Barbara Walters' Special, "Heaven -- Where is It? How Do We Get There?" ... A Comment on the Science

I was watching the Barbara Walters special "Heaven -- Where Is It? How Do We Get There?" last night. In this two hour special, Barbara Walters interviewed a number of people regarding their belief (or not) in the existence of heaven. She also interviewed a scientist who responded to the assertion that heaven (when seen by people who have had a near death experience) may seem very real to those people, but is actually the result of a dying brain. Therefore, heaven must not actually exist. Barbara Walters herself did not offer her own view, which I appreciate, but also did not show the opinions of scientists who may offer differing scientific opinions. Not all scientists agree that heaven does not exist and can be explained away with a few simple tests.

Just because a scientist believes there is "proof" of something does not make it a fact. Some scientists believe in the popular misconception that science is as advanced as it needs to be. Some scientists also seem to believe that everything in the universe can be explained with currently known scientific knowledge and that everything can fit into a nice little package that can be wrapped up like a present and delivered as facts. These scientists seem to believe that there is nothing outside our known universe. Therefore, if you believe heaven lies somewhere outside our known universe, some scientists believe that means your idea of heaven would not be possible.

In my opinion, these types of scientists are simply closed minded. Science is imperfect. Science is comprised of facts and theories. Scientists learn "facts" and theories in school, and test those theories, and challenge the facts for years. There are unknown variables that we simply haven't thought of or discovered yet. It may be frightening for some scientists to believe that science could be imperfect or incomplete.

Scientists can begin to fall into the trap of trying to fit every test, and every event they observe, into an explanation based on their belief of accepted scientific theories. Do they rejoice in the thought that they can be like all-knowing?

I have worked with these types of scientists who have a 'science has all the answers' complex. Personally, I think that trying to answer spiritual issues with limited spiritual experience, even though one may be a scientist, is a mistake. Did the greatest minds in science think this way? I think not. Pioneers in all fields of science established the trial and error concept that is still being practiced today. The way to see new possibilities is to have an open mind. Why try to disprove the existence of heaven? Attempting to disprove anything, especially anything spiritual, does not offer the possibilities of a new discovery.

The truth is, there are always unknown variables. It is virtually impossible to know all the variables with certainty, or to even know all of the causes and effects of various events. Looking at an issue on paper, one event may seem to cause another event. But what about the possibility that the second event caused the first event? What if two events always seem to coincide, but both events are actually caused by a third, undiscovered event? What if there are additional, unknown variables in the mix? What if the whole thing is just a big coincidence?

Personally, I like to start with the idea that anything anyone has ever thought of, or will think of, is possible. Since it is impossible to know, with certainty, all of the variables in the known and possibly unknown universe, then it is difficult or impossible to absolutely disprove anything beyond doubt. There may be impossibilities, but those things we may never know, because we are imperfect beings who will probably never figure out everything there is to know.

For me, heaven, God, and even ghosts can be possible. We simple humans may not be capable of figuring out how or why. The fun in science is allowing and exploring new ideas that can change our world for the better, even when those ideas may be outside currently accepted scientific knowledge. I feel that trying to prove that something such as heaven is impossible, and is not useful. People of faith will not believe you anyway, and anyone who agrees with you needs no convincing.