3 of 4
3
Poll
Can a person be a good scientist if they are a devout evengelical Christian?
Yes 4
No 7
I don’t know 4
I don’t care 1
Total Votes: 16
You must be a logged-in member to vote
Christians in science
Posted: 18 June 2010 02:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
toombaru - 18 June 2010 11:21 AM
Gnostikosis - 18 June 2010 11:19 AM
toombaru - 18 June 2010 11:03 AM
Gnostikosis - 18 June 2010 09:58 AM
DarronS - 17 June 2010 08:19 PM
asanta - 17 June 2010 08:04 PM

It depends on how well the science can align with their cognitive dissonance.

Perfect.

That aligns perfectly with my concept of God.

 


Is it your belief that the creator of the universe can be confined to the conceptual?

No, I believe I have a concept of God based on personal experience, observation and what science has been able to discover about the universe. That concept maybe to a greater or lesser degree accurate or not at all but I have to base it on what seems to be real to me.


Can you imagine a life with no creator at the center?

No because life creates. If you take away the ability to create then there is no life.

We know a creator exists. The question is does a “super” creator exist. The universe seems to organize itself into entities of intelligence and self awareness. Matter has intelligence and self awareness. We know this to be true. There is no reason to think life won’t continue to evolve towards greater intelligence and self awareness.

There is no reason to think this hasn’t happen countless times before. There is no need for magic or belief in the supernatural. This is just what the universe naturally does and continues to do.

Life, matter, energy organizes itself into a singularity then explodes forth into chaos only to start the whole process over again.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 June 2010 03:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  276
Joined  2010-05-17
Gnostikosis - 18 June 2010 02:44 PM
toombaru - 18 June 2010 11:21 AM
Gnostikosis - 18 June 2010 11:19 AM
toombaru - 18 June 2010 11:03 AM
Gnostikosis - 18 June 2010 09:58 AM
DarronS - 17 June 2010 08:19 PM
asanta - 17 June 2010 08:04 PM

It depends on how well the science can align with their cognitive dissonance.

Perfect.

That aligns perfectly with my concept of God.

 


Is it your belief that the creator of the universe can be confined to the conceptual?

No, I believe I have a concept of God based on personal experience, observation and what science has been able to discover about the universe. That concept maybe to a greater or lesser degree accurate or not at all but I have to base it on what seems to be real to me.


Can you imagine a life with no creator at the center?

No because life creates. If you take away the ability to create then there is no life.

 

 

 

(t)
What you are calling life apparently exists.
That in no way implies an independent creator.
The mind is formatted to seeking connections and relationships.
It evolved a cause and effect mentality in which it assumes wrongly that if everything has a cause that it also must have been created which implies a creator.

 

 


We know a creator exists.

 

 


(t)
We imagine that a creator exists simply because of the way thinking is structured.
There is no indication of a creator.
There is more of an indication that life evolved simply as a mysterious happenstance.
A prospect that appears hear to be a most delightful occurrence.

 

 

 

 

The question is does a “super” creator exist. The universe seems to organize itself into entities of intelligence and self awareness. Matter has intelligence and self awareness. We know this to be true. There is no reason to think life won’t continue to evolve towards greater intelligence and self awareness.

 

 

 

(t)
Life could not have happened if circumstances weren’t just so.
The only thing that can be logically concluded from that is circumstances were and are just so.
To extend that to include a metaphysical creator is a leap into the imagination that has nothing to back it up.

 

 

 

 

 


There is no reason to think this hasn’t happen countless times before.

 

 

 

 


(t)
And there is no reason to think it has.

 

 

 

There is no need for magic or belief in the supernatural. This is just what the universe naturally does and continues to do.

Life, matter, energy organizes itself into a singularity then explodes forth into chaos only to start the whole process over again.

 


(t)
You’re guessing again.

smile

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 June 2010 03:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
toombaru - 18 June 2010 03:19 PM


(t)
What you are calling life apparently exists.
That in no way implies an independent creator.
The mind is formatted to seeking connections and relationships.
It evolved a cause and effect mentality in which it assumes wrongly that if everything has a cause that it also must have been created which implies a creator.

(t)
We imagine that a creator exists simply because of the way thinking is structured.
There is no indication of a creator.
There is more of an indication that life evolved simply as a mysterious happenstance.
A prospect that appears hear to be a most delightful occurrence.


(t)
Life could not have happened if circumstances weren’t just so.
The only thing that can be logically concluded from that is circumstances were and are just so.
To extend that to include a metaphysical creator is a leap into the imagination that has nothing to back it up.


(t)
And there is no reason to think it has.

 

(t)
You’re guessing again.

smile

Well you can deny the truth of your own experience of existing. That’s up to you. Seems pointless are we are here engaged in a discussion.


Can you create or not? I can create. Maybe nothing great but I have created. I know creation is possible. Therefore a creator exists. perhaps there was no reason for the first one cell organism to believe a human could ever exist but here we are.


How do you know there was a time when life did not exist?


Do you think the universe came to exist without cause. Not that I’d accuse you of believing in magic but you what? First nothing then presto an singularity pops into existence? Do you believe something came into existence from nothing. Or was there something that came before? Not a first cause but a cause that was the result of a prior cause and one before that. 

(t) There is more of an indication that life evolved simply as a mysterious happenstance.
(g) Mysterious? So you’d rather believe in mysterious whereas I believe in something we already know exists in the universe. Life and intelligence….

Sure I guess about what I don’t know based on what I do know. I suppose people could just say “Hey, it’s mysterious” and leave the unknown alone but where is the fun in that.

You sound like a nihilist, are you?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 June 2010 04:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4807
Joined  2007-10-05
Gnostikosis - 18 June 2010 03:54 PM

Do you think the universe came to exist without cause. Not that I’d accuse you of believing in magic but you what? First nothing then presto an singularity pops into existence? Do you believe something came into existence from nothing.

That is quite possible. The total amount of energy in the Universe is exactly zero.

From “A Brief History of Time,” by Stephen Hawking,

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle parts. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

Nothing from nothing leaves nothing. And twice nothing is still nothing.

Edit: More from Hawking’s essay linked above,

The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started - it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwood and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundaries or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? 1

[ Edited: 18 June 2010 04:27 PM by DarronS ]
 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 June 2010 04:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
DarronS - 18 June 2010 04:15 PM
Gnostikosis - 18 June 2010 03:54 PM

Do you think the universe came to exist without cause. Not that I’d accuse you of believing in magic but you what? First nothing then presto an singularity pops into existence? Do you believe something came into existence from nothing.

That is quite possible. The total amount of energy in the Universe is exactly zero.

From “A Brief History of Time,” by Stephen Hawking,

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle parts. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

Nothing from nothing leaves nothing. And twice nothing is still nothing.

Edit: More from Hawking’s essay linked above,

The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started - it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwood and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundaries or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? 1

Zero energy does that necessarily mean nothing, or just everything that exists in a different form?

No beginning and no ending…. What place for a human being. Yet here we are. We know life and consciousness exists. You assume there was a time these things in some form or another.

Know beginning and no end is my argument. Yet kind of contradicts with your first statement.

Should we think life is an aberration? It’s never happen before and it will never happen again? This is a unique, once in a never time occurrence. once the aberration has been corrected it that’s it, no more life ever…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 June 2010 05:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4807
Joined  2007-10-05

I know this is a hard concept to understand, so maybe you should read the Hawking quotes again, or better yet click the link and read the book excerpt.

This does not say there is zero energy in the universe, it says there is zero total energy in the universe.

Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

When you run the equations the positive energy and negative energy are equal, yielding a total of zero. This is counterintuitive, but true to the best of our knowledge. We exist, but the total energy of the Universe is zero.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 June 2010 05:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-09-03
toombaru - 17 June 2010 06:19 PM

...
.......
Do you believe that prayer works?

To expand on toombaru’s question (a) do you really think someone is reading the thoughts (good or bad) of X billion humans—do you think He is reading the thoughts of all intelligent beings in the universe simultaneously?  (b) why is there no really strong evidence that God exists—why doesn’t He at least talk to the Pope once a year? once every 100 years?  Why do we simultaneously have a God who doesn’t want to intrude on our lives AND wants us to follow his commandments or else…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 June 2010 05:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-09-03
Bernie_Dehler - 17 June 2010 11:18 AM

By the way, the article didn’t mention that Jennifer Wiseman is also the current President of the evangelical Christian group called ASA ( http://www.asa3.org ).

Jerry Coyne’s blog has a discussion the AAAS panel meeting…

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/06/18/report-aaas-panel-on-science-and-faith/

quoting from another report,.....

Jennifer Wiseman, astrophysicist and Christian:

Speaking to a crowd of scientists, she said that the disciplines of science and religion have a lot to learn from one another .

. . . Wiseman said it is incumbent on members of the scientific community to reach out to “the people who reach people,” or religious leaders.

This is aligned with POI podcast interview with Ecklund, pointed out in Coyne’s blog from the day before
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/the-aaas-goes-all-accommodationist/

I will have to look into this a lot more to understand what is going on but it seems odd.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 June 2010 05:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
DarronS - 18 June 2010 05:00 PM

I know this is a hard concept to understand, so maybe you should read the Hawking quotes again, or better yet click the link and read the book excerpt.

This does not say there is zero energy in the universe, it says there is zero total energy in the universe.

Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

When you run the equations the positive energy and negative energy are equal, yielding a total of zero. This is counterintuitive, but true to the best of our knowledge. We exist, but the total energy of the Universe is zero.

Ok, sorry I assumed you meant this to imply something from nothing. Otherwise I’m am fine with what Hawking says here.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 June 2010 06:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-09-03
Bernie_Dehler - 17 June 2010 10:59 AM

FYI-

It seems to me that many atheists think evangelical Christians are naive about science.  According to some recent events, there is some ongoing discussion happening between Christians in science with secular scientists, that are addressing the topics of religion and science. 

See his for more info:
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2010/0614doser.shtml?sa_campaign=Internal_Ads/AAAS/AAAS_News/2010-06-14/jump_page

The secular science group is AAAS; the evangelical “Christians in science” group is ASA.

...Bernie

Another problem with this “forum” as pointed out on Pharyngula here after a discussion of Templeton:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/aww_the_templeton_foundation_f.php
You want a fair discussion, check out the Edge topic on Templeton and the discussion that follows, which includes prominent scientists who favor the Templeton. That’s how you do it: not by dangling large sums of money in front of faith-friendly fellows while making it clear that opponents of accommodation will get diddly squat. The Templeton is an institution poisoned by two corrupting influences, money and religion; it’s a disease, not a cure.

For a similar problem, look at what AAAS has done: they sponsored a science/faith “dialog” that only included pious apologists for religion (Jerry and Ophelia and Russell have more). It never fails that those who are loudest in their praise for faith must always act in bad faith.

This “dialogue” apparently only included people who agreed science and religion are compatible—what kind of a “dialogue” is that? The Jerry-Ophelia-Russell links are 3 blogs criticizing the whole concept….

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 June 2010 07:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

I feel religion and science are completely incompatible, but I felt the discussion on this thread was a waste of time so I didn’t bother entering it.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 June 2010 08:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  276
Joined  2010-05-17
Gnostikosis - 18 June 2010 03:54 PM
toombaru - 18 June 2010 03:19 PM


(t)
What you are calling life apparently exists.
That in no way implies an independent creator.
The mind is formatted to seeking connections and relationships.
It evolved a cause and effect mentality in which it assumes wrongly that if everything has a cause that it also must have been created which implies a creator.

(t)
We imagine that a creator exists simply because of the way thinking is structured.
There is no indication of a creator.
There is more of an indication that life evolved simply as a mysterious happenstance.
A prospect that appears hear to be a most delightful occurrence.


(t)
Life could not have happened if circumstances weren’t just so.
The only thing that can be logically concluded from that is circumstances were and are just so.
To extend that to include a metaphysical creator is a leap into the imagination that has nothing to back it up.


(t)
And there is no reason to think it has.

 

(t)
You’re guessing again.

smile

Well you can deny the truth of your own experience of existing. That’s up to you. Seems pointless are we are here engaged in a discussion.


Can you create or not? I can create. Maybe nothing great but I have created. I know creation is possible.

 

 

 


(t)
By your definition, a bird creates a nest, a worm creates a hole and an artist creates a painting.

 

 

 

Therefore a creator exists. perhaps there was no reason for the first one cell organism to believe a human could ever exist but here we are.

 

How do you know there was a time when life did not exist?


(t)
I did not say that there was.
Current scientific understanding would indicate that before the Big Bang…......there was no life.

 

 

 

 

 

Do you think the universe came to exist without cause.

 

 


(t)
It is only human thought that is formatted in a cause and effect modality.
If everything needs a cause what caused your God?
Your thinking will probably resort to something like: “God is the uncaused cause.”
but that won’t answer the question at all.

 

 

 

Not that I’d accuse you of believing in magic but you what? First nothing then presto an singularity pops into existence?

 

 

 


(t)
Well if you believe that a god created the world, I am accusing you of believing in magic.
The fact that the world appeared in no way implies that it was created by a supernatural force.
The mind resorts to that kind of magical thinking when it reaches its ability to comprehend that which it has conceptually created.

 

 

 

Do you believe something came into existence from nothing.

 

 


(t)
Do you believe that the mind can comprehend its own conceptual imponderables?
Can God create a stone so heavy that He can’t lift it?
Do you like it here better than in the summer?
Is there a location two hundred miles South of earth?

 


Or was there something that came before? Not a first cause but a cause that was the result of a prior cause and one before that. 

(t) There is more of an indication that life evolved simply as a mysterious happenstance.
(g) Mysterious? So you’d rather believe in mysterious whereas I believe in something we already know exists in the universe. Life and intelligence….

 

(t)
That’s an interesting thought….....but so is the possible existence of purple angles on the moon.
(Something Joseph Smith believed in.
He said that actually had seen them and that they were taller than humans.)

 

 

 

Sure I guess about what I don’t know based on what I do know. I suppose people could just say “Hey, it’s mysterious” and leave the unknown alone but where is the fun in that.

 


(t)
I suppose that if you don’t mistake your guesses for reality…...you’ll be alright.
grin

 

 

You sound like a nihilist, are you?

 

 

(t)
There you go again…...trying to put a label on everything you come across
grin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 June 2010 08:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  276
Joined  2010-05-17
Jackson - 18 June 2010 05:25 PM
Bernie_Dehler - 17 June 2010 11:18 AM

By the way, the article didn’t mention that Jennifer Wiseman is also the current President of the evangelical Christian group called ASA ( http://www.asa3.org ).

Jerry Coyne’s blog has a discussion the AAAS panel meeting…

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/06/18/report-aaas-panel-on-science-and-faith/

quoting from another report,.....

Jennifer Wiseman, astrophysicist and Christian:

Speaking to a crowd of scientists, she said that the disciplines of science and religion have a lot to learn from one another .

. . . Wiseman said it is incumbent on members of the scientific community to reach out to “the people who reach people,” or religious leaders.

 

 


(t)
I can see no reason to seek out the wisdom of the good reverends Jessy Jackson and Al Sharpton.
Read up on their actual qualifications.
Jessy is a thug and Al never received a degree in anything.
How about Jimmy Swaggard, Jimmy Baker, Mother T and Gandhi.
Here’s a few more:

http://www.ondoctrine.com/00shame.htm

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 June 2010 03:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-09-03
Occam - 18 June 2010 07:47 PM

I feel religion and science are completely incompatible, but I felt the discussion on this thread was a waste of time so I didn’t bother entering it.

Occam

It might have been better to have had a thread focused on the AAAS faith-science dialogue .....in what ways if any does this erode the credibility of AAAS or is it just so large an organization the left hand can be superstitious and the right hand can be sensible….

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 July 2010 12:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  2
Joined  2010-07-08
Bernie_Dehler - 17 June 2010 10:59 AM

FYI-

It seems to me that many atheists think evangelical Christians are naive about science.  According to some recent events, there is some ongoing discussion happening between Christians in science with secular scientists, that are addressing the topics of religion and science. 

See his for more info:
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2010/0614doser.shtml?sa_campaign=Internal_Ads/AAAS/AAAS_News/2010-06-14/jump_page

The secular science group is AAAS; the evangelical “Christians in science” group is ASA.

...Bernie

Both the university system and natural science in the modern sense are the creations of Christianity. The Christian Weltanschauung was a unique develpment in the history of thought, since it held that God is rational and that (unlike in, e.g., Judaism or Islam) the mind of God could be better known through the systematic study of His creation; as opposed to the arbitrary and capricious gods of the Greeks and Romans. It was this change in worldview which made systematic study into the physical world possible. For much more on this, see the below article and book by Prof. Thomas E. Woods, Jr.:

“How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization,” LewRockwell.com, May 2, 2005. http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods40.html

How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2005). http://www.amazon.com/dp/0895260387

Below one can obtain Chapter 3: “How the Monks Saved Civilization” from the above book for free:

http://www.catholicchurchbook.com/offers/offer.php?id=CH001

The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences of the People’s Republic of China concluded in 2002:

“”
One of the things we [the Chinese Academy] were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world. We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.
“”

Quoted in David Aikman, Ph.D., Jesus in Beijing: How Christianity Is Changing the Global Balance of Power (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2003), p. 5. Aikman is a former Time magazine Beijing bureau chief.

Natural science as a discipline in the modern sense didn’t exist before the Scientific Revolution. The Scientific Revolution began with the publication of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium by clergyman Nicolaus Copernicus in 1543. Before then, what existed in the Western intellectual world (going all the way back to the Greeks) was Aristotelianism, which held to geocentrism based upon philisophical ideals. This lead to the persecution of Galileo Galilei, which was demanded by the Aristotelian academics of the time in order to protect their bailiwick; the actual churchmen and the pope were quite enthusiastic about Galileo’s observations confirming heliocentrism, but caved-in to the demands of the Aristotelian academics. For the details on that, see:

Prof. Jerry Bergman, “The Great Galileo Myth,” Investigator, No. 95 (March 2004), pp. 36-47. http://web.archive.org/web/20071212222840/http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/ReligGalileoMyth95.htm
http://users.adam.com.au/bstett/ReligGalileoMyth95.htm

Many of the top names in the history of science have been deeply devout Christians, such as Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton and James Clerk Maxwell, just to name a few. For these men, their scientific investigations were driven by their desire to better know the mind of God.

Traditional Christian theology has maintained that God never violates natural law, as God, in His omniscience, knew in the beginning all that He wanted to achieve and so, in His omnipotence, He formed the laws of physics in order to achieve His goal. The idea that God would violate His own laws would mean that God is not omniscient. In traditional Christian theology, miracles do not violate natural law—rather, they are events that are so improbable that they can only be explained by the existence of God and His acting in the world.

Interestingly, physics, in the form of the Big Bang cosmology, has many decades ago already proved that God exists in all of existence’s ultimate past, since the Big Bang singularity is the uncaused first cause, one of the ancient definitions of God held by all the Abrahamic religions.

Unfortunately, most modern physicists have been all too willing to abandon the laws of physics if it produces results that they’re uncomfortable with, i.e., in reference to religion. It’s the antagonism for religion on the part of the scientific community which greatly held up the acceptance of the Big Bang (for some 40 years), due to said scientific community’s displeasure with it confirming the traditional theological position of creatio ex nihilo, and also because no laws of physics can apply to the singularity itself (i.e., quite literally, the singularity is supernatural, in the sense that no form of physics can apply to it, since physical values are at infinity at the singularity, and so it is not possible to perform the arithmetical operations of addition or subtraction on them; and in the sense that the singularity is beyond creation, as it is not a part of spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time).

The originator of the Big Bang theory, circa 1930, was Roman Catholic priest and physicist Prof. Georges Lemaître; and it was enthusiastically endorsed by Pope Pius XII in 1951, long before the scientific community finally came to accept it.

Rabbi Moses Maimonides and Saint Thomas Aquinas, from their readings of biblical scripture, had both defined God as the Uncaused First Cause (which is equivalent to Aristotle’s conception of God as the Unmoved Mover), and so the physics community was quite reluctant to confirm with the Big Bang that God exists per this traditional definition of God.

As regards physicists abandoning physical law due to their theological discomfort with the Big Bang, in an article by physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler he gives the following example involving no less than physicist Prof. Steven Weinberg:

“”
The most radical ideas are those that are perceived to support religion, specifically Judaism and Christianity. When I was a student at MIT in the late 1960s, I audited a course in cosmology from the physics Nobelist Steven Weinberg. He told his class that of the theories of cosmology, he preferred the Steady State Theory because “it *least* resembled the account in Genesis” (my emphasis). In his book *The First Three Minutes* (chapter 6), Weinberg explains his earlier rejection of the Big Bang Theory: “Our mistake is not that we take our theories too seriously, but that we do not take them seriously enough. It is always hard to realize that these numbers and equations we play with at our desks have something to do with the real world. *Even worse, there often seems to be a general agreement that certain phenomena are just not fit subjects for respectable theoretical and experimental effort.*” [My emphasis—J. R.]

... But as [Weinberg] himself points out in his book, the Big Bang Theory was an automatic consequence of standard thermodynamics, standard gravity theory, and standard nuclear physics. All of the basic physics one needs for the Big Bang Theory was well established in the 1930s, some two decades before the theory was worked out. Weinberg rejected this standard physics not because he didn’t take the equations of physics seriously, but because he did not like the religious implications of the laws of physics. ...
“”

For that and a number of other such examples, see:

Frank J. Tipler, “Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?,” Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID), Vols. 2.1 and 2.2 (January-June 2003). http://www.iscid.org/papers/Tipler_PeerReview_070103.pdf Also published as Chapter 7 in Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, edited by William A. Dembski, “Foreword” by John Wilson (Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2004).

Prof. Stephen Hawking reinforces what Weinberg and Tipler wrote about concerning the antagonism of the scientific community for religion, resulting in them abandoning good physics. In his book The Illustrated A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1996), p. 62, Hawking wrote:

“”
Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention. (The Catholic Church, on the other hand, seized on the big bang model and in 1951 officially pronounced it to be in accordance with the Bible). There were therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a big bang.
“”

On p. 179 of the same book, Hawking wrote “In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to spacetime and at which the laws of science break down.”

Agnostic and physicist Dr. Robert Jastrow, founding director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote in his book God and the Astronomers (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1978), p. 113:

“”
This religious faith of the scientist [that there is no First Cause] is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized.
“”

For more quotes by Robert Jastrow on this, see:

John Ross Schroeder and Bill Bradford, “Science and Discomfiting Discoveries” in Life’s Ultimate Question: Does God Exist? (United Church of God, 2000) http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/GE/discomfitingdiscoveries.htm , http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/GE/GE.pdf

For more quotes by scientists along the above lines, see the below article:

Mariano, “In the Beginning ... Cosmology, Part I,” Atheism’s Assertions, February 20, 2007 http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/02/in-beginning-cosmology-part-i-pre-big.html

 Signature 

Author of “Jesus Is an Anarchist”, Social Science Research Network (SSRN), October 17, 2009 (originally published December 19, 2001) http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 , http://theophysics.host56.com/anarchist-jesus.html

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (a website with information on Prof. Frank J. Tipler’s Omega Point Theory and the quantum gravity Theory of Everything [TOE]) http://theophysics.chimehost.net , http://theophysics.host56.com

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 4
3
 
‹‹ The Case for God      Bernie and Gnostikosis ››