Atheistic Scientists also contributed, but neither “side’s” contribution has any relevance to the existence of God. So what is your point?
That science and faith are not mutually exclusive. This was in direct response to whiteknight, who says s/he will choose science over God.
The Templeton Prize is usually given to a Scientist who has something nice to say about religion. I haven’t read any of Michael Heller’s work, but from your description, let me guess his conclusions, you tell me how close I am to what he says.
From Wikipedia:
His current research is concerned with the
singularity problem in
general relativity and the use of
noncommutative geometry in seeking the unification of
general relativity and
quantum mechanics. He has published nearly 200 scientific papers not only in general relativity and relativistic cosmology, but also in philosophy and the history of science and science and
theology and is the author of more than 20 books. In his most recent volume,
Is Physics an Art? (Biblos, 1998), he writes about
mathematics as the language of science and also explores such
humanistic issues as
beauty as a criterion of
truth,
creativity, and
transcendence.
In commenting on winning the Templeton Prize, Fr. Heller said, ""If we ask about
the cause of the universe we should ask about the cause of mathematical laws. By doing so we are back in the great blueprint of God’s thinking about the universe; the question on ultimate causality:
why is there something rather than nothing? When asking this question, we are not asking about a cause like all other causes. We are asking about the root of all possible causes. Science is but a collective effort of the human mind to read the mind of God from question marks out of which we and the world around us seem to be made.”
Stephen Hawking, for example, is proposing a boundless universe with no beginning or end and thus no requisite for a creator of any kind.
The observable evidence, including the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation strongly supports Fr. Georges Lemaître’s theory which we refer to now as “the Big Bang”. So, it should be interesting to see Hawking’s version of the infinite cause. It will be just a new twist on an old argument to deny the eternal Creator.
Evidence of a universal negative of this sort cannot exist, and that is not the position of most atheists, there is simply no good reason to believe in God, that has ever been presented to me.
Likewise, I have never seen an atheist present to me a coherent explanation for how the universe and life came into being. The idea that the universe came into existence as a result of a cause, which had a cause, which had a cause, which had a cause, which had a cause, which had a cause, which had a cause ad infinitum is illogical to me. Both the observable evidence (Big Bang) and logic, point toward an eternal Creator who began the series of events that led to the creation of the universe and life. If you can give me a real-world example of something that came from nothing, please do. The idea that the universe came from nothing, but instead has existed in perpetuity, is not a “theory” I can accept as rational.
So now the position is that the catholic faith never said there was a limbo? That’s rich.
Limbo was a theoretical construct posited by such theologians as St. Augustine to the question of the fate of unbaptized infants. It was never a doctrine of the Church that one was required to believe. Still, the theory of Limbo “remains a possible theological opinion”.
The catholic church never considered a heliocentric universe as heresy, and never put Galileo under house arrest?
I’ve answered this one waaaay too many times on this forum to even desire to bother with it, so I’ll let the CA library take over:
catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp
The Catholic church has always supported evolution, despite the directly contradictory sections in the bible?
Even the Jews do not take Genesis as describing literal 24-hour earth days. So, where you got the idea that the Church
did is beyond me. Back to the CA library:
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp
Sure, you can say that if any evidence arises that contradicts the catholic teaching that the catholic teaching was intended as metaphor or allegory, or that the evidence is wrong.
If you can show me any evidence that the Church has ever taught that something was once the
opposite of what it teaches now, please bring the evidence forward. It has never been a doctrine of the Church that Genesis was literally describing a series of events over a few days:
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0301bt.asp
That’s a pretty good way to remain consistent. Not very intellectually honest though.
Can you give a specific example intellectual dishonesty? It’s easier to respond if you can talk in concretes rather than generalizing without evidence.
Dont just read 1 of my responses then hitout…