Why Could the Earth Be Flat?

 

When we first hear about the flat Earth theory, our initial reaction is usually to think that it is nothing more than a group of crazy conspiracy theorists. That was also our reaction when we first encountered this idea. In fact, we spoke with friends who are physicists, and they explained several calculations regarding the Earth's approximately spherical shape, and at the time their explanations seemed coherent to us.

As time went on, however, we began to reflect on a crucial question: to what extent does what we know about space come from our own personal experience, and to what extent do we simply trust institutions? Throughout history, it was common for priests to climb mountains or enter caves to receive messages from the gods, and the people accepted those messages without any possibility of verification. Today, the priests are scientists, who use instruments, telescopes, and a technical language that only they have access to, while many ordinary people simply pretend to understand, receiving the sacred information of their discoveries.

The problem is that, many times throughout history, scientists have manipulated data or refused to listen to new discoveries. A clear example is the physician Ignaz Semmelweis, who realized that washing hands before childbirth dramatically reduced mortality, yet he was rejected because of the medical community's pride, costing thousands of lives. We can also mention the Mercator projection, a map that portrays the Global North as much larger than it really is, under the excuse that it is the best model, while also serving to project power. Science has its owners and its own interests, and scientists are not free from bias, since they can conceal or promote discoveries according to their own interests, rather than solely in the pursuit of truth.

Furthermore, none of us has concrete proof of what telescopes actually show, because we have no access to the equipment or to the raw data. Everything we receive is filtered by a very small number of people. Let us also remember when we learned that all photographs of space undergo digital processing and artificial colorization, a fundamental piece of information that only became widely known decades later.

Another example is the concept of black holes. Who can guarantee that there is, somewhere in the universe, a black hole located light-years away? We will never directly observe such a phenomenon, nor will we ever have access to the instruments that measure these events; we simply accept what we are told, just as, in the past, people accepted the messages brought back by the priests. What if it were merely an invention or a mistaken interpretation of the data? We are not denying the existence of black holes; we are simply pointing out that, if the scientists who control these technologies wanted to deceive us, it would be extremely easy, since they alone possess both the means and the authority to do so.

Let us also consider the famous food pyramid, which, for decades, was presented as the absolute truth for a healthy life. Governments and scientific institutions promoted excessive consumption of refined carbohydrates based on guidelines that are now widely questioned, even by sectors of the medical community itself. Imagine how many people faithfully followed those recommendations, trusting completely in the authority of experts, only to develop metabolic diseases, obesity, and diabetes instead of good health. This demonstrates a serious irresponsibility, in which science was used not to heal, but to perpetuate the economic interests of the food industry, proving that scientific recommendations can be flawed, delayed, or driven by ideology.

There was also the case of the pandemic, during which certain rules were defended by renowned scientists, only to be later rejected by many of those same people. More recently, a scientist played a prank by photographing the bottom of a frying pan and claiming that it was a newly discovered planet. Millions of people were deceived and admired the beauty of the supposed celestial body. If such a simple trick can fool so many people, how can we be absolutely certain about everything we are told concerning deep space?

Our religion adopts healthy skepticism as one of its principles, and we do not believe that any claim should be accepted merely because it was made by an authority. We are not denying science; rather, we criticize scientism, the attitude that transforms the scientific method into a new state religion. Our faith teaches the existence of countless universes and multiple dimensions, and we acknowledge that there are still many mysteries we do not yet understand. Therefore, we avoid making categorical statements about matters that we cannot directly verify.

Regarding the Earth, our religion does not defend the flat Earth theory, but we recognize that human beings should remain humble. Could it be possible that we live on a planet much larger than current maps suggest, or inside some kind of controlled environment maintained by more advanced intelligences? These are merely hypotheses, and the reality is that, without direct access to the instruments and the data, the only honest answer is that we simply do not know.

The purpose of this text is not to defend any specific theory, but to demonstrate how easy it would be to mislead the entire world through disinformation when only a small number of people possess a monopoly over advanced technology. We advocate intellectual prudence, recognizing that human institutions can make mistakes and that the sincere pursuit of truth requires constant questioning. Therefore, considering our lack of independent access to the instruments and raw data for our own scrutiny, perhaps the Earth is flat, or perhaps it is spherical. The most honest answer is: we simply do not know at this time, at least not until science and its experiments become accessible to everyone.

May the Eternal grant us wisdom, discernment, and humility to always seek the truth, wherever it may be.

Aisi~