In this blog I will be trying to get to the truth about what is really important in life, and to write satirically about what is not - all in my quest for The Stuff Reality is Made of.
I also write articles on Religion, History, Travel, Flying, Philosophy, Physics, Meta Physics, Natural History. Mathematics and Psychology.
You can also read my religious articles on our Christian website at www.whatafriend.co.za
God and Science – a lecture –
by P.K. Odendaal – August 2016.
(partially rewritten 27 August 2016)
I have been asked to give a lecture on the topic ‘God and Science’ by
someone from the University of the Third Age – also called U3A. Of course I
will jump at such an opportunity, as I am also actively involved in the
University of All Ages at … you guessed it, my blog.
Typically, with me and my big mouth, I told the person that he is asking
me to only speak on one subject, and that is God, and that the words ‘God and
Science’ is a repetition of objects or subjects.
And so, I will immediately jump into the deep end, whilst realizing that
my audience wants it straight and simple, with no strings attached.
Firstly, what are we talking about?
In my view there are two sciences, the one with God as the fundamental
driver and the other one a godless one - the delusion of modern atheistic
scientists that God does not exist or cannot be proven in this domain - and
these sciences differ fundamentally. It is like we are driving a
technologically advanced motor car whilst we deny that it was manufactured by
If we say God is Love, we can also say God is Science, as God is
everything, in everyone and everywhere. In short, God is the creator of the
Scheme of Things and He is the Scheme of Things Himself. If follows logically
that if God created everything, then He also created Himself and that He is in
Let me explain.
Axioms are statements or facts which we accept as being true without
having proven them, because they are not provable in our domain of reality. We
think they are intuitively true, and we have not found evidence that they are
not true. We might find discrepancies in their application here and there, and
then we go back to basics and see whether we have not made an error of
deduction or induction somewhere, as we believe steadfastly that our axiom is
true, rather than the deductions and inductions we make from them.
If we want to believe in God, we only have to believe in ONE axiom, and
that is that God exists. That is called a belief system. There are many belief
systems, of which Science is one, but the belief system in God is the only one
which needs only one axiom. The deductions we make from that simple and basic
axiom is that God can create things, He can converse with His creation on any
level, He can influence it and he can maintain it. Nothing more and nothing
The axioms of Science are manifold, and it is also a belief system. We
might start with counting, but before we can count, we first need to believe in
five axioms which are:
·We think therefore we are.
·In our thinking, there exists a system of integers
which we use to count.
·There is a concept of adding which consists of adding the
integer one to our previous deduced integer value.
·The integer One plus One is the integer Two and so on.
·Things that are equal to each other are the same.
OK, now only we are ready to count … or are we?
The fact is that there are an infinite number of axioms we need to
believe in, to be able to start to count, and nowhere is it more ably
demonstrated than by Lewis Carroll in his dialogue written about 120 years ago,
between Tortoise and Achilles, which I quote here:
Lewis Carroll, "What the Tortoise Said to
Achilles," Mind 4, No. 14 (April 1895): 278-280.
Achilles had overtaken the Tortoise, and had seated
himself comfortably on its back.
"So you've got to the end of our
race-course?" said the Tortoise. "Even though it does consist of an
infinite series of distances? I thought some wiseacre or other had proved that
the thing couldn't be done?"
"It can be done," said Achilles. "It
has been done! Solvitur ambulando. You see the distances were constantly
diminishing; and so …"
"But if they had been constantly
increasing?" the Tortoise interrupted "How then?"
"Then I shouldn't be here," Achilles
modestly replied; "and you would have got several times round the world,
by this time!"
"You flatter me -- flatten, I mean" said the
Tortoise; "for you are a heavy weight, and no mistake! Well now, would you
like to hear of a race-course, that most people fancy they can get to the end
of in two or three steps, while it really consists of an infinite number of
distances, each one longer than the previous one?"
"Very much indeed!" said the Grecian
warrior, as he drew from his helmet (few Grecian warriors possessed pockets in
those days) an enormous note-book and a pencil. "Proceed! And speak slowly,
please! Shorthand isn't invented yet!"
"That beautiful First Proposition of
Euclid!" the Tortoise murmured dreamily. "You admire Euclid?"
"Passionately! So far, at least, as one can
admire a treatise that won't he published for some centuries to come!"
"Well, now, let's take a little bit of the
argument in that First Proposition -- just two steps, and the conclusion drawn
from them. Kindly enter them in your notebook. And in order to refer to them
conveniently, let's call them A, B, and Z:
Things that are equal to the same are equal to each other.
The two sides of this Triangle are things that are equal to the same.
(Z) The two sides of this Triangle are equal to each
Readers of Euclid will grant, I suppose, that Z
follows logically from A and B, so that anyone who accepts A and B as true,
must accept Z as true?"
"Undoubtedly! The youngest child in a High School
… as soon as High Schools are invented, which will not be till some two
thousand years later … will grant that."
"And if some reader had not yet accepted A and B
as true, he might still accept the sequence as a valid one, I suppose?"
"No doubt such a reader might exist. He might say
'I accept as true the Hypothetical Proposition that, if A and B be true, Z must
be true; but, I don't accept A and B as true.' Such a reader would do wisely in
abandoning Euclid, and taking to football."
"And might there not also be some reader who
would say 'I accept A and B as true, but I don't accept the Hypothetical
"Certainly there might. He, also, had better take
"And neither of these readers," the Tortoise
continued, "is as yet under any logical necessity to accept Z as
"Quite so," Achilles assented.
"Well, now, I want you to consider me as a reader
of the second kind, and to force me, logically, to accept Z as true."
"A tortoise playing football would be … "
Achilles was beginning
"… an anomaly, of course," the Tortoise
hastily interrupted. "Don't wander from the point. Let's have Z first, and
"I'm to force you to accept Z, am I?"
Achilles said musingly. "And your present position is that you accept A
and B, but you don't accept the Hypothetical …"
"Let's call it C," said the Tortoise. "…
but you don't accept (C) If A and B are true, Z must be true."
"That is my present position," said the
"Then I must ask you to accept C."
"I'll do so," said the Tortoise, "as
soon as you've entered it in that note-book of yours. What else have you got in
"Only a few memoranda," said Achilles,
nervously fluttering the leaves: "a few memoranda of … of the battles in
which I have distinguished myself!"
"Plenty of blank leaves, I see!" the
Tortoise cheerily remarked. "We shall need them all!" (Achilles
shuddered.) "Now write as I dictate:
Things that are equal to the same are equal to each other.
The two sides of this Triangle are things that are equal to the same.
If A and B are true, Z must be true.
(Z) The two sides of this Triangle are equal to each
"You should call it D, not Z," said
Achilles. "It comes next to the other three. If you accept A and B and C,
you must accept Z."
"And why must I?"
"Because it follows logically from them. If A and
B and C are true, Z must be true. You don't dispute that, I imagine?"
"If A and B and C are true, Z must he true,"
the Tortoise thoughtfully repeated. "That's another Hypothetical, isn't
it? And, if I failed to see its truth, I might accept A and B and C', and still
not accept Z. mightn't I?"
"You might," the candid hero admitted;
"though such obtuseness would certainly be phenomenal. Still, the event is
possible. So I must ask you to grant one more Hypothetical."
"Very good. I'm quite willing to grant it, as
soon as you've written it down. We will call it:
(D) If A and B and C are true, Z must be true.
"Have you entered that in your notebook?"
"I have!" Achilles joyfully exclaimed, as he
ran the pencil into its sheath. "And at last we've got to the end of this
ideal race-course! Now that you accept A and B and C and D, of course you
"Do I?" said the Tortoise innocently.
"Let's make that quite clear. I accept A and B and C and D. Suppose I
still refused to accept Z?"
"Then Logic would force you to do it!"
Achilles triumphantly replied. "Logic would tell you 'You can't help
yourself. Now that you've accepted A and B and C and D, you must accept Z!' So
you've no choice, you see."
"Whatever Logic is good enough to tell me is
worth writing down," said the Tortoise. "So enter it in your book,
please. We will call it
(E) If A and B and C and D are true, Z must be true.
Until I've granted that, of course I needn't grant Z. So it's quite a necessary
step, you see?"
"I see," said Achilles; and there was a
touch of sadness in his tone.
Here narrator, having pressing business at the Bank,
was obliged to leave the happy pair, and did not again pass the spot until some
months afterwards. When he did so, Achilles was still seated on the back of the
much-enduring Tortoise, and was writing in his note-book, which appeared to be
nearly full. The Tortoise was saying, "Have you got that last step written
down? Unless I've lost count, that makes a thousand and one. There are several
millions more to come. And would you mind, as a personal favour, considering
what a lot of instruction this colloquy of ours will provide for the Logicians
of the Nineteenth Century -- would you mind adopting a pun that my cousin the
Mock-Turtle will then make, and allowing yourself to be re-named
"As you please!" replied the weary warrior,
in the hollow tones of despair, as he buried his face in his hands.
"Provided that you, for your part, will adopt a pun the Mock-Turtle never
made, and allow yourself to be re-named A Kill-Ease!"
The generally delusional model of Science that Science is fact and God
is faith or fiction, is totally incorrect and irrelevant, but it soothes the
consciences of atheists. A more correct saying would be that God is based on
one axiom and Science on an infinite number of axioms.
It is so that we need to
start any investigation or hypothesis from first principles. If we do that then
we need the minimum number of axioms. In the example above of counting, we
skipped thousands of more basic axioms, with the result that we now need an
infinite collection of axioms.
WHERE DOES SCIENCE GO WRONG?
I need to understand why
people think God and Science are two different things and why they think the
two differ or are incompatible.
On reflection, I came to the
conclusion that science has four serious shortcomings or impediments and they
are glaring inconsistencies which everybody except scientists can or want to see.
Science, mainly Physics, is
very limited and really a miniscule part of God and Creation, of life, of reality
and of the total realm of physics and metaphysics.
Science is about a thing
called matter, a substance so volatile that it is difficult to even get to a
definition of matter. It takes on many forms like heat, light, solids, steam,
ice, radiation and many more. Just to study it when you can see it is futile.
Therefore we have a word for things which are not physical, so to speak, and we
call it metaphysics. The physics part of the universe is but a very small
fraction of the universe and is orders of magnitude smaller than the
It is similar to the idea of
the subdivision of the personality of a human into three parts which are not
brain or physical: the Id, the Ego and the Superego, which corresponds with the
various structures in the mind. The graphic below shows it clearly - with
apologies to Ali Oztas.
It shows that, like physics,
of which the largest part is metaphysics, the unconscious mind is immensely
larger than the conscious part.
Now what is really
interesting about this graphic is the following (strictly my own thoughts):
If we turn this graphic
upside down, it represents the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil – and it then
also has the form of a tree.
·The lowest part
coloured in white is the basic consciousness and knowledge of mankind since
creation. In that scenario Adam and Even knew God, knew who they were and they
knew where they came from and where they were going
·The second part
which becomes tainted is the knowledge we have gained from the Tree of
Knowledge, and it is due to the exertions of our own ego and super ego because
we wanted to acquire that knowledge, contrary to the wishes of God that we
should not eat from that tree. The result of this is that mankind forgot who
God was, who they were, where they were and where they were going and that is
why we call that predicament one of being lost.
·The next level or
the Id section is what was previously called mystical knowledge, later
philosophy and lately meta-physics. Instead of mankind going back to basics in
the white part to find themselves, they entered the uncharted domain of the
spirit to do that and got even more lost. One can hear echoes of this in the
words of God in Gen 1: ‘And there was light’ to the words of Jesus Christ in
John 1: ‘I am the light’.
·It is thus my
view that a search for God is a search in the conscious domain, not in the
If we return to basics we can
say that as god fearing creatures we started our knowledge from the lower tip
of that tree and Adam and Eve at first knew and saw God. However, later they
and we were shielded from His knowledge and holiness when we became sinful. In
the latter event we have to start a a point which is the simple axiom that God
However, scientists of today
disregard that and start at the interface of the conscious mind and the Ego and
Superego. At this interface knowledge has increased such that they cannot rely
on the simple first axiom, but now have to rely on an infinite amount of axioms
as a basis for their growth upwards in the tree of knowledge, and our saying of
barking up the wrong tree is so apt, because instead of barking up the Tree of
Life, they are barking up the Tree of Knowledge. Barking is such an apt word
for the bark of the tree which shields them from its inner secrets. It was not
supposed to be a pun.
For scientist now to pretend
that their science is all important and pervasive is just plainly arrogant and
The adage about knowledge in
their field is quite apt: they learn more and more of less and less until they
know everything of nothing … and here is the rub … they do not even know what
Scientists generally are not
interested in the Maker of the universe and pretend He does not exist. They
believe the entropy of the universe decreases with time and that animate things
change in a random way to evolve over millennia into something beautiful and
profound like we observe it, despite their own (proven) axiom that the entropy
of the Universe in fact increases with time. That is what I call the Darwinian
Delusion, named after the prophet they venerate.
Here is my take on their
Excerpt from a
scientific treatise of the year 3000 A.D.: Scientist have discovered a new
strain of Ford Mobilis, a metallic form of life, which has evolved over millennia.
The first Fords were of the Model T strain and have evolved over years due to
genetic variation and mutation pressure into the later fossils of Ford Mustangs
and later to Ford Mobilis. The fossil record is quite abundant except for
strains which might have existed before the Model T, but scientists think of it
as a gap or missing link between this and the Horse Cart found elsewhere in
excavations. It is postulated that these creatures could walk, talk and
think, as they appear widely spread over planet Earth, and some could even talk
to humans by a process now known as voice synthesis and artificial
intelligence. The brain found in this specie consists of flat ceramic plates
covered with silicon bits or bytes – not intended to be a pun- which also
invigorated the central nervous system.
Observations in science are
affected by the presence of the observer, and especially so in nuclear or
particle physics. A good example of that is what we read in the newspaper every
day. A liberal thinker will interview many people in a town and ask them what
they think of the mayor of that town. After hundreds of these interviews they
will select the liberal comments and disregard the others. A conservative
journalist will do the same and only publish the conservative views - and so
readers will have two very divergent and skew views of that ruler or of those townsfolk,
because the observers influenced the outcome of this survey. This is what science
does, because everything which does not support the Darwinian Delusion is of
necessity false and incorrect.
The scientific fact is that the
observer effects the outcome of the observation is some way as described
partially by the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.
How does this play out in
Scientists are looking to
find the source of gravity in the Higgs Boson particle, and they will never
find it. It is like looking for a traffic jam in the glove compartment of a car
or even more ludicrous it is like dissecting the human heart to find where
love is seated. I can never be.
Let us ponder this for a
minute to see how delusional they are.
They say that the first
appearance of physical matter in the Universe was pre-empted by an explosion
called the Big Bang which was an explosion of high energy light – devoid of
matter. Yes, we God fearing people knew that three millennia earlier when God
said in Gen.1:3 Let there be light and there was
If we believe them and God
that the beginning of everything was just light, then gravity cannot be in a
particle, because it was gravity which exploded and contracted the Universe
before any particles were formed.
There is no other logical way
than to accept the axiom that the forces were part and parcel of the light in
the beginning and that none of these forces can dwell or be seated in anything
physical or material.
If that is so, we might find
fault with the present view that light is deflected around solid bodies due to
the discontinuity or warping of space-time and that it is the solid body’s
influence which has pushes the light away whilst gravity should have pulled it
in. It could rather be forces which are inherent in the light, as we know they
are, otherwise how can we explain the phenomena of interference and diffraction
of light by the present theory of wave superposition without taking the
electromagnetic forces inherent in the light into consideration. Why can’t we
have only one theory for the nature of light?
Just for clarity these forces
are: the force of Gravity, the Electro-magnetic force, the Weak Nuclear force,
the Strong Nuclear force and Love, the biggest force of all.
I have not touched on emotions, which are also very strong forces, and
which may be paired with Love.
If you think that the worst thing which can happen to mankind is that a
nuclear bomb can kill a million of us, you have not come to the beginning of
Today, one statesman on this planet can destroy all of mankind – a few
billion - by hatred, jealousy and a display of power by an arsenal of physical
weapons too big to contemplate.
And what about this catastrophe: Six thousand years ago, an angel
destroyed and killed the whole of mankind, even those who were not born yet, by
the smallest arsenal imaginable – that of jealousy!
WHAT IS THE CHALLENGE TODAY?
I wish to learn from the past.
Science is alive and well and is living inside us, but only the Science
which has God and a working knowledge of Him at its foundation - not an
atheistic scientific approach which has no fundamental basis. In the latter you
may have knowledge, but it will be restricted. That is only the knowledge from
the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The other name for this tree is
Philosophy and Science. We rather need the knowledge of another tree in that
Garden, the Tree of Life.
If I have a look at the history of August Kekulé below, I am more
convinced than ever that the pursuit of science without the pursuit of God is
The challenge we have today is the ability of mankind to count, but on a
very different level than the one I mentioned in my opening paragraphs. It is
known as putting two and two together.
Who could put two and two together? I give you a few examples – the three
examples of excellence beyond our normal train of thought – and the first one
inspired by God.
The new understanding of benzene, and hence of all aromatic compounds,
proved to be so important for both pure and applied chemistry after 1865 that
in 1890 the German Chemical Society organized an elaborate appreciation in
Kekulé's honor, celebrating the twenty-fifth anniversary of his first benzene
paper. Here Kekulé spoke of the creation of the theory. He said that he had
discovered the ring shape of the benzene molecule after having a reverie or
day-dream of a snake seizing its own tail This vision, he said, came to him
after years of studying the nature of carbon-carbon bonds.
Eratosthenes (276-195 B.C).
He was the Chief Librarian at the Library of Alexandria. One day he read
in one of the parchments the simple remark that at local noon on the summer
solstice in Syene, the columns made no shadow. Just that … short and simple.
Most of us would have glanced over it and gone on to something more trivial or
He argued that if the columns in Alexandria at that exact time also made
no shadows, then the earth would be flat, otherwise the earth would be round.
On that certain day, he observed that the columns in Alexandria did make
shadows. He hired a person to measure the distances between the two towns with
a stade, and with the result he calculated the circumference of the earth which
was only about 10% in error. Remarkable!
He discovered the Laws of Gravity by putting two and two together. At
the time Johannes Kepler was working on the movements of the planets and
formulated his three Laws of Planetary Motion, which are still valid today.
However, he did not know why those orbits were ellipses.
On the other side of the Channel in England, John Flamsteed was
Astronomer Royal and had the most accurate and elaborate catalogue of 3000
stars, but he did not know what to do with it.
Newton read the article by Kepler, got the catalogue from John Flamsteed
(after a fight) and formulated the Laws of Gravity, which are still valid
Edwin Hubble was working on the expansion, contraction and size of the
Universe. He knew about Doppler who formulated the theory of the frequency
shift of sound waves relative to moving objects.
He argued that the same frequency shift should be observable in light
waves. Finding its manifestation in the colour of stars, he calculated the size
of the known Universe. WE do not know how accurate that is. Remarkable!
You and I can also apply our mind and put two and two together in a new
game of Hide and Seek which transcends the short sightedness of scientists.
AN ODE TO GOD.
For a mere mortal like me, and a very ignorant one at that, I can make
no other rational deductions than God had created Himself. It is therefore with
humility and wonder that I composed this Ode to God:
O, wondrous God, what happened on the instant you made yourself?
There were no mountains to tremble or thunders to rejoice,
There was no human or angel to bow before and adore you,
Yet the greatest miracle of all was born
without a sigh.
Where did you get your raw materials from and on which blue print did
Where did you suffer pain and grief to become so deeply human and
Through which fire did you go to temper your love and mercy?
Where did sin try to attach itself to
you, that you learned the art of forgiveness?
In which caverns were you born, in the absence of a manger?
And who burned sweet incense to you in adoration?
Did you think of Adam then already, and was your desire for a friend so
That you risked the fall of your Kingdom
for the sake of man.
Which darkness and voids did you meet when you opened your eyes?
And did your light illuminate the deepest chasms ever found?
Did the forces of nature combine in your being, with the beauty that
Or were they nestled in your being waiting for their birth?