Da li će nauka poništiti Boga?

[Odahviing]

IZVOR: B92

Tokom proteklih par vekova, nauka je polako okrnjila osnovne temelje na kojima počinje verovanje u Boga. Mnoge stvari koje su se nekada činile delom misterioznih sila, savršenost Zemlje za stvaranje života i funkcionisanje svemira sada mogu biti objašnjene uz pomoć astronomije, biologije i drugih naučnih disciplina.

Iako i dalje postoje određene kosmičke misterije, Šon Kerol, teoretski kosmolog sa Instituta za tehnologiju u Kaliforniji, veruje da će vremenom uspeti da da odgovor na sva pitanja koja nedostaju, a samim time, neće ostaviti prostora za verovanje u božansko.

Kerol smatra da se sfera Boga znatno smanjila u modernim vremenima, kako su fizika i kosmologija uspele da bolje objasne poreklo i početak evolucije univerzuma.

„Kako učimo o kosmosu, postoji sve manja potreba da se pomoć traži van nauke“.

On misli da će se sfera božanskog uticaja vremenom svesti na nulu. Međutim, da li nauka može da objasni baš sve?

Početak vremena

Sakupljeno je mnoštvo dokaza koji favorizuju kosmološku teoriju Velikog praska i ideju da se univerzum proširio iz vrelog, beskrajno zgusnutog stanja, u trenutno, hladnije i šire stanje. Kosmolozi mogu da naprave tačan model šta se dešavalo 10^-43 sekundi nakon Velikog praska pa sve do sada, međutim, delić sekunde pre toga i dalje je pod velom misterije.

Pojedini teoretičari pokušali su da izjednače trenutak Velikog praska sa opisom kreacije sveta datom u Bibliji i drugim religioznim tekstovima, i kao jedino logično objašenjenje nameće se tvrdnja da je Bog pokrenuo inicijalnu eksploziju.

Međutim, po Kerolovom mišljenju, napredak nauke eventualno će eliminisati bilo kakvu potrebu za postojanje božanske intervencije.

Cilj modern fizike jested a se formuliše teorija koja će objasniti i opisati kompletan univerzum, od subatomskog do astrološkog nivoa. Takva teorija, nazvana “kvantna gravitacija”, moraće da pokaže šta se tačno desilo, i šta je prethodilo Velikom prasku.

Pojedini naučnici smatraju da je Veliki prasak, umesto trenutka kada je vreme počelo da postoji, on zapravo “tranzicioni korak u evoluciji univerzuma”.

Jedan takav model pretpostavlja da se svemir ponaša poput balona koji se konstantno naduvava i prazni. Po njemu vreme nikada nije imalo svoj početka.

Druge teorije kvantne gravitacije koje ispituju kosmolozi previđaju da je vreme zaista počelo sa Velikim praskom. Ova verzija takođe ne pominje jasnu ulogu Boga u tim dešavanjima. Ne samo da ona opisuje evoluciju univerzuma od Velikog praska, već je i u stanju da objasni kako je vreme započelo na samom početku.

“Ništa u činjenici da je postojao prvi trenutak vremena ne nagoveštava niti podrazumeva da je bio potreban eksterni uticaj da dovede univerzum do tog trenutka”, smatra Kerol.

Nauka sa sve više detalja uspeva da sklopi ovu slagalicu bez ikakve potrebe za božanskom intervencijom.

“Veliki prasak mogao je da se desi samo zato što su u tom trenutku postojali zakoni fizike. Zakoni fizike mogu da stvore univerzum”, izjavio je Aleks FIlipenko, astrofizičar sa Univerziteta u Kaliforniji.

Zašto?

Još jedna uloga Boga jeste da je on sam razlog postojanja univerzuma. Čak i ukoliko kosmolozi uspeju da objasne kako je univerzum nastao, i kako je tako fino naštimovan za postojanje života, postavlja se pitanje kako je moguće postojanje nečega naspram ničega?

Previše ljudi na ovo pitanje odgovoriće da je razlog Bog.

„Kompletnoj naučnoj teoriji koja objašnjava i podrazumeva sve u univerzumu nije potrebno objašnjenje sa neke druge strane. Bog bi u jednoj tako organizovanoj teoriji samo predstavljao smetnju pošto ona sama po sebi radi bez božanske pomoći“, tvrdi Kerol.

Sa druge strane, Kerol smatra da Bog ima svoju svrhu van naučnog domena pošto određena psihološka istraživanja pokazuju da verovanje u njega motiviše ljude da prate pravila dok vera u život nakon smrti pomaže ljudima da se izbore sa osećanjima tuge i strahom od smrti.

„mi nismo dizajnirani na nivou teoretske fizike. Ono što je većini ljudi bitno jesu stvari koje se dešavaju na ljudskom nivou a ne na teoretskom“, izjavio je Denijel Kruger, evolucioni psiholog sa Univerziteta u Mičigenu.

[Juan Valdez]

Још један у низу текстова који потпуно маше поенту...

[Александар Милојков]

Tokom proteklih par vekova, nauka je polako okrnjila osnovne temelje na kojima počinje verovanje u Boga.

Можда неког другог, библијског (хришћанског) Бога није.

[Grizzly Adams]

Па ништа, морамо опет испочетка...

[Душко Дугоушко]

Можда неког другог, библијског (хришћанског) Бога није.

Over the past couple of years several texts have appeared in popular film and print which seek to attack the notion of God’s existence and paint the role of religion in human society in negative terms. A new wave of modern, non-Marxist atheism has begun to find its feet, and as it shrugs off adolescence, has begun to develop a philosophy which seeks to tear down the old power of religion and replace it with a nihilistic hedonism that they call “secular humanism”. Figures like Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher, and Sam Harris have plead passionately for a new vision of humanity in which religion is dismantled and swept away to be replaced by egalitarianism, empiricism, and pursuit of pleasures. Perhaps most articulate of the writers in this new school is Richard Dawkins, one of the United Kingdom’s foremost evolutionary biologists. His 2006 landmark publication, The God Delusion, has rapidly become a staple of the debate over God’s existence in the public sphere. Dawkins’ ideas have been championed by his fellow atheists, and challenged by theists of all types. Regardless of one’s perspective, no Westerner interested in religious questions has the luxury of ignoring Dawkins’ work. In a publication such as this one, the reader is likely expecting that this article will dismantle and refute Dawkins’ case against God. This is an Orthodox article after all, and Orthodox Christians are theists. But it is not my goal to disrupt any of Dawkins’ conclusions, and there is a simple reason for this: Dawkins’ arguments, and the broader debate in which he is involved, simply do not engage Orthodox theism in any meaningful sense. The reality of Orthodoxy’s place in the modern West, we may be shocked to discover, is that we share a great deal more in common with Richard Dawkins, and a great deal less with his opponents, than we might at first suppose. In reality, Orthodoxy is really not a natural party to the Western discussion of God at all. But how can this be? To understand Orthodoxy’s position in relation to the Western God debate, we need to understand specifically what that debate is about. To do so, we need look no further than Dawkins’ book itself, for Dawkins has done an excellent job of compiling and analyzing the basic Western arguments for the existence of God. Dawkins rightly divides these arguments into two groups: a priori arguments, and a posteriori ones. A posteriori arguments are those which seek to prove God by examining the world, and Dawkins holds up the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas as the preeminent example of such arguments. Aquinas’ most well remembered proof is his argument from creation: the world is so complex and remarkable that it seems that some brilliant mind must have designed it. A priori arguments for God’s existence begin in a different place: the mind of the thinker employing them. Dawkins cites the work of Anselm of Canterbury to present such an argument, which is roughly as follows: if one can imagine something perfect, then something even more perfect must exist for one to model that image upon — this most perfect thing is God. Dawkins dismantles these arguments, and various others which essentially flow from them before eventually positing that ’there almost certainly is no God. The arguments which Dawkins presents are well selected. These basic defences, rephrased and reworked, when coupled with what Dawkins describes as ’Bayesian’ principles (saying that God’s existence is highly likely as opposed to certain) constitute the sum of Western proofs of God. Dawkins has been diligent in leaving out nothing significant of his opponents’ positions. Each of these traditional proofs, and any of the myriad others which could readily be unearthed, seeks to demonstrate the certain existence of a particular type of being which is God. Arguments from the design of the universe necessitate an understanding of God as a designer. For God to be such a designer, God must have something of a mind, an intelligence, and a host of other characteristics Those which posit a perfect prototype for humanity’s image of perfection (and variations on this theme) demand the existence of such a prototype, one which reflects forward into the created order, and which demonstrates the quality of perfection, beauty, goodness or the like. Such a being amounts to a perfect creator, an ’unmoved mover,’ or a universal mind. What is critical here is that in every case, God is an identifiable entity. God’s possession of characteristics make traditional proofs function, and therefore would be central to the being of the God to which these proofs refer. In other words, if we prove God’s existence from the perfection of God’s creation, it is inherent to God’s nature that God be a perfect creator, and such a proof cannot possible refer to a God who does not create or is not perfect. Other arguments can be principles which they represented — they had no existence beyond this. These categorizations of certain gods with certain characteristics directly mirror the type of figure which traditional God-proofs seek to defend. Indeed, one could easily employ such proofs in the defence of the figure of Zeus. Take a simple a posteriori argument for example: ’The weather is controlled by principles which we do not fully understand. However, those principles are evident in the action of the weather. Therefore, we call those principles «Zeus.» As such, Zeus exists.’ Christians like Thomas Aquinas and Anselm, or any number of modern writers, have insisted on the existence of a God with characteristics. For Aquinas this made God a creator and ’unmoved mover,’ for Anselm a perfect being. But the Orthodox tradition, at its core, knows no such characteristics of God. Instead, Orthodoxy’s understanding of God is radically apophatic4, and God’s essence is understood to be completely unknowable — a position expounded by the Dionysian corpus, St. Maximus the Confessor, St. Symeon the New Theologian, and most critically, St. Gregory Palamas. Those kataphatic representations of God which Orthodoxy embraces are clearly understood to be necessary, but ultimately secondary. The true experience of God occurs in total silence, away from all thoughts, images, and characteristics of any kind. This is a God who defies even the language of ’perfection’ — a God who defies the language of ’defiance’ and the word ’God’ itself. This is not, therefore, the God being defended by modern Western theists. It is no accident that the arguments which Richard Dawkins dismantles begin to take firm shape in the West after the Great Schism. Thinkers like Aquinas and Anselm, unchecked by the wisdom of the true Church, easily fell into the error of rationalizing, and therefore of delimiting the concept of God. Such a conceptualized God is merely imaginary, the reification of those kataphatic models of God which Orthodoxy places in proper context — a similarly analyzed. Such an image of God is ultimately an image of an all-powerful existent creature. The idea of creatures such as this is by no means new to human thinking. The ancient Greek polytheists, for instance, saw gods at every turn. That which controlled the fertility of their fields they labelled ’Demeter.’ That which was emblematic of the principle of reason they called ’Athena.’ That which controlled the weather, the most powerful force they knew, they called ’Zeus.’ Gods, for the Greeks, were defined by certain attributes, and their power was seen in the workings of the context which has been lost to the heretics. This reified God is no different in any sense from Zeus or Athena, and proofs which apply to this God could just as easily be applied to them. As such, these images are more than a slippery slope to idolatry — they are idolatry itself. To project upon God any fundamental characteristic at all is immediately to worship a creation of the human mind just as imaginary as the Olympians. Though Aquinas’ Zeus has been stripped of his beard and lightening, he remains a thing, still a ’creator,’ still an ’unmoved mover.’ And, if anything, modern Western spirituality has tended even further towards the worship of images in recent years. For many, Zeus’ lightening has made its return, as Michael W. Smith’s lyrics in a famous Evangelical hymn demonstrate: «When He rolls up His sleeves/ He ain’t just puttin’ on the ritz/our God is an awesome God/ There is thunder in His footsteps/And lightning in His fist.» The remnants of the ancient sky god, a fabrication of the human imagination, remain alive in the Western tradition, and it is ultimately defence of these remnants which constitutes the bulk of God-proofs today. As such, Orthodoxy has not yet been truly engaged by the modern Western debate. The god being defended and attacked in the West is not our God at all. In a surprising way, Dawkins and other atheists have not only failed to refute the God in which we do believe, but have not even addressed the issue in the first place. And in the same way, Western theists have not put forward any proof at all for our God — indeed, they have not even really considered the question. Orthodoxy’s place in the current God debate is stranger and perhaps more uncomfortable than we would like. We Orthodox Christians stand as believers in the All-Holy Trinity, as practitioners of an organized religion, and as followers of our Saviour, Jesus Christ. As such, Richard Dawkins serves as a harsh critic of our beliefs and way of living. Yet, the God which we worship is not the God under attack in Dawkins’ work — indeed, ours is a God who seems forgotten to the West, both by the heretics and by their atheist opponents. This position is a dangerous one indeed. If we are blinded by the outward similarities, and the millions of honest and loving hearts which constitute the Western heretics, we may quickly slip into their attempts to defend that which does not exist: a God of attributes and images no more genuine than the Olympian Zeus. Yet we are no atheists, and no allies of the anti-religious movement sweeping the Western world — we cannot throw stones at the heretics along with Richard Dawkins. But though we must be wary of the dangers in our situation, we must be equally excited at the opportunity we have been given. In a West whose philosophy has become a broken-record of refutations and defences of idols and lies, Orthodox Christianity has the opportunity to articulate the truth once again to those for whom it has been stolen by schism. Orthodoxy is no party to the Dawkins debate, but we hold the keys to the solution: a genuine faith in the Holy Trinity and the saving power of Jesus Christ who alone can sanctify our lives that we may become, in His Energies, the God Whom both the heretics and the atheists have forgotten.

[Natasa.]

"Još jedna uloga Boga jeste da je on sam razlog postojanja univerzuma." 0409_feel 0409_feel 0409_feel Odakle ova konstatacija?

Inace, text je plitak kao tacna .

[Natasa.]

Bogdanovicu, moze li ovo malo sazetije, ko ce to da cita...?

[Ignjatije]

Tokom proteklih par vekova, nauka je polako okrnjila osnovne temelje na kojima počinje verovanje u Boga.

Moja vera ne pociva na materijalnim dokazima. Nekada bilo, ne ponovilo se. Bog u koga ja verujem nije kip niti guru, ni grom, ni kisa, ni susa, ni poplava.... nego vecna i neizmerna Ljubav i Blagodat koja je postala covek ne bi li covek bio spasen i uveden u vecni zivot.

[Александар Милојков]

“Veliki prasak mogao je da se desi samo zato što su u tom trenutku postojali zakoni fizike. Zakoni fizike mogu da stvore univerzum”, izjavio je Aleks FIlipenko, astrofizičar sa Univerziteta u Kaliforniji.

Мора да се шали, или су га погрешно цитирали?

[GeniusAtWork]

Cilj modern fizike jested a se formuliše teorija koja će objasniti i opisati kompletan univerzum, od subatomskog do astrološkog nivoa.

smej.gif

[Odahviing]

Мора да се шали, или су га погрешно цитирали?

Ovde se verovatno misli na to da je nastajanje zakona fizike predhodnica nastanka univerzuma, ne znam kako da objasnim mislim da razumem šta je šovek hteo da kaše, ali je to teško objasniti.

[Justin Waters]

Наука ће у будућности вјероватно доста утицати да се разобличе нека архаична увјерења која су саставни дио сваке религије, међутим неће имати могућности да елиминише самог Бога, јер Бог је увијек корак испред по било каквом објашњењеу откуд поријекло познатог нам универзуна. Ако му даш узрок, биће шта је узрок том узрок том узроку, па узрок том узроку итд...нема неке логике по чему се може укључити Бог и то баш личносни, али нема ни логике по чему се може искључити. Вјера је зато вјера, није заснована на доказима већ личном избору и нади да ће оно што је изабрано бити остварено.

Рецимо ако кажемо да је ствар вјере да прво постоји Бог као личност који све изводи у постојање, исто тако може бити ствар вјере да је енергија нешто што оудвијек постоји, а да према квантној теорији честице спонтано могу да се појаве у пољу и тако да крене еволуција универзума. Ово друго је чак и провјерљиво. Е онда дођемо и кажемо па откуд енергија...и опет можемо ставити Бог један корак испред, тако да ће питање Бога бити увијек питање вјере, а не доказа.

[Душко Дугоушко]

Bogdanovicu, moze li ovo malo sazetije, ko ce to da cita...?

Укратко, каже да православнима и Православљу није место у тим западњачким теистичко-атеистичким дебатама и да нам Ватикан/протестанти (за које тврди да имају пагански поглед на Бога) ту нису ништа ближи од Докинса (јер су и једни и други део истог, Православљу страног философског фрејмворка)...

[Александар Милојков]

Ovde se verovatno misli na to da je nastajanje zakona fizike predhodnica nastanka univerzuma, ne znam kako da objasnim mislim da razumem šta je šovek hteo da kaše, ali je to teško objasniti.

Овако како стоји је прилично плитко, да не кажем глупо.

[Odahviing]

Овако како стоји је прилично плитко, да не кажем глупо.

Pa ipak je to B92 nije neki naucni casopis ili sta vec, pa da ocekujes da se napise i razjasni sve. Nego mi se cinila kao zanimljiva tema da potrosimo narednih nekoliko sati na rasprave, nego mi se nes ne raspravlja, smoren sam ni sam ne znam šta da radim.