Dr Gerald Schroeder

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,822
36,122
Los Angeles Area
✟820,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Nine people can interpret gravity nine different ways.

But the fact remains, under no circumstances whatsoever is gravity to be contradicted.

I'm glad it's sinking in. Gravity is a fact. Scientists develop theories of gravity to explain that fact.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,419
Guam
✟4,896,773.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm glad it's sinking in. Gravity is a fact. Scientists develop theories of gravity to explain that fact.

And under no circumstances whatsoever is that fact to be contradicted without consequences, is it?

Scientists can develop as many right-or-wrong theories as they want, but the fact remains: gravity has the last say.

First we had gravity.

Then came zero gravity.

Now zero gravity is called microgravity.

In the end, it's all gravity, isn't it?
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
My question is how do you sort through science and religion?
That's a really great question, and it's definitely a theological question, not a physics question.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
14,648
11,692
54
USA
✟294,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Sticking the the core paragraphs...
My question is how do you sort through science and religion?
Just let each be its own thing and separate from the other? Have you considered that?
I assume that Schroeder taught science at MIT and Harvard.
That would seem likely. Specifically, physics, nuclear physics, perhaps nuclear engineering, maybe environmental radioactivity.
So does that mean he does not talk about religion in the classroom?
Probably not. Why would he? There is nothing in any of those courses or subjects that require a discussion of religion.
Does he just stick to the textbook and teach that?
Generally, though many courses are custom made and don't have a textbook. (Most college textbooks are written by professors teaching those classes. I had 3 university classes using the draft of the professor's textbook. Other classes had no textbook at all.)
Then if you want to know about his religion you have to read one of his books?
Why would any student care about the religion of their professors?

On to paragraph 2:
We know that atheism is rampant at our universities.
Do we? Does it matter?
Do they follow the same standard or is there a double standard?
What "double standard"? Are you implying that atheist professors teach atheism? If so you are wrong. No professor ever even mentioned they were atheists in any classroom I was in. (Who knows, maybe none of them were actually atheists.) It wasn't relevant to the class.
Because science in and of itself is agnostic.

There are many ways to use the word "agnostic", but 'round here it usually refers to the "faith position" of individuals. (It is one of the options you can choose in your profile. I didn't not choose that one.)

Have you heard about "non-overlapping magesteria"? The notion that science and religion have different realms of competence that are separate? It was coined by some scientist called SJ Gould who tried to avoid conflict between scientific facts and religious beliefs.
As I said before: Punctuated equilibrium was developed by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould.
I don't recall you saying this before, but yes that is true.
Gould an atheist died early from cancer.
Not sure what his death has to do with any of this, but ...
Eldredge agnostic is still alive and may still even be working.
You do know that there is not significant difference between "agnostics" and "atheists", right? I tend to think of them as "non-believers who identify as atheists" and "non-believers who identify as agnostics". "Agnostic" isn't an intermediate, half-yes-half-no, position between belief and non-belief.
I think cancer is a result of people being in conflict with themselves and not able to work out that conflict.

First, cancer isn't caused by "self-conflict". It is the out of control division of cells usually triggered by some sort of genetic damage to the cells.

Second, it is a rather nasty and vile thing to imply that Gould died of cancer because he was an atheist, or that atheists are in "self conflict"
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
My question is how do you sort through science and religion?
It's a great question, but not at all a question about physical science.

I'd love to answer it in a theological forum area though. :)

Why not post it in General Theology, so that believers can discuss it? It would be helpful there.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,411
15,559
Colorado
✟428,017.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
....
Just let each be its own thing and separate from the other? Have you considered that?
....
Not always possible if certain articles of faith are threatened by the results of scientific inquiry.
 
Upvote 0

ruthiesea

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2007
714
504
✟71,668.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Nine people can interpret gravity nine different ways.

But the fact remains, under no circumstances whatsoever is gravity to be contradicted.

People can easily contradict the Bible.

But that's the point.

They are contradicting the Bible.

And they're wrong.

We're all going to meet the Author some day.

And we're all going to be shown where we contradicted His word.
What are the different ways that science interpret graviTy?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,419
Guam
✟4,896,773.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What are the different ways that science interpret graviTy?

I said they COULD interpret gravity nine different ways.

Making the point, of course, that gravity would still be gravity, no matter how it's interpreted or misinterpreted.

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

So whether they call it "zero gravity" or "microgravity," it's still gravity.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,419
Guam
✟4,896,773.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Newton said gravity is a pull. Einstein said gravity is a push. They say the math works either way depending on what you are doing.

I go with Newton on this one.

I think it was Hal Lindsey that pointed out that science and Scripture started parting ways around the time of Isaac Newton.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,822
36,122
Los Angeles Area
✟820,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
What are the different ways that science interpret graviTy?

Aristotle interpreted gravity as the tendency for objects to reach their natural place.

Newton interpreted gravity as an attractive force between any two massive objects.

Einstein interpreted gravity as the bending of the geometry of space-time by energy.
 
Upvote 0

Diamond7

YEC, OEC, GAP, TE - Dispensationalist.
Nov 23, 2022
4,416
622
72
Akron
✟67,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
not a physics question.
Schroeder has a degree in physics from MIT and he taught Physics at Harvard. After he studied all that Physics man had to offer, he went to the Kaballah to learn more. You do not realize how much science is firmly rooted in religious beliefs that were proven to be true. The Big Bang, for example.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Halbhh
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
14,648
11,692
54
USA
✟294,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Aristotle interpreted gravity as the tendency for objects to reach their natural place.

Newton interpreted gravity as an attractive force between any two massive objects.

Einstein interpreted gravity as the bending of the geometry of space-time by energy.

I will endorse this. Each was also right in their own way.

Aristotle was a bit philosophical (he was after all, a philosopher) with his "natural place", but the idea that gravity pulled things down was useful for a lot of related actions on the surface of this planet: things fall, water flows downhill, buoyancy, effort required to lift things, etc.

Newton's realization that attraction between bodies explains both surface gravity effects and the motion of the planets was so good that it is still the primary formulation of gravity used.

Einstein's interpretation came about because he realized that Newton's formulation wasn't consistent with the principles of relativity and so the result was his geometric view.

As far as we know, Einstein's view is essentially correct, but Newton's works just fine for the vast majority of applications.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,822
36,122
Los Angeles Area
✟820,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
As far as we know, Einstein's view is essentially correct

We have reason to suspect some sort of alteration will be required to incorporate quantum mechanics, so various additional scientific interpretations of gravity are still in the hypothesis/research stage, e.g. loop quantum gravity.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Schroeder has a degree in physics from MIT and he taught Physics at Harvard. After he studied all that Physics man had to offer, he went to the Kaballah to learn more. You do not realize how much science is firmly rooted in religious beliefs that were proven to be true. The Big Bang, for example.
Yes, I have a degree in physics too (Engineering Physics to be exact, which is pretty much every course a normal physics major takes but 2, and then I just read the equivalent of those 2 courses over time on my own later). But, I can easily raise a non-physics topic and discuss it of course. :)

Do some believe in the big bang in a religious way? Sure! No doubt some do. But a more classic attitude in science (and very widespread) is to consider it just a current leading theory, for now...subject to replacement if a better theory in time is shown to be more accurate in the future. But, it's fun to note that one competitor, the Oscillating Universe newer version that deals with the entropy problem (that older versions had) still seems to need a beginning. :cool:

(By "Kaballah" did you mean "Kabbalah"? That's cool if so! I read some in it by chance in my late 30s due to a good friend loaning me her book -- fun stuff!)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Diamond7

YEC, OEC, GAP, TE - Dispensationalist.
Nov 23, 2022
4,416
622
72
Akron
✟67,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Do some believe in the big bang in a religious way?
I have Degrasse's book on astrophysics. Do you agree or disagree with him? People like Nahmanides talk about this from a Kaballah perspective. The religious perspective has more to do with the beginning of time.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have Degrasse's book on astrophysics. Do you agree or disagree with him? People like Nahmanides talk about this from a Kaballah perspective. The religious perspective has more to do with the beginning of time.
I've never wanted to read or listen to Degrasse since I had already learned from reading thousands (not hundreds, not just 2 thousand, but many thousands (about on order of ~ 10,000 i recently calculated) of astrophysics articles, reports, news, etc. For that matter you can easily find better than Degrasse just for explaining astronomy. ( Would you like me to find a better than Degrasse recommendation?)

Also, Degrasse has shown I've seen on various interviews and videos of him a bad quality of bringing in his atheist ideology into his public speaking on astronomy (unecessary in any way) and that's an indication of low quality all by itself.

Find better.

Set a higher standard for yourself of better. Expect better and seek it out. You'll find it. :)
 
Upvote 0