack of). Yes, even though science can't find or explain 90% of the matter and energy in the universe, over 70% of scientists KNOW without a doubt that there is no God, there is no 'spirit world' closely related to the physical world, and certainly no such thing as 'spirit', a more fine form of matter which composes part of our bodies. Why? Because, silly, 'spirit' can't be seen, detected, or analyzed by any scientific method known to man therefore it most certainly doesn't exist.

Um...hello? Does this attitude strike anyone as particularly audacious given the apparent lack of knowledge these same scientists have towards the known universe--from a scientific standpoint? Isn't it possible that 'spirit' and 'dark matter' could be just two words for the same thing? Isn't it possible that there are major workings of the universe which are currently beyond human eyes, but which might just possibly involve some form of higher, creative intelligence (you know...like some sort of God)?

I'll be exploring this topic: science vs. religion more in depth in a series of posts over the next few weeks... More specifically, discussing why in fact there is no conflict between science and religion--they are just looking at the same thing from opposite angles. Stay tuned...

April 23, 2004 in Religion, Science | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/660853

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "the foolishness of men...when they are learned they think they are wise!":

Comments

I think though dark matter is known because of the effects of gravity. But what it *is* has not been agreed upon. i.e. what is the cause of this phenomena.

In contrast many people don't have clear evidence suggesting anything like a God. (Or at least aren't aware of it - just as scientists a few decades back weren't aware of dark matter)

I personally doubt the 70% figure, btw. I've seen other statistics (admittedly American biased) which had quite different results. In either case one must distinguish between not believing in God and claiming to know that there is no God. I suspect a lot of that 70% are actually agnostic, if we get technical. (Often atheist is used loosely to mean "doesn't believe in God" and not just "believes there isn't a God."

Posted by: clark | Apr 23, 2004 2:20:15 PM

You may be interested in this discussion:

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=1976

Posted by: Kim Siever | Apr 23, 2004 3:55:37 PM

"Because, silly, 'spirit' can't be seen, detected, or analyzed by any scientific method known to man therefore it most certainly doesn't exist."

I am reminded of a quote from a talk by Daniel Ludlow. Paraphrased poorly, he said "men claim that there is no God. Yet to know that there is no God one has to know the whereabouts of everything in the universe simultaneously, to satisfactorily prove that God does not exist anywhere. The paradox then is that to accomplish such a thing, one would have to be a God, themself."

Posted by: dp | Apr 23, 2004 5:13:26 PM

According to the statistics in the article, 72.2% expressed a 'personal disbelief' while only 20.8% expreseed 'doubt' or an agnostic attitude. I interpret this to mean if you asked them if there was a God, 70% would say 'no' and 20% would say 'maybe...but I need more information'. In my mind, the first group would still qualify as 'atheists', even though perhaps they weren't 'actively' trying to disprove God, or argue specifically against Him. Depends on the definition...

Clark is right in that the members of the first group may differentiate between 'belief' and 'knowledge' themselves. Shouldn't there still be a lot more 'maybes', though, considering the amount of knowledge we don't know about the universe? Seems to me more people--especially "smart" scientific people--should be keeping the option open at least until more knowledge becomes available...

Posted by: The Baron | Apr 24, 2004 7:42:56 AM

Oy. Dark matter. It's been a while since physics, but I have to lump myself in the disbeliever category as far as dark matter is concerned. I had two physics profs in college and each had an opposite opinion about the subject.

Dark matter is one of those things that scientists can't agree on. And they don't disagree just on what it is and of what it is formed, but whether or not it exists.

The problem with dark matter is that other forces (that are proven to exist - like black holes and such) can account for the large "unbalanced" forces of gravity that the theory of dark matter attempts to balance. And there are other problems. One of the big ones is: why isn't there dark matter near the earth? We can accurately calculate gravity near the earth without taking dark matter into account, but we can't the farther out we go from the earth. So why are our equations less accurate the farther we travel from the earth?

The prof said that we haven't perfected the equations yet. They're great on small scale, but the farther out we go, the greater the percentage of error grows. Thus, the "unbalanced" forces of gravity are merely the error in the equations and/or constants. There's more, but it's been a while since college and it's been even longer since physics (goodness, more than 6 years). And honestly, I'm not even sure I got all that stuff right. But I think that's the essence of it.

I'd like to mention that dark matter became popular because some "pop scientists" have championed the theory. Other "pop scientist" wannabes have taken up the cause in hopes of getting thier name recognized. This is not to say that genuine scientists don't agree, but judging from the naysaying prof I had, just as many do not.

It is a convinient theory though. It's just as convinient a theory as "deus ex machina" and "ether", too. And I believe that eventually, the dark matter theory will be debunked just as those were. We just don't know enough yet.

Posted by: Jan | Apr 26, 2004 12:51:39 PM

Sounds like you've had more astro-physics than me...

In my reading in preparation for posting, I hadn't seen much actual doubt about DM's existence, mostly just debate about how much there was. But it wouldn't surprise me if you were right...

In the end, though, my point is the same:

Whether it's science's inability to find dark matter, or science's inability to agree if it exists, the point is there's an awful lot of fundamental information about the universe that's still unknown to be quite so bold in saying for certain that there is no God or 'spirit'.

Posted by: The Baron | Apr 26, 2004 3:42:03 PM

There is considerably more evidence now for dark matter than 10 years ago. However that it is "matter" is questionable. Of course even asking what matter is within advanced physics can be problematic. But there are several papers suggesting that it is an error in GR causing the effect along with various solutions. If you're interested I can link you to the papers. If you've had GR you should be able to follow them.

Posted by: Clark Goble | Apr 27, 2004 1:09:30 AM

"dark matter is known because of the effects of gravity. . .In contrast many people don't have clear evidence suggesting anything like a God."

Actually, a great many human beings throughout the centuries have concluded there is a God (Higher Power some would say) because of direct personal experience. William James' "Varieties of Religious Experience" give such examples. I am one of those humans. I had an experience that could not be explained except by reference to a Higher Power. For some people, this is akin to "seeing" a UFO.

In any event, knowledge of God can be inferred from our experiences on the earth, just as knowledge of other natural phenomenon can be inferred from their effect on observable phenomena.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is contempt prior to investigation."


Herbert Spencer

Posted by: Rod Snyder | Sep 5, 2004 6:07:35 PM

We know what the speed of light is... so what is the speed of dark?

Posted by: Polygsrus | Mar 19, 2006 12:40:21 PM

Post a comment