Astronomy and religion on Catalyst

[astrodave (David)]

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 (Ken)]

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.

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

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

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 (Ian)]

Excomunicated Cahullian .... that's a bit rough
But guess what, no one can excomunicate you from your connection with the creator.
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] (Paul)]

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 (Ian)]

Sorry ...

[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 (Rob)]

& now for something completely different Bring back the Spannish Inquisition

[cahullian]

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

[GrampianStars (Rob)]

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

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

Comfy chairs for the lot of you!!

[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 (Ken)]

Mick,

The Vatican Astronomers first name is Twendee-cendt.

[mick pinner]

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

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

and cloudy and drizzling!

[mick pinner]

then go to bed.

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

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 (Rod)]

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.