An imagined infallibility of the very fallible

Recently, my newspaper published an article effectively stating that there is a Creator of the Universe. The author was promptly attacked for his belief, especially for asking why God had created mosquitoes. I too hold the belief that there is a Creator God of all that exists in the Cosmos. But I cannot accept that God created any individual species. (More on that later.)

I reached my conclusion after reading for years about belief systems – from historically simple ones to the most complex. Few of those who hold a belief in a Creator would ever claim that we can prove this belief. It cannot be proven! A belief is a belief, is a belief.

It cannot be disproven either! What knowledge, what methodology, is available to do that? Stephen Hawking said recently that we do not need God, presumably in the belief that modern science has solved the origin of the universe, and how it works. What happened to the issue of the origin, function, and the extent of dark matter and energy?

I am also not aware that cosmologists have explained the origin of that speck from which arose all that materially is. As well, where did the energy for the expansion implicit in the Big Bang Theory come from? The experts are silent. As well, what if light begins to slow down in infinite space? Will that not solve a few current problems? And so on. The Big Bang Theory is surely only a theoretical working model, being modified (as I understand it) continuously.

As Carl Sagan said sagely, ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’! While operational scientists keep searching, there are some freethinkers among them. Their speculations go way beyond the available material, offering insights which may lead to investigations in very different directions. For example, Ludwig van Bertalanffy ‘noted that one should look beyond the facade of structure to the process underlying structure to understand the true essence of living systems … he taught that an organism’s explicit order is the visible manifestation of its apparent implicit order’ (LaViolette). Since other writers have also referred to this metaphysical concept, there may be hope of a more comprehensive paradigm being formulated.

In contrast, when I referred to my belief (and to some evidence) in reincarnation, a fellow blogger offered to prove that reincarnation is not! Then there are those, like Prof. Dawkins, an eminent scientist, who claim that there is no universal God. What certainty! Is that anything more than a belief? Where is their proof? Yet, there are very insistent people attacking anyone who believes in a Creator.

In the ‘olden days’ it was some highly-skilled protectors of the ruling paradigm in science who might attack anyone suggesting a divergent approach. Now, democracy rules; no knowledge is needed, only an asserted right to close down any open discussion of beliefs which can be neither proven nor disproven. Can there be no place for a range of beliefs to co-exist?