ALL Cosmology, since the advent of the so called “Age of Enlightenment,” has been an attempt to determine the mechanics of the dead body of the Universe. There has been no effort to conceive of, never mind discuss, the possibility of an absolute intelligence— or at least the possibility of intelligence greater than that possessed by man (or his equivalents, should they exist, on other planets). The picture has been clearly painted. The Universe is inanimate, except for lifeforms which randomly arise on planets, which have the right blend of chemicals, like Earth.
When Gurdjieff arrived in Moscow in 1912, he carried with him an intellectually unique set of ideas, which he referred to as Objective Science or Positive Science. They were wrapped around a cosmology which was distinctly theistic.
The Christian Abdication
There had not been such a cosmology in the intellectual sphere since the Catholic Church (quickly followed by all the Christian world) retreated into an intellectual corner, from whence came disapproval of heretical theories, particularly Darwin’s Evolution. Christianity disapproved in a doctrinal manner, rather than by engaging in direct intellectual combat.
We witnessed this recently with the Christian advocacy of “intelligent design” as the mechanism of evolution. There was great enthusiasm. The central assertion was that while the fossil record clearly indicated an evolutionary tree, the new species that appeared on it were the outcome of intelligent design by a higher intelligence, rather than the primitive and increasingly difficult to defend “survival of the fittest.”
Darwinian evolution is, of course, intellectually bankrupt, but it will be defended by mainstream science until there is a credible theory to replace it. Intelligent design is not a credible theory, it’s just a vague speculative narrative.
The Cosmological Malaise
Physics is horribly broken and has been so for over a century now. It has a set of theories that purport to explain what happens at the level of the Universe, the macro level—donated primarily by Einstein, who is the “father” of most of it, and regarded as a bona fide “genius.” The word “genius” is a term the scientific world uses in the same way that the Christian Church uses the term “saint.” There is no specific canonization ritual—even a Nobel Prize does not guarantee scientific sainthood—it is conferred by the centrality and longevity of your theories.
At the same time, physics has a set of theories that purport to explain what happens at the subatomic level, the micro level, which go by the name of Quantum Mechanics. These theories do not agree at all with the Einsteinian perspective. The fathers (geniuses) of Quantum Mechanics are Niels Bohr and Max Planck. Quantum Mechanics is not currently in a state of crisis. It appears to be proceeding well, in the sense that many of its predictions have been verified experimentally to a high degree of accuracy. (A fundamental feature of the theory is that it usually cannot predict with certainty what will happen, but only give probabilities. In many circumstances, its probabilities have proved predictive. It is credible.)
The same cannot be said for astrophysics. Astrophysics and astronomy has, at almost every level, a terrible record of predictive accuracy. With almost every NASA space shot, NASA scientists will declare what they expect to observe, and in almost every case they will be wrong. That’s the local picture in respect of the planets and moons within our solar system. As regards the universe itself, the “Big Bang” theories of creation are laughably incredible, as are many of the strange declarations from astrophysicists. For example, it is asserted that about 27 percent of the universe consists of Dark Matter (matter that cannot be observed). This Scarlet Pimpernel of matter is said to outweigh visible matter in a ratio of roughly six to one, and yet no-one has ever detected even an atom of it.
Further, it is asserted that roughly 68% of the universe is Dark Energy, another Scarlet Pimpernel, this time of energy that cannot be observed. So, supposedly, dark matter and dark energy together comprise 95% of the Universe, and we can only observe 5% of it.
The interesting question here is “how is it that astrophysicists are willing to support theories that do not even pass the smell test?”
Part of this has to do with “identification.” In respect of Dark Matter, astrophysicists would dearly love to be able to explain the apparent motion of galaxies. They have handcuffed themselves into believing that the only force that acts between suns and planets is gravity. Thus, they assume that gravity is the cause of the apparent motion of the galaxies. However, gravitational equation can only explain such spiral motion if there are vast amounts of invisible matter distributed somewhere in the various galaxies they study. So rather than adjust or abandon their gravitational theories, they simply invent vast amounts of matter that do not exist.
This is intellectual stupidity. But it doesn’t matter, because right now science firmly controls the media that reports on such matters, and such media is graced with stories of scientists perhaps having detected some dark matter in some context or other. And the public laps it up, because the public no longer possesses a critical mind.
We will have much more to say about this in coming issues of The Lost Herald, as we gradually forge a path towards our articulation of a Non-Atheistic cosmology. And in doing so, we will give you good reason to doubt the current atheistic cosmology.