The Blog

So why don’t all scientists just accept this conclusion (of universe having a beginning and therefore having a cause) instead of attempting to avoid the facts and their implications with wild and implausible explanations?

Jastrow, the agnostic we discussed earlier, states, “Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind- supposedly a very objective mind—when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phrases.”

The phrases we have seen used by Atkins and Asimov to explain the beginning of the universe—“mathematical points” and “positive and negative energy” respectively.

Regarding Einstein’s “irritating” feelings about General Relativity and the expanding universe, Jastrow writes: “This is curiously emotional language for a discussion of some mathematical formulas. I suppose that the idea of a beginning in time annoyed Einstein because of its theological implication.”

Everyone knows the theists have theological beliefs. But what is overlooked is that atheistic and pantheistic scientists also have theological beliefs.

The religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under the conditions in which the laws of physics are not valid.

When this happens, the scientists have lost control. If they really examined the implications, they would be traumatized.

Traumatized or not, scientists must come to grips with the implications of the Big Bang evidence.

They might not like the evidence or its implications, but that won’t change facts.

Since the evidence shows that time, space, and matter were created at the Big Bang, the most probable scientific conclusion is that the universe was caused by something outside of time, space, and matter.

When scientists stop short of that conclusion by covering it over with “meaningless phrases”, it seems that they are simply refusing to accept the facts and the most reasonable conclusions that comes from them.

It is a matter of will, not the mind. The evidence is objective; it is unbelieving scientists who are not.

What if the theistic Big Bang Theory is wrong?