Dienstag, 1. Oktober 2013

God or Atoms?

Looking up into the sky, different people see different things.

After a whole day spent (not literally) with physicists Stephen W. Hawking and Brian Greene, and biologist Richard Dawkins, one might observe that the arrogance of Science sometimes can be as unjust and stubborn as the arrogance of Religion in its claim of being the Ultimate Truth. And their criticism of people's faith occurs vain and mocking, even arrogant sometimes in its denial of the believers' image of the world.

Now of course the Genesis is not a subject for Biology classes, as gravity's existence is not to be questioned in Ethics. And hell should not be used as a threat, when it could be used more wisely as a metaphor for the pain and anguish a bad consciousness causes. Also, regarding some most important social issues, at least two religious books should definitely be revised. But the story of Noah's Arch for example and the formation history of the Black Sea could and probably should be taught in one class in order to build a bridge between two under normal circumstances isolated towers to connect the fragments of our world. And the idea of Reincarnation is easily combined with the theory of elementary particles: we do stay on earth after our death and we do transform into new life.

So why can there ever so often only exist ONE answer to many big questions? Why can't people notice that quite often believing in their belief to be the one and only true belief, reflecting the one and only true reality, usually only causes conflicts and discussions leading to dead ends and dead people? And why is there so little flexibility and willingness to benefit from each other?

Maybe the String Theory is able to connect the many worlds we've created in order to understand our one world, because - seriously - if there is 11 or even more parallel universes existing at the same time in the same place, who could argument against it then, that more than only one idea should be able, MUST be able, to dwell peacefully next to each other in the same space-time continuum - our experienced world - at every moment of our conscious life?

Religion has killed in huge numbers and Science has as well. So in the end it is not the question of "Science or Religion?" but using either one, and also Politics and Economy, as tools and not weapons, and to focus on consensus rather than difference. Because the answer to most questions cast in the previous paragraphs, the answer to why people can't live next to each other in a decent and moralistic manner, is not because of Science's cold-minded ratio or Religion's conservative ignorance, but because of a few people's hunger for might and power or revenge. And it is those people we have to be cautious about and look out for, because in that sense the Holy Bible is actually right: the devil wears many disguises. And all of us have to exorcise our lives and surroundings once in a while, not to serve our chosen Ultimate Truth, but in order to be true to ourselves.


  1. hell should not be used as a thread :) wonderful lapsus! ;)

    1. Diotima...? Like in Diotima and Ulrich? However, the important thing is: you are delightfully right. I won't make a correction. Look at life as a net, if hell is the thread that leads and which everything is leading to, why want to live at all? Bloody scary if you ask me. No, hell really shouldn't be used as a thread.

      And if you're a robot, I am sure you are one of these: http://youtu.be/6OY1EXZt4ok

  2. Let's take the last sentence of this article and make it the first sentence of a new theoretical body!
    ... maybe called the thread theory. ;) ... like sewing a broken heart, connecting people, play slackline (ok, just for pigeons) .. as there is a lot of things to do with a thread - despite using hell as one.

  3. And. why the thread do I have to prove I am not a robot every time I post something here. What if I am a freaking robot. What if a robot has a heart and an opinion, too.