RATIONALITY, SCIENCE, REALITY

I wish I could say that science has done much better, and in many ways it has, but it has its problems, too. We were all going merrily along, sitting through endless classes on physics, chemistry and other sciences in good faith, when all of a sudden, science finds that OOPS, 96% of the Universe is MISSING! Other (unprovable) dimensions, alternate (unprovable) universes, (unprovable) wormholes, bizarre (unprovable) branes, vibrating strings, even the unbreakability of the speed of light; being asked to believe that these things exist on the basis of math I can’t follow is exactly – in truth - asking for my FAITH. And there are some pretty basic (but important) things science DOESN’T know:
What is time? (Why does it seem to move in only one direction?)
What is mind? (We know a lot about the brain, but not much about mind/consciousness.)
Why do we (all animals) sleep? Why do we dream?
What is gravity? (Particle? Wave? Desire?)
What causes the Earth’s magnetic field to reverse/flip?
What made the Big Bang bang?
What is life?
These are some pretty important issues, which can affect how we see ourselves in the context of the universe, and when scientists come up with answers, I have a feeling that however ‘elegantly simple’ they may claim the answers to be, I won’t be able to understand them.

For many decades, science led us to believe that human beings came to the Americas 13,000 years ago. Now, they tell us it was probably much, much sooner. Both theories are presented as ‘fact,’ and both have physical evidence to support them. But the most interesting fact is, the scientists seem to be unable to agree.

Science (unlike religion, it seems) is at least willing to change its facts when evidence that doesn’t fit their facts emerge. But whatever science tells us that we can’t prove (or disprove) for ourselves (except in the ‘exalted’ language of math) we’re expected to accept as ‘fact,’ on faith. Perhaps scientists don’t realize how much they resemble the priesthood in this respect. But this means science isn't immune to changing its mind, leaving the person who believed them the first time swinging in the breeze, or at best, grasping at concepts we just aren't educated enough to get a grip on.

Scientists are just now coming around to thinking that the minds of animals’ may be very much like our own (there being, in fact, no difference to speak of), and are even discovering that they may have emotions. Well, duh! Pet owners and animal lovers always knew this, and it made the scientists who believed the opposite seem, really, too stupid to bother arguing with.

The scientific community is not always fair, either. Just as radicals like Jesus threatened the existing order, so do new scientific theories. Breakthroughs are often made in the complete absence of funding or the support of peers. Like Jesus, sometimes scientists die without ever seeing how their teachings ultimately change the world.

To get back to the theme for a moment, one of the reasons science has lost all patience with religion is because it's based on the interpretation of the visions of a few people thousands of years ago. I know of one Catholic man who believed he’d been given a mission by God to wipe out all unbelievers and had quite a large following, too. He went by the name of Adolf Hitler. If we’re going to believe in people’s visions, in what way does his differ from any other? Therefore, rationally, we can’t believe in something just because someone says they have a vision or mission, even if they themselves clearly believe it. For a small fee, any sidewalk psychic can report a vision or prophecy that'll make it worth the price and entice you to come back for more. It doesn't mean what they say is true.

So, that's my rant for today. What's yours?