Religion and Science

[Doveaman]

Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), a Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest who developed the theory of the Big Bang. Lemaitre described the beginning of the universe as a burst of fireworks, comparing galaxies to the burning embers spreading out in a growing sphere from the center of the burst. He believed this burst of fireworks was the beginning of time

...Duncan Aikman of the New York Times spotlighted Lemaitre's view in 1933: "'There is no conflict between religion and science,' Lemaitre has been telling audiences over and over again in this country ....His view is interesting and important not because he is a Catholic priest, not because he is one of the leading mathematical physicists of our time, but because he is both." Source

It would seem that the theory of the origin of the universe was developed by a highly religious man, and that his theory might have been influenced by his religious beliefs.

So why is there so much conflict between religion and science?

Why can’t we all just get along?

 

[AV1611VET]

So why is there so much conflict between religion and science?

Because science has to cater to nature, and nature is hostile to God.

For instance, God says death is His enemy, but science teaches death as an integral part of nature.

Death to animate objects (evolution), as well as death to inanimate objects (entropy) are routine predictions in science.

In addition, nature places demands on life that God never intended to put us through.

Fight or flight, survival of the fittest, pain, struggles, and worry are not something God intended for us.

In the end, God is going to intervene and put an end to His enemies.

We just need to be patient.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Because science has to cater to nature, and nature is hostile to God.

For instance, God says death is His enemy, but science teaches death as an integral part of nature.

Death to animate objects (evolution), as well as death to inanimate objects (entropy) are routine predictions in science.

In addition, nature places demands on life that God never intended to put us through.

Fight or flight, survival of the fittest, pain, struggles, and worry are not something God intended for us.

In the end, God is going to intervene and put an end to His enemies.

We just need to be patient.

Unless you want to claim that organisms don't actually die and inanimate objects don't actually disintegrate over time, I'm unsure what you want to blame science for exactly.

 

[AV1611VET]

Unless you want to claim that organisms don't actually die and inanimate objects don't actually disintegrate over time, I'm unsure what you want to blame science for exactly.

Science caters to nature, not God.

God intends nature to be our friend --- instead, it is our enemy --- killing us in the end.

 

[Belk]

Science caters to nature, not God.

God intends nature to be our friend --- instead, it is our enemy --- killing us in the end.

So are catering to and studying the same thing? If not you need to explain how science caters to nature.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Science caters to nature, not God.

God intends nature to be our friend --- instead, it is our enemy --- killing us in the end.

So take this up with God. Science didn't create nature, God did.

 

[Doveaman]

science has to cater to nature, and nature is hostile to God.

For instance, God says death is His enemy, but science teaches death as an integral part of nature.

You seem to be speaking of science and nature as the same thing. Is it?

Science caters to nature, not God.

God intends nature to be our friend --- instead, it is our enemy --- killing us in the end.

Am I wrong in concluding that it is sin that is killing us and not nature? Are you talking about lightning?

 

[Michael]

Because science has to cater to nature, and nature is hostile to God.

IMO this statement makes no sense. God created nature and all the laws of physics. I fail to see how his creation could possibly be hostile to God. Ignorance and ego can be hostile to God, but only if science is "abused" can it "seem" hostile to God. In reality, science is simply the empirical understanding of nature and God is nature. Science leads to God.

 

[Cabal]

Because science has to cater to nature, and nature is hostile to God.

For instance, God says death is His enemy, but science teaches death as an integral part of nature.

Death to animate objects (evolution), as well as death to inanimate objects (entropy) are routine predictions in science.

In addition, nature places demands on life that God never intended to put us through.

Fight or flight, survival of the fittest, pain, struggles, and worry are not something God intended for us.

In the end, God is going to intervene and put an end to His enemies.

We just need to be patient.

Yeah, it's a shame he created that blinkin' tree, eh....

 

[Doveaman]

IMO this statement makes no sense. God created nature and all the laws of physics. I fail to see how his creation could possibly be hostile to God. Ignorance and ego can be hostile to God, but only if science is "abused" can it "seem" hostile to God. In reality, science is simply the empirical understanding of nature and God is nature. Science leads to God.

Which reminds me of this scripture:

"For by him (Jesus) all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible...all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."...Col 1:16-17

 

[random325nicaea]

"It would seem that the theory of the origin of the universe was developed by a highly religious man, and that his theory might have been influenced by his religious beliefs."

it would seem you're trying to make a connection here that doesn't exist.
btw, you're a bit out of date if you're still thinking we only got the math from 1966.

"So why is there so much conflict between religion and science?"

there only is one when you try to force science in the literal interpretation of a holy book written by ignorant people. once you start taking the bible metaphorically. all of the quabbles with science start to disappear like snow in the sun. of course...for most people that is quite a step.

 

[random325nicaea]

"Am I wrong in concluding that it is sin that is killing us and not nature?"

wrong as wrong can be.
to understand why. follow some biology courses.

 

[Doveaman]

btw, you're a bit out of date if you're still thinking we only got the math from 1966.

If the math was wrong back then who is to say it isn't wrong now. I'm sure back then the math was believable, even more believable than it is today. But yet it was wrong. Believable but wrong. That pretty much sums up the big bang theory.

there only is one when you try to force science in the literal interpretation of a holy book written by ignorant people. once you start taking the bible metaphorically. all of the quabbles with science start to disappear like snow in the sun. of course...for most people that is quite a step.

Would you also be referring to Fr. Lemaitre?

 

[Cabal]

If the math was wrong back then who is to say it isn't wrong now. I'm sure back then the math was believable, even more believable than it is today. But yet it was wrong. Believable but wrong. That pretty much sums up the big bang theory.

Math is either right or wrong. Not "believable."

How many times have you had to be corrected on this?

I also find it mildly ironic that you make this claim when you haven't even attempted to put a single math-based argument forward relating to the Big Bang theory.

Would you also be referring to Fr. Lemaitre?

No, YECs, as they're incapable of coming to terms with the Big Bang.

 

[AV1611VET]

If the math was wrong back then who is to say it isn't wrong now.

--- Whatever you do, please don't mention Pi.

 

[Cabal]

--- Whatever you do, please don't mention Pi.

He can mention it all he wants - that isn't our problem.

 

[AV1611VET]

He can mention it all he wants - that isn't our problem.

I think that one went over your head, didn't it?

 

[Cabal]

I think that one went over your head, didn't it?

You would know....

 

[DaisyDay]

Because science has to cater to nature, and nature is hostile to God.

For instance, God says death is His enemy, but science teaches death as an integral part of nature.

Death to animate objects (evolution), as well as death to inanimate objects (entropy) are routine predictions in science.

In addition, nature places demands on life that God never intended to put us through.

Fight or flight, survival of the fittest, pain, struggles, and worry are not something God intended for us.

In the end, God is going to intervene and put an end to His enemies.

We just need to be patient.

That's a pretty good summation.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's a pretty good summation.

--- Thank you.