Science and God

[Miles]

God and science are complimentary. One doesn't exclude the other. The history of science is full of Christians, and the Big Bang was even proposed by a Catholic priest.

If anything, atheism has more of a claim to postmodern thought (in which there is supposedly no objective truth), than it does to scientific thinking.

 

[Joseph G]

Hi aurora. You've identified yourself as a Christian in your initial post. Good news! That means that you can claim the following:

1 John 5:13 KJV

"These things I have written to you that believe on the name of the Son Of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son Of God."

 

[HarleyER]

Where did this happen? Where is the center. Liker a firework explodes in the sky there is a center. Yet when we look up into the sky in any direction we see back in time to early stars.

All we see are stars. How old those stars are impossible to tell. There is no way to recreate the event to know so all we have is speculation.

It is the same as Jesus turning water into wine. If you tasted the wine, you would insist that it must have aged for years. Yet it would have been made a few moments ago.

Christians are more incline these days to believe what a bunch of atheists tell them then what is written in God's Word. They don't want to appear "stupid" to people who hearts are darkened or they want to fit into the society around them. Who wants to believe an old book after all? People claim "science" when it is nothing but inventions of the mind. There is no re-creation of the "big bang" to prove the "theory".

Believers have it backwards and they simply compromise their faith. What these unbelievers are doing is suppressing the truth about God.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools​

 

[fhansen]

I guess I'm just scared about permanent mortality.

The desire for permanent existence is normal, because existence, itself, is inherently good. We cherish it, consciously or not, and that fact, alone, gives credence to its validity. Why would we have a natural desire for continued existence unless such a state were true? Why would we have a natural hunger for food unless food exists? The problem is that man is cut off in this world from the very source of life, from God, his Creator, who alone can ensure us of the eternity of life. Jesus came to do that very thing, proved definitively by His resurrection.

God is good, Jesus reveals; merciful, kind, and desiring that we spend that eternity with Him in an existence truly worth the living of it. If you're worried about the opinions of atheists, that's just your own pride acting up, influenced by theirs. It's the pride that separated man from God in Eden to begin with, and keeps us separated from Him now- while keeping us ignorant, in the dark, in the meanwhile. We cannot know eternal life in any satisfactory manner without knowing God, John 17:3

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

All we see are stars.

If a star is estimated to be millions of light years away, then we are seeing it as it was a million years ago since the light is just now getting to us.

 

[Veni]

Atheist are by product of false religion.

 

[Derf]

If a star is estimated to be millions of light years away, then we are seeing it as it was a million years ago since the light is just now getting to us.

Not really. The light is affected by other things it goes near or thorough.

 

[HarleyER]

If a star is estimated to be millions of light years away, then we are seeing it as it was a million years ago since the light is just now getting to us.

This, once again, is someone trying to understand how something could happen apart from God. If a star was created a million light years away in the last second, do you think it's possible for God to have us see it in the next second? Do you think God is confined and restricted to laws and rules?

The Red Sea doesn't just stop up so people can walk across it on dry ground. People don't regenerate eyes at a command. Dead people don't rise from the dead, walking around eating fish.

Some things are not meant to be understood. But we should not try to solve the mysteries with "rationalization".

To be sure, one can carry this argument too far. God created natural laws as a way for the universe to operate. But it is a mistake to believe that God must operate by those rules that He established.

 

[Derf]

I guess I'm just scared about permanent mortality.

Maybe you should be more scared of temporary mortality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Maybe you should be more scared of temporary mortality.

Being that the OP disappeared, I'm kind of thinking they're not really all that afraid of the potentialities, either way ...

 

[Derf]

Being that the OP disappeared, I'm kind of thinking they're not really all that afraid of the potentialities, either way ...

Probably so. Drive by OPer?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Probably so. Drive by OPer?

Yes, I think so. But I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

This, once again, is someone trying to understand how something could happen apart from God. If a star was created a million light years away in the last second, do you think it's possible for God to have us see it in the next second? Do you think God is confined and restricted to laws and rules?

The Red Sea doesn't just stop up so people can walk across it on dry ground. People don't regenerate eyes at a command. Dead people don't rise from the dead, walking around eating fish.

Some things are not meant to be understood. But we should not try to solve the mysteries with "rationalization".

To be sure, one can carry this argument too far. God created natural laws as a way for the universe to operate. But it is a mistake to believe that God must operate by those rules that He established.

where do you then draw the line between rationally trying to understand reality and just throwing up your hands and saying, "God did it?"

 

[Merrill]

I'm curious to see what everyone thinks. As atheism is on the rise, I decided to research more about what they believe. I came across many articles with conflicting points against Jesus and where we came from and things. I was wondering what other Christians think about this. I do not mean to offend anyone, I am just curious about another Christian's point of view on this.
(Article for reference: Let’s Get One Thing Clear: Atheists Do Not Believe Something Came From Nothing!)

I read the Big Bang article, and here are my thoughts:

In science, we have experimentalists, and theorists. Atheists dance between these two disciplines when it is convenient. For instance:

A claim is made that X could exist under certain theoretical conditions or circumstances. Example: logically, God *could* exist

to which the atheist will take a hard experimentalist position and say "where is the actual, empirical evidence, of God's existence in the material universe"?

but then the atheist will make a claim (as seen in the article) that "Mathematics suggests that it was the ignition of one of many similar universes, and such creation of universes is routine under some other conditions"

so they now they are putting forth an idea which has no experimental validation--it is pure theory. So it isn't wrong to theorize about the existence of God, but perfectly OK to say there could be 100 different universes out there, even though you have no "proof"

there is NO "proof" that anything *existed* prior to the Big Bang. We do not have a way to look beyond the singularity and observe the "super-force" (gravity, weak and strong nuclear forces, and electromagnetism). We do not have a way to test for it. It is pure theory.

The other clumsy claim made in the article is that the complexity of the universe means that we simply haven't yet "found" proof of God's non-existence, which I assume would be someone solving all the mysteries of the universe. This is just meaningless rhetoric.

The author then moves on to suggest that abandoning religion will usher in a new age of human rights, progress, and the benevolent state. To which I have the following objections:

1. History is not a progression from non-enlightenment, ignorance, violence, and depravity, to enlightenment, peace, and utopia. That is the progressive-socialist view of "progress", and has no basis in reality. History is often cyclical and irregular, with periods of peace and prosperity, followed by war and depravity. The worst violations of human rights came long after the Middle-Ages, and its reliance of "faith"

2. Governments and ideologies with the biggest body counts and worst human-rights records are secular, often Communist regimes. I have often remarked that I would rather live as a Christian in an Islamic country than as a Christian in the Soviet Union or Cambodia in the 1970s.

3. There is absolutely no guarantee that abandoning all religion will usher in some new progressive utopia --that is complete nonsense.

The author then concludes with "Someone said Christians don’t understand basic science, but I’d say they don’t understand how quantum mechanics works". Which is an ad hominem.

I have a buddy who is a Seventh Day Adventist and very devout. He is also a particle physicist with a PhD, and is far smarter than me, or the author of this article.

Lastly, just because some Christians may have views that contradict science, it does not mean Christianity contradicts science. Jesus did not come to our world to give a physics lesson or teach us to build a paper mill. He came to save us. And we don't live for the "God of the gaps" --as Billy Graham said, we cannot put God in. test-tube.

 

[Merrill]

Christians need to stop thinking that "atheists" believe one unified theology, or philosophy.

That's like thinking that all people who drive cars, like chocolate ice cream.

There are very few assertions that can be made, that are TRUE about
all atheists.

Atheism is ideology, not philosophy or science.

Agnosticism is a different matter altogether. We could look to Sextus Empiricus and his position that one must always be open to new evidence, contradictions, or possibilities, and avoid making categorical claims.

Atheists make the absolute assertion that God does not exist, and they do this not because they are convinced that this statement is "true" but that it upholds other areas of their ideology.

 

[HarleyER]

where do you then draw the line between rationally trying to understand reality and just throwing up your hands and saying, "God did it?"

The Bible is not irrational. There are rational explanations if one is willing to accept them. What we have these days are a lot of Christians who find it difficult to believe what is plainly stated in scripture. Instead, they would like to believe "science", even if all these PhDs tells us there are seventy different genders while the scriptures tells us there are two.

We harmonize science to scripture. We don't try to harmonize scripture to science.

 

[Sunflower39]

I used to be an atheist until I really thought about things, looked around me and realised that science can’t give us the answers for everything.

 

[Stephen3141]

God and science are complimentary. One doesn't exclude the other. The history of science is full of Christians, and the Big Bang was even proposed by a Catholic priest.

If anything, atheism has more of a claim to postmodern thought (in which there is supposedly no objective truth), than it does to scientific thinking.

Are you talking about the Bible's concept of "God"?

And, you need to be more specific about what you mean by "science".
Modern science started in the time of the European Enlightenment, in
the 1700's. Before that, there was no concept of what we would now call
"science". To discuss the approach that modern science takes to research,
you may talk about mill's Methods.

And, "objective truth" is sort of a Protestant Fundamentalist phrase.
Philosophers talk simply about "truth". And Epistemology is the area
in philosophy, that has discussed what truth is, for centuries. Truths
may have a scope, just as assertions may have a scope within which
they are true. ("Unobjective" truths are personal or group opinions/beliefs,
and these need to be rigorously demonstrated to be true, before they are
accepted as truths.)

Definitely, many of the conclusions of modern science are compatible with
the orthodox Christian faith. (I agree with you on this.)

But, there are a lot of technical people who make "scientific" claims, that
are not rigorously demonstrated. AND, there are a lot of anti-intellectual
Christians who make claims "biblical" claims, that are not demonstrated
using the linguistic tools of critical Bible study. There are huge errors on
both sides of the theistic line.

Discussions doubt what is "real", and what is "true" need to be MUCH MORE
carefully defined, and include careful logical arguments, not just assertions.

I like the approach of Stephen Meyer, in "Return of the God Hypothesis".
He is very careful in his assertions about what modern science is, and
how Christians should relate to it.

 

[Miles]

Are you talking about the Bible's concept of "God"?

And, you need to be more specific about what you mean by "science".
Modern science started in the time of the European Enlightenment, in
the 1700's. Before that, there was no concept of what we would now call
"science". To discuss the approach that modern science takes to research,
you may talk about mill's Methods.

And, "objective truth" is sort of a Protestant Fundamentalist phrase.
Philosophers talk simply about "truth". And Epistemology is the area
in philosophy, that has discussed what truth is, for centuries. Truths
may have a scope, just as assertions may have a scope within which
they are true. ("Unobjective" truths are personal or group opinions/beliefs,
and these need to be rigorously demonstrated to be true, before they are
accepted as truths.)

Definitely, many of the conclusions of modern science are compatible with
the orthodox Christian faith. (I agree with you on this.)

But, there are a lot of technical people who make "scientific" claims, that
are not rigorously demonstrated. AND, there are a lot of anti-intellectual
Christians who make claims "biblical" claims, that are not demonstrated
using the linguistic tools of critical Bible study. There are huge errors on
both sides of the theistic line.

Discussions doubt what is "real", and what is "true" need to be MUCH MORE
carefully defined, and include careful logical arguments, not just assertions.

I like the approach of Stephen Meyer, in "Return of the God Hypothesis".
He is very careful in his assertions about what modern science is, and
how Christians should relate to it.

By science, roughly speaking, I'm referring to what can be learned via rigorous observation and careful pattern recognition. Neither mere knowledge, as our knowledge is admittedly incomplete and subject to change over time, nor the formal academic field. Rather, I would say that learning about how nature works is compatible with the orthodox concept of God. If nature is created, it stands to reason that we might be able to understand how it is comprised.

You are right to be careful, of course. People make all manner of claims in the name of science. Some of which are built on weak or even nonexistent evidence, and are often replete with philosophical and political agendas.

Likewise, people make all manner of claims in the name of God. We should also be careful about such claims.

Although I've yet to read The Return of the God Hypothesis, I gather from your use of the term "modern science" that you may be referring to the academic establishment. Unfortunately, along with sound and repeatable evidence-based understanding, there is an element of political and philosophical bias that colors what might otherwise be a more factual understanding. This should be acknowledged to come with the territory, as people are involved and have inherent biases and blind-spots. However, this doesn't necessarily preclude the validity or usefulness of what we stand to learn by employing the scientific method. Although there is much to learn about nature, we should be careful to not merely accept claims at face value. When "modern science" works properly, such claims are tested, discarded, or refined over time. Ideally, leading to a more comprehensive understanding of how things work.