Straight Talk on Everyday Mysteries

By Queena N. Lee-Chua

A compilation of two years’ worth of questions and answers on math, science, history, poetry, and geography—topics that do not usually interest the young.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Anvil Publishing, Inc.
• Release date: Nov 29, 2017
• ISBN: 9786214201273

Book preview

C H A P T E R      1

fact or fantasy

CAN SCIENCE PROVE THE

EXISTENCE OF GOD?

(18 November 1995, 3 February 1996)

S cience and religion have long been posited as foes, with advocates of both camps claiming a monopoly on truth, or whatever version of truth they have come up with. I believe these two can be reconciled—indeed, they should never have become antagonists in the first place.

J. Galido of Goodrich Village, Concepcion, Marikina, writes:

I have been reading your column Eureka ever since it came out in the Inquirer. I am always fascinated with science, especially astronomy. I would like to ask you a few questions:

1. Can science prove the existence of God?

I don’t think so. Believing in God’s existence requires faith and is not a conjecture to be proven in a systematic, step-by-step fashion. Granted, medieval philosophers such as St. Thomas Aquinas and modern scientists like Roger Penrose have tried doing so from (seemingly) logical proofs or mathematical equations. They may have succeeded in their own framework, but I doubt that their proof would convince an atheist or agnostic. Some have argued that the beauty of creation itself is evidence of God’s handiwork (a view that Einstein is said to have held), but that hardly constitutes a rigorous proof. I believe in God—science for me reinforces that belief, but it does not prove God’s existence.

2. Is there any evidence or proof (aside from the big bang theory) that will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that God truly exists?

Let us analyze once again what the big bang theory actually says. According to this scenario, 15 billion years ago, all matter in the universe was concentrated into a very dense and confined point. Expanding astronomically, this point exploded and released enormous heat and high-energy radiation. For hundreds of millions of years, the radiation was still so potent that no atoms could be formed. As the universe continued expanding, this energy dissipated. With the drop in temperature, nuclei and electrons formed atoms; atoms, gasses; gasses, clouds; clouds, galaxies and stars and planets. Thus, 10.4 billion years after the big bang, our solar system came to be, and 2 billion years later, the first glimmerings of life appeared.

The big bang scenario is a well-researched theory of how the universe came to be, but it does not really prove beyond any doubt that God exists. I prefer to believe though that God was the initiator of the big bang (the Prime Mover, according to some philosophers).

3. Do all scientists today still believe in the Holy Bible, especially in the many miracles written there?

In the first place, not all the scientists are Christians. Furthermore, some profess to be atheists or agnostics. As for Christian scientists, not all believe literally in the miracles of the Bible. For instance, they believe Adam and Eve to be metaphors for man and woman and not actual people. (The prevailing scientific view of our first human ancestor zeroes in on a woman, the so-called Eve who came from Africa.)

Noah and his ark, Jonah and the whale, and such stories are regarded by a lot of people (even non-scientists) not as literal historical accounts but as parables used to illustrate God’s care and providence, justice and mercy.

But I believe (and tend to think that many scientists share this belief) that several miracles in the Bible, especially those done by Jesus Christ, are actual miracles. Scientists have been trying to explain these miracles and have come up with convincing theories, but I feel that these do not detract from the validity of the miracles.

4. Do you truly believe that the Holy Bible is an accurate history and also a science almanac?

No. Some events are historical, some are not. Unfortunately, some people (scientists included) still believe that the Bible is a scientific treatise. Foremost among them are the opponents of the big bang theory, the creationists. Mostly white southern-state American fundamentalists, creationists claim that the Genesis story is the factual account of creation, that the big bang is the false, and that Darwinian evolution is satanic. For example, they believe archbishop Usher’s contention that the universe was created in six days, at 4004 B.C. (This makes the earth only a few thousand years old, but counterevidence is overwhelming. Estimates of the age of trees, periods of continental drift, magnetic pole reversals, and radioactive dating all show that the age of the universe is several million times that claimed by the creationists.)

In 1925, in Dayton, Tennessee, John Scopes was found guilty teaching evolution in a public school and was fined $100. As late as 1981, Arkansas and other states had laws requiring equal classroom time for creation science and evolutionary science. It was only in 1982 that the U.S. Supreme Court declared the laws unconstitutional.

5. Is our existence due to random chance or by supernatural design?

Perhaps the most popular physicist alive today, Stephen Hawking, author of the international bestseller A Brief History of Time; prefers not to believe in an omniscient supernatural being. However much I admire him, I beg to differ on this one. I believe that human existence is too wonderful to be left to chance alone. There must be a god creating and sustaining all of us.

Postscript: Everytime I write about God and science, on such topics as evolution, the big bang, creationism, and whatnot, I get such a deluge of mail that I have since stopped responding personally to every Bible-quoter who uses verses to question my faith and scientific knowledge. Still, a seven-page, single-spaced typewritten letter by J. B. S. of San Roque, Marikina, intrigued me so much (because of the lengthy verbatim quotes from many of my favorite science books) that I had to reply. Here then, J. B. S., is my response to your clarifications: (J. B. S.’s words are in italics.)

I read your column and I was surprised at some of the answers that you gave to Mr. Galido in explaining about the existence of God and the Holy Bible. Please allow me to correct you and give you the real facts about the Holy Bible and some of the things written in it with regards to the questions sent by Mr. Galido.

1. Can science prove the existence of God?

I think so.

J. B. S. then names Einstein’s general theory of relativity, Hawking’s beginning of time theory, and Paley’s watchmaker argument to show that there must be a maker beyond space and time. J. B. S. states, It is valid to refer to such a source, entity, or being as the Creator, for creating is defined as causing something—in this case everything in the universe—to come into existence… it is valid to refer to the Creator as transcendent, for the act of causing these effects must take place outside or independent of them. No argument here, J. B. S., I couldn’t have said it better myself! But please, refer to my original article where I stated, Stephen Hawking… prefers not to believe in an omniscient supernatural being. However much I admire him, I beg to differ on this one. I believe that human existence is too wonderful to be left to chance alone. There must be a God creating and sustaining all of us.

However, proof means incontrovertible proof, and this science cannot give. (Remember what an experiment is: hypothesis, procedure, results, and conclusion.) Science depends on experiments, and in this case, no experiment can replicate the origins of the universe. The physicists you quote marvel at the beauty of the universe and take that to be evidence that God exists. I happen to take the same position, but that is not proof. That is as I said before, believing in God’s existence requires faith and is not a conjecture. to be proven in a systematic, step-by-step fashion, Scientists and philosophers have tried, but have succeeded only in their own framework. I believe in God. Science for me reinforces that belief, but it does not prove God’s existence.

2. Is there any evidence or proof that will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that God truly exists?

There are many evidence or proof [sic] that will prove beyond doubt that God truly exists. I will just mention some the evidence or proof needed because it will take at least 10 more bond papers to discuss everything and also due to lack of time.

J. B. S. then goes on to explain the universe’s expansion rate, age, and entropy; the ratio of the electromagnetic force to gravity; mass density of the universe; and so forth. Here I am delighted to see that there are people who actually read science books in enough detail to quote from them (good for you, J.B.S.!).

J. B. S.’s case echoes the famous anthropic principle, which goes: What are the chances that the universe will be created in such and such a way, the earth with such and such an atmosphere, man in such and such a form—in order to sustain life? Of course, the triumphant answer is always one in a quadrillion quintillion! (One example J. B. S, quotes—which I also regularly relate to my students—is the number of electrons being equivalent to the number of protons to an accuracy of one part in 1037, or else the universe would not have been formed.)

However, enamored I am with these numbers, they do not constitute a rigorous scientific proof of God’s existence. I have a copy of Barrow and Tipler’s Anthropic Principle on my shelf, and after having read its more than seven hundred pages two years ago, I am left with a sense of awe and wonder and gratitude (to God, for having created this world and me in it). Still, no matter how many analogies the physicists and astronomers have provided, an incontrovertible proof still does not exist—and may never be possible.

J. B. S. quotes George Greenstein from The Symbiotic Universe (one of my favorite books) As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural tendency—or rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providently crafted the cosmos for our benefit?

I happen to believe so. And so do you, of course. But I leave it to other readers to decide whether the passage above constitutes irrefutable proof of God’s existence.

3. Do all scientists today still believe in the Holy Bible, especially in the many miracles written there?

I disagree with you when you said that Noah and his ark, Jonah and the whale are regarded not as literal historical accounts because there are many evidence [sic] that will support what the Holy Bible has written.

J. B. S. then uses historians and cultural anthropologists to point to evidence of a universal deluge. For one thing, I am not saying that there was no flood—in fact, there may have been not one flood but several floods, as postulated by Stephen Gould, an eminent paleontologist. What I am unsure about is whether there really was a man named Noah who really took all those animals into his ark.

I am also skeptical about the evidence J. B. S. puts forth, especially about the ark being on Mount Ararat. He writes, There has been many eyewitness accounts of different people from the 1800s up to the present. There was even a ground expedition sent by Czar Nicholas II in the summer of 1917. There are also aerial sightings of the ark including American pilots from NATO but the most intriguing of all are secret photo missions over Mount Ararat narrated by Dr. Walter Brown in 1974, a retired U.S. Air Force colonel, [who] was summoned to the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in Langley, Virginia. There he was debriefed by the highest CIA officials on all he knew about Noah’s ark on Mount Ararat. The CIA indicated they were making a study of the ark, but did not disclose the reason behind the study. There is more, but you get the drift.

My only comment here is that I am disappointed. After having used science (albeit scientific musings) to answer me in the first two questions, J. B. S. now uses pseudoscience. Since when did an Air Force colonel qualify as a scientist?

J. B. S. goes on, "And as for Jonah and the whale, there is also no doubt that it really happened just as the Bible wrote it. To prove to you that this is also fact, there is a documented case about a British sailor named James Bartley who was swallowed by a whale. His astonishing story is told by records of the British admiralty and it happened in 1888 board [a board] [on board]. The Star of the East which is a whaling vessel. The captain and the doctor, as well as the crew, signed a paper testifying to the fact that he had spent more than eighteen hours in the belly of a whale, and has survived."

Come on, J. B. S.! You know better than to use a single-case account as irrefutable proof!

4. Do you truly believe that the Holy Bible is an accurate history and a science almanac?

Again the answer is Yes. First, as a science almanac, the Bible has many verses that contains many scientific information. I will just mention some of the verses and its up to you to look it up in the Bible.

Verses listed include Isaiah 40:22 on the roundness of the earth, Jeremiah 33:22 on the number of stars exceeding the billions, 1 Corinthians 15:41 on each star being different, and so on. J. B. S. lists 15 verses and promises many more.

Lifting and quoting Bible verses whichever way to prove one’s faith is irksome—doing the same thing to prove science is even worse. I will stoop with just one example: The passage from Isaiah about the shape of the earth is debatable—J. B. S. takes it as proof of a round earth; others think it is proof that the ancient Hebrews thought the earth was flat.

Science writer Robert Schadewald expounds, God sits throned on the vaulted roof of earth, whose inhabitants are like grasshoppers’ (Isaiah 40:21–22). He also walks to and fro on the vault of heaven (Job 22:14), which vault is hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18). The roof of the sky has windows (Genesis 7:12) that God can open to let the waters above fall to the earth as rain. Daniel saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth… reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth’s farthest bounds (Daniel 4:10–11). Such visibility would not be possible on a spherical earth, but might be expected if the earth were flat.

I dislike answering Biblical quotes by other Biblical quotes, but in this case I have no choice. I am not making fun of the whole idea, but I am trying to show that anyone can quote the Bible to prove his or her point.

J. B. S. again uses ancient cuneiform tablets, archaeological sites, linguistic findings, etc. to bolster the veracity of Sodom and Gomorrah, Moses and the Red Sea and the Tower of Babel. The evidence he gives appear in creationism books and in Reader’s Digest texts.

What can I say about all this? Your guess is as good as mine, J. B. S., but again, none count as irrefutable evidence, for the reasons given earlier. As for your assertion that Not a single scientific fact or discovery has ever disproven a Biblical statement—well, it depends on whether you take the Bible literally. But we are going back to the previous argument, aren’t we? Perhaps the last thing I want to say about this subject is this: get hold of Scientists Confront Creationism, edited by Laurie R. Godfrey, published by W. W. Norton, 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10110.

God bless you, too.

CYCLES OF TIME

(20 January 1996)

O m Shanti! (Greetings of Peace!) I am an avid reader of your column Eureka in Inquirer. I am a practitioner of RajaYoga meditation of the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (BKWSU) for three years now. I would like to share with you some information on the cyclical pattern of time. It is a philosophy of the BKWSU. I am interested to know your comments on the mathematical equations and the philosophy itself.

-P.R., Brahma Kumaris Meditation Center,

San Antonio Village Makati

I find much to admire in your program. At least based on what is stated in your brochure, especially the practical results: increased concentration, creativity and efficiency; harmony in relationships and [overcoming] negative habits, peace of mind. Indeed, the benefits of meditation have been documented here and abroad, and I doubt that many would dispute such results.

As for enhancing spirituality, I also believe that yoga is one of the paths to it. The fundamental universal spiritual principles you have set forth are also enunciated in world religions. For instance, See all others with love as your brothers and sisters. Do not see the form, the face or the personality; see only the shining star, the pure soul in the center of the forehead seems to be a reinstatement of a Christian commandment. (The location of the soul, however, is perhaps a matter forever unknown. Aristotle thought long ago that the soul lay in the pineal gland, others thought it lay in the heart. Many biologist prefer wisely, I think to stay out of the fray.) Begin each day in silence, so that the influence of the Supreme Being is felt throughout the day is an injunction many practitioners have taken to heart through the centuries. Witness the Trappists and other monks who practice silence to this day.

It is using math to prove the cyclical nature of time that I take issue with. I have reviewed the equations in the World Renewal article and have concluded that though the use of combinatorics (the number of ways the entities can occupy the slot) is mathematically correct, the basic premises are erroneous. The article starts by assuming that time can be divided into chunks and that the chunks can be arranged in several orders—and to prove this, combinatorics is used (we call this circular reasoning, assuming something erroneous and using the conclusion to prove itself).

As I stress to the students in my Star Trek class (many of whom are time travel buffs), time is linear, however much we may not like it. Going back in time is impossible; going into the future is improbable. As for cyclical time, there has been as yet no scientific proof in its favor and lots against it. (The modern field of chaos theory is perhaps one of the most powerful indictments against it.)

Am I saying that the theory of reincarnation and past lives is false? No, much as I cannot say that Christ’s resurrection and Mary’s assumption are scientifically true. I believe that these beliefs belong to the realm of faith, and before it, science can (and should) stand mute.

But the same thing holds for religion: faith in its dogmas and doctrines may be essential, but scientific principles should not be used to justify such faith. Those two worlds are separate (though integration is healthy), and proponents who use tenets from one to support themselves or discredit others do both fields a great disservice.

ANTIGRAVITY?

(14 October 1995)

W  hat is antigravity? Can we see it?

-P. Liu, Tondo, Manila

Antigravity is a term used to denote objects defying—well, gravity. Right now, it exists only in science fiction novels and movies. But if you want to see it at work, try the following experiment (courtesy of the whiz kids behind the Exploratorium in San Francisco):

Get a kitchen funnel and a ping-pong ball. Put the small ends of the funnel to your mouth and blow steadily straight down. Before you run out of breath, stick the ball into the wide end of the funnel. Remove your hand. What happens?

The ball does not fall down! Amazing! An antigravity wind funnel!

How does this work? More than 200 years ago, the Swiss physicist Daniel Bernoulli stated: A flowing fluid, or gas, will lower the barometric pressure of the area it occupies. The faster it flows, the lower the pressure.

Huh? What does this really mean? If you blow, your breath will suck surrounding gases or fluids, creating an area of low pressure (if the word pressure confuses you, try crowded: it means almost the same thing—an empty or non-crowded light-rail transit bus, for instance, is a bus of "low people pressure"). Of course, other objects rush in to fill the space (witness the LRT buses at rush hour, when the doors open at a station.) In this case, the object is a ping-pong ball.

Just be careful not to swallow the ball.

BERMUDA TRIANGLE INTRIGUE

(15 February 1997)

W  hat really is the mystery of the Bermuda Triangle?

-C. Lasam, Andrews Village, Caritan, Tuguegarao, Cagayan

I think that the so-called mystery of the Bermuda Triangle is as convincing as UFOs and Atlantis—not impossible, but highly improbable. It has often been said that ships and planes travelling over this particular area west of Florida (near Bahamas) just disappear! The most celebrated case was that of Flight 19, which took off on 5 December 1945 and mysteriously disappeared. The most sensible explanation might just be engine failure. I took a flight over the Bermuda Triangle five years ago—and I’m still here, answering your inquiry.

I had