Science & religion - An interesting discussion

Bill White · 2004-05-18 12:18:02

This is an interesting http://www.spacedaily.com/news/meteor-0 … discussion about the relationship of science and religion and other things.

AM: And why does the Vatican fund this research?
GC: There's a political reason. It's a simple one, that they want the world to know that the Church isn't afraid of science, that they like science, that science is great, this is our way of seeing how God created the universe, and they want to make as strong a statement as possible that truth doesn't contradict truth, that if you have faith, then you're not going to ever be afraid of what science is going to come up with. Because it's true.

REB · 2004-05-18 13:00:19

For me, I don't have a conflict with religion and science.

Here is something a wrote a few years ago and posted on MSNBC's message board (Which no longer exist)

Why the Genesis day is not the same as an Earth day.
The word day has been used to represent many things. I the Bible it has been used to represent the Earth’s day, a man’s life, and a creation period. A planetary day is just a planets rotation and it’s relative as to what planet you are on. Planetary days vary from planet to planet. Venus’ day is 243 Earth days. A Mars day is closer to the Earth at 1.026 Earth days. The Moons day is around 29 Earth days.

I also have a hard time believing that God would be tired after 6 Earth days. Scientist believe the Universe is about 15 billion years old. I can see God being tired after 15 billion years, but after 6 Earth days? God is stronger and more powerful than that. Six 24 hour Earth days are not going to tire God out.

I have two Hypotheses on Genesis. According to my second Hypothesis, the actual day night cycle did not start and shows that the Earth day and Genesis Day can not be the same.

Hypothesis I
The First Genesis day picks up about 10 billion Years after the Big Bang. It talks about the Solar Nebula (The formless Earth). It also talks about the Sun starting its Nuclear power (Let their be light).

The Second and Genesis day talks about the molten Earth cooling and separating into it’s different layers- the Core, Mantel, crust, continents, oceans and atmosphere. The Sun and Moon are also forming, but they, along with the stars, can not be seen from the surface of the Earth.

The Third Genesis day talks about Pangaea splitting apart, and life evolving on the Earth.

The Fourth Genesis day the atmosphere has cleared enough for the Sun, Moon and stars to be seen from the surface of the Earth.

On the Fifth Genesis day, life continues to evolve as it spreads all over the Earth.

On the Sixth Genesis day, life continues to Evolve. Man evolves.
*******************************

Hypothesis II
The First Genesis day starts with the Big Bang (Let there be light). The Galaxies full of young new stars separate the light from the darkness. The Earth has yet to form, so it is formless. Under this Hypothesis, this first Genesis day would be about 9 to 11 billion years long.

The Second Genesis day talks about the molten Earth cooling and separating into it’s different layers- the Core, Mantel, and crust. The Sun and Moon are also forming, but they, along with the stars, can not be seen from the surface of the Earth.

The Third Genesis day talks about the molten Earth cooling on the surface so that land starts to form. Water also pools on the surface.

On the Fourth Genesis day, the Sun lights up. The solar winds start up and blow away all the remaining interstellar dust so that the Sun, Moon and stars are visible from the surface of the Earth. Before the young Sun fired up, the Solar system was full of interstellar dust, left over from the formation of the planets. Once the Sun fired up, the heat and stellar winds it generated would drive this dust away.

On the Fifth Genesis day, life starts to evolve as it spreads all over the Earth.

On the Sixth Genesis day life continues to Evolve. Man evolves.

Palomar · 2004-05-18 13:26:47

*Interesting. This guy's a Jesuit? <low whistle> Unless their standards have changed, you've got to be -really- frickin' smart and disciplined to join their ranks. I'm presuming it is still an extremely elitist order.

Not sure how astronomy is a "spiritual" pursuit, but to each their own I guess.

I didn't know the Vatican has a telescope. Hmmmm.

Well, this is how I see it: How can anyone claim to admire and adore an artist (say, Michaelangelo) and yet despise the art itself? Or seek to suppress, stifle, hide, etc., the art? Or seek to punish people who might not share your liking of the artwork and its artist? Art afficionados enjoy collecting, discussing techniques, learning more about the artist him/herself, methods employed, etc. I should think the same would hold with a belief in God, analogy-wise.

How can you claim to admire and adore the artist and yet be indifferent to the art, or outright despise it?

The quote Bill posted is, IMO, one of the most reasonable I've yet read coming from the religionist quarter.

Not so sure, though, about this guy's assertion that the Catholic Church (or any church for that matter) has *always* thought science is great (previous reading I've done, and not just pertaining to the 18th century, indicates otherwise)...however, Will & Ariel Durant, authors of the "History of Civilization" series do credit various Catholic orders, including especially the Jesuits, with preserving and maintaining documents, and sometimes even assisting (directly and deliberately) the advancement of science.

Dr. Consolmagno: "The whole scientific enterprise really does coincide well with Christian theology. The whole idea that the universe is worth studying is a Christian idea. The whole mechanism for studying the physical universe comes straight out of the whole logic of the scholastic age. Who was the first geologist? Albert the Great, who was a monk. Who was the first Chemist? Roger Bacon, who was a monk. Who was the first guy to come up with spectroscopy? Angelo Secchi, who was a priest. Who was the guy who invented genetics? Gregor Mendel, who was a monk. Who was the guy who came up with the Big Bang theory? Georges Lemaître, who was a priest. There is this long tradition; most scientists before the 19th century were clerics. Who else had the free time and the education to gather leads and measure star positions?"

*Well...at least a handful of the Baroque music era's greatest musicians/composers, like Antonio Vivaldi, were associated with the Catholic church (Vivaldi was a priest); it's important to keep in mind that, at various points in history, the best *personal* standard of living and a level of *personal* security for geniuses and etc. was found within the Catholic churches' religious orders. *IIRC*, Vivaldi indicated to confidants his lack of belief, and that the priesthood gave him the best opportunity to write his music and have it played without starving to death trying. Based on that and a few other examples, I wonder how genuinely religiously devoted the people Dr. Consolmagno mentions actually were, and how much was similar to Vivaldi's situation. I don't know.

Dr. C: "And there's been a fringe of religious fundamentalists - not Catholics - who have tried to warp science to their particular peculiar theology."

[::edit:: Danged "quote" thing isn't working right. :-\ ]

*I don't know if the Catholic church is entirely devoid of this, but I am acquainted (in the past) with others who are like this.

IMO, science is superior to religion (refer to statements previously made in the most previous science vs religion thread in Free Chat).

I can name dozens of religious wars "fought in the name of God." I can't name any wars fought "in the name of science."

But to each their own...

--Cindy

Bill White · 2004-05-18 13:54:47

What we westerners call "science" is a child of mixed blood, with a Jewish parent and a Greek parent.

Science does require faith in the existence of an objective reality.

If you accept Jack Miles (a Jesuit who quit the Church) reading of the Book of Job then Galileo's insistence that the Earth moves merely reprises Job's stubborn-ness in his dialouge with God Himself. (Speaking Truth to Power)

Miles believes that Job "wins" the argument despite what Christian apologists have subsequently written.

Palomar · 2004-05-19 08:15:48

Science does require faith in the existence of an objective reality.

*I suppose it'd depend on how one is defining the word "faith."

If there is no such thing as an objective reality, then all is illusion (Maya)?

My sister would prefer it be so, considering what she's going through right now.

But discussions like these tend to be pointless. I feel religion seeks to mimick science and skeptical thought by using similar phraseology, or by seeking to say "Well, you are that way too" -- some sort of odd projection of its own failures and credibility issues onto science.

If this were not so, then why do religionists/spiritualists often seek to gain credibility by tacking the word "science" onto many of their pursuits? "Palm reading is a science"; reading tarot cards is "a science,"... I don't see scientists, on the other hand (pardon the pun), referring to "the religion of methane on Titan"...etc.

Science = rational thought (reason).
Religion = feeling/emotions.

Oil and water.

In my opinion.

--Cindy

REB · 2004-05-19 08:59:17

Let me add this;

Science deals with energy/matter and the physical laws that govern it. (Note. Matter can be converted to energy and theoretically energy can be converted into matter. They are connected somehow, but that is another topic)

If there is a place outside our universe that is made of something else and follows some other physical laws, our science might not apply to it, nor would we be able to detect it.

Lets say the Heaven is really a physical place that exist outside our universe. By outside, I mean our physical laws and/or location. (It might occupy the same space as us). Say this place has matter and physical laws that mirrors or own, but not quiet. For example, a photon from this universe varies just enough, that our eyes have now way of seeing it. The laws that govern this matter is different enough that we can not see it or detect it. I might actually pass through our matter.

The point I am trying to make is that it is possible that something may exist beyond our physical universe. Inside our physical universe, our science does an excellent job exposing the physical laws that govern us, but not so outside.

If one excepts that a supreme being built our universe, using the Big Bang or some other method, then one must except that that being existed before our universe was created and that this being existed somewhere else other than our universe(Because, obviously, our universe was not here).

Science seeks knowledge and truth about our physical universe. Religion is different. But a person can believe in both, but for that to work, both religion and science need to have an open mind. Science needs to seek the truth. Personal egos of scientist must not get in the way. Too many times a scientist life work turns out to be wrong, but they have too much at stake to let it go and start a new theory. Religion can let egos get in the way. Religion can be closed minded to new ideas. Both sides must keep an open mind.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-19 09:05:49

Science = rational thought (reason).
Religion = feeling/emotions.
Oil and water.
In my opinion.

They each have their respective spheres, the conflict arises when they cross each other's boundaries.

Science can explain how the world works, but not why. Is it just a random accident? is there some deeper meaning? Science can't answer these questions.

Religion attempts to answer these "unanswerable" questions in the only way it knows how, through analogy. It tries to fill the gaps left by science. Science leaves a vacuum in the "why," it is hard to accept that everything is the result of random chance so God(s) is invoked to smooth it over. "it's that way because God made it that way."

Why? "You cannot know God's plan." Because it exists outside the realm of science.

But when religion gets too full of itself, it grows hostile. "No, that's not how God said it happened." Oh? And when was your meeting with the Almighty?

Science makes no attempt to answer the "spiritual," or philosophical questions in life. Religion, when it stays out of the mundane physical realm can complement science, creating a "whole."

It's not so much oil and water as water and Kool-aid. Water is okay by itself, but bland.

Kool-aid without water? I'll pass.

Palomar · 2004-05-19 09:11:12

If one excepts that a supreme being built our universe, using the Big Bang or some other method, then one must except that that being existed before our universe was created and that this being existed somewhere else other than our universe(Because, obviously, our universe was not here).

*And where did the supreme being come from/get its start?

Can something (anything) come from nothing?

Existence implies a genesis (not a reference to the first book of the bible) -- a starting point. If God exists, he must have had a starting point. Same as the universe (with or without a God to have created it).

I have yet to see any adequate explanation.

BTW, I should mention, since we've got some new folks here, that I'm an agnostic (NOT an atheist). I'm keeping an open mind, I think. I just see some of these issues as unanswerable. And sorry, I can't "take it by faith."

But to each their own, of course.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2004-05-19 09:18:09

Science can explain how the world works, but not why. Is it just a random accident? is there some deeper meaning? Science can't answer these questions.
Science makes no attempt to answer the "spiritual," or philosophical questions in life. Religion, when it stays out of the mundane physical realm can complement science, creating a "whole."

*I see the points you are making, Cobra.

But then I see a difference between religion and philosophy, i.e. philosophy can be religion-oriented or it can be secular.

I, too, wonder at the "WHY's." It's human nature. But I don't believe one book has all the answers (usually pat, "take my word for it, believe or burn in hell" answers). No scientist ever threatened to burn a person at the stake for NOT believing the Earth orbits the Sun, etc.

--Cindy

clark · 2004-05-19 09:19:56

*And where did the supreme being come from/get its start?

As a small puerto rican boy from the south bronx working as a newspaper delivery boy for a nickel an hour. After one incredibly hot summer, he had had enough and thought, "I can do better."

He hasn't looked back since.

Can something (anything) come from nothing?

Where did life come from? Somehow the inanimate rock learned to move. Either that, or life somehow managed to survive from the previous universe through the Big Bang and into this one. Now that would be cool.

If God exists, he must have had a starting point.

Not if god is "time" itself. Perhaps there is no start or end. There just is. Of course this makes no sense to my small monkey brain, but time, I think, is basically a human creation. Afterall, we're the only species with a watch, right? Anyway, time is a function of measurement between events. I think God is all events. [shrug]

All just conjecture, and we all find out one way or the other someday. Cheers!

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-19 09:31:42

But then I see a difference between religion and philosophy, i.e. philosophy can be religion-oriented or it can be secular.

Certainly, but religion is one form that philosophy can take. In the same sense that Stalinist Communism is a form of Left-wing politics... Read into that whatever you'd like regarding organized religion.

I, too, wonder at the "WHY's." It's human nature. But I don't believe one book has all the answers (usually pat, "take my word for it, believe or burn in hell" answers). No scientist ever threatened to burn a person at the stake for NOT believing the Earth orbits the Sun, etc.

I'll go a step further. I don't think the "whys" are answerable, because I don't believe they are anything more than our wishful thinking and need for something more.

I'm interested in "how," I'll make my own "why" when I know what's there to work with.

REB · 2004-05-19 09:37:26

I don’t know where God came from before he made this universe (this is accepting that he made the universe). I can speculate about that and his purpose for creating the universe, but there is no way I can know.

Our Physical universe had a beginning and has an ending point. What became before our physical universe? What will come after? Is there more to it then this matter we are made of and the laws that govern it.

I started off a Christian, but quiet young, the scientist in me had many unanswered questions. My folks took me to church on and off. My dad has never been very religious.

In college, I turned agnostic and came very close to being an athiest. After college, I started looking towards God Again, but I just couldn’t see how there could be life after death.

Then I had an experience with the Supernatural. I don’t blame anyone who doesn’t believe me – I certainly never believed such stories before. I was visited (Some might say haunted) by my dead grandmother for two weeks after she died (Until we buried her). I still have a hard time believing it. I not only felt her presence, but my wife and I saw her move objects. She even wound up lamb that plays a song. We heard it being winded up and then it started playing. My son, who was two at the time was asleep in his crib- the lamb was up on a shelf across the room., At that same time my 2 year old son also talked to her. Other things happened as well.

I don’t blame anyone if they don’t believe me about this, I know I wouldn’t, but that is what happened. I hope I don't get shunned as a crazy person for saying this stuff.

That was three years ago.

Needless to say, it blew away my scientific mind. It was then that I realized there had to be more to our existence than this physical universe we live in. I also realized that if one assumes God created our universe with all its physical laws, then he should be able to control it. All of the miracles in the Bible could have been performed by molecular control.

From the sub-atomic particles, to the clusters of Galaxies, when I look at the physical laws that govern our universe, I see God’s handywork. When I look at the periodic table of elements I see order, not because scientist arranged it that way, but because that is how matter works. And the way matter works together to build star, planets and life is brilliant.

I think that God created our Universe, with all its physical laws, with the Big Bang. He set it into motion knowing that beings like us humans would evolve. I believe his purpose is to create intelligent beings they have evolved following his natural laws. This means there could be aliens elsewhere in the universe. I can go into it deeper, if you like.

Now I have violated my Linus law- don’t talk about religion, politics or the Great Pumpkin.

dicktice · 2004-05-19 09:45:45

What's that about the Great Pumpkin. . . ?

Palomar · 2004-05-19 09:52:00

I also realized that if one assumes God created our universe with all its physical laws, then he should be able to control it. All of the miracles in the Bible could have been performed by molecular control.

*Well, quite a few 18th century Deists believed in God as akin to "The Great Clockmaker." He created, withdrew (to *where* he withdrew they didn't speculate on, insofar as I've read), and does not interfere.

Thus, they didn't believe in miracles. Why? Because they believed "miracles" would be a violation of the laws (mechanical laws) God created and set in place. And God would not violate his own created laws.

--Cindy

REB · 2004-05-19 09:55:12

In Charlie Brown's Halloween Special, Linus gives some good advice. His sister, Lucy, threatens to pound him for making her family the laughing stock of the neighborhood with his Great Pumpkin talk. Linus tells Charley Brown something like this;

There are three things I have learned not to discuss in public. Religion, Politics and the Great Pumpkin.

I have found that talking about Religion and Politics can also get you pounded. I try to avoid those two topics. People are usually set in their ways with those topics, and no amount of arguing will change most people’s minds. Most folks on this site seem to have an open mind, so I think it is safe to talk some religion.

clark · 2004-05-19 10:02:48

Never talk about another man's woman. :;):

REB · 2004-05-19 10:35:01

Cindy, you mentioned miracles. Here is my take on them. First, if you accept that God created this physical universe and all the physical laws that govern it, then its reasonable to assume he can control our matter and the laws that govern it.

That said, I can see how God could perform the miracle of the Bible and not violate the physical laws of the Universe. What he needs to do this is molecular control- the ability to control atoms and the ability to see the atoms that make up an object (an atomic map if you like). This is actually similar to the transporter and replicate concept of Star Trek.

For Jesus to take a few fish and turn it into many, all God needed to do was, using the atomic map of one fish, make copies using atoms found in the soil. I am not saying that is how it was done, I am saying that is a possible way it was done. Us humans could do this if we could map every atom in the fish and had the ability to build things atom by atom.

To bring a dead person back to life, just put their atoms back they way they were before the person died (I am surprised they never did this idea on Star Trek using the transporters).

To make a blind person see again, using the atomic map of a person’s eyes who can see, fix the blinds persons eye to match.

To get Jesus to walk on water, God might have had to play with some of the physical laws, like make the bonds between the water molecules stronger, or create some sort of anti-gravity field, if possible.

Anyway, the most of the miracles done in the Bible could be done without violating the Physical laws of our Universe.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-19 10:50:17

Okay REB, but taking your position reduces God to the level of science. Religion truly becomes a manifestation of profound ignorance which must be discarded in order to understand God.

God is us with better stuff in other words.

-EDIT-

Which implies that we have the potential to achieve godhood ourselves. Time to start that new religion

John Creighton · 2004-05-19 10:54:59

I think with quantum mechanics, just about anything can happen. It is just that most things likely won’t happen. Throw in zero point energy and then I am sure nothing breaks the laws of physics.

Bill White · 2004-05-19 11:02:15

Okay REB, but taking your position reduces God to the level of science. Religion truly becomes a manifestation of profound ignorance which must be discarded in order to understand God.
God is us with better stuff in other words.
-EDIT-
Which implies that we have the potential to achieve godhood ourselves. Time to start that new religion

Someone already has.

REB · 2004-05-19 11:03:17

Which implies that we have the potential to achieve godhood ourselves

(I am trying the quote button) Quote from Cobra.

Only in our Physical Universe.

We too can become masters of the physical laws that govern our universe. Outside our universe…that is another story. That is God’s realm IMO, and we can’t even comprehend it, much less control it.

Religion has a purpose separate from science. Faith, for example, is one of its purposes IMO.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-19 11:11:41

Someone already has.

The quote you sent popped into mind while I was out of the room, I was going to edit it and you beat me to it! I'll have to do my research on this particualr point to link the little fragments together and not make these little goofs.

We too can become masters of the physical laws that govern our universe. Outside our universe…that is another story. That is God’s realm IMO, and we can’t even comprehend it, much less control it.

But if God resides in another universe of sorts, it still falls under the realm of science as other universes are still physical phenomena that can be systematically analyzed and understood.

clark · 2004-05-19 11:21:38

You cannot understand what you cannot measure.

REB · 2004-05-19 11:28:43

But if God resides in another universe of sorts, it still falls under the realm of science as other universes are still physical phenomena that can be systematically analyzed and understood.

Maybe. Anything is possible.

The sky is the limit?

Suppose God does reside in this other place (Universe? Dimension? Some place we can not comprehend) that exist outside our own physical universe. Could we detect it? Could we cross over? Would God let us?

I saw a story about ghost hunters on TV a couple of years ago. They seemed serious and they claimed they could detect spirits with electromagnetic detectors. A search of the Internet shows they have been very serious about this.

Lets suppose that these guys are not bonkers and are onto something. That would mean that our universe, and the one the spirits reside in (where they have a physical form made of what we would call matter) share electromagnetic field in some way.

Maybe share is not the word. Let’s say we can detect electromagnetic fields coming from their universe (These electromagnetic fields may exist as something else in their universe, and just happened to be converted to electromagnetic radiation when it gets to our universe- Our physical laws change it to electromagnetic radiation from whatever it was in their universe. Kind of like taking an analog wave and converting it to a digital wave.)

Anyway, say we can actual detect something from that universe. That might open up science, our science, into that universe (I say universe, but I think this place is larger and different from our universe since it was there before our universe was). That could be huge if proven true.

John Creighton · 2004-05-19 11:32:30

There have been experiments at some universities (so the internet and tv say) that show thought can reduce the randomness of seemingly random events.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-05-18 12:18:02

Re: Science & religion - An interesting discussion

#2 2004-05-18 13:00:19

Re: Science & religion - An interesting discussion

#3 2004-05-18 13:26:47

Re: Science & religion - An interesting discussion

#4 2004-05-18 13:54:47

Re: Science & religion - An interesting discussion

#5 2004-05-19 08:15:48

Re: Science & religion - An interesting discussion

#6 2004-05-19 08:59:17

Re: Science & religion - An interesting discussion

#7 2004-05-19 09:05:49

Re: Science & religion - An interesting discussion

#8 2004-05-19 09:11:12

Re: Science & religion - An interesting discussion

#9 2004-05-19 09:18:09

Re: Science & religion - An interesting discussion

#10 2004-05-19 09:19:56

Re: Science & religion - An interesting discussion

#11 2004-05-19 09:31:42

Re: Science & religion - An interesting discussion

#12 2004-05-19 09:37:26

Re: Science & religion - An interesting discussion

#13 2004-05-19 09:45:45

Re: Science & religion - An interesting discussion

#14 2004-05-19 09:52:00

Re: Science & religion - An interesting discussion

#15 2004-05-19 09:55:12

Re: Science & religion - An interesting discussion

#16 2004-05-19 10:02:48

Re: Science & religion - An interesting discussion

#17 2004-05-19 10:35:01

Re: Science & religion - An interesting discussion

#18 2004-05-19 10:50:17

Re: Science & religion - An interesting discussion

#19 2004-05-19 10:54:59

Re: Science & religion - An interesting discussion

#20 2004-05-19 11:02:15

Re: Science & religion - An interesting discussion

#21 2004-05-19 11:03:17

Re: Science & religion - An interesting discussion

#22 2004-05-19 11:11:41

Re: Science & religion - An interesting discussion

#23 2004-05-19 11:21:38

Re: Science & religion - An interesting discussion

#24 2004-05-19 11:28:43

Re: Science & religion - An interesting discussion

#25 2004-05-19 11:32:30

Re: Science & religion - An interesting discussion

Board footer