Religion and Science

[TacosRocket]

“Religion without science is blind, science without religion is lame.” - Albert Einstein.

So, question for all of you god fearers out there, of whom I am happy to count myself among. Today I am wondering what you think about science!

Science is telling us that a universe from nothing is possible without a creator. I don’t know all the details, obviously,t, but people much smarter than me have discovered this and presented their findings for me to read (which I am in the middle of) and not hiding it, that’s good enough for me.

There is also the matter of the age of the earth and dinosaurs missing from the 7 days in which God created the universe, I know a group referred to as “young creationists” like to chalk their bones up to a test of faith.

I have my own answers to these things already, but I want to hear yours. Have you thought about this stuff yet? How does the news of an explanation for matter besides a first creator sound to you? If you don’t believe that part, put it in your head as a hypothetical situation in which there is no “but then who created that?” to the explanation.

Put that next to the fact that people have believed in hundreds of other gods, and all been given reasons and explanations as to why theirs is true and others are not, just like you have, it doesn’t look good.

These are things that have put me in an existential crisis. I want to know how others have dealt with it, has it shaken your faith before or maybe right now? Why or why not?

Thank you all.

 

[MaryT777]

I don’t find Science conflicts with my Catholic Faith at all.
Mary.

 

[agnes_therese]

I don’t see why any of this would put you in an “existential crisis.” Faith and science are not opposed.

– those who tell you the universe could have come from nothing can’t prove that it did. “Could have” covers a lot of territory. I “could have” been born a Hindu half a planet away from here. I wasn’t, so who cares?
– the age of the earth has nothing to do with faith. As is pointed out every time this subject comes up, the Bible is not a science textbook.
– so the dinosaurs aren’t mentioned in the creation account. So what? Start making a list of all the animals and plants that aren’t specifically mentioned. See if you can finish this side of the grave.
– why should I worry that some people believe in gods that I don’t believe in?

“Religion without science is blind, science without religion is lame.” - Albert Einstein.

So, question for all of you god fearers out there, of whom I am happy to count myself among. Today I am wondering what you think about science!

Science is telling us that a universe from nothing is possible without a creator. I don’t know all the details, obviously,t, but people much smarter than me have discovered this and presented their findings for me to read (which I am in the middle of) and not hiding it, that’s good enough for me.

There is also the matter of the age of the earth and dinosaurs missing from the 7 days in which God created the universe, I know a group referred to as “young creationists” like to chalk their bones up to a test of faith.

I have my own answers to these things already, but I want to hear yours. Have you thought about this stuff yet? How does the news of an explanation for matter besides a first creator sound to you? If you don’t believe that part, put it in your head as a hypothetical situation in which there is no “but then who created that?” to the explanation.

Put that next to the fact that people have believed in hundreds of other gods, and all been given reasons and explanations as to why theirs is true and others are not, just like you have, it doesn’t look good.

These are things that have put me in an existential crisis. I want to know how others have dealt with it, has it shaken your faith before or maybe right now? Why or why not?

Thank you all.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I’m quite comfortable with science, having been a biology major myself. I do get skeptical when politics or other ideology gets involved creating a potential bias, but I think the basic scientific views of the history of the earth are pretty solid.

A few thoughts about your questions and concerns.

First, to my knowledge all this recent hype about a possible multiverse to explain where our universe came from is based on pure speculation. As a physics professor of mine encouraged us to always ask whenever someone claimed “science says such and such”, show me the evidence. Show me the studies, the data, the statistics, that lend support to this hypothesis. There is practically none. It is about as speculative as any nonsense you might encounter in an episode of Star Trek (much as I like Star Trek). Granted, in the midst of all this recent speculative fervor someone recently claimed to have found evidence of a possible primeval collision of our universe with another, which would be evidence of a multiverse, but from what I’ve read the evidence is extremely debatable, sort of like these claims of evidence for life on Mars that seem to come out every year or so.

But even if this theory were to be true it would only push back the problem of why there is something instead of nothing. The more remote the problem of Creation is made the more comfortable atheists may feel in ignoring it, but pushing it back to earlier hypothetical stages of development does nothing to answer the dilemma.

As for people believing in hundreds of gods, I would be interested in your idea that people seriously defended the existence of those gods while denying the existence of any others. There might have been some weirdo in the ancient world who made such a claim, but I have never heard of him and that was certainly not a typical approach of pagans to their mythologies. Least of all have I ever heard of a pagan apologist defending the existence of a traditional pantheon using philosophy. Mythology and philosophy were quite distinct from one another until they were brought together by Christianity’s “true myth.” Sometimes we project a Christian mindset onto pagans. Maybe that is what you have inadvertently done, and then turned it around to cast doubt on Christianity.

 

[Zachary]

Real science leads to truth. Self-serving quasi-science is lame.

Real truth leads to God and His Catholic Church.

Even if God walked among us, Bill Nye would try to apply his brand of theological science to prove that it may have been an alien or time traveller or whatever.

Even though He did dwell among us and we have written eyewitness accounts, “scientists” still try to debunk.

Anti-theist scientists are the ones who plant seeds that Religion hates science when in reality God wants us to seek truth (that’s why he gave us the capacity to ask and learn). Because the truth leads to Him.

 

[bzkoss236]

In my high school days, when I came into doubts about God, Science is what would always bring me back. History and faith brought me back to Christ, and eventually, back to the Church.

Science always brings me back to God. What is a painting without a painter?

 

[Louishacker]

You wrote:

"Science is telling us that a universe from nothing is possible without a creator. I don’t know all the details, obviously,t, but people much smarter than me have discovered this and presented their findings for me to read (which I am in the middle of) and not hiding it, that’s good enough for me. "

However, not all scietists believe in a God-free creation. They have solid scietific
reasons why a “Big Bang” theory does not preclude fte action of God. I encourge you to check out The Magis Center of Reason and Faith at magisreasonfaith.org/index.html

The homepage states:

"Does Contemporary Science Point to an Intelligent Creator?

Does a beginning of our universe imply a creation? What if our universe is part of a multiverse? Does a multiverse have to have a beginning and a creation?

What’s more reasonable and responsible, a Creator or a physical universe without a Creator?

The answers to these questions can be understood by students and adults who do not have a background in physics.

Join us on a journey to the very origins of our universe – and beyond."

You can buy video courses ccourses and books, but on the homepage you can click on : “Ask Fr. Spitzer” and “Fr. Spitzer Vdeos” for free.

 

[TacosRocket]

Wonderful answers and insight!

So if science is a lead to God, why do most scientists seem to use it as evidence of no God? People can’t choose what they believe, as much as they can choose to deny it. But I don’t think that’s what’s happening here. I think a lot of atheists are probably like me and need a true reason to believe something, not just good sounding philosophy. So why has it led many of us back to God but not them?

And so what if there is an explanation of matter without a creator? I don’t know how, but what if there is? I say what of it. God gave us a scientific explanation for everything else why not that shrugs. So there really is nothing science can do to disprove God, even if it finds a way to explain existence itself.

Well, there’s also the eucharistic miracles, and the historical accuracy of the bible, and the celestial accuracy of the bible. It’s mainly those type of things that have kept my faith strong, which is why God must have brought me to them.

But then what’s with the other “believe it when I see it” people? Are they just ignoring it really really hard or just not have seen anything?

 

[bzkoss236]

Wonderful answers and insight!

So if science is a lead to God, why do most scientists seem to use it as evidence of no God? People can’t choose what they believe, as much as they can choose to deny it. But I don’t think that’s what’s happening here. I think a lot of atheists are probably like me and need a true reason to believe something, not just good sounding philosophy. So why has it led many of us back to God but not them?

And so what if there is an explanation of matter without a creator? I don’t know how, but what if there is? I say what of it. God gave us a scientific explanation for everything else why not that shrugs. So there really is nothing science can do to disprove God, even if it finds a way to explain existence itself.

Well, there’s also the eucharistic miracles, and the historical accuracy of the bible, and the celestial accuracy of the bible. It’s mainly those type of things that have kept my faith strong, which is why God must have brought me to them.

But then what’s with the other “believe it when I see it” people? Are they just ignoring it really really hard or just not have seen anything?

Because they are looking at science with a preconceived notion that God doesn’t exist, so they ignore God in their work.

Some don’t want God to exist and are closed off to the idea of a God or gods, while others are simply skeptical, but are open minded and only find the evidence unsatisfactory.

 

[TacosRocket]

You wrote:

"Science is telling us that a universe from nothing is possible without a creator. I don’t know all the details, obviously,t, but people much smarter than me have discovered this and presented their findings for me to read (which I am in the middle of) and not hiding it, that’s good enough for me. "

However, not all scietists believe in a God-free creation. They have solid scietific
reasons why a “Big Bang” theory does not preclude fte action of God. I encourge you to check out The Magis Center of Reason and Faith at magisreasonfaith.org/index.html

The homepage states:

"Does Contemporary Science Point to an Intelligent Creator?

Does a beginning of our universe imply a creation? What if our universe is part of a multiverse? Does a multiverse have to have a beginning and a creation?

What’s more reasonable and responsible, a Creator or a physical universe without a Creator?

The answers to these questions can be understood by students and adults who do not have a background in physics.

Join us on a journey to the very origins of our universe – and beyond."

You can buy video courses ccourses and books, but on the homepage you can click on : “Ask Fr. Spitzer” and “Fr. Spitzer Vdeos” for free.

This sounds awesome, thank you for sharing I will check this out.

Right now I have a book from the library that says “forget Jesus, the stars died so you could live” and I became very excited at the opportunity to get a better understanding of the other side of things. I haven’t read too much yet, but the assumption seems to be that since science is addressing the question of why there is something rather than nothing, it disproves God. But they don’t seem to be considering that maybe it doesn’t work that way, event though these are scientifically minded people, who as such are suppose to explore every avenue of possibility. The fact that they seem to be ignoring that one I think says a lot in of itself.

 

[TacosRocket]

Because they are looking at science with a preconceived notion that God doesn’t exist, so they ignore God in their work.

Some don’t want God to exist and are closed off to the idea of a God or gods, while others are simply skeptical, but are open minded and only find the evidence unsatisfactory.

That makes sense of them ignoring God in their work. I was one of those skeptics, which I think is normal and reasonable for anyone to be at some time in their life. But you say that they find the evidence unsatisfactory… won’t God give them satisfactory evidence? He’s given me mountains of it, I could talk about it for days. I mean real, tangible evidence! Not clever words or ideas, real expericeable things. Does everyone get that or did I just happen to run into this stuff? Why would God give me mountains of evidence and not others? Because of others got this evidence they wouldn’t be able to ignore it. I sure can’t.

 

[Michael57]

The real "discoverer of the Big Bang was a priest.

From Wiki (with apologies):

Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, (French: [ləmɛtʁ] ( listen); 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain. He was the first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble.[1][2] He was also the first to derive what is now known as Hubble’s law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble’s article.[3][4][5][6] Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his ‘hypothesis of the primeval atom’.[7]

When I consider what science tells us about the creation of the universe, it sounds an awful lot like Chapter One of Genesis to me.

 

[TacosRocket]

The real "discoverer of the Big Bang was a priest.

From Wiki (with apologies):

When I consider what science tells us about the creation of the universe, it sounds an awful lot like Chapter One of Genesis to me.

Please, do tell.

 

[TomD123]

Hey TacosRocket: I have some thoughts! I will post them here. Let me know what you think.

Science is telling us that a universe from nothing is possible without a creator. I don’t know all the details, obviously,t, but people much smarter than me have discovered this and presented their findings for me to read (which I am in the middle of) and not hiding it, that’s good enough for me.

Not exactly, the scientists who think this misunderstand what nothing really means. What these scientists mean is that it is possible to get a universe from some sort of simple void. Yet this void is not nothing. Here are some explanations:
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/search?q=nothing This is a post from a philosopher

firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/much-ado-about-ldquonothingrdquo-stephen-hawking-and-the-self-creating-universe **This is from a physicist **

There is also the matter of the age of the earth and dinosaurs missing from the 7 days in which God created the universe, I know a group referred to as “young creationists” like to chalk their bones up to a test of faith.

The 7 Days of the creation are generally understood to be symbolic. The age of the earth is certainly more than 6000 years.
Here are some links that are related. I especially suggest you read the quotes from the Pope and St. Thomas. Also look at the analogy of God creating the universe in a simple manner or a complex manner. There are three posts but it is worth the read:

catholicxray.com/science-and-religion-a-commentary-on-a-sermon/

catholicxray.com/science-and-religion-commentary-on-a-sermon-part-2/

catholicxray.com/conclusion-on-science-and-religion-sermon-commentary/

Put that next to the fact that people have believed in hundreds of other gods, and all been given reasons and explanations as to why theirs is true and others are not, just like you have, it doesn’t look good.

Well this isn’t entirely accurate. You have to understand a few things

1. Even though someone CLAIMS that they have good evidence, doesn’t mean that they actually DO
2. Not every being that humans have called “god” can really be God in the true sense…
   See here:
   edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/04/one-god-further-objection.html

 

[A_G]

The Church and real science are not, and should not be at war with one another. In fact, the Church has many priests who also happen to be scientists. Science is very important as it studies the universe that God created.

 

[TacosRocket]

Hey TacosRocket: I have some thoughts! I will post them here. Let me know what you think.

Not exactly, the scientists who think this misunderstand what nothing really means. What these scientists mean is that it is possible to get a universe from some sort of simple void. Yet this void is not nothing. Here are some explanations:
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/search?q=nothing This is a post from a philosopher

firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/much-ado-about-ldquonothingrdquo-stephen-hawking-and-the-self-creating-universe **This is from a physicist **

The 7 Days of the creation are generally understood to be symbolic. The age of the earth is certainly more than 6000 years.
Here are some links that are related. I especially suggest you read the quotes from the Pope and St. Thomas. Also look at the analogy of God creating the universe in a simple manner or a complex manner. There are three posts but it is worth the read:

catholicxray.com/science-and-religion-a-commentary-on-a-sermon/

catholicxray.com/science-and-religion-commentary-on-a-sermon-part-2/

catholicxray.com/conclusion-on-science-and-religion-sermon-commentary/

Well this isn’t entirely accurate. You have to understand a few things

1. Even though someone CLAIMS that they have good evidence, doesn’t mean that they actually DO
2. Not every being that humans have called “god” can really be God in the true sense…
   See here:
   edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/04/one-god-further-objection.html

Thanks for replying ^^ I’m not the best at getting my point across, it gets to the point where I don’t even know what I’m trying to say anymore! So just forget the other gods thing.

I need to read more of the book (it’s a book called “A Universe from Nothing” and it’s by an atheist scientist guy) but you are right he does talk about the universe coming from a void. By reading it I first, am interested in the science, and secondly want to understand where the other side of believers are coming from.

All I know about the young creationism thing is that that is what some people believe, and this being a hardcore christian forum I was curious about the answers I would get. So far from my poking around I am pleased to discover that evolution is understood and science not only accepted but loved. This is a grave misconception that our society I think has about those in the christian faith, sad.

Thank you for sharing those links, I will take a look at those!

Now that you say that that passage in the bible is understood to be symbolic… how then how do we know when the bible is being symbolic and being literal? I think that’s another post on its own.

 

[TacosRocket]

The Church and real science are not, and should not be at war with one another. In fact, the Church has many priests who also happen to be scientists. Science is very important as it studies the universe that God created.

You know that is exactly what every very christian minded person I’ve asked has been saying, so where are all the misconceptions about religious people having to reject scientific views in order for it not to clash with their faith?

 

[Michael57]

You know that is exactly what every very christian minded person I’ve asked has been saying, so where are all the misconceptions about religious people having to reject scientific views in order for it not to clash with their faith?

It’s not new. It’s been happening since before the days of St Augustine of Hippo.

I see that you make several presumptions that are questionable in and of themselves. Such as this: You say that “most scientists” don’t believe in God. I have found through personal experience that that is simply not true. I have worked with many (hundreds even) scientists, and they come from a wide variety of belief systems, some very devout, some not-so-much, and few actual atheists.

Now about this:

All I know about the young creationism thing is that that is what some people believe, and this being a hardcore christian forum I was curious about the answers I would get.

Isn’t that what some people call “trolling”?

Or at least “baiting”? Seems like it to me.

 

[TacosRocket]

It’s not new. It’s been happening since before the days of St Augustine of Hippo.

I see that you make several presumptions that are questionable in and of themselves. Such as this: You say that “most scientists” don’t believe in God. I have found through personal experience that that is simply not true. I have worked with many (hundreds even) scientists, and they come from a wide variety of belief systems, some very devout, some not-so-much, and few actual atheists.

Now about this:

Isn’t that what some people call “trolling”?

Or at least “baiting”? Seems like it to me.

That’s not been my personal experience with scientists but you have seen a lot more than me, so I’m glad it’s more diverse than what I’ve encountered.

Trolling is when a person says something to anger someone, and continually does so to torture them. Or they try to be as annoying as possible or ruin things for everyone.

Internet baiting is scamming someone out of money, information, etc.

Wanting to discus controversial topics with certain kinds of people I would think is not either of those things.

 

[TomD123]

I need to read more of the book (it’s a book called “A Universe from Nothing” and it’s by an atheist scientist guy) but you are right he does talk about the universe coming from a void. By reading it I first, am interested in the science, and secondly want to understand where the other side of believers are coming from.

Now that you say that that passage in the bible is understood to be symbolic… how then how do we know when the bible is being symbolic and being literal? I think that’s another post on its own.

Yeah “A Universe from Nothing” is Lawrence Krauss’s book. He deeply misunderstands the term nothing. He is basically arguing for a “nothing” which means certain states governed by the laws of QM. Which is far from nothing. Krauss actually was pressed on this and said (in a think an interview):
“I don’t ever claim to resolve that infinite regress of why-why-why-why-why; as far as I’m concerned it’s turtles all the way down.”
In other words, he recognizes the limits of science in explaining things, he just doesn’t seem to care about that.

As for understanding the Bible passages, it depends on a few things. First the simple sense of the text…some things are more obviously historical whereas other things (like the creation story) are poetic. We also look to the Church Fathers. St. Augustine wrote extensively on not interpreting Genesis completely literally. Finally we look to the teachings of the Church. The Church teaches that it is acceptable to take Genesis symbolically

Hope this is all helpful