Confusing cosmologies; competing theologies

There are eminent Western scientists whose cosmologies exclude God as Creator. One insists repeatedly that there is no God. How could he know that? Another claims that there is no need for God. He believes that everything in the Cosmos has been explained through the prevailing mechanistic material paradigm. What faith!

Fortunately, there are Western scientists of renown who are either agnostic or who indeed believe in a non-materialistic Creator. After all the affirmation and protestations have been made, it seems to me that many of the speculative conclusions of science are little different from the beliefs of the major religions – they are capable of neither proof nor disproof (but are worthy of consideration).

Leaving aside ego-driven defences of personally-held religious beliefs, or an insecurity-driven attack on alternative beliefs, one might need to ask why some of the dogma set up by historical leaders of the major religions are not now being moderated in the light of advanced thinking. In this context, I note that ‘limbo’ has been dispensed with. What about getting rid of hell, and the imagined Satan? Is all past writing sacred? How so? Or, is there some method of screening those which are claimed to be sacred?

In truth, how about less religious dogma – which divides humanity – in favour in more faith that we humans, having been co-created, are bonded to one another; and that there is really no need for any competition as to the cart in which we travel to that desired destination? And would it matter as to which track we take (or are on), since – like all (or most) rivers ending in the sea or ocean – all our tracks will ultimately end at that desired destination?

These are much nicer beliefs, more in keeping with the kind of Creator we think we have!