Astronomy and religion on Catalyst

[jjjnettie]

Did anyone happen to watch Catalyst tonight? I managed to catch a little bit of it while putting all the leads back in the VCR, DVD player, Set top box etc etc that darling hubby had unplugged for some obscure reason. ( pardon me, but I had to complain to someone)
It was about reconciling Science/Astronomy with religion. I think they showed the Vatican observatory, and also one sponsored by the church in Arizona.
If you did watch, what are your views on this subject. Can you have faith in god and Science at the same time?

[ballaratdragons]

I watched some of it! It was Compass, not Catalyst. Sorry to correct you.

It had some very interesting info.

God & Science together? I believe so. But that's me! :thumbsup:

[astroron]

Did anybody record it on VCR? I was only able to see bits of it due to poor ABC reception, if so I would like a copy or borrow it, I would pay the Postage. Regards astroron

[gaa_ian]

Sounds very interesting ... to me, the 2 are not mutually exclusive.
To quote a fellow Iceinspacer "Orion" ..... "The heavens declare the glory of god"
Each time I look up & the more science I learn, the more I think, what a fabulous design.
To Imagine that it is all by chance & goverened by "Chaos" theory, to me takes a greater leap of faith, than to believe that the universe is an maifestation of an intelligent will.
In the beginning god said "let there be light" .... now if that does not describe the time soon after the "Big Bang", I don't know what does :bowdown:
My 2 cents worth :D

[RAJAH235]

I especially liked the part where he was looking at the 2 X 8 metre mirrors being made. One being heat treated/formed in the rotating furnace. The other already polished & waiting for aluminising. They're going to 'BINOCULARISE' them!!! Is that a word?
Worlds biggest Bino.t'scope... WOW.
I agree with his views, that the church at that time, did the wrong thing with Gallileo. :D L.

[Adelain]

Did you see the bit where the guy asked the question (would there be beings a billion or so years ahead of us?) Would they be god ? God's ? To us ? Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Orion]

I hope they put this show on again because I missed it.

I know there are subjects that here in IIS we are not allowed to talk about one being about religion but to answer your question, I read the bible every day and it amazes me how many things I find in it that science proves. In my opinion you can believe and trust in God and science is but a tool to be used for good not evil.

I understand if this post is deleted by the moderators.

[ballaratdragons]

I hope they don't delete it Ed. The Bible predicts it and Science proves it! :thumbsup: Hand in hand.

[Orion]

Thankyou..Ken.

[jjjnettie]

Thank you all for your replies. I hope to watch the show again on ABC2 sometime this week.
Apologies for mixing up program names.
I guess I'll have to read up on my posting rules again. Didn't realise that I might be starting a thread on a taboo topic. But the program was definately very interesting regardless of what beliefs you hold.

[gaa_ian]

Good on you jjjnettie ...
I think this is an Important topic ... and probably one of the things that draws many people into astronomy ...
Is there more , where do I/we fit into the Universe & why does the number 42 keep coming up :rofl: :innocent:

[iceman]

I'm not going to delete it, there's no need to right now, but the rules are there because people ahve different beliefs and threads like this have the potential to get quite inflamed as people get heated about sharing those beliefs.

As long as it stays in this calm nature feel free to continue the discussion :)

[cahullian]

Mike you should make guidelines and stick to them. To be fair on others who have had threads deleted in the past.

[jjjnettie]

I only hoped to provoke thoughtful, not thoughtless discussion. Having no particular religous beliefs, I thought I'd like to learn what others thought of this Compass program.

[jjjnettie]

Did I really write Thought, that many times in only 2 sentences?
4 times in 2 sentences
42................. ;)

[iceman]

Fair point Gazz, however there have been no previous threads on religious discussions deleted.

If this thread starts to turn nasty it will get locked quickly.

[cahullian]

I could be nasty and turn it myself...ever since I was excommunicated religion has no place in my life. I on the other hand think the show would be worth a squiz.
BTW Mike I didn't mention religion :poke:
Just the guidlines should be adhered to. :thumbsup:

[iceman]

I know you didn't, but I was being specific rather than general.

Yes, in general the guidelines should be adhered to, and in general they are.

[cahullian]

Don't mind me mate
I'm just bored and stirring
Me very bad man
If it wasn't so cloudy I would be out viewing :scared2:

[iceman]

I know you are Gazz, 'tis all good :P

[astrodave]

I saw the show and was surprised to see the Vatican funding real science like that - maybe it helps correct some of their mistakes in the past.

I agree with ballaratdragons - "The Bible predicts it and Science proves it!"...

I love reading about the bits of science that people are doing that don't fit into the "conventional' view. Like quantized red-shift and different red-shifts from different objects in the same galaxy. Exploring and explaining these things can only be good and led us to a deeper understanding of whatever the truth is - or expose bad science.

[ballaratdragons]

I find it amazing really.

Many people believe in UFO's from 'outer space' and openingly talk about it and it is generally accepted.

Some talk about Multi-Universes and dimensions, openingly talk about it and it is listened to,

But soon as you say you believe in God who created it all, openingly talk about it, it causes all sorts of dramas.

What's the difference. They are all beliefs!

I believe God created everything (and not afraid to say so) but I am not 'Religious'. But that is my belief, it may not be anyone elses.

I listen to people who have a belief in UFO's, ghosts, Multi-Universes etc and it does not change my view of them or marr any friendship. I have a belief in God who made the Universe but it can cause division and distaste. Why? I am still the same bloke as before anyone found out what I believe in. :confused:

Preaching? Now that's a different thing. This is not the place to preach or even attempt to convince anyone of any belief, but mentioning a belief is fair & reasonable.

I'm still me :D

[janoskiss]

Ken, when you come up against such strong reactions you're probably being prematurely stereotyped as one of those impossible to deal with religious fanatics who are not willing to question anything, move outside their comfort zone, and most importantly, think for themselves.

As for "God" having "created it all"; that is not saying much at all and I wouldn't make much of such a statement. What or who is this thing that you call God? Your answer is likely to be along the lines of "The One who created it all is whom I call God". So "God created it all" by definition.

Sone random thoughts:
created = "was the ultimate cause of"?
Do you believe in God? Do you believe in an ultimate cause? Are these questions then equivalent? If not, what do you call the "ultimate cause"? What's wrong with calling it God? ("Would a rose by any other name smell as sweet?") Can a God who didn't create it all exist? If so, what or who would this thing be? Is knowing the ultimate cause the same as knowing the true nature of all things?

Whatever anyone says about creation, human or other conscious existence, they will always raise at least as many new questions as they answer. To my mind, there is no final or ultimate answer to the "why" questions. It's not going to stop me keep asking questions though.

[gaa_ian]

Excomunicated Cahullian .... that's a bit rough :mad2:
But guess what, no one can excomunicate you from your connection with the creator. :innocent:
Churches are the creation of Man .... The creator has the universe as a canvas.
although we form a small phisical part of the canvas, I believe we form a vital spiritual part of it.
Only you can cut yourself off from god ... not some church !

[[1ponders]]

Lets keep with the topic guys of Catalyst - religion and astronomy. Please keep the private discussion of religious beliefs to PMs.

Thank you.

[gaa_ian]

Sorry ... :ashamed:

[cahullian]

Mike said it was ok as long as it didn't turn nasty!!
It's been nothing but friendly so far.
Anything that brings church and science closer together has to be a good thing for all beings in the universe.

[robin]

mmmmmm....maybe I'd better not get into this.Better leave it right alone but I'm an evolutionist & proud of it. I also support the Big Bang theory.
Moderators....I wont be miffed if you delete this post.
R

[GrampianStars]

& now for something completely different Bring back the Spannish Inquisition :wink2:

[cahullian]

Those were dark days indeed.(pun intended) Thank goodness we live in a slightly more enlightened time.

[GrampianStars]

:thumbsup: "Amongst our weaponry....are fear, surprise and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope!" :rofl:

[janoskiss]

Comfy chairs for the lot of you!! :scared:

[mick pinner]

in a recent edition of Astronomy magazine they had an interview with the Vatican astronomer, his name is Coyne but cannot remember his first name, l will post the exact issue later for those that may want a copy, some of his comments are very interesting on combining faith and science, l personally do not believe in the supreme being, whatever that may be, if l am wrong then he or she is certainly, as the creator, ignoring their duty of care IMHO.

[ballaratdragons]

Mick,

The Vatican Astronomers first name is Twendee-cendt.

:D

[mick pinner]

you've got way too much time on your hands Ken, go outside it's dark.

[ballaratdragons]

and cloudy and drizzling!

[mick pinner]

then go to bed.

[janoskiss]

Yeah, but it's only dark because the clouds are blocking the moonlight.

[Daemon]

Perhaps I misread (I tend to skim threads as they get longer and I have to catch up, so sorry), but did somebody equate science and religion as simply different belief systems? As a scientist, I would say this is not so. Religion of any sort requires belief which by definition, does not rely upon supporting unequivocal and observable facts. Science demands supporting facts, from which an individual scientist may draw or subscribe to a theory or hypothesis that synthesises or goes beyond what the facts unequivocally show. If a scientist draws such a hypothesis or theory, it is in essence a belief, but said scientist cannot in good faith call himself a scientist if he cannot abandon his belief when further facts come to light that discredit that theory, or if a demonstrably better theory supersedes it. In essence, science is about demonstrable facts upon which mutable and ever refined theories (beliefs) are drawn, religion posits a belief without unequivocal facts, but which must rely on an act of faith to substantiate its underlying premise, and which premise is not usually mutable.

As a geologist geochemist, I note that the incidence of people who are able to reconcile faith and religion with science, is heavily dependant on the field of science they specialise in. For example, there are comparatively few deeply religious geologists, chemists, biologists, but there is a far higher incidence of religiously devout astronomers and mathematicians, physicists appear more or less evenly divided. These are just my subjective observations by the way, not results of any rigorous study.

I have a friend who is a Baptist pastor. He and I regularly discuss our widely different world views. Neither of us can ever quite seem to understand the underlying essence of the other’s view. There is a fundamental difference that always comes down to he wondering how I can posit a world without the need for a god, and I never quite able to comprehend why he cannot see that the universe can exist without any need for a god whatsoever. It makes for deeply interesting conversation, and because neither of us is so rude as to assume the other is a fool when they disagree, and both of us are willing to admit the possibility that we may be wrong or that there may at least be grounds from where we can learn from the other, it never degenerates into argument, abuse or stubborn statement.

As a scientist, I would claim that the job of the astronomer cosmologist is to demonstrate the mechanisms and means by which the universe can exist in its present state, without recourse to the act of faith which we might call god. Should this be definitively not possible, it would then constitute a fact that might be used to hypothesise the existence in some form, at some time, of a god; but only if it proves definitively impossible to reconcile a universe without one (and the circumstances that cause this preclusion would, of course, also have bearing). This is not presently the case.

Did someone ask whether aliens of extreme technological advancement, would be god? Robert Ansen Heinlein was fond of stating that any arbitrarily advanced technology can only be understood as ‘magic’ to a comparatively primitive society. By extension, a highly technologically advances alien may seem like a god. That however, is not quit the same as being a god.

I would ask (of nobody in particular, but of anybody who felt inclined to address it), why do you feel the universe needs a god to make it work?

I too missed the Catalyst program, which is a shame, but I wonder why the Vatican now dabbles in science, when by definition, the goal of science is to at least attempt to negate the need for the Vatican's existance.

For those of you who do hold religious beliefs, I hope none of the above offends you, and that certainly wasn’t my intention, but perhaps a by product of my clumsy writing.




<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com[img] /><o:p></o:p>


<o:p></o:p></P>

</P>

</P>

</P>

</P>

</P>

Daemon.</P>

</P>

</P>

</P>

</P>

[Rodstar]

Back to the central issue of the compatibility of science and faith, any faith that has substance should be able to withstand the scrutiny of science. On the other hand, the more science knows, the more it realises it does not know. A bit of humility all around would not go astray.

Interestingly, the two have always been very closely associated. Most of the ancient societies were keen on astronomical matters, and often linked them to their religious beliefs. It has always struck me that the birth of Christ is marked by the appearance of a bright star, noticed by Magi (astrologers) from the East.

To my mind, the sheer wonder, size and mystery of the universe cannot allow the arrogance to say there is no creator behind it all. Whilst I grapple with some of the detail (and stupidity of the Church in the past) I have made a deliberate choice to believe and listen to the message of Christ.

[astrodave]

I'm not offended at all Daemon. You are fortunate indeed to be able to have such a relationship and true dialogue with somebody of such a different view as your Pastor friend.

I would have thought, however, that the role of science was to explore and explain the HOW of the universe and that of religion to explain the WHY of the universe. "WHY" certainly requires faith. The "HOW" should be a purely rational debate, but often seems to depend upon faith in either the underlining assumptions, or in the conclusion. (For example open letter in New scientist May 2004 --http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/controversies/bigbang.htm)

[Daemon]

Indeed the job of science is to attempt to understand the 'how', ie. the mechanism of the universe. The 'why', implies choice, that is to say, for what reason is it this way rather than that way. Of necessity, science addresses this too, since this is the mechanism by which we can differentiate between seemingly equally valid alternatives. On the grander scale, science addresses 'why' in the simplest and most logical way: There may be no special reason why, other than were it different, that difference would lead to some subtle to overt change in the 'how', such that the universe would function differently, and preclude our existence. It is the way it is, not by some special cause or reason, but because were it different we wouldn't be here to question it. It may have happened differently a million times before, but only when it works just this way can we arise and ask, 'why and how'. This is a spiritually pause explanation, and gives no comfort nor offers any form of religious solace, and so is basically in no way humanistic, but it is scientifically quite valid and may in actuality be the cold hard fact of the matter. It appears to me, that the human need to be somehow significant, special, or at the centre of it all, is the root of the need to bring a god into cosmology. This has also been the underlying reason why people fervently held onto their belief that the universe revolved around the earth etc. Science must of necessity work from the premise that we are in no way a special case. This is the difference between anthropocentricity, and the anthropic principle. This too is how I would counter the suggestion that science itself is basically arrogant, whilst religion is humble. I would suggest that though any individual scientist may be arrogant (myself included), science at large is humble: it admits that we struggle to understand how it all works, that we may never achieve understanding, but that we are nothing special in the scheme of it all. Religion, I see as somewhat arrogant in that it presupposes that we are so special that some omnipotent being built the whole edefice just to house us in comfort.

That the one scheme is historically associated with the other gives credence to neither, but is an artifact of the growth and progress of human thought on these questions, from requiring a supernatural explanation for things we don’t understand, and a source of supernatural comfort in our diminutive aloneness, to struggling to face our aloneness and unimportance despite our basic human egotism, and realizing that positing a supernatural explanation for that which we do not understand is not a satisfactory mechanism for comprehending the world. Consider how the goal posts for our need to invoke the supernatural, have moved. For example, we used to require a god to hurl each and every inexplicable lightning bolt, now there are few people of even moderate education who don’t grasp in some way, however simplified, that it is a byproduct of well understood and completely natural electrical processes in the atmosphere. Not that long ago it was heresy to suggest that the world wasn’t hand built by god some 5000 odd years ago, now even the educated devout push the need to invoke a god back to the moment of the inception of the universe, and our understanding now even posits natural mechanism by which this may have occurred. They may not be the correct mechanisms and the theory may be flawed, but they are independent of our own existence and that we can conceive them is itself a human triumph and a human wonder.

The fact that old science tends to hang on to its old theories and obstruct new science, as shown in the afore mentioned New Scientist letter, is an artifact of human nature, and a modern microcosm of the same dichotomy between invoking a supernatural force to account for the inexplicable, and trying to explain it by natural means. Eventually, should the new science (new theories) have true merit, the weight of its evidence will build up to the point where the old science (old theories) crumble, and a paradigm shift occurs, allowing for a progression to new ideas. However, invoking the supernatural to explain any part of it, absolutely halts this process, since it can’t be known or questioned, and this seems to me far worse than even the argument ridden, ego dominated and painfully slow advances of science.

Please forgive me if my concepts are less than clear, but I tend to write these posts off on the fly as it were, which doesn't always make for pelucid expression.

Daemon.

[robin]

Thankyou Daemon, I salute you. I agree totally with your clear & rational responses & you have put into words what i wanted to write but didnt know where to start.Thankyou again.

[ballaratdragons]

I am under the impression that if I, or another, wrote a lengthy post (or even a short one) about my beleifs in God or some of the reasons why I believe, then I would be preaching! True?

Then wouldn't the opposite be true?

I briefly mentioned in a previous post that this is not the place to preach, and Paul [1ponders] did ask nicely to keep personal views on religion (for or against) in the Private Messaging system. This has not been done.

I too could drawl on for ages about what I believe, but I know that this is not the right place to do it.

The fact is, this thread was started to discuss a TV show and viewers impressions of the show, but it is starting to become a platform for debate on the 'for' & 'against' belief in God or evidence of a god.

Lengthy argument against God is still preaching! The preaching of that persons belief.

If those of us that do believe don't preach to you about what we believe, then show respect for the rules and don't preach to us why you don't believe.

What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander.

Can this thread please get back to it's original intent. The TV show.

[robin]

This is one of those subjects that could generate huge debate & great passion for months Ken.People certainly do have their opinions for & against,thats for sure.

[ballaratdragons]

Robin, this subject has already caused huge debate and wars for centuries with passion.

And as Mike has laid out, this is not the place for it.

I would love to put my views forward but I WILL NOT do it in here.

[asimov]

Just lock it

[Starkler]

Perhaps its time to lock the thread. This is an astronomy forum after all.
Sorry folks

[[1ponders]]

This is very true true Robin, which is why I am asking everyone to keep to the topic Astonomy and religion on Catalyst. The original topic was ok to discuss as it was aimed at discussions, comments and information about astronomy and religion from a TV program. This is not a forum for discussing personal belief systems. We are all entitled to our beliefs and I am not rejecting any of those beliefs, be it from one person or the group, simply asking everyone to return to the topic as headed by the thread title.

Thank you