Circular Claims of Science

About this poem

So the scientific argument against the existence of God is this: that the existence of God is a theory that is outside of the pale of “objective reality” and is therefore not empirically measurable by any standards of science. So argues American theoretical physicist Sean B. Carroll, employing a circular argument with the underlying a-priori premise that phenomena outside of the domain of science are not scientifically measurable and must be determined to be non-existent. What I find profoundly ironic with this argument is that, although, for the sake of an intellectual debate, attributes are assigned “willy nilly” to the Divine Archetype, the category called “God” although articulated as an a priori assumption, is never defined, yet seemingly always referring implicitly to the infinite totality of “force” or “energy” governing the laws of nature, which are admittedly unknown to mankind, and labeled metaphysically as “God” by theologians, and as a “Theory of Everything” by the scientific world. To emphasize, the notion that the argument of God is not a good theory, as proposed by theoretical physicist Sean Carroll, is an argument that employs circular reasoning by initiating a debate with what he is trying to end with or refute; a pragmatic defect claiming in the first instance that the argument of God or for God, is a “theory,” and then debating pragmatically and falsely so by not offering substantive “proof” or evidence of that which implicitly refers to “the laws of nature” which theologians divinely intuit as “God” and scientists as a “Theory of Everything” (TOE); which itself, remains a hypothetical framework for explaining all known phenomena in the universe, a goal still not attained. The two worlds of reasoning may seem far apart and unresolvable, but the goal both theologians and scientists are after is ironically the same: how creation of the physical universe came about. In short, the scientists’ invocation of “objective reality” to dispute the epiphenomenal claims of theology and religion in general, is demonstrative of their exclusive optimization of perceptual vision of material phenomena of the physical environment that relies solely on outer vision and is dismissive of intuitive knowledge and understanding that is derived from inner vision, ironically the very source and origin of outer vision, and which broadens and enriches the human capacity for imagination and the creative impulse itself. more »