Religion vs. Science


#1

The mysterious Universe is being proved by Science (with proofs). In the modern world people are believing more in Science than religion, thus they’re breaking apart from religion because they are losing faith (because nothing’s happening, no real miracles, etc…). How can people prove that the bible (what it is saying) or Christianity is real, or do we just have faith in it and waste our time going to church each once a week? I mean, did Jesus Christ really convert water into wine? Did the information in the bible about Christianity and Jesus Christ from 2000 years ago, are they accurate or was it interpret to give benefits to the people who have the upper hand in the religion? If Christianity is real, people who are borned into a Christian or Catholic family, they are all going to heavin (if their religion is real and not commit any sins). Than a person being borned into a Jewish, buddhist, muslim, etc. family, will be considered unluckly and he/she will go to hell because their not a christian? Or they can make the hard trip, by not believing in what their parents’ sayings/teachings and, then convert to the Christianity religion because then they won’t go to hell


#2

Someone else will answer this better than I can, but I got here first, so let me try.

Your essential question is, how can we know that Catholicism (or perhaps Christianity) is true. You don’t seem to be questioning the very existence of God. So, can we can assume that you do believe in God?

Some people don’t have any problem with the idea that God exists, but they reject religion on the grounds that religions have mostly got it wrong and have done more harm than good. I would invite one who has such an attitude to do some serious study to find out, as best is possible, the facts, rather than to assume that what TV says about religion is true.

You’ve write this: “If Christianity is real, people who are borned into a Christian or Catholic family, they are all going to heavin (if their religion is real and not commit any sins). Than a person being borned into a Jewish, buddhist, muslim, etc. family, will be considered unluckly and he/she will go to hell because their not a christian?”

No. Being “born into a religion” accomplishes nothing on the God-level. God demands a relationship with you of heart and mind. Not just the heart, not just the mind, but both heart, and mind. Some say this is easy to achieve, but it hasn’t been easy for me, so I assume that it isn’t so easy for everyone else, either. It is a process. You are born, you grow, you mature. Nothing happens overnight. Miracles are important, but they are somewhat beside the point of what you are talking about. Look for proofs, sure. But the best proof is the one you will receive when you learn to know God, find out he already knows all about you, loves you deeply, sacrificed himself for you, is patient in waiting for you, and will bring you home on the last day.


#3

I don’t believe science can ever address the questions that religion seeks to answer, or at least ask. (nice post ALlweather)


#4

Whomever is leaving their church/religion is not because of science. I assume you are saying you can’t be a scientist and believe in God. That’s not true. Many scientists are very religious. Perhaps we do need a miracle but that’s up to God. I think that is why the bible talks about having faith so much. As far as the science/religion thing there is no conflict between the two. I believe more and more are becoming more materialistic and turning away from God.


#5

ricko

As far as the science/religion thing there is no conflict between the two. I believe more and more are becoming more materialistic and turning away from God.


Yet many of these same people are turning back to God when they see what their materialism has done for them … or to them.

Youth is a time for rebelling against the father.

Middle age is a time for mulling over that rebellion.

Advancing age is a time for reconcilation with the father.

It’s often this way both with our biological and our heavenly fathers.


#6

I’am replying to your post, mainly to the part where I bolded.

Galileo? The Church tried to ban all of Galileo’s scientific work about the Earth’s movement (which later, was proved to be right) because the Church thought the Earth was the centre of the universe and obviously, later was proved wrong. Galileo was then under house arrest and could not produce any of his works (is it because the Church felt threatened that Galieo’s works might influence some members of the Church on how they think? or did the Church threatened Galileo, which the Church did). All of this was because Galileo depicted the idea that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still at the centre (and he was right at the end).


#7

I think the key words here are your last, in parentheses: “”(and he was right at the end)"" Obviously, he was right at the beginning, too, but in those days the telescope was very new technology, and what Galileo and Capernicus were proposing were theories. It doesn’t seem the least bit odd to me that the Church would be involved in such matters, considering that these new theories went right to the core of what people had believed for centuries about the created universe.


#8

Galileo was also thinking that the sun was the center of the universe too. He was wrong about that part though. And that’s a BIG mistake in case anyone’s paying attention.

Actually, I think there’s a few more dynamics going on here than you are aware.

When Galileo presented his heliocentric theory, he brought forth a great insight into the nature of our solar system. He presented a clear theory that could be easilly tested against the pattern of the planet’s motions. When it was first presented, many within the church initally rejected it in favor of their understanding of the Scriptures.

Having said this, however, although Galileo was initially correct in determining that the sun was indeed the center of the solar system, he was ultimately incorrect in asserting that the sun was the center of all the stars and indeed the entire universe – and it took some time to test his theory to the point that this distinction could be clearly discerned.

As Thomas Knierim recalled, in 1514 Copernicus put forward his alternative model, referred to as the heliocentric system – in which the sun was believed to be at the center of the universe (and that all planets, including earth, revolved around it). One of Copernicus’ great insights was his observation that the further apart a planet is from the sun, the longer it takes to complete a revolution. He also had the great insight that the phenomenological movement of the sun was most likely caused by the earth rotating around its north-to-south axis.

Copernicus carefully noted that these supposed complex and convoluted planetary motions still had one main weakness: they did not account for the observed backward motion of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn – nor did they account for the the fact that Mercury and Venus never moved more than a certain distance from the sun. With these great insights, Copernicus effectively eliminated the necessity of Ptolemy’s obscure epicycles – something in whch Ptolemy actually beleived reflected the real motion of the planets. In other words, Ptolemy really believed that these planets travelled in wild and twisted almost pretzel-like revolutions around the earth.

Having said this, as noted above, even with this great insight there were still some psuedo-scientific astrological inspirations clinging to Copernicus’ theory. For one, as noted above, he believed the sun was the center of the entire universe – the concept of a solar system has not been fully developed yet.

Likewise, as David Plant notes, Copernicus was not particularly interested in observing the sky but he was devoted to Pythagorean mathematics. This is to say, Copernicus believed that the harmony of the universe revealed itself through the perfect geometry of planetary orbits.

And history is quite certain that Galileo followed in the footsteps of Copernicus too.


#9

The observations of the heavens which Galileo carried out with his telescope certainly led to the discovery of mountains on the moon, the satellites of Jupiter and to Galileo’s own increased adherence and refinement of the Copernican system.

Within his time, Galileo was sure that the earth revolved around the sun, and he even noticed that the milky way resolved into stars when he gazed at them through the telescope – yet, at the same time, attached to this knowledge was an echo of the same astrological reasonings that, along with his friend and colleague Johannes Kepler, inspired many of his searches into the nature of the solar system.

As Culture and Cosmos Vol. 7 No. 1 aptly notes:

Galileo was the last of the long line of distinguished astronomer-astrologers to flourish in the courts of Europe before the two disciplines parted company in the western world in the mid seventeenth-century.

Or, as Nick Kollerstrom details even further:

Galileo, like Kepler, was a mathematicus, a term which had a threefold meaning as referring to mathematics, astrology and astronomy. In 1881 Favaro composed his essay, Galileo Astrologo, which concluded:

[quote]It seems to me impossible to have the slightest doubt that Galileo was involved with astrology, indeed, that he was famous for his great ability in that art, so that distinguished people consulted him with complete confidence, in many cases asking for horoscopes and predictions.

The letters by Galileo to his astrological colleagues have been lost and we only have the replies, as likewise the most famous charts composed by him have been lost, however some twenty-five charts drawn up by him do remain, plus several instances of his chart analyses. The book from which he learnt his astrology while at Pisa may have been Porphyry’s Introductio in Ptolemaei opus de effectibus astrorum – of which a copy annotated in his hand remains at Florence.
[/quote]

Contrary to the portrayal of the dedicated scientist looking past myths to find the scientific truth, Galileo, quite possibly not intentional at that, appears to have fathered a brand new branch of astronomy mostly out of his desire to pursue his astrological pseudoscience.

In addition to this, his trial by the church, contrary to the original intent of suppressing his endorsment of Copernican theories, seems to have forced the heliocentric theory more out into the open than ever before.

It is in this way that many feel that the inital building blocks of modern astronomy are highly indebted to astrological pseudo-science – even though astrology has long been left behind with the emergence of astronomy from within it.

Consequently, it wasn’t until much later that the concept of the “solar system” as being distinct from the universe was even theorized.

As the National Academy of Sciences has noted:

Contemporary planetary scientists strive to answer questions akin to those that have perplexed scientists, philosophers, religious leaders, and lay people since ancient times:

What are the planets like?

How did the Earth, Sun, Moon, and planets come into existence?

What are the laws and physical processes that shaped the past evolution of Earth and its sister planets and govern their behavior today?

How did life arise on Earth, and, more significantly, is it unique?

With the growth in scientific knowledge over the centuries, the questions have certainly changed in emphasis; for example, 400 years ago, few would have used the phrase “solar system” or asked about its evolution. A basic reason for asking these questions is curiosity, but the answers often benefit humanity in both intellectual and applied ways.


#10

I reject the false dichotomy one often hears between Religion and Science. I’d say that those that make such absurd claims either severly lack proper understanding of science or severly lack proper understanding of religion, or both.

Even Albert Einstein admitted, “***Religion without Science is blind. Science without religion is lame.***”

[size=3]mysterious Universe is being proved by Science
[/size]
I agree there are certainly many things about God’s natural revelation that we have come to understand through modern science…and the evidence seem to point to God. Observe…

Biochemist Francis Crick, who shared the Nobel Prize for discovering the molecular structure of DNA stated:“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, ***could only state that in some sense, the ***origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going” (Francis Crick, Life Itself, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981),88)[FONT=Arial]Dr. “Fritz” Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world. [/FONT]
Dr. Schaefer stated,

The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, `So that’s how God did it!’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.” (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 23, 1991)From a lecture Dr. Schaefer gave in 1994 at the University of Colorado: "Einstein ultimately gave grudging acceptance to what he called “the necessity for a beginning” and eventually to “the presence of a superior reasoning power.”

About the 1992 observations, which were from the COBE (the NASA satellite Cosmic Background Explorer)…Frederick Burnham, a science-historian. He said, “These findings, now available, make the idea that God created the universe a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years.”

In the modern world people are believing more in Science than religion

The scientists quoted above seem to be able to reconcile the two, and find ways to understand God through both Science and Religion. So do I.


#11

I reject the false dichotomy one often hears between Religion and Science. I’d say that those that make such absurd claims either lack proper understanding of science or lack proper understanding of religion, or both.

Even Albert Einstein admitted, “***Religion without Science is blind. Science without religion is lame.***”

mysterious Universe is being proved by Science

I agree there are certainly many things about God’s natural revelation that we have come to understand through modern science…and the evidence seem to point to God. Observe…

Biochemist Francis Crick, who shared the Nobel Prize for discovering the molecular structure of DNA stated:“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, ***could only state that in some sense, the ***origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going” (Francis Crick, Life Itself, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981),88)Dr. “Fritz” Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world.
Dr. Schaefer stated,

The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, `So that’s how God did it!’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.” (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 23, 1991)From a lecture Dr. Schaefer gave in 1994 at the University of Colorado: "Einstein ultimately gave grudging acceptance to what he called “the necessity for a beginning” and eventually to “the presence of a superior reasoning power.” …About the 1992 observations, which were from the COBE (the NASA satellite Cosmic Background Explorer)…Frederick Burnham, a science-historian. He said, “These findings, now available, make the idea that God created the universe a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years.”

In the modern world people are believing more in Science than religion

The scientists quoted above seem to be able to reconcile the two, and find ways to understand God through both Science and Religion. So do I.


#12

Hi xplo1t,

If you are seriously seeking answers to these questions, then I would highly recommend that you read a book called Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, by Stephen Barr. As I mentioned about this book on another thread, this book will not prove to you that God exists, or that Christianity is true. However, it does make a very convincing case that belief in God is very rational, given the latest findings of physics and other branches of science. Mr. Barr shows a great depth of understanding of both of his main subjects (i.e., Judeo-Christian beliefs and modern physics), and he presents his opponents’ arguments in a very fair and coherent manner, followed by an even-handed rebuttal of each argument. The writing style of the book is such that it will not be likely to turn you off; in other words, he does not sound as if he is preaching to the reader.

Based on the questions and concerns that you have raised in your post, I think that you would benefit greatly from reading this book. Even if you completely disagree with the author’s conclusions, I think that it would give you some great insight into how religious believers (specifically Jews and Christians) can maintain a very rational, reasonable basis for their religious faith in light of modern scientific discoveries.

Also, please feel free to contact me by e-mail at paulgh -at- comcast -dot- net if I can be of any further assistance.

Paul


#13

xpl

SCIENTISTS ON RELIGION

**Nicolaus Copernicus **Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System

“The universe has been wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator.”

**Johannes Kepler **Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motions

“[May] God who is most admirable in his works … deign to grant us the grace to bring to light and illuminate the profundity of his wisdom in the visible (and accordingly intelligible) creation of this world.”

Galileo Galilei Laws of Dynamics
“The Holy Bible and the phenomenon of nature proceed alike from the divine Word.”

Isaac NewtonThermodynamics, Optics, etc.
“God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, movable particles, of such sizes and figures, and with such other properties, and in such proportion to space, as most conduced to the end for which he formed them.”

Benjamin Franklin Electricity, Bifocals, etc.
”Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the creator of the universe. That he governs by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped.

James Clerk Maxwell Electromagnetism, Maxwell’s Equations
“I have looked into most philosophical systems and I have seen none that will not work without God.”

Lord William Kelvin Laws of Thermodynamics, absolute temperature scale
“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”

Charles Darwin Theory of Evolution
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved*.” Origin of the Species*, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

Louis Pasteur Germ Theory
“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.”

Max Planck Father of Quantum Physics
“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other.”

J.J. Thompson Discoverer of the Electron
“In the distance tower still higher peaks which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects and deepen the feeling whose truth is emphasized by every advance in science, that great are the works of the Lord.”

Werner Heisenberg Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
“In the course of my life I have been repeatedly compelled to ponder the relationship of these two regions of thought (science and religion), for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”

Arthur Compton Compton Effect, Quantum Physicist
“For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man.”

Max Born Quantum Physicist
“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

Paul A.M. Dirac Quantum Physicist, Matter-Anti-Matter

“God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”

**George LeMaitre **Father of the Big Bang Theory, Catholic Priest
“There is no conflict between religion and science.” Reported by Duncan Aikman, New York Times, 1933


#14

What makes you think science and the Catholic Church are incompatible? Science is only incompatible with Christianity when people believe the Old Testament is not allegory but must be taken literally in all respects. No modern Bible scholars believe that.

Science answers or tries to answer our questions about the physical universe, as strange as that physical universe may actually be with the things that modern quantum physics can come up with - and it’s all very interesting, fascinating stuff. But it still doesn’t answer the eternal question about where the universe came from, where it is, and if it’s somewhere, what’s outside of it. It’s obvious that it follows certain rules. Where do these rules come from? It’s a never-ending, unanswerable question. It doesn’t necessarily tell us there God exists, but it certainly leaves that possibility open.


#15

You have been on a few threads here casting down the very same gauntlet. You need to stick with one thread if you are truly interested in an intelligent conversation.

I refer you to this book yet again:

“The God Theory” by Bernard Haisch

This link contains a description:

thegodtheory.com/questionsanswers.htm
:confused:


#16

My previous post was to xplo1t


#17

I don’t care what any atheist or scientist says, when I gave birth to my son, God was present.

There is no way that the joy I felt, knowing my body had produced another human, and the instant love I felt for him, could ever be attributed to anything but a higher being.

Science may be able to tell me how my husband’s sperm fertilised with my egg, and how the cells divided, and how the number of X and Y chromosomes determined my baby’s sex, but no science study can prove how those emotions of love and joy were created for humans, other than them being given to us from God.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.