Thank you for an absolutely brilliant and pellucid discussion of the Euclid telescope and its significance.
I would like to point out two amusing instances of how language affects our interpretation of objective reality: (1) twice you used either “sanctify” or “sacred” to describe the laws of physics, displacing the divine from its metaphysical condition to the mere heuristics of physical reality. More consequentially, you (2) repeat the widely used adjective “dark” to describe the 95% of matter and energy in the physical universe that cannot be explained by the supposedly “holy / sacred” laws of physics. You even make a joke about “the dark side” of the universe.
How revealing of our human nature! We love our dark sides and we love expressing the dark side of our human nature! Strictly speaking, the unknown matter and energy in the universe is invisible--but we shrink from calling it “invisible” because the word evokes the invisible God we humans so hope does not exist.
Romans Chapter 1 proclaims the invisible God (as does Psalms) and declares that the evidence for the existence and power of the invisible God is all around us in nature, available for all humans to observe. Using the term “dark” instead of “invisible” is a perfect example of how we humans close our minds to the truth.
The corollary is all those households who proudly display the signs proclaiming “We believe in science”--another displacement of the sacred to the sublunary realm of quotidian existence. More importantly, it’s laughable to “believe” in a process for the discovery of empirical reality, because science is always changing and correcting itself--only to change and correct itself again. You describe this very well in your post about Euclid and the constantly evolving theories of astrophysics.
Most absurdly off all, the “We believe science” crowd blindly place their faith in an explanation that cannot meaningfully describe 95% of the matter-energy of the universe.
The “We believe science” sign-posters and their legions of allies among the doctrinaire materialists refer to all this unknown reality as “dark”, and (unscientifically) hope against hope that behind the cloak of invisibility concealing 95% of the universe there is no divine mystery--much less a living, intelligent creator who is the most intensely alive being imaginable, the very source of Being who has chosen to remain invisible while passionately yearning for relationships with us.
Thank you for an absolutely brilliant and pellucid discussion of the Euclid telescope and its significance.
I would like to point out two amusing instances of how language affects our interpretation of objective reality: (1) twice you used either “sanctify” or “sacred” to describe the laws of physics, displacing the divine from its metaphysical condition to the mere heuristics of physical reality. More consequentially, you (2) repeat the widely used adjective “dark” to describe the 95% of matter and energy in the physical universe that cannot be explained by the supposedly “holy / sacred” laws of physics. You even make a joke about “the dark side” of the universe.
How revealing of our human nature! We love our dark sides and we love expressing the dark side of our human nature! Strictly speaking, the unknown matter and energy in the universe is invisible--but we shrink from calling it “invisible” because the word evokes the invisible God we humans so hope does not exist.
Romans Chapter 1 proclaims the invisible God (as does Psalms) and declares that the evidence for the existence and power of the invisible God is all around us in nature, available for all humans to observe. Using the term “dark” instead of “invisible” is a perfect example of how we humans close our minds to the truth.
The corollary is all those households who proudly display the signs proclaiming “We believe in science”--another displacement of the sacred to the sublunary realm of quotidian existence. More importantly, it’s laughable to “believe” in a process for the discovery of empirical reality, because science is always changing and correcting itself--only to change and correct itself again. You describe this very well in your post about Euclid and the constantly evolving theories of astrophysics.
Most absurdly off all, the “We believe science” crowd blindly place their faith in an explanation that cannot meaningfully describe 95% of the matter-energy of the universe.
The “We believe science” sign-posters and their legions of allies among the doctrinaire materialists refer to all this unknown reality as “dark”, and (unscientifically) hope against hope that behind the cloak of invisibility concealing 95% of the universe there is no divine mystery--much less a living, intelligent creator who is the most intensely alive being imaginable, the very source of Being who has chosen to remain invisible while passionately yearning for relationships with us.
This is so interesting. I really enjoyed it. Thank you!