Quoting from a wonderful book, THE CREATION OF MATTER by Harald Fritzsch, Professor of Physics at the University of Munich and the Max Planck Institute:
"Five hundred years ago, about 20 billion years after the birth of the universe, after the Big Bang, we human beings began a systematic exploration of our environment and ourselves. Toward the end of the millennium we began to see that the diversity of the world can indeed be explained. All matter in the universe, including ourselves, is composed of two types of minute building blocks: quarks and the particles of the atomic shell, electrons. We have come to understand that we are not the center of the universe, that we merely live inside a rather unremarkable galaxy. We still have not made contact with other inhabitants of the universe in other solar systems, but we sense that we may not be alone. We have also learned that we are the product of a complex yet rationally comprehensible process of development, determined by both history and the interplay of chance and necessity. We have come to realize that we must live without gods, that we alone are responsible for our fate. We have begun to sense that the universe does not hold the answer to questions about the meaning of life, that it is up to us to find the answers.
The end of the Twentieth Century is ushering in what may well be the most important period of human civilization. We have begun to realize that the meaning of our existence lies in our very existence and in our constant search for the answers to questions for which no universally valid answers exist."
In order to "do science" properly there are several requisites of great importance. The first on the list is to hold no beliefs. To believe in anything corrupts the process and compromises the results. Does this mean one cannot believe in a deity that is or was somehow involved in the creation of all that is and/or one that is still pulling the strings and making his puppets move as he/she/it wishes? Yes, it does. However, it does not mean one cannot have a "god" concept.
So, what's the difference between belief and concept? There is a huge chasm separating the two. To have a belief in a god or gods (or whatever) implies doctrine of some kind and doctrine will hold sway over discovery. That is to say, if one's discovery is contrary to doctrine it follows that those details of the discovery that do not agree with the doctrine and/or belief must be adjusted or filtered to suit. If this is not done the doctrine and/or belief come into question and faith falters. In other words, doctrine, faith, and/or belief foster a sort of tunnel vision that is opposed to the scientific process. A god concept, on the other hand, leaves room for all possibilities including the possibility that one's concept is wrong.
Before you leap headlong into any false conclusions regarding my postulates, let me point out very clearly that they are not aimed at or limited to religions and deities. This concept bears equal force for any kind of agenda. Let me give you one controversial and important example: UFO. I can just see the folks on both sides of that fence right now. I have offended them both and they have not completed the article to see and understand where I come down on the issue.
There are those who believe strongly that we are being and have been visited by aliens (other folks not of this planet). Then, there are those who believe just as strongly the opposite. Both of these positions are equally unscientific and data relating to this phenomenon are subjected to the filter of an individual's belief or desire to believe or the opposite (both represent belief). The same is true for the creationist and the evolutionist. The result of such thinking is a sort of circular logic that has no definable point of origin nor distinguishable destination.
For the scientific investigation of any phenomenon this way of thinking is entirely unacceptable. It is difficult enough to arrive at reliable conclusions without any genuine or avowed belief. We are creatures with a long history and our life experience has tuned our thinking to survive on this planet. We perceive our existence in an odd, two-dimensional manner. We can see that it is really three-dimensional (in the physical live-a-day world), but we are not birds and therefore have developed this weird, flat thinking. It is this kind of thinking that makes it tough for many to understand and internalize relativity, for example. This manner of thinking is completely natural and even the most meticulous and impartial scientists in the world are subject to these flaws; it is a constant struggle for them to keep their foibles from corrupting their work.
Returning to the UFO issue, do they exist? Yes, of course they do. What are they? We don't know and that is why they are classified as unidentified. One cannot observe the sky for 56 years and not see a few things that don't fit. For those things I have witnessed, about 90% were easily identified as natural things seen unnaturally, another 8% were identified after some study and organized contemplation. As for the remaining 2%, they are still in the category of UFO. Do I have any opinions regarding what they were? No, I don't, because I have no evidence with which to form an opinion. We have been treated to an immense amount of anecdotal "evidence" but stories do not constitute real evidence. We have also been provided with a plethora of photographs, many of them hoaxed. But photographs do not give us solid evidence, either. Therefore, where do I stand on this issue? Firmly in the middle.
So, don't I believe in anything? Well, sure I do, but not in a way that blinds me to reality and evidence. I believe that my car will start in the morning and I have faith I will arrive at the office on time. When I come down the stairs in the morning and see a large puddle of oil oozing from beneath my car it provides me with the evidence that something is amiss. It may be coming from another car but that is not very likely as the nearest parking space to mine is some twenty feet away and downhill. The evidence mounts and my faith weakens. The oil is fresh. The evidence has tilted the balance and any faith I may have had in my trusty old Dodge has vanished. At this point I resort to plan "B" and dial the office on my cellular (I have faith that the battery of my cellular is fully charged and that the busses are running on time).
So, what is this process and how does it work? Fortunately, the process is easy to explain, even though it is difficult to practice. It does not matter what the field of investigation is so there are no great distinctions made between an astronomer and a zoologist when it comes to how any given problem or investigation is approached.
