Let me begin by saying that no one alive today can offer a complete proof as to whether or not God exists.  I was once at a talk where a philosophy professor proved the existence of a higher power.  Of course, his proof was based on a number of assumptions.

 

Who is God, and what role does He play in this Universe?  It is a philosophical question, and one well worth pondering.  As with most other thought-provoking questions to which there are no clear answers, the answer most parents would provide for their children is based on faith.  Many parents today will give an equally truthful response: “I don’t know.”

 

Still, man’s ability to observe the Universe, and make deductions based on what he finds, places him in a unique position.  Above all else, it is this unique skill combined with our insatiable curiosity that sets us apart from other animals.  Well, that, and we use rolls of soft tissue to clean our butts when we poop.

First, let us examine the things God does not play a role in.  The list, as it turns out, is a very long one.  God did not create the economy or the businesses that affect it.  He did not create the legal system, and God knows He did not create politics.  He did not create the education or healthcare systems (although I wish to God He had).  Philosophy and language are man-made, as is our recollection of the past, known as history.   The moral code is unofficial, but was certainly not created by God.  The music we hear, the paintings we see, and the films we watch are all made by human artists (of course, bird's sing beautifully, some elephants can paint, and most monkeys could produce a better film than "The Santa Clause").

 

God did not create poverty, hunger, or sadness, just as he did not create wealth, prosperity, or happiness.  God did not create the Earth; He created neither Adam nor Eve.  God did not create religion.

By process of elimination, we can, after some time, narrow down all facets of the Universe, and before long, arrive at a not-so-trivial solution.  Not to toot the horn of the scientific realm, but I have racked my brain for a while, and cannot name anything that God created with the exception of the laws of science and an initial state for the Universe.  Please let me know if I am missing something.

To be clear, God did not create science itself.  Science is man’s construction; it is a rational effort, based on observation and reason, to understand the laws that God created.  Science is an ever-evolving field of study that mankind invests itself in.

 

From my humble point of view, scientific laws and initial conditions form the very short list of what God contributed to the Universe.  All aspects of the Universe occur as a natural consequence of the governing laws and a starting point.  Thousands upon thousands of physicists are currently hard at work to learn about both.

The governing laws may well be summarized by one unified theory.  The holy grail of modern science is to express all of science in one grand equation.  Such an equation would predict, well, everything.  All physical, chemical, and biological occurrences could be verified, even predicted, by such an equation.

 

In parallel, scientists explore what we already know, search for new clues (mostly in the cosmos), and collectively scratch their heads to determine the initial state of the Universe.  Was the big bang the first instant, when time began to tick?  If not, what existed before that?  What was the initial state of the big bang?  In other words, God created the laws of science, but when did He press the animate button, and what did the Universe consist of at that moment?  Professor Stephen Hawking says that God was not required for the big bang to occur, as expansion is inevitable as far as current science tells us.  Perhaps the Universe is in perpetual motion, with no beginning or end.

I must admit, that studying science distanced me from God at first, because it made me question religion.  Now that I realize that religion is man’s invention, the study of science brings me closer to God.  I am studying his creation.

Professor Hawking also says that God does not intervene in the Universe.  Although neither Hawking nor I can prove this, I tend to agree with it.  God’s current role in the Universe, if any, is as a spectator.  I don’t believe that any sea was spontaneously parted for any people, no matter how “chosen” they were. 

At first, to dispel the possibility that a single miracle could occur appears pessimistic.  But, I urge you to take a closer look.

Upon closer inspection, we see that a “no interference” policy in God’s contract leaves us with a compelling choice.  Either nothing is a miracle or everything is a miracle.  I choose the latter.  I see the delicate balance of Earth as a miracle.  I see the evolution of flora and fauna on Earth as a miracle.  There are miracles in each of the stellar constellations as there are in my daughter’s eyes.

I will give thanks to God this holiday season.  I will thank Him for the beautiful Universe He created, and for my family’s modest place within a tiny blue dot within His creation.  I will thank Him for empowering me with the ability to observe and question His creation.

 

One need not choose between evolution and creation.  You can truly have it both ways. 

On June 30, 1905, Albert Einstein proposed that the Universe worked much different than the way anyone alive had supposed it did.  In short, Einstein’s theory of special relativity claims that space and time are not absolute quantities, but are rather malleable, relative scales of measurement.  This astonishing statement, which has not been disproven in the 105 years that have passed since its inception, should boggle your mind unless you have been aware of it for some time.  As I tell my Modern Physics students, if special relativity does not disturb you to the core the first time you hear it, it is because you did not really hear it.  The theory, which has attained law status, goes against everything we observe in our day to day lives.  For this reason, special relativity, which shows that classical physics only applies perfectly to relatively stationary objects, went unnoticed for so long. 

It should be noted that Einstein did not notice that time dilates for two objects moving at relative speeds, he just had a strange intuition that light was special, and wished to understand it better.  His journey towards this understanding required a certain leap of faith.  When Einstein was on this historic path of discovery, he told his friends that he wanted to get inside the head of God, to which they replied, “Could you tell him to pick my 6/49 numbers?"

Special relativity is based on two claims, or postulates, which, at first, seem to be benign enough.  The first states that the laws of physics are the same for all inertial reference frames, and that no one frame is preferred over another.  An inertial reference frame is one that is either still or moves at a constant speed.  This postulate essentially says that the Universe operates the same for all individuals, even if they are moving with respect to one another.  Even though we may experience life in our own unique way, we are all governed by the same rules.  Moreover, everyone’s unique experience of life is equally valid; no point of view is preferred.  The Universe is equitable.

The second postulate is where the big leap of faith occurs.  Einstein made the assumption that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same when measured in any inertial reference frame.  This is a bold statement, which essentially claims that the constancy of the speed of light is a law of physics.  No matter what speed you are moving at, you measure that light whizzes by you at the same 300,000 km/s that it would if you were stationary.  It shows that Einstein loved light, and actually favoured it over space and time.  The compelling truth that emerges when we examine this postulate carefully is that time and space must adjust, or bend accordingly, to allow this apparent anomaly to take place.  His blind faith in the speed of light was surprisingly well-placed – that time and space adjust, or dilate, for objects moving at high speeds has been verified experimentally countless times, and never disproven.

As you warm up to this concept (if you had never heard it before, it will take some time to accept it), let us relate it to the very hot topic of religion (pun intended).  Special relativity has so many philosophical implications.  It states that we all view the world with the same lens, but make different conclusions on it because our reference frame is always unique.  Time and space bend to uniquely wrap around our perspective when we are moving at a specific speed.  Is our perception of time and space correct?  Is it wrong?  It is neither – our perception simply is our perception.  Everyone comes to a unique conclusion about life, since their reference frame is unique.  Our lives exist in the same Universe, and obey all the same rules, yet we observe life differently than the next person.  However, and this is key, no reference frame is preferred; all are equally correct.

The relativity of simultaneity is a direct consequence of special relativity.  It states that to one person that is still, two events can be seen as simultaneous, but to someone moving relative to you, those same two events are observed to have occurred at different times.  Can they both be right?  Yes.  Both viewpoints are correct.  To the stationary person, the events were simultaneous, and to the moving person, they were not.  There is no absolute here, and the same is true about religion.

No one religion is more correct than any other.  There, I said it.  Someone has to.  Person A says that their invisible creator is responsible for their life.  Person B says that the creator is actually some other entity.  Person C says that in fact persons A and B are both wrong, as there are several creators.  Person D says you are all wrong, as the Universe can exist without any creator.  Special relativity argues that all religious beliefs are equally valid.  We all lead a specific life, which leads us to relatively different observations and points of view.  If you accept special relativity, then you must also accept that there can be more than one correct answer or solution to the origins of the Universe. 

Introductory Mathematics leads us to believe that if solution 1 ≠ solution 2, then both cannot be correct.  Yet, the math of special relativity is elegant, and says the opposite is true.  Why?  It is because both solutions correspond to two unique questions.  Religious leaders wish to generalize their respective faiths, as though they should apply verbatim to all others.  What these leaders fail to recognize is that the question for all of their followers is actually unique.  Our personal viewpoint is relative, and thus, so too is the question, “What is life?”  Clearly, the answer should vary from person to person.  If time passes at the same rate for two people, then they are not moving with respect to one another.  In life, we are all set in relative motion with respect to our views on life.  As such, our viewpoints are equally correct, and most importantly, not necessarily transferrable.

In science, we must agree to disagree sometimes.  Two different observations of the same event can be different and also valid if they come from separate perspectives; in fact, they must be.  When Einstein declared that both time and space are relative, the scientific community took some time to accept this possibility.  They eventually came around, and today, use the theory to ensure successful operation of GPS technology among others.  Indeed, the clocks onboard satellites, which move fast compared to the surface of the Earth, are adjusted to tick slightly faster.  It is the only way they can remain synchronised to our clocks on Earth.

The religious community is historically slower to adapt than the scientific community is.  It is not my intention to impact anyone’s religious views.  My hope is that there will come a time when no one tries to impose their religion onto someone else.  Special relativity proves that such efforts are fundamentally flawed.  Religious views should be based on observation and reason, not authority.  Somehow, religious leaders got this one ass backwards. 

You know how some people take offense when their religion is questioned or challenged?  That is how I feel when proven science is ignored.  Special relativity is a case where science encourages open-mindedness for all perspectives.  It offers validity to everyone’s impression.  The most progressive of religions ought to consider implementing George Carlin’s unwritten commandment into their list of life values: “Keep thy religion to thyself.”  I don’t mean that you shouldn’t share your views; I just mean that you must never enforce them.  The distinction between the two is responsible for the vast majority of the ugliness in the world.  I beg of you, that when you make a leap of faith, make one akin to Einstein’s.  Leap from a place of inquisitiveness, not authority.