An “Elephant” is a tree!
And if someone calls it God,
He is certainly quite odd!
Okay, that’s lousy poetry, but it aptly portrays the scientific establishment’s elitist attitude. Those “Experts” who figuratively label the entire elephant as a tree are called cosmologists, who oddly enough, study the cosmos, or the universe, which is the same thing, really.
Like all experts, cosmologists join with other cosmologists whose expert opinions agree. Using the elephant as a type of the cosmos, including its Creator, the blind people typify the “experts” who focus their limited faculties on whatever elephantile features they can reach. The expert who grabs its tail tells a tale of rope … you know the drill.
Cosmologists will, no doubt, object strenuously to being compared to blind people, but on the cosmic scale humanity is indeed blind. While our observational technology constantly evolves, no one can presume to say, as did the Great Wizard of Ozz, “I see all. I know all.” So, logically, if anything is outside our observational reach, studying it experimentally is out of the question.
Of course, that’s not to say we can’t use observed phenomena to guess what might be out there beyond our reach … as long as we don’t call it God. After all, what would become of natural science if we admitted the possibility of the divine, or the supernatural.
The science establishment insists that humanity invented “God” for two reasons: First, to explain the unexplainable. And second, to provide behavioral boundaries so the less-enlightened masses (that’s you and me) would behave civilly and enrich the religious establishment. While that rationale sounds plausible, however, its simplistic tenets fail on numerous levels.
In future posts I will attempt to deal rationally with the pseudo-science that skeptics use in their quest to prove that the Elephant is a tree, or a snake, or a rope, or a ….