Science & Religion

[SGWessells]

I have noticed that in threads dealing with the relation of science to faith, believers consistently (though not universally) make three false assumptions:

First, finding one apparent similarity between Genesis and a scientific discovery does not validate Genesis as a whole. It doesn’t even prove the similarity, since in context, it may not exist. For example, there are posts comparing the photons produced by the Big Bang to “let there be light.” Is anyone seriously suggesting that the author of Genesis 1:3 had any notion of the Big Bang? But if not, how can he have intended to teach it? The similarity is only coincidental, therefore Genesis and science have nothing to do with each other.
By the way, I wish the Faithful would make up their minds about this. Whenever science makes a literal reading of Genesis absurd – which is almost always – you always say, “it’s allegory,” or “it’s a metaphor.” But as soon as somebody sees some scientific finding that seems vaguely similar, they’re crowing, “see how Genesis anticipated modern science!” Sorry, you can’t have it both ways; Either Genesis intends to teach science or it does not; and if it does, then all of it does. If “let there be light” refers to the Big Bang, then “and evening and morning were the first day” refers to the time duration of creation. You can’t just switch from allegory to scientific accuracy and back again whenever it suits your argument.

Second, proving that a supernatural entity is necessary to explain life or morality is only the first step in making your case. After that, you have to prove that Yahweh, rather than Allah, Brahma, Odin, Isis, or some other deity is the one responsible. You can’t just take it for granted that yours is the relevant entity, because nobody outside your faith will grant it.

Third, just because science has not (yet) discovered what happened in the first tiny sliver of a second after the Big Bang doesn’t mean there isn’t a whole mountain of observational evidence and confirmation for what happened after that, which you have to fit into your creation story. Same with the origin of the first self-replicating cell. You can’t just claim victory by saying, “science doesn’t know how life, or the Big Bang, started, therefore God did it.” For one thing, there is no more evidence that God did it than that a quantum fluctuation, a collision with other universes, a “singularity” or the Space God Zarkon did it, or that it happened spontaneously. In short, the absence of a scientific explanation is not evidence in favor of a supernatural one.

Keeping these logical principles in mind will save a whole lot of mental effort and exasperation. Thank you.

 

[Lui]

Anastasia
**
Charlie, there is no proof for either theism or atheism. Both are foundational assumptions we bring to bear on our observation of nature.**

But why does the atheist choose the assumption of atheism?

What is an atheist when you think about it? Is it someone who doesn’t believe in the Christian, Muslim or Jewish God or someone who also doesn’t believe in Greek or Hindu Gods? You probably don’t believe in Hindu Gods or Zeus. That makes you a Hindu or Greek God atheist. Why do you choose to be a Hindu or Greek God atheist?
People who don’t believe in Christianity just don’t buy the Christian religion. It’s as simple as that.

 

[buffalo]

I have noticed that in threads dealing with the relation of science to faith, believers consistently (though not universally) make three false assumptions:

First, finding one apparent similarity between Genesis and a scientific discovery does not validate Genesis as a whole. It doesn’t even prove the similarity, since in context, it may not exist. For example, there are posts comparing the photons produced by the Big Bang to “let there be light.” Is anyone seriously suggesting that the author of Genesis 1:3 had any notion of the Big Bang? But if not, how can he have intended to teach it? The similarity is only coincidental, therefore Genesis and science have nothing to do with each other.
By the way, I wish the Faithful would make up their minds about this. Whenever science makes a literal reading of Genesis absurd – which is almost always – you always say, “it’s allegory,” or “it’s a metaphor.” But as soon as somebody sees some scientific finding that seems vaguely similar, they’re crowing, “see how Genesis anticipated modern science!” Sorry, you can’t have it both ways; Either Genesis intends to teach science or it does not; and if it does, then all of it does. If “let there be light” refers to the Big Bang, then “and evening and morning were the first day” refers to the time duration of creation. You can’t just switch from allegory to scientific accuracy and back again whenever it suits your argument.

Second, proving that a supernatural entity is necessary to explain life or morality is only the first step in making your case. After that, you have to prove that Yahweh, rather than Allah, Brahma, Odin, Isis, or some other deity is the one responsible. You can’t just take it for granted that yours is the relevant entity, because nobody outside your faith will grant it.

Third, just because science has not (yet) discovered what happened in the first tiny sliver of a second after the Big Bang doesn’t mean there isn’t a whole mountain of observational evidence and confirmation for what happened after that, which you have to fit into your creation story. Same with the origin of the first self-replicating cell. You can’t just claim victory by saying, “science doesn’t know how life, or the Big Bang, started, therefore God did it.” For one thing, there is no more evidence that God did it than that a quantum fluctuation, a collision with other universes, a “singularity” or the Space God Zarkon did it, or that it happened spontaneously. In short, the absence of a scientific explanation is not evidence in favor of a supernatural one.

Keeping these logical principles in mind will save a whole lot of mental effort and exasperation. Thank you.

The first question to ask is who is the author of Genesis and what was his inspiration?

Suppose God wrote Genesis 1. It appears to be written from God’s perspective.

Consider:



The areas of intersect must be true.

Nope, the evidence is showing cellular complexity right from the get go. As far as God of the gap arguments. There will always be at least one gap, or we would be God.

We can now see what was done. Information was (name removed by moderator)ut. How God did it I don’t know and maybe we never will.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=7313

 

[SGWessells]

The first question to ask is who is the author of Genesis and what was his inspiration?

Suppose God wrote Genesis 1. It appears to be written from God’s perspective.

Consider:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yOU3rLeU3TQ/TpbzxRoosYI/AAAAAAAAAYM/ZTdcHfpo2J0/s400/idvolution3.gif

The areas of intersect must be true.

Nope, the evidence is showing cellular complexity right from the get go. As far as God of the gap arguments. There will always be at least one gap, or we would be God.

We can now see what was done. Information was (name removed by moderator)ut. How God did it I don’t know and maybe we never will.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=7313

The area of intersection must be true ***only if ***the circles of revelation and faith are true. You have to establish that before your diagram proves anything.

As for diagram 2, I find no letter “i” in e=mc2.

Lots of books “appear to be written from [a] God’s perspective.” So what? The thing that would make it likely that Genesis really was written from God’s perspective would be if it was consistent with itself, with the defined attributes of God found elsewhere in scripture (and, for Catholics, tradition), and with our knowledge of the world. Unfortunately, it fails resoundingly on all three fronts.
Genesis read literally reflects ancient cosmological notions common in the era in which it was written, that earth was a flat disk supported by pillars, surmounted by a solid crystalline dome under which was air and on top of which was water over which was the Throne of God. Hardly anyone today thinks this is a picture “written from God’s perspective.” Why not? Because science has made it look ridiculous. So even Christians admit that biblical interpretation must be adjusted to fit scientific understanding. Which means “God’s perspective” changes to match human understanding. Isn’t that the reverse of what’s supposed to happen?
But if Genesis is mythological or allegorical or metaphorical, of what is it a metaphor? Metaphors don’t exist in a vacuum; they point to something to which they are similar, which is why they were chosen as metaphors. People say, “strong as a lion,” not “strong as a rabbit” (unless satirically). So if Genesis 1 is a metaphor, what is it a metaphor OF?
And why would it need to be metaphorical at all, if “God’s perspective” was to give us an accurate picture of the cosmos? (And if it wasn’t, what on earth could “inspiration” signify, and why should we trust it?). Why couldn’t God have given the Israelites a simplified picture of evolution or the Big Bang, such as we might teach our children? Surely an infinite intelligence wouldn’t find this difficult, and look what a lot of mental contortions he would have saved his people had he done so.
Genesis goes out of its way to say that Noah’s flood covered the whole world and killed everything not in the ark; yet there are continuous, uninterrupted historical records of civilizations both before and after the period when the flood, according to biblical chronology, took place. Another metaphor?
There are two contradictory creation stories, and both of them contradict our scientific knowledge of the order and manner in which life evolved. Did God inspire a lie? Make a mistake? Not care? If he didn’t care about the truth of Genesis, why should we? If he erred or lied, why should we believe anything in the Bible?
As for cellular complexity, the observed pattern is simpler forms combining into more complex forms. There are forms simpler than cells, and RNA before DNA. And who determines when the “get go” starts anyway? If you draw the line behind complex cells, then of course they “appear from the get-go,” but only because you drew the line to make it seem as if they did. Sorry – won’t work.

 

[buffalo]

The area of intersection must be true ***only if ***the circles of revelation and faith are true. You have to establish that before your diagram proves anything.

As for diagram 2, I find no letter “i” in e=mc2.

Lots of books “appear to be written from [a] God’s perspective.” So what? The thing that would make it likely that Genesis really was written from God’s perspective would be if it was consistent with itself, with the defined attributes of God found elsewhere in scripture (and, for Catholics, tradition), and with our knowledge of the world. Unfortunately, it fails resoundingly on all three fronts.
Genesis read literally reflects ancient cosmological notions common in the era in which it was written, that earth was a flat disk supported by pillars, surmounted by a solid crystalline dome under which was air and on top of which was water over which was the Throne of God. Hardly anyone today thinks this is a picture “written from God’s perspective.” Why not? Because science has made it look ridiculous. So even Christians admit that biblical interpretation must be adjusted to fit scientific understanding. Which means “God’s perspective” changes to match human understanding. Isn’t that the reverse of what’s supposed to happen?
But if Genesis is mythological or allegorical or metaphorical, of what is it a metaphor? Metaphors don’t exist in a vacuum; they point to something to which they are similar, which is why they were chosen as metaphors. People say, “strong as a lion,” not “strong as a rabbit” (unless satirically). So if Genesis 1 is a metaphor, what is it a metaphor OF?
And why would it need to be metaphorical at all, if “God’s perspective” was to give us an accurate picture of the cosmos? (And if it wasn’t, what on earth could “inspiration” signify, and why should we trust it?). Why couldn’t God have given the Israelites a simplified picture of evolution or the Big Bang, such as we might teach our children? Surely an infinite intelligence wouldn’t find this difficult, and look what a lot of mental contortions he would have saved his people had he done so.
Genesis goes out of its way to say that Noah’s flood covered the whole world and killed everything not in the ark; yet there are continuous, uninterrupted historical records of civilizations both before and after the period when the flood, according to biblical chronology, took place. Another metaphor?
There are two contradictory creation stories, and both of them contradict our scientific knowledge of the order and manner in which life evolved. Did God inspire a lie? Make a mistake? Not care? If he didn’t care about the truth of Genesis, why should we? If he erred or lied, why should we believe anything in the Bible?
As for cellular complexity, the observed pattern is simpler forms combining into more complex forms. There are forms simpler than cells, and RNA before DNA. And who determines when the “get go” starts anyway? If you draw the line behind complex cells, then of course they “appear from the get-go,” but only because you drew the line to make it seem as if they did. Sorry – won’t work.

You are correct - it is most important that scientific observations are correctly reasoned.

First off, Catholics read the Bible literally that is what the author intended to convey. Others read it literalistically.

Yes indeed, many Christians have fell victim to scientism. It is important to understand what the Church has continuously taught and understood all along. The Bible did not just fall out of the sky yesterday and now we have to figure it out.

The ancients knew the world was a globe. It is plain to see. The Myth of the Flat Earth

Aahhhh - you touch upon something very important. Yes, why didn’t God reveal that we came from animals? Your assumption is that the Big Bang and evolution is true. Scripture and tradition both affirm Creation by God.

See ATP Synthase motor - complex, very complex. All life has it. It was there from the beginning.

The two creation accounts are complementary. One speaks of the order of creation, the other the importance of man. Study the chiastic structures found in Genesis.

Show me your sources for continuous uninterrupted historical records. You are aware that there are over 70 flood accounts from all over the world. These accounts persist.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

SGW

I have noticed that in threads dealing with the relation of science to faith, believers consistently (though not universally) make three false assumptions:

I assume you are directing this post at me.
**
First, finding one apparent similarity between Genesis and a scientific discovery does not validate Genesis as a whole. It doesn’t even prove the similarity, since in context, it may not exist. For example, there are posts comparing the photons produced by the Big Bang to “let there be light.” Is anyone seriously suggesting that the author of Genesis 1:3 had any notion of the Big Bang? But if not, how can he have intended to teach it? The similarity is only coincidental, therefore Genesis and science have nothing to do with each other.**

I didn’t say finding one similarity validated Genesis as a whole. But your argument that it is a coincidence is highly problematic. No one is suggesting the author of Genesis had training in astronomy and the big Bang. But on the other hand why is it that people who had training in physics could not find Let there be Light! until a Catholic priest (Le Maitre) showed them the way?

By the way, I wish the Faithful would make up their minds about this. Whenever science makes a literal reading of Genesis absurd – which is almost always – you always say, “it’s allegory,” or “it’s a metaphor.” But as soon as somebody sees some scientific finding that seems vaguely similar, they’re crowing, “see how Genesis anticipated modern science!” Sorry, you can’t have it both ways; Either Genesis intends to teach science or it does not; and if it does, then all of it does. If “let there be light” refers to the Big Bang, then “and evening and morning were the first day” refers to the time duration of creation. You can’t just switch from allegory to scientific accuracy and back again whenever it suits your argument.

Genesis is not a scientific treatise. It is an allegory of the Creation. As such it is meant for an audience used to allegory as opposed to astronomy and biology. There is no ancient account of Creation remotely approaching the account in Genesis. Even the order of Creation is similar to modern notions of evolution. Life begins in the sea, then moves to the air and the land. All the other creatures are first created, and Man saved for last. Another coincidence?

Third, just because science has not (yet) discovered what happened in the first tiny sliver of a second after the Big Bang doesn’t mean there isn’t a whole mountain of observational evidence and confirmation for what happened after that, which you have to fit into your creation story.

This has been done in a book titled *The Science of God *by a Jewish physicist, Gerald L. Schroeder.

Same with the origin of the first self-replicating cell. You can’t just claim victory by saying, “science doesn’t know how life, or the Big Bang, started, therefore God did it.” For one thing, there is no more evidence that God did it than that a quantum fluctuation, a collision with other universes, a “singularity” or the Space God Zarkon did it, or that it happened spontaneously. In short, the absence of a scientific explanation is not evidence in favor of a supernatural one.

The absence of a scientific explanation also does not mean that there is or ever will be a purely scientific explanation. If you prefer to believe that it happened spontaneously, that is not scientifically probable and is probably logically absurd.

Keeping these logical principles in mind will save a whole lot of mental effort and exasperation. Thank you.

Same to you!

 

[Al_Moritz]

Same with the origin of the first self-replicating cell. You can’t just claim victory by saying, “science doesn’t know how life, or the Big Bang, started, therefore God did it.” For one thing, there is no more evidence that God did it than that a quantum fluctuation, a collision with other universes, a “singularity” or the Space God Zarkon did it, or that it happened spontaneously. In short, the absence of a scientific explanation is not evidence in favor of a supernatural one.

The absence of a scientific explanation also does not mean that there is or ever will be a purely scientific explanation. If you prefer to believe that it happened spontaneously, that is not scientifically probable and is probably logically absurd.

False, see my article:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

 

[levinas12]

So although still only human, they can hear simultaneously and without ears hundreds of prayers at the same time, and keep each one separate in their minds while interceding, so they don’t get person A’s request sent to person B by mistake? Neat trick.

I agree it’s a neat trick – I’m not sure how it works. But then again, I’m not sure how photon entanglement works either.

 

[levinas12]

Is anyone seriously suggesting that the author of Genesis 1:3 had any notion of the Big Bang?

Well, Einstein opposed the Big Bang for quite some time because it smacked of Genesis.

 

[Ahimsa]

Well, Einstein opposed the Big Bang for quite some time because it smacked of Genesis.

…when, actually, the Big Bang is not like Genesis in many ways.

 

[tonyrey]

[People who don’t believe in Christianity just don’t buy the Christian religion.

People who don’t believe in Chance wouldn’t accept Chance if you paid them! It’s as simple as that.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Lui]

People who don’t believe in Chance wouldn’t accept Chance if you paid them! It’s as simple as that.

Is the opposite of believing in Christianity believing in chance?

 

[buffalo]

Is the opposite of believing in Christianity believing in chance?/quote

Jumping in here - the faith of the atheist is placed in chance, accidents and the like.

 

[tonyrey]

Is the opposite of believing in Christianity believing in chance?

What else?

 

[Lui]

Jumping in here - the faith of the atheist is placed in chance, accidents and the like.

]

The first Christians were considered as atheists because they didn’t believe in the Roman Gods. You’re basically a Hindu God atheist yourself because you don’t believe in their Gods. I’m not sure you can consider atheism as a faith but rather as the lack of faith in something.

It depends how you want to define atheism. If you consider a person an atheist if he doesn’t believe in any concept of God, he can still have other spiritual beliefs. I don’t think there is something like THE atheist belief.

 

[levinas12]

…when, actually, the Big Bang is not like Genesis in many ways.

Agreed.

But, like Genesis, the Big Bang posited a “temporal” beginning for a finite universe that arose from a singularity.

And that’s what made Einstein feel uncomfortable.

 

[Lui]

What else?

The belief in something other than Christianity which could be anything.

 

[buffalo]

]

The first Christians were considered as atheists because they didn’t believe in the Roman Gods. You’re basically a Hindu God atheist yourself because you don’t believe in their Gods. I’m not sure you can consider atheism as a faith but rather as the lack of faith in something.

It depends how you want to define atheism. If you consider a person an atheist if he doesn’t believe in any concept of God, he can still have other spiritual beliefs. I don’t think there is something like THE atheist belief.

Yes, that was a major problem, reducing it all to one God.

Atheists reduce it all to chance and have absolute faith in chance’s ability. In addition, they have faith that materialism is all there is. That is irrational. When you debate one they go right to materialistic science. The atheists do have a god.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The atheists do have a god.

:yup:

 

[Ahimsa]

Agreed.

But, like Genesis, the Big Bang posited a “temporal” beginning for a finite universe that arose from a singularity.

And that’s what made Einstein feel uncomfortable.

Genesis mentions nothing about a singularity, nor an absolute “beginning” of the cosmos. A Catholic commentary on Genesis 1:1-2:
God brings an orderly universe out of primordial chaos merely by uttering a word.
…
This verse is parenthetical, describing in three phases the pre-creation state symbolized by the chaos out of which God brings order: “earth,” hidden beneath the encompassing cosmic waters, could not be seen, and thus had no “form”; there was only darkness; turbulent wind swept over the waters.
Einstein was uncomfortable, not because of what Genesis actually said, but because of what he thought it said.