Science and Religion Coexisting?

[Lilly]

Comparing religion and science is like comparing apples and oranges. Actually, it's probably more like comparing apples and toasters.

[Alaric]

In the Beginning...

According to the faithful: God spoke

According to scientists: there was a Big Bang

At their core, both those statements describe the same thing: At first there was chaos, disorder... then a vibration came along and order was made out of chaos.

If someone with a knowledge of physics attempted to describe this mechanism to a layman, after several hours of trying to explain wavelengths, frequencies and amplitude to no avail... they might just throw up their hands a say, "Think of it as if God spoke."

Edited March 20, 2015 by Alaric

[aquatus1]

Dude...you don't need to justify the bible scientifically. Believers shouldn't care, and scientists aren't going to bother (unless you start misrepresenting science).

Edited March 20, 2015 by aquatus1

[Galahad]

The two should exist harmoniously. There should be no conflict between the two.The irony here is a simple example of : Scientology...( a belief system I choose here because of its name and it's slapstick in its origins..the guy wrote scientific fiction story's , there very little moral teachings in it from the reviews I have done)

...Einstiiein believed in God. You might ask why is this important?? Because science needs a moral code to direct it and he knew this..

Edit:

I'm going to refrence a direct quote from Einstiein I just found here " A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind"

Make of that what you will...I would suggest also sugest people do further research in reconciling the two when dealing with creation and science...there's plenty of ways to easily understand the simplicity of the Genisus account from a scientific prospective...A lot of science has to be taken on faith two I may add...the theory of everything is exactly that...theory...unprovable... And 4th dimension anyone?? Total crap!

Edited March 21, 2015 by Galahad

[Occult1]

What I'm seeing is Christians don't have a problem reconciling the two, science and religion...no, the only problem here is those who have a problem reconciling that others can reconcile because for whatever reason ( possibly upbringing) they have not been able too.

At this point, I don't see any contradiction between the idea that 'God created the Universe' and modern scientific understanding. As long as you don't reject the Big Bang theory and evolution, you are not really at odd with science. The average christian immersed in technology and reading about the latest discoveries and innovations can hardly be 'against' scientific research. He sure has a belief system that is not 'supported' by science but I myself do even if non-religious..

Edited March 21, 2015 by samus

[Border Collie]

Bible written by man as record of past events and collection of creation myths etc = no problem.

Bible as literal word of God = problem.

[Rlyeh]

...Einstiiein believed in God. You might ask why is this important?? Because science needs a moral code to direct it and he knew this..

So why did he reject morality coming from God?

[Galahad]

Dawkins likes to miss quote him to suit his athiest agenda..Einstein has some interesting quotes.

would like to clarify a point about this multi dimension known as part of quantum mechanics..

Science says there is a big bang..we know this..Hawkins who is openly athiest states that it came out of nothing.. Yet everything he basicly states requires faith he is right."There was no time or space before the big bang"...however this multiverse known to religious people as the spirit world could exist at different points...and the diety they believe in could focus its energy within these different points..this is getting close to certain physicist's current thinking..that a multiverse could have superseeded the big bang.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Galahad

[Rlyeh]

Dawkins likes to miss quote him to suit his athiest agenda..he has so.e interesting quotes.

So Einstein didn't say this? Sure you're not doing the misquoting?

"The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image - a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being. For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere."

Albert Einstein, Albert Einstein: The Human Side

[Galahad]

Yes he was more agnostic than openly religious...but he was Jewish!, not athiest, so I'm not misquoting him.

The quote I gave went right to this topics heart and title

Edited March 21, 2015 by Galahad

[Rlyeh]

Yes he was more agnostic than openly religious...but he was Jewish!, not athiest, so I'm not misquoting him.

The quote I gave went right to this topics heart and title

He was an ethnic Jew, not a follower of Judaism. Nor did he believe morality came from God.

So I'd have to disagree, you are misquoting him.

[Galahad]

Ryleh, its a mute point..the quote I gave already states his views.. He states "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

what's left to debate? Its a lame point??

[aquatus1]

If we are talking about morals and ethics, truthfulness and accuracy would seem a fairly relevant point.

Science says there is a big bang..we know this..

Science says a heck of a lot more than that.

Hawkins who is openly athiest states that it came out of nothing..

No, he doesn't. The Hartle-Hawkins state proposal does not claim the universe came out of nothing. It claims the universe has no origin as we would understand it. The universe, at the point we refer to as an "origin", would have been a singularity.

Yet everything he basicly states requires faith he is right.

Well, that, and scads upon scads of theoretical and mathematical proofs. The latter is of greater interests to scientists than the former, which is more of interest to people who don't even bother to acknowledge the existence of the latter.

[Galahad]

Umm no.

Let's just address the key point to begin with.

Hawkins is atheist and states " there is no God" you have to have faith in him as what he states is theoretical, I'm glad you have faith in him. I already gave the info on the multiverse that is also theoretical but just as valid. Hawkins chooses to ignore this..and its also has scads upon scads of theoretical and mathematical proofs..that aspect of my post went straight over peoples heads it appears!. Yet I can reference it for people to look further into..the theory of the multiverse. Basically ALL! ....of the scientists who study quantum mechanics! Its not me who isolated himself here...

And to clarify on the universe coming out of nothing.. The claim is the big bang could have spontaneously emerged out of nothing according to the laws of quantum mechanics.

[aquatus1]

Umm no.

No, what?

Let's just address the key point to begin with.

Well, what I am pointing out is that you are not differentiating between a formal theory and opinion. It seems rather obvious to me that doing so would make quite a difference when trying to use them as a source for anything.

Hawkins is atheist and states " there is no God"

Yes. That would be his opinion.

you have to have faith in him as what he states is theoretical,

No. This has nothing to do with theory. It is just his opinion. Should you choose to believe it (or, as in your case, not believe it) without bothering to verify anything about it, yes, that would require faith, just as it would require faith to believe anyone who said anything.

I'm glad you have faith in him.

Faith doesn't apply. I don't consider Hawkins an authority on religious studies.

I already gave the info on the multiverse that is also theoretical but just as valid.

And yet you summarized it incorrectly. And your incorrect summary was made to support your argument. If you did so intentionally, then it becomes an ethical question, which, as before, would be significant to the main question. If you did not do so intentionally, then your are mistaken about the theory, in which case the conclusion you come cannot be considered valid.

Hawkins chooses to ignore this..and its also has scads upon scads of theoretical and mathematical proofs..that aspect of my post went straight over peoples heads it appears!. Yet I can reference it for people to look further into..the theory of the multiverse. Basically ALL! ....of the scientists who study quantum mechanics! Its not me who isolated himself here...

So, are you saying that a scientist is not allowed to have an opinion on a matter not pertaining to science?

And to clarify on the universe coming out of nothing.. The claim is the big bang could have spontaneously emerged out of nothing according to the laws of quantum mechanics.

No, it isn't. The Big Bang does not posit an origin. All it does is explain the actual Big Bang. Numerous other theories have been proposed regarding the origin of the Big Bang, including that of multiple universes, to explain the origin of the Big Bang, but none of those claim the universe came out of nothing. The closest you get is what I explained above, that what came before the Big Bang wasn't something we could describe as "nothing" (or, for that matter, as "something") and which is therefore referred to as a "singularity".

[Galahad]

Right...so we have hit another mute point..Hawkins is a champion of the godless, gets a lot of attention for that and being a crippled, not for his great work, he is no Einstein or Newton.

Science can't discount the possibility of God and i told you why!. Hawkins has tried to and has said " there is no God" he offered a theory..it can be struck at with other aspects of quantum mechanics..it's a straw man, not Iron man.

Let's go back to what Einstein stated " Science without religion is lame,Religion without science is blind"

Have nothing more to add to the thread.

[Rlyeh]

Ryleh, its a mute point..the quote I gave already states his views.. He states "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

what's left to debate? Its a lame point??

Yes, your point is a lame point. You can repeat this one quote over and over, Einstein didn't believe morality came from God

[Galahad]

Ok Ryleh....you speak for him now....please explain the "general theory of relativity" to us instead the preliminary "special theory of relativity"... In your words.

Ok that might be hard, ( unless you click and paste it..)

How about a quick review of where Laws and morality originate since that's your point...sure will make a intresting read either way. ( I already know..)

The multiverse in quantum mechanics allows for the existence of God and the spirit world...no athiest has been able to legitimately discount the existence of God scientifically , in any accepted theory, ( rather we are closer to proving the existence of God!) but Hawkins somewhat tried too...Dawkins tried socially with his "atheist agenda" and failed in his debates. Have faith in them if you all wish, i will keep mine in the one who made it all

Side note:

Hawkins was a believer in God when at Cambridge...he became a little bitter latter in his life, my Father knows him...Dad is also a Cambridge PhD by research, and then moved onto Nasa and the ANU. He has a firm belief in God as do many physicists. ( just thought you would appreciate to know with whom you speak)

Nothing further to add to the thread.

God Bless

Galahad.

[aquatus1]

Right...so we have hit another mute point..

Incidentally, it's "moot" point.

Hawkins is a champion of the godless, gets a lot of attention for that and being a crippled, not for his great work, he is no Einstein or Newton.

Wait...

You seriously think Hawkins is better know for being an atheist than being a physicist?

Not only that, you think he is better known for being crippled, than being a physicist?

Do you have any idea what you sound like?

And, as to your claims that he is no Einstein or Newton, I would say, why should he be? He is a genius in his own right.

Science can't discount the possibility of God

No one (Hawkins included) said it could.

and i told you why!.

No, you didn't. I told you why. You just don't believe it. You simply can't accept that, as much an enemy to God that you think science is, science just doesn't find religion to be that worthy of an opponent.

Hawkins has tried to and has said " there is no God"

Yes. That is his opinion on the matter.

he offered a theory..

The theory (among several) that he offered has nothing to do with God, does not mention God, does not require God, does absolutely nothing to address God in any way shape or form. Stop mixing up personal opinion with scientific theory.

it can be struck at with other aspects of quantum mechanics..it's a straw man, not Iron man.

There is no theory regarding the origin of the universe that can account for all the variables we know of. I have no idea why you think that makes it a straw man, unless, of course, you bear the conceit of thinking the purpose of the theory is to oppose the existence fo God, instead of trying to determine the origin of the universe.

Let's go back to what Einstein stated " Science without religion is lame,Religion without science is blind"

Tell you what: How about, instead, we address the context in which Einstein made that quote?

“Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

Yes, Einstein too had an opinion on the relationship between science and religion. He also had his own beliefs regarding God, and they reflected his humanist philosophy. He rejected the anthropomorphic personal God common in the judeochristian faith, and chose to believe in a pantheistic, non-interfering God. The above statement from Einstein is not a reference to the God of the Bible, or to any particular morality. What Einstein was talking about was the passion, the spiritual drive towards truth and understanding, and how this drive, in conjunction with the tools of rationality, where the best combination to understand the world.

In regards to the connection between the God of the Bible and science, he had the following to say:

"A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death. It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees."

Einstein states that science has nothing to do with undermining any morality, and goes on to say that ethics should be based on sympathy to fellow man, education, and society. He even outright states that religion does not need to play any part in it.

In other words, Einstein rejected the idea that morality came from the God of the Bible.

"The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life. To make this a living force and bring it to clear consciousness is perhaps the foremost task of education. The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action."

Which is not to say, of course, that Einstein was right. After all, the above was his opinion. For all we know, a close, personal, God, does exist. But it is largely irrelevant. Neither Einstein's, nor Hawkin's, nor yours, nor my, belief in God is of much value in regards to credibility in science. It just isn't a factor.

On the other hand, if Einstein's belief in God is so valuable to you, as you have indicated by repeatedly bringing him up as an authority on this thread, then maybe you should think about actually learning a little bit more about what his beliefs actually were.

Because, if you don't, well, then you are not only misrepresenting science, you are misrepresenting Einstein, and misrepresenting Hawkin, and at some point, you need to realize that if you are misrepresenting so many different things...isn't that deception? Isn't that a lack of ethical conduct?

Personally, I don't agree with Einstein, but then, I am an atheist. Like Einstein, though, I am a rationalist, and if I had to construct or define God, I would likely do what Einstein did. A personal God, the God of the Bible, just doesn't make sense.

[Galahad]

Yeah I can understand your position on things..

Take care and God Bless.

Galahad.

[Lilly]

I agree with Dr. Einstein, but then I am a Scientific Pantheist.

http://www.pantheism.net/paul/basic-principles.htm

[Galahad]

I shall give a formal apology here for being somewhat sloppy in this thread, I'm on my phone and preemptive text and things I just don't spot. However,the key point I offered was the quantum mechanics multiverse as a legitimate scientific theory that can include God.

Goodnight.

[aquatus1]

What role would God play in quantum mechanics?

No need to hurry. This is a discussion forum. We'll all be here for a few days at least.

[Galahad]

Can Quantum Mechanics allow room for the role of God in creativity would be a better Question?

Can quantum mechanics perfectly describe the thoughts of a human mind, the answer surely must be No.

Because thought imposes constraints on a theory that quantum mechanics doesn't allow, so it's hard to imagine that there can ever be a theory of everything. Such a concept is outrageously vain when you think about it.

Because quantum mechanics deals in probabilities. Surly then Quantum mechanics is incapable of dealing with the complexity of the mind of God.

I would suggest for further info to research it.

Edited March 22, 2015 by Galahad

[Grandpa Greenman]

That's a bunch of sweeping statements, care to clarify where The Heavenly Father got it wrong??

How about Multiple Sclerosis for one.