Turns Out, Science and Religion Get Along Just Fine

reply to post by ArtemisE


Then how do you not understand that a scientist discovered the big bang and the expanding universe because of religion...

reply to post by raymundoko


No scientist "discovered" the big bang. It is just a theory that was developed over time by observing that other galaxies were moving away from our planet. Also, none of that has anything to with religion. The scientists involved may have been religious, but they certainly didn't have help from God, Jesus, the bible or divine inspiration to come up with the theory.

Big Bang Theory development

The Big Bang theory developed from observations of the structure of the universe and from theoretical considerations. In 1912 Vesto Slipher measured the first Doppler shift of a "spiral nebula" (spiral nebula is the obsolete term for spiral galaxies), and soon discovered that almost all such nebulae were receding from Earth. He did not grasp the cosmological implications of this fact, and indeed at the time it was highly controversial whether or not these nebulae were "island universes" outside our Milky Way.[40][41] Ten years later, Alexander Friedmann, a Russian cosmologist and mathematician, derived the Friedmann equations from Albert Einstein's equations of general relativity, showing that the universe might be expanding in contrast to the static universe model advocated by Einstein at that time.[42] In 1924 Edwin Hubble's measurement of the great distance to the nearest spiral nebulae showed that these systems were indeed other galaxies. Independently deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, proposed that the inferred recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the universe.[43]

In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the evident expansion of the universe, if projected back in time, meant that the further in the past the smaller the universe was, until at some finite time in the past all the mass of the universe was concentrated into a single point, a "primeval atom" where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence.[44]
Starting in 1924, Hubble painstakingly developed a series of distance indicators, the forerunner of the cosmic distance ladder, using the 100-inch (2,500 mm) Hooker telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory. This allowed him to estimate distances to galaxies whose redshifts had already been measured, mostly by Slipher. In 1929 Hubble discovered a correlation between distance and recession velocity—now known as Hubble's law.[15][45] Lemaître had already shown that this was expected, given the Cosmological Principle.[32]

In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[46] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.[47] Arthur Eddington agreed with Aristotle that the universe did not have a beginning in time, viz., that matter is eternal. A beginning in time was "repugnant" to him.[48][49] Lemaître, however, thought that

The only thing religion had a hand in was naming the theory as a joke, but that name actually does disservice to the theory because it didn't happen like a giant explosion at all.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Thank you for the over all big picture. Now focus on the one scientist who postulated not only that they were expanding but also that they had at one time been at a single point...

You've included several independent observations. All of them observed and documented with the thought process that we lived in a static universe that had always just been there.

This guy had the idea that there was a beginning where it all started, and that it was expanding. He came to that conclusion based on his perception of the universe. The reason he put two and two together was because he was specifically looking for that.

In Lemaître's thinking, "God cannot be reduced to the role of a scientific hypothesis."27 Despite this, Lemaître goes on to say, "It does not mean that cosmology has no meaning for philosophy. Philosophy and theology, when kept in isolation from scientific thought, either change into an outdated self-enclosed system, or become a dangerous ideology."28

"In many ways I fought a battle against medieval approaches to cosmology influenced by otherwise good men that lacked the knowledge we have today, such as Archbishop Peter Lombard."

"The Biblical narration describes the world in such a manner as it appears to every man, and not in a manner which could be conceived by men only when their persevering research has led them from the actual wavering of science to an unquestionable synthetic knowledge of the world, and to a clear notion of relationships between its different elements."32

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Man IDK. That's pretty good.....

From the creation story
He got the concept that the universe had a beginning in the infinite past. Rather than a static one...... That really is pretty good.

Ok I'll give you that case. I can't claim no scientist ever.

Well played.

That's not sarcasm. I mean it, on him you win.


However we all know religion has been far more of a negative to science overall.

reply to post by ArtemisE


Actually you are right. I feel the biggest rift caused between the two is on the side of religion. Even my example of Georges Lemaitre as he was quoted saying:

Perhaps the theologians themselves have a responsibility in the misunderstanding which places science against faith. An appearance of conflict originates between a traditional point of religious teaching and a new hypothesis which begins to establish itself on the basis of facts, they show a too easy tendency to wait till the last moment when the hypothesis would be definitely proved. They would have done much more useful work to have carefully investigated these points of the doctrine which seem to lead to conflicts . . . Anyway, their intelligent courtesy would be very appreciated in scientific circles, and it would constitute an apologetic of the best type.34

And when the pope spoke on Mass claiming that Lemaitre had confirmed genesis he said that he did more to prove to those who do not believe in god that there was no god than he did to confirm the book of genesis.

reply to post by raymundoko

And when the pope spoke on Mass claiming that Lemaitre had confirmed genesis

Do you think Lemaitre, an astrophysicist, believed all the stars in the Universe were created after planet Earth?

reply to post by raymundoko

.... All of them observed and documented with the thought process that we lived in a static universe that had always just been there.

I don't know if this is pertinent to the direction your thread has gone, but I found the linked article interesting in light of this discussion of religion and science.

Today we know that human consciousness can even change even the properties of matter. So, it cannot be true that only "measurable quantities - the objective ones -" have any value for science.

Instead, what you do not see is what is most important. Then this would be the reason Christ said to Thomas: and be not faithless, but believing, not only see with the eyes of the face, but also with your mind's eye, eyes of the soul!

.... it is considered today, the greatest of all the misfortunes that befell noble science, the fact that it stopped being written in ancient languages ​​such as Greek or Latin.

These languages​​, their semantic richness, allow free thinking and to express forcefully the thoughts of men truly worthy of our admiration and praise. The science that was written in Latin created a different audience around the world and communicated freely among those who wrote and those who read, forming thus worldwide - mostly in the cultured, erudite and civilized European continent which even today is visible - the climate for the human genius to be expressed in all its splendor.

english.pravda.ru...

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


I doubt it. But I don't believe that either. Nor does a direct modern translation from Hebrew.

reply to post by frazzle


I read somewhere that the Vatican dealt solely in Latin, and so scientists used to communicate radical ideas and findings in English so they wouldn't learn of it.

reply to post by raymundoko

Nor does a direct modern translation from Hebrew.

Post it.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by frazzle

 

I read somewhere that the Vatican dealt solely in Latin, and so scientists used to communicate radical ideas and findings in English so they wouldn't learn of it.

Got a link on that? I don't find the claim to be outside the realm of possibility but I'd like to see it directly from the person who claimed it along with any supporting evidence.

reply to post by frazzle


I would, but I'm on my phone. Maybe you can look it up instead?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


I did....

www.biblegateway.com...

New living translation. It's what my theology classes used primarily as it's translated from original Hebrew and Greek and is the 3rd most popular bible. We used a few but that was the most common.

It uses the phrase "let them appear" which indicates that they were there but not visible for some reason. I posit the atmosphere was very thick up to that point and had thinned.

So based off that I could make a prediction that the atmosphere used to be way thicker...

So let's look at a younger star 40 light years away with a large earth like planet:

news.nationalgeographic.com...

One big water ocean. Atmosphere 10x thicker than our own.

very little light would be able to penetrate the haze to reach the oceans.

Sound familiar?

reply to post by raymundoko

Nor does a direct modern translation from Hebrew.

Here is a description of the translation I am now using:

"The Jewish Publication Society of America Version (JPS) of the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) was the first Bible translation published by the Jewish Publication Society of America and the first translation of the Tanakh into English by a committee of Jews. The full publication title is The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text: A New Translation with the Aid of Previous Versions and with Constant Consultation of Jewish Authorities."

Genesis.

1 In the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth.
2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of G-d hovered over the face of the waters.
3 And G-d said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light.
4 And G-d saw the light, that it was good; and G-d divided the light from the darkness.
5 And G-d called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

6 And G-d said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.'
7 And G-d made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.
8 And G-d called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

9 And G-d said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so.
10 And G-d called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and G-d saw that it was good.
11 And G-d said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and G-d saw that it was good.
13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

14 And G-d said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;
15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so.
16 And G-d made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars.
17 And G-d set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and G-d saw that it was good.
19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

20 And G-d said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.'
21 And G-d created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and G-d saw that it was good.
22 And G-d blessed them, saying: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.'
23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

24 And G-d said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so.
25 And G-d made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and G-d saw that it was good.
26 And G-d said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.'
27 And G-d created man in His own image, in the image of G-d created He him; male and female created He them.
28 And G-d blessed them; and G-d said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.'
29 And G-d said: 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed--to you it shall be for food;
30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, I have given every green herb for food.' And it was so.
31 And G-d saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

As you can see. It still says all the stars were created after the Earth was created. After the Earth had seas and thriving plant life. Notice it also says the first humans were created on day 6 thus your theory about perspective is a no go. It's time for you to acknowledge this.

reply to post by raymundoko

New living translation. It's what my theology classes used primarily as it's translated from original Hebrew and Greek and is the 3rd most popular bible.

It uses the phrase "let them appear" which indicates that they were there but not visible for some reason.

Read the rest man This is the 4th day of Genesis using your translation:

14 Then God said, “Let lights appear in the sky to separate the day from the night. Let them be signs to mark the seasons, days, and years.

15 Let these lights in the sky shine down on the earth.” And that is what happened.

16 God made two great lights-the larger one to govern the day, and the smaller one to govern the night. He also made the stars.

17 God set these lights in the sky to light the earth,

18 to govern the day and night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

19 And evening passed and morning came, marking the fourth day.

Using your translation it is clearly saying the Sun and all the stars were made on day 4.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


No. God only said what was in quotes...how aren't you getting that? The other part was the author of the book from his point of view.

reply to post by raymundoko


According to Genesis. The Hebrew translation I used to satisfy your request [or any]. On what day is humankind made?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


What does that have to so with the stars?

reply to post by raymundoko


It has to do with your 'perspective' idea.

Genesis says humans are made on day 6.

You're suggesting on day 4 stars were not made [despite that being what Genesis says] because from a human's perspective they just were not seeing the light due to atmospheric conditions. But how would they have that perspective on day 4 if they were not made until day 6?