Made from Stardust? Possible to believe this and believe in God?

[Neogaia777]

I've been watching a series on the discovery channel called "How the universe works", very interesting to me because I have always been interested in that kind of stuff, but I told my roommate, I asked him if he had ever watched it, and he said "No." and I said it's pretty interesting, it shows how all the elements were formed in the forge of large stars that went supernova, and that we essentially are all made of Stardust from those stars...

And then he said "Well, if you believe that, then you don't believe in God" and it took me aback, and I said "Well, I most certainly believe in God, and this science information doesn't change my beliefs in God at all, Then I said to him the Bible says we were formed from dust, and that is essentially true, and then I explained to him how the creation account in Genesis, goes right along with what science has only recently discovered (come to know)...

Then I explained to him, To me there is no great divide between science and religion, it is all dependent on interpretation, or perspective to me...

Is it possible to believe in science and God, or do they conflict, to me they don't, but I was wondering if any of you could tell me where you think that science and religion do conflict?

Evolution is probably one, a big one, some say you can't believe in Evolution and God, or the Bible, but I disagree... Where else do science and religion seem to conflict.

May I remind you that Galileo was labeled a heretic by the church because of the assumptions that man in religious circles came to conclude, so, at the time Galileo's ideas/discoveries seemed to crush religious Ideas, but these were assumptions based upon the interpretations/perspectives of man. Galileo's Ideas forced a "paradigm shift" in religious perspectives/ideas/interpretations.

Many back then would have said "you can't believe that the earth is not the center of our solar system, galaxy, and/or universe, and believe in God" They would have said this back then... Today, we say "you can't believe in Evolution or that we come from stardust, and believe in God. They conflict, they would say, but I'm wondering if i't just a matter of perspective and a paradigm shift in thinking is now again necessary...

What do you think? Opinions? Ideas? Thoughts?

God Bless!

 

[CabVet]

It contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis. But most Christians don't believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, so there you have it. God (just like Zeus and Thor) cannot be disproved by science.

 

[Neogaia777]

It contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis. But most Christians don't believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, so there you have it. God (just like Zeus and Thor) cannot be disproved by science.

Do you agree that "literal" truth is only one kind of truth, and that there are many other kinds of truth, but that "man" has decided, (not God) that literal truth is the only truth (to some) and that "man" has decided that "literal truth" is the only truth of paramount importance (which isn't necessarily true) There is metaphoric, subjective, and many other forms of truth (which/that I can't seem to recall right now) that one of these other truths, may be of more paramount importance to God, but man has chosen literal to be the only truth, what if, for example, God communicated through metaphor?

God Bless!

 

[RealityCheck]

Is it possible to believe in science and God, or do they conflict, to me they don't, but I was wondering if any of you could tell me where you think that science and religion do conflict?

!

Which God? Which religion? Without more specific definitions of what you're talking about it's impossible to say anything other than "yes you can believe in science and god" because clearly many people do. The real question is can you accept science and believe in a specific god or a specific religion.

Clearly if you are a fundamentalist Christian who believes that the Bible is literally true word-for-word, you cannot accept science. Obviously that doesn't speak for all Christians.

 

[CabVet]

Do you agree that "literal" truth is only one kind of truth, and that there are many other kinds of truth, but that "man" has decided, (not God) that literal truth is the only truth (to some) and that "man" has decided that "literal truth" is the only truth of paramount importance (which isn't necessarily true) There is metaphoric, subjective, and many other forms of truth (which/that I can't seem to recall right now) that one of these other truths, may be of more paramount importance to God, but man has chosen literal to be the only truth, what if, for example, God communicated through metaphor?

God Bless!

No. I don't think the Bible is the work of God (if there is one). A perfect God as described in the Bible would never write a book as imperfect and incoherent as the Bible.

 

[RealityCheck]

Do you agree that "literal" truth is only one kind of truth, and that there are many other kinds of truth, but that "man" has decided, (not God) that literal truth is the only truth (to some) and that "man" has decided that "literal truth" is the only truth of paramount importance (which isn't necessarily true) There is metaphoric, subjective, and many other forms of truth (which/that I can't seem to recall right now) that one of these other truths, may be of more paramount importance to God, but man has chosen literal to be the only truth, what if, for example, God communicated through metaphor?

God Bless!

You didn't define "Truth" anywhere in there. Problem number 3 with your question.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

I think some core beliefs become like habits where you're just so accustomed to them that any alteration throws you off. Your roommate has probably become accustomed to assuming that if you believe that humans are made of star dust or that we evolved, that you cannot believe in God. One of my friends from camp who is the daughter of a Baptist pastor and has been homeschooled her entire education following a YEC-based curriculum had never heard of theistic evolution or known that Christians could believe in evolution at all until a conversation one night with our bunk. I'd just read Nineteen Eighty-Four for school, and it reminded me of "2+2=5", where you believe whatever dogma you've been indoctrinated with even if it's totally false.

It's possible he'll change his mind and it's possible he won't. My friend certainly hasn't, and so we just try to avoid the topic. Many Christians believe in evolution as well as the Big Bang, abiogenesis and other things that are well outside of a literal interpretation of Genesis. The Vatican and the Church of England have publicly said that evolution doesn't cause conflict, and that science and religion should be in harmony with one another. Christian Post had an article about the Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham debate earlier this year with a poll asking for who "won" the debate. Though anyone could have voted, since it's a Christian site many who did most likely are Christian. Out of like 50,000+ votes more than 92% voted that Bill Nye had won. You could show him the Clergy Letter Project which has over 12,000 signatures from Christian clergy in support of teaching evolution. Clergy Letter Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Or, you could just keep believing as you do but keep your beliefs to yourselves, and talk about other things.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Is it possible to believe in science and God, or do they conflict, to me they don't, but I was wondering if any of you could tell me where you think that science and religion do conflict?

Plenty of very good scientists are also theists. Ken Miller for example. A catholic and prominent evolutionary biologist.

Having said that, for me personally, science is more like the final nail in the coffin of religion. Off course one can start to "interpret" scripture to be metaphorical and "moral of the story" type thing - and indeed a lot of people do that.

To me, that simply raises questions. The first question would be "didn't the people who wrote this down actually literally believe it?". I mean, if THEY believed it literally and THEY are supposed to be those who were "inspired by god" or had "revelations from god".... Shouldn't we expect them to get it correct?

The second question would be "if we are going to say that X is metaphorical because we discovered that reality conflicts with a literal understanding, how can we know what is and isn't metaphorical if our scientific knowledge hasn't reached that point yet?".

If Noah's Ark is metaphorical, then why would we not think the same of the virgin birth, water to wine, walking on water, raising the dead,... ?

To me, it seems to be a can of worms.

Off course, I have never been a theist, so my opinion on the matter is kind of tainted. I had good reasons not to buy into religious shenannigans long before I knew anything about the more "advanced" sciences like evolutionary biology, cosmology, astronomy,... etc.

Evolution is probably one, a big one, some say you can't believe in Evolution and God, or the Bible, but I disagree... Where else do science and religion seem to conflict.

Well, like I said... all of science contradicts pretty much every literal interpretation of any story in the bible.

Cosmology, astronomy, geology, biology, chemistry, physics, archeology,.... all contradict literal readings of creation in genesis, exodus of jews from egypt and subsequent wondering in the desert and invading present day israel, living in a fish for a couple days, having the earth stop rotating ("sun stopping in the sky"), global floods, plagues,....

All of it is pretty much nonsense (if literal) in light of the natural and historical sciences.

May I remind you that Galileo was labeled a heretic by the church because of the assumptions that man in religious circles came to conclude, so, at the time Galileo's ideas/discoveries seemed to crush religious Ideas, but these were assumptions based upon the interpretations/perspectives of man. Galileo's Ideas forced a "paradigm shift" in religious perspectives/ideas/interpretations.

Indeed. And any intellectually honest person should be able to admit that their beliefs can be wrong. Precisely because new data can show your beliefs to be exactly that: wrong.

The problem with religions however is that they don't merely express belief. It's a much stronger statement. And that's where the doctrine and the dogma comes in. They are expressing baseless beliefs and pretending that they are certainties, facts. So much so even that a lot of them would dare to state that if the evidence shows their beliefs to be wrong - the evidence must be wrong. Isn't that right, AV?

This is why I don't bother with holding "beliefs". In the words of Lawrence Krauss... Instead of "believing" things... Why not just consider certain things "likely" and other things "unlikely"? And you do it based on the evidence (or lack thereof) at your disposal. And if no evidence is available, just say "i don't know".

Many back then would have said "you can't believe that the earth is not the center of our solar system, galaxy, and/or universe, and believe in God" They would have said this back then... Today, we say "you can't believe in Evolution or that we come from stardust, and believe in God. They conflict, they would say, but I'm wondering if i't just a matter of perspective and a paradigm shift in thinking is now again necessary...

What do you think? Opinions? Ideas? Thoughts?

The paradigm shift already happened. The vast majority of people on this planet have no problems with evolution and being a theist. The US is actually quite unique in this in the free west.

I'm not really sure what caused it. In any case, it's no more or less then plain old fundamentalism.

 

[AV1611VET]

Made from Stardust?

Today's modern science, in my opinion, is a revival of old Egyptian myths.

Egypt, called the "iron furnace" in the Bible, is a type of the world; and in Egyptian mythology, Ra created life on the earth.

Some aspects of modern science is nothing more than Egyptian mythology repackaged.

It is a form of sun worship.

 

[Mainframes]

If any sort of worship had to be chosen then Sun worship makes the most sense. The sun literally has given us life through the creation of the solar system from it's gravity well and the energy it has provided and continues to provide for the next few billion years.

Now tell me that isnt something to be thankful for.....

 

[TLK Valentine]

Today's modern science, in my opinion, is a revival of old Egyptian myths.

Egypt, called the "iron furnace" in the Bible, is a type of the world; and in Egyptian mythology, Ra created life on the earth.

Some aspects of modern science is nothing more than Egyptian mythology repackaged.

It is a form of sun worship.

And Christianity isn't?

 

[AV1611VET]

And Christianity isn't?

Scientism is sun worship.

Christianity is Son worship.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Today's modern science, in my opinion, is a revival of old Egyptian myths.

Egypt, called the "iron furnace" in the Bible, is a type of the world; and in Egyptian mythology, Ra created life on the earth.

Some aspects of modern science is nothing more than Egyptian mythology repackaged.

It is a form of sun worship.

Googling 'sun worship and christianity' is quite good fun.

 

[RealityCheck]

Scientism is sun worship.

Christianity is Son worship.

Pithy, but incorrect.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Googling 'sun worship and christianity' is quite good fun.

And educational too, for those who are interested in that sort of thing.

 

[Michael]

I've been watching a series on the discovery channel called "How the universe works", very interesting to me because I have always been interested in that kind of stuff, but I told my roommate, I asked him if he had ever watched it, and he said "No." and I said it's pretty interesting, it shows how all the elements were formed in the forge of large stars that went supernova, and that we essentially are all made of Stardust from those stars...

And then he said "Well, if you believe that, then you don't believe in God" and it took me aback, and I said "Well, I most certainly believe in God, and this science information doesn't change my beliefs in God at all, Then I said to him the Bible says we were formed from dust, and that is essentially true, and then I explained to him how the creation account in Genesis, goes right along with what science has only recently discovered (come to know)...

Then I explained to him, To me there is no great divide between science and religion, it is all dependent on interpretation, or perspective to me...

Is it possible to believe in science and God, or do they conflict, to me they don't, but I was wondering if any of you could tell me where you think that science and religion do conflict?

I agree with you that that science and religion do not necessarily *need* to conflict. It really depends on how one 'practices' both their religion and their "science" IMO.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/

Evolution is probably one, a big one, some say you can't believe in Evolution and God, or the Bible, but I disagree...

So does the Pope and ever Catholic on the planet. In fact a *literal* interpretation of the Bible is actually the minority view even within Christianity as a whole.

IMO both God and our 'experiences' of God most likely have a fully "empirical" explanation, and therefore science and religion can live in total harmony.

 

[florida2]

Today's modern science, in my opinion, is a revival of old Egyptian myths.

Egypt, called the "iron furnace" in the Bible, is a type of the world; and in Egyptian mythology, Ra created life on the earth.

Some aspects of modern science is nothing more than Egyptian mythology repackaged.

It is a form of sun worship.

Except that there's no other way elements heavier than hydrogen can be formed except inside massive stars.

One of the most awesome videos you'll ever watch. Almost certainly one of the most astounding facts there is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D05ej8u-gU

 

[Strathos]

If God didn't want people to believe the solar system formed from the remnants of exploding stars, then He wouldn't have arranged the universe and all of the observable evidence to suggest that it did.

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

 

[AV1611VET]

If God didn't want people to believe the solar system formed from the remnants of exploding stars, then He wouldn't have arranged the universe and all of the observable evidence to suggest that it did.

He can arrange the universe any way He wants; especially after He leaves documentation as to what He did, when He did it, where He did it, how He did it, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitnesses were -- some mentioned by name.

 

[CabVet]

He can arrange the universe any way He wants; especially after He leaves documentation as to what He did, when He did it, where He did it, how He did it, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitnesses were -- some mentioned by name.

Funny how none of that "documentation" matches what we observe in the universe, isn't it? Also funny how none of the eyewitnesses wrote anything down, even the ones mentioned by name.