If this topic is one that toes the line on breaking forum rules, I would just ask that a moderator delete it or inform me so I can delete it. My hope is that its actually a topic that brings about healthy and substance filled discussion. Please bear with me here as I'm not even 100% sure where I was going with this. If it seems like a pointless discussion or one unnecessarily extrapolated on and made more difficult than it has to be, please just let it fade into the archives :)
Lately I've been really interested in learning more about Historical and Modern Day Science, more specifically Science related to how the world works and consiousness; Physics and Neuroscience. I've been using Books, Magazines, Videos, Articles, and other Educational Tools to attempt to gain some insight into where the field of Science was a thousand years ago, hundred years ago, etc., and what it has grown to today. Along the way, you naturally get an idea of the Human Culture during those times. For example, Atomic Theory was actually first proposed by Democritus somewhere around 400 B.C (Incredible incredible genius this guy was). He was a "Pre-Socratic" Philosopher and the traditional line of thinking then was that space was synonymous with the Heavens...The late 1600's brought Newton, and even with emerging revelations on how the world worked (his own), he was heavily involved with the Church and Biblical studies.
Why I'm asking? I had given my Mother a list of books I wanted (Yes I still give my Mom a Christmas list) and one was "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. She was noticeably upset when I next saw her and, in so many words, told me she thought it was incensitive of me to ask her to purchase me something that so obviously and easily dismisses God. I didn't really notice the title was so forthcoming, I thought it would be more fact presenting rather than God shaming... and the contents of the book likely are, but still she was right. I know her better than anyone and it was a poor decision to ask her for that, knowing full well how strongly she felt about her faith and how much effort she put in as a Mother to give her son the opportunity to do the same (while not forcing her belief on me, ever). So I've always respected her faith and feel like I kind of put her in a compromising position by forcing her to speak up about that.
Anyway, the title of this thread is a bit vague but the reason I brought it up is that I dug a little and watched Richard Dawkins speak at an event related to getting "something from nothing" and then another video, and another. He seems overly hostile at times towards creationists. He gets agitated and even seems offended if a person even insinuates that a creator exists. So I decided to drop his book from the list because it all just seems condescending now. Hopefully I'm not doing myself a disservice.
Do you personally believe in a God and still agree with the majority of widely accepted Science today (big bang, something from nothing, ever expanding universe, black holes, time dilation, age of the Earth, etc.)? If so, how do you reconcile, if you were asked to, to someone that both of these are part of your core beliefs? If not, do you think that the two can truly co-exist or do you look at someone who says this as contradicting themselves?
I understand many atheists believe that the idea of God was originally created to explain the unknown and continued/continues as more of a comfort than anything. I believe that's how most Atheists would explain that. But I also wonder if the advancement of Science should (or is expected to) negatively correlate with religious faith. If a Theory of Everything becomes universally accepted 500 years from now, what would the World's general view on Religion be?
There is so much we don't know about even just this tiny planet, but religions claim to understand how everything came to be. Get the fuck out of here.
I think the safe rule of thumb is that anyone who tells you they know for sure they know the answer is a liar.
However, Religion provides comfort to many and attempts to provide answers to questions science will not broach. I'd much prefer to deal with someone who was raised with good religious values than an atheist who believes none of it matters so they might as well only live for themselves. Granted, certain religious teachings can be dangerous as well if taught in extreme ways. I'm also not trying to say atheists are all jerks, but there isn't always a good scientific explanation on why you should do the "right thing" or even what the "right thing" is.
As for me personally, I like to think I have an open mind. I'd classify myself as agnostic. I don't believe anything has it exactly right as of yet. I'm not sure I believe we ever will figure most of it out, but I also don't think I'd be surprised if answers came from science, religion, a mixture of both, or none of the above.
How did it all begin? Was there a creator? Maybe. Was it the big bang? Maybe. Has it just always been? Maybe. I think answering some of life's questions with "I don't know." is perfectly acceptable.
Then who created that "something" that created it all?
Stephen Hawking: M-Theory predicts that the Universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing without the need for a creator
One problem may be that we are trapped in our three dimensional worlds and we don't even fully understand the fourth dimension--time--let alone the other seven dimensions proposed in M-Theory (and no, the M does not stand for Milton in case you were wondering)...
Ed Witten interview--cued up to question about Big Bang and the concept of time
Murray Gell-Mann: talks about emergence (you don't need something more to get something more)
Quote:
I do believe in a creator, but that's about it at this point. The only reason is that there has to be an uncaused cause, everything comes from something but at some point that was nothing and something created it all.
Then who created that "something" that created it all?
Stephen Hawking: M-Theory predicts that the Universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing without the need for a creator
One problem may be that we are trapped in our three dimensional worlds and we don't even fully understand the fourth dimension--time--let alone the other seven dimensions proposed in M-Theory (and no, the M does not stand for Milton in case you were wondering)...
Ed Witten interview--cued up to question about Big Bang and the concept of time
Murray Gell-Mann: talks about emergence (you don't need something more to get something more)
Yea this has been an intriguing debate within Science circles. How can something come from nothing? Hawking is on record, as you mentioned, that our Universe came from nothing. Nothing was there before the singularity appeared and exploded.
I still find it extremely hard to comprehend the idea of "nothing". What do Humans have as a comparison? Even the nothing we think we know, empty space, has been proven to consist of something by quantum research.
There's only one single mathematical equation ever that doesn't allow for time to flow in both directions. It is the only reason we experience time as forward flowing...and that is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Entropy.
To be clear, I am not espousing the faith of any organized religion (tenets of which may be inconsistent with science), but merely the theoretical existence of an all powerful god.
I see religion as an outlet for purpose/healing/motivation. I think it’s great if used correctly. But I would never turn to it for education on why things are what they are.
So can they coexist? I guess so. There’s still so much we don’t know and can’t understand so religion helps fill that void.
This is a good point. It's actually two different questions and your statement is perfectly reasonable in my mind
It's two sides of a coin.
It's amusing that some...some who try to use science to negate faith ...at the same time ascribe to psuedo science such as sociology and aspects of phsychiatry in an attempt to fill that void. In an attempt to have science do what only faith can do, in an attempt to use 'science-ism' as a type of religion, a version where they can tweak the rules...in all that implies.
But, of course the real sciences; physics, biochemistry, biology, etc, are true and fact based! Of course!
And no, those don't contradict real faith in any way!
It's both - without the rackets that try to sit between.
I see religion as an outlet for purpose/healing/motivation. I think it’s great if used correctly. But I would never turn to it for education on why things are what they are.
So can they coexist? I guess so. There’s still so much we don’t know and can’t understand so religion helps fill that void.
I tend to agree with this. I don’t have any kids yet, but I find the question as to whether anyone teaches their kids religion to be a fascinating question. For example, getting their child baptized, Sunday school, etc.
One thing I have never understood about organized religion, assuming for the moment an all powerful and all knowing God with christian like values, why would that God punish humans born into a particular faith that holds itself out as the exclusive path to God?
I would think an all powerful and all knowing God with christian like values would detest any such faith as usurping the power of God for human power.
But, I don't want this thread to go sideways, so that's all from me.
Face it, faith is just wishful thinking. Which is fine. If you want to believe in Santa Claus, that's your right too, but don't act like we're the unenlightened ones.
Thanks Matt. He has been recommended to me by friends and colleagues numerous times. I will likely give one of his books a shot down the road, but I'm not sure the first one I'll pick up to read is "The God Delusion". I'm always open to recommendations and I'll definitely check out the YouTube videos you mentioned.
To be clear, I am not espousing the faith of any organized religion (tenets of which may be inconsistent with science), but merely the theoretical existence of an all powerful god.
Organized religions are inconsistent with each other. They all can't be the exclusive pure word of (or path to) God. So, why would an all powerful God with christian type values punish humans not born into the "correct" religion? That has never made any sense to me ... it would be as uncaring as anything possibly could be.
Do we need to believe in Genesis to believe that a God exists? I don't think so. But to the orthodox within the Judeo-Christian religions, it is blasphemy to deny anything written in whichever bible those folks believe in.
I'd suggest that you read anything and everything you can get your hands on (you seem to be doing that already) and continue to ponder and seek your own truth. But don't consider yourself "disloyal" to your religion of birth if you come to question some parts of your religion while believing in some overriding principles therein. In other words, be open in your search for answers.
Metaphorical. But very real.
Try to keep pretending that the secular attempts to fill that territory don't - also -continually move the goal posts to accommodate real science.
You didn't read my post very carefully at all. You cannot simply continue to tear down the strawman of religion to negate faith. In many cases you are correct about religion.
For myself, yes I believe in God and for what it's worth this is my take on this topic. If I ask myself how did all of it get from nothing to something? The only way you can ever truly arrive at an answer is by faith or by speculation.
Religion is a human construct. It is based on faith but is primarily for managing human behavior, whether it is to explain what at the time was not understood, or to provide a structure for human interaction and community. Like all human constructs it can be used for good and also for ill intent. But faith and religion are not at all the same thing.
For myself, yes I believe in God and for what it's worth this is my take on this topic. If I ask myself how did all of it get from nothing to something? The only way you can ever truly arrive at an answer is by faith or by speculation.
My answer is “I don’t know” and I’m ok with that. Personally, I don’t need an answer for all of my questions. I tend to find that religion gets by largely on chasing the unknown and providing an “answer” or explanation and that’s perfectly fine. Again, not for me but I get it.
When you are a zealot you are a zealot and rational discussions are impossible with those types of people
I understand rejecting religion as a human construct. But if you equate faith with Santa Claus, you have shut your mind to logic just as tightly as those you criticize.
Real sciences, the hard sciences, and scientists of _course_ you can rationally debate them. That's the whole darn point of real science. Rationality and discourses.
So, hard sciences + real faith = real thinking.
Science ISM , false and complex ever changing opaque theory about humans, for example... And it's mirror version within religion, not so much.
So, what I believe, is that God is at another level of abstraction that our logical thinking brains are unable to fully comprehend and understand, and that we will not understand until the time our souls leave our flesh and ascend to the next level.
I find both explanations equally implausible.
Do we need to believe in Genesis to believe that a God exists? I don't think so. But to the orthodox within the Judeo-Christian religions, it is blasphemy to deny anything written in whichever bible those folks believe in.
I'd suggest that you read anything and everything you can get your hands on (you seem to be doing that already) and continue to ponder and seek your own truth. But don't consider yourself "disloyal" to your religion of birth if you come to question some parts of your religion while believing in some overriding principles therein. In other words, be open in your search for answers.
Yat...I really appreciate this. I also really appreciate the well thought out responses and discussions. One of my favorite pieces of advice that I came across while researching book suggestions was from Carl Sagan (I believe) who put the bible in his top 5 books you should read first. His reasoning was that everyone should take the opportunity to draw their own conclusions. Really loved that and I think that simple piece of advice/perspective says a lot about a person.
I understand rejecting religion as a human construct. But if you equate faith with Santa Claus, you have shut your mind to logic just as tightly as those you criticize.
For myself, yes I believe in God and for what it's worth this is my take on this topic. If I ask myself how did all of it get from nothing to something? The only way you can ever truly arrive at an answer is by faith or by speculation.
It is probably inevitable that the direction of the posts come to this at some point, but I do want to point out that the goal of my OP was not to have one side persuade the other. Rather just a discussion on if, how, and in what cases both sides can co-exist.
Science can be observed and measured.
I can't measure the big bang. I can't observe it.
I can't measure creatures evolving into other creatures. I can't observe it. I can measure and observe mutations, but I can't measure and observe mutations creating brand new species.
Therefore if you believe in evolution or the big bang, you aren't believing based on observation. Therefore you don't believe based on real science, but by faith. Evolution is a religion.
I'll have every atheist on this forum jumping on me for daring that their "more enlightened" beliefs comprise a religion, but it's the truth.
You cannot disprove the first one, even scientists philosophers, and thought leaders have been scientists and deists at the same time. As Hitchens would point out, it’s impossible to get to theism with any proof. He quickly then we move to disapprove of the morality argument for religion as well.
In my own life I’m more of the agnostic where I don’t know and don’t claim to know. I value science and morality on their own terms. I can also see local religious groups creating communities and support systems where there is a need, but I also see the lack of diversity problematic. Ultimately supporting one absolutist position as truth is something that I can’t get behind in earnest despite some positives.
If it’s about love and support in the face of adversity I’ve gotten a lot more out of community talks with friends and neighbors, the scripture aspects of those tend to get in the way for me
I find both explanations equally implausible.
Here's what I call "The Loud Pop Theory"...
The Universe was originally nothing more than a single "particle" which I call the qulon. The qulon split into a qulon and anti-qulon pair (don't ask me why, my theory isn't all inclusive). These qulon and anti-qulon pairs then multiplied to form a two-dimensional plane of qulon/anti-qulon pairs that folded in on itself to form a three-dimensional bubble which burst in what I call "The Loud Pop" from the force of the anti-gravitons inside the anti-qulons and the gravitons inside the qulons.
According to my theory, matter is not made up of tiny strings, but tiny bubbles. And it proposes that Black Holes do not contain a singularity at their center, but instead are empty of all matter and contain only anti-gravitons, so in a sense, they are merely anti-graviton bubbles (much like oxygen bubbles in water).
But here's the key: it's just a theory of mine that covers some of the big mysteries that still exist. I don't believe it to be true (or false), nor do I have "faith" that it is true, I merely suggest it as a possibility.
Reason and statistical probability shows Mets are not likely to finish with the best record in baseball. But a rabid Mets fan can still believe that they are going to
Quote:
I'd much prefer to deal with someone who was raised with good religious values than an atheist who believes none of it matters so they might as well only live for themselves.
Or conversely, you could say that you prefer to deal with someone who was raised to care about his fellow man than someone who had to be blackmailed under the threat of hellfire. The latter just turn out to be hypocrites anyway.
Quote:
"With or without religion you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."--Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize winning physicist.
See, that's so condescending. Nobody is blackmailed by hell to do good by the Church. People do good for others through the Church for a variety of reasons, most of all, it makes them feel good, just the same as non-religious people do.
Good people are good people and bad people are bad people. Religion has nothing to do with what makes either of them what they are.
The problem is, it seemingly can't.
Science hits a point in understanding where we don't know how something works and says, "lets figure this out..." and incrementally, over a long period of time, we make progress toward understanding what was previously not understandable.
Religion hits a point in understanding where we don't know how something works and shrugs and says, "Must be God." That's fine, it's just lazy. And systematically Science has proven those claims to be wrong.
p.s.--Steven Weinberg isn't your run-of-the-mill Nobel Prize winning physicist. He and Ed Witten are the two physicists most widely named when other physicists are asked who is the greatest living physicist.
Quote:
"If there is no point in the universe that we discover by the methods of science, there is a point that we can give the universe by the way we live, by loving each other, by discovering things about nature, by creating works of art. And that—in a way, although we are not the stars in a cosmic drama, if the only drama we're starring in is one that we are making up as we go along, it is not entirely ignoble that faced with this unloving, impersonal universe we make a little island of warmth and love and science and art for ourselves. That's not an entirely despicable role for us to play."
p.s.--Steven Weinberg isn't your run-of-the-mill Nobel Prize winning physicist. He and Ed Witten are the two physicists most widely named when other physicists are asked who is the greatest living physicist.
I need to look into Weinberg. I love Witten but sometimes I find it difficult to listen to his voice for prolonged periods. I realize that sounds dumb and its about the content but I honestly have a tough time focusing on anything other than the way he talks, lol.