What to believe about creation? Science or Religion?

Post Reply New Topic

The so-called vacuum was never considered empty in modern physics.

ruveyn

A vacuum has space-time fabric to it but the hypothetical nothingness has none of that. It should theoretically have no dimensions at all, not even time. So therefore it would not exist as a standalone entity.

"Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable."
C.S. Lewis, A Grief Observed.

look up the new boundary proposal,

it presents a completely self contained universe,

there is no before or after and no outside so your "vacuum" outside the universe, wouldnt even exist.

The so-called vacuum is no such thing. Look up the Cassimir Effect.

ruveyn

John Paul II said that if evolution is proven to be true, then we as Catholics should simply accept that while God did create the world, evolution is simply the way He chose to do it.

This way both are true. We, - Catholics - also do not interpret everything litrally in the Bible as some other religions do. The creation story could simply be a way that people at the time were able to grasp the world being created by God. God obviously knew a lot about sciene and it would have probably been too difficult to explain then.

The key to the controversy (so-called) is the irrational reading of the Bible particularly Genesis. The Bible was never, ever intended to be read literally or as a book of fact. As Galileo once said (or so we are told). the Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.

ruveyn

Not on personal observation or modern cosmology. This is an article of faith.

Note the word which follows the first person pronoun.

ruveyn

Beliefs aren't ipso facto faith-based. Some beliefs are true and rationally supported.

True they may be rationally supported, but how do you know the facts on which you have based your reason are correct? The truth is you do not, you can only ever surmise. There will always be an element of doubt and because of this to believe anything, even the most solidly supported scientific theory, always requires a leap of faith. Even what you consider as fact is based on other facts, which are in tern based on still other facts, in an infinite cycle of regression, until at last you find you have to accept something on faith or else everything is undone.

that however says little about any divinity in itself.

Okay, let me try to clear this up.

You don't believe in religion in the same way that you "believe" in a scientific theory, and it is improper to believe in science the way that you would believe in a religious concept. This is a difficult distinction to make out for some people, but it is an extremely important distinction. They are two different categories of belief. Getting the two of them confused is like getting carnal lust confused with fraternal love or adoration of a child. These are things that look vaguely similar, but it is deeply and dangerously perverted to try to mingle any of them together. One ruins the other.

Science is concrete, and religion is abstract. That's a catchy, easy way of saying it, but it conveys a very important idea. There is a reason that scientists insist on calling every idea they have a "theory," even if they have supported and proven that theory to a millionth of a millionth of a degree. It is a great peril for a scientist to become emotionally wedded to a theory. It is potentially dangerous, and it could also make him or her look like a fool. You should never look upon a theory as a source of meaning or purpose in your life. It's not just dumb, but someone could actually get hurt. If it's a concrete type of belief, you need concrete evidence behind it, and concrete evidence is all that counts. If it doesn't satisfy this requirement, you throw it out with the trash, and you move on.

On the other hand, when you say "I believe in God," it means roughly that you think that God is something worthwhile. It is not so important whether God actually exists. This is a kind of belief that doesn't depend on the thing you believe in being real. It is N/A in religion whether God is tangibly real or not. What matters in religion is that God is something that you can build your life around. It's something that you can derive purpose from. Therefore, if you want to get this religion thing right, you should just put away all of your insecurities about whether or not God is actually there, and just believe. Believe with your heart, and understand with the part of your mind that loves poetry and sunsets. Looking upon God with any eyes but faith defeats the purpose, and it leaves a clammy sort of sensation where there should be nothing but warmth and trust.

Does that make any sense? I hope it helps.

the only major contradiction I find between religion and science are the dinosaurs.

I think I've seen a scientist say that before, if I can find the video I'll post it.

Lawrence Krauss was that scientist.

ruveyn