Nietzsche predicted that the ‘generation that is now coming up’, regrettably, this generation, ‘from cruelty against [itself]’, would ‘sacrifice God himself’, and ‘worship the stone, stupidity, gravity, fate, and nothing.’
Nietzsche was right about sacrificing God, but could not have foreseen that this would lead not just to worshiping ‘the stone, stupidity, gravity, fate and nothing’, but to the worship of logos.
Sacrificing God has created Logo Man, and Logo Woman, Nietzsche’s ‘herd man’ with a brand.
And by Logos I don’t just mean the branded tee shirt or baseball cap, but the job, the house, the car, the food we eat, the coffee we drink, the university, the kids’ school, the holidays, the sport – especially the sport – we watch and play, sexual behavior and orientation, the telephone, the computer, even what beliefs we hold. Everything is a drive for the accumulation of logos; life is a logo; we even decorate our children with logos.
Human ‘character’ is defined by the accumulation of logos to create a desired image which appeals to the most base of human instincts, vanity. Each logo is there to make a statement about ‘who we are’. Ironically, however, it tells us that we are nothing but empty vessels decorated with logos.
Yet, scientists are brimming with arrogance in the belief that they are on the verge of formulating a ‘final theory of everything’ – a ‘theory’, moreover, that they claim will obviate the need for anything resembling a god to explain the origins and functioning of the universe, and hence humankind’s place in the universe.
Human beings are relegated to a curious aberration of no special significance, other than the ability to recognize the utter futility of their own existence.
This great ‘revelation’ is hailed as the pinnacle of humankind’s long and arduous search for ‘truth’.
But as scientists hoist the trophy of ‘truth’, perhaps we should ask on what basis, exactly, they make these grand pronouncements about the non-existence of God.
The CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) website says this about what constitutes our universe: ‘Dark matter seems to outweigh visible matter roughly six to one, making up about 26% of all the matter in the universe. Here’s a sobering fact: The matter we know and that makes up all stars and galaxies only accounts for 4% of the content of the universe! … Dark energy makes up approximately 70% of the universe and appears to be associated with the vacuum in space.’
So, it would not be unfair to say that scientists base their pronouncements on what they do know about the universe on only 4% of the matter and energy in our universe. The rest they know virtually nothing about, except that it has an effect on what we can see, and we do know something about.
But there is a bigger problem. Of the 4% scientists do know something about, all of it is a consequence of quantum effects at the early birth of the universe. And those quantum effects are what govern the behavior of matter to this day.
Yet, in his book Dreams of a Final Theory, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, Steven Weinberg, says this about quantum mechanics: ‘But I admit to some discomfort in working all my life in a theoretical framework that no one fully understands’. (page 85)
So the basis on which scientists make grand pronouncements about the origins and cause of the universe and life are made on the basis of a limited knowledge of only 4% of the matter and energy that exists in the universe. And most honest scientists would admit, like Weinberg, that they don’t really understand how even that 4% works, never mind why.
In terms of evidence in a legal sense, that could not provide the basis for proving anything, let alone that there is no Creator.
No wonder Albert Schweitzer said that scientists get all ‘puffed up with vanity at being able to describe exactly a fragment of the course of life.’
And yet, having ‘sacrificed God’ on the altar of egos and logos, how do scientists, and their acolytes like Richard Dawkins and AC Grayling, propose human beings find some reason to get out of bed in the morning?
Weinberg recommends this: although he claims that the “universe itself suggests no point” [to human existence], he says that “we ourselves could invent a point to our lives, including trying to understand the universe”.(page 255) In other words, we can find some “point” to life by dedicating ourselves to ‘proving’ that there is “no point” to life. As Nietzsche might have said, perhaps Weinberg “simply failed to note the comical ‘niaiserie scientifique’ involved in such an answer”. (niaiserie scientifique means scientific foolishness)
In my next article on niaiserie scientifique, I shall look at the ridiculously clichéd claim by most scientists, atheists, humanists, and so-called rationalists, that religion is somehow the cause of all war and evil in the world.