Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?

So far a pretty good read. I'm on page 77. I thought Stephen Hawking was a wacko, and after reading this book I'm convinced he is. Also very interesting that the author claims that science only advanced and thrived within the context of a Christian culture. Now that is amazing, but true!

From page 73 quoting Erwin Schrodinger:

Quote:I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It can not tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pan and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.

Endzone2 Wrote:Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?

So far a pretty good read. I'm on page 77. I thought Stephen Hawking was a wacko, and after reading this book I'm convinced he is. Also very interesting that the author claims that science only advanced and thrived within the context of a Christian culture. Now that is amazing, but true!

From page 73 quoting Erwin Schrodinger:

Quote:I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It can not tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pan and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.

I'm glad you're enjoying it.

I like that quote by Schrodinger, I think it's profoundly important for current western "thinkers". In my book, Schrodinger trumps Dawkins any day of the week.

I would believe that East Asia would disagree that science has only thrived in a Christian Culture. However, the Japanese adoption of many western principles (often based on Christian tenets) was a necessary step for them to utilize science and technology.

Endzone2 Wrote:Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?

So far a pretty good read. I'm on page 77. I thought Stephen Hawking was a wacko, and after reading this book I'm convinced he is.

steven hawking a wacko?

wow. just wow.

DrTorch Wrote:

Endzone2 Wrote:Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?

So far a pretty good read. I'm on page 77. I thought Stephen Hawking was a wacko, and after reading this book I'm convinced he is. Also very interesting that the author claims that science only advanced and thrived within the context of a Christian culture. Now that is amazing, but true!

From page 73 quoting Erwin Schrodinger:

Quote:I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It can not tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pan and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.

I'm glad you're enjoying it.

I like that quote by Schrodinger, I think it's profoundly important for current western "thinkers". In my book, Schrodinger trumps Dawkins any day of the week.

I would believe that East Asia would disagree that science has only thrived in a Christian Culture. However, the Japanese adoption of many western principles (often based on Christian tenets) was a necessary step for them to utilize science and technology.

Yes, the author explains in more detail what he means on page 14.

gruehls Wrote:

Endzone2 Wrote:Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?

So far a pretty good read. I'm on page 77. I thought Stephen Hawking was a wacko, and after reading this book I'm convinced he is.

steven hawking a wacko?

wow. just wow.

Alright, then what is his great contribution to physics or even astronomy? Please tell me. BTW, wacko is kind of a generic term I use for somebody who doesn't believe the universe was created by God. I'm sure the guy is very intelligent, but I just think he's "wacked" in his perspective.

Endzone2 Wrote:Alright, then what is his great contribution to physics or even astronomy? Please tell me.

from his website:
Stephen Hawking has worked on the basic laws which govern the universe. With Roger Penrose he showed that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity implied space and time would have a beginning in the Big Bang and an end in black holes. These results indicated it was necessary to unify General Relativity with Quantum Theory, the other great Scientific development of the first half of the 20th Century. One consequence of such a unification that he discovered was that black holes should not be completely black, but should emit radiation and eventually evaporate and disappear. Another conjecture is that the universe has no edge or boundary in imaginary time. This would imply that the way the universe began was completely determined by the laws of science.

Here is a bibliography: http://www.psyclops.com/hawking/biblio/
* On the Shoulders of Giants; Stephen Hawking (Editor)
* The Theory of Everything: The Origin and Fate of the Universe; Stephen Hawking
* The Future of Spacetime; Stephen Hawking (Editor) et al
* The Illustrated Brief History of Time; Stephen Hawking
* The Universe in a Nutshell; Stephen Hawking
* A Brief History of Time; Stephen Hawking
* Stephen Hawking's Universe : The Cosmos Explained; David Filkin, Stephen Hawking
* Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays; Stephen Hawking
* The Cambridge Lectures : Life Works; S. W. Hawking
* Computer Resources for People With Disabilities : A Guide to Exploring Today's Assistive Technology; Stephen Hawking
* The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time; S. W. Hawking
* The Nature of Space and Time (Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures)
* Euclidean Quantum Gravity; G.W. Gibbons, S.W. Hawking
* The Formation and Evolution of Cosmic Strings : Proceedings of a Workshop Supported by the Serc and Held in Cambridge, 3-7, July, 1989; G.W. Gibbons, et al
* Hawking on the Big Bang and Black Holes (Advanced Series in Astrophysics and Cosmology, Vol 8); Stephen Hawking
* Historia Del Tiempo; Stephen Hawking
* Supersymmetry and Its Applications : Superstrings, Anomalies and Supergravity; G.W. Gibbons, et al

gruehls Wrote:

Endzone2 Wrote:Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?

So far a pretty good read. I'm on page 77. I thought Stephen Hawking was a wacko, and after reading this book I'm convinced he is.

steven hawking a wacko?

wow. just wow.

Wazzup Gruehls, haven't seen you around in a while!

So is anyone that doesn't believe this universe is 6000 years old a "whacko"?

RebelKev Wrote:So is anyone that doesn't believe this universe is 6000 years old a "whacko"?

If you don't believe that God was the creator, then yes I think your way off in your thinking. This is not a Godless universe. And really this gets us back to a question the atheist can never provide an answer to. If there was a "big bang" where did the stuff come from that made the big bang. Where did the energy come from that made the big bang. Yes, you eventually become a wacko if you aren't willing to face the truthful answers to these kinds of questions. The first chapter in the book of Romans says people who think like this are whackos and I certainly agree with the abosolute truth in the revealed word of God.

endzone i think your smoking some mary jane that got laced.

Endzone2 Wrote:If you don't believe that God was the creator, then yes I think your way off in your thinking. This is not a Godless universe. And really this gets us back to a question the atheist can never provide an answer to. If there was a "big bang" where did the stuff come from that made the big bang. Where did the energy come from that made the big bang. Yes, you eventually become a wacko if you aren't willing to face the truthful answers to these kinds of questions. The first chapter in the book of Romans says people who think like this are whackos and I certainly agree with the abosolute truth in the revealed word of God.

Where did I say God wasn't the creator, dufus? Can you read? At least try. It's easy, letters are put together to form words. Words are put together to form sentences. Sentences are put together to form paragraphs. ...and it goes on.

Now, where in

"So is anyone that doesn't believe this universe is 6000 years old a "whacko"?"

did you see anything about God?

Quote:If there was a "big bang" where did the stuff come from that made the big bang. Where did the energy come from that made the big bang.

Because we do not know something, you conclude Goddidit?

As for the Big Bang, there's plenty of evidence for the theory which states that the universe used to be hot and dense, since it has expanded cooler and less dense. The further one goes back the less clear it is what happened exactly. The BBT says nothing of theology, unless your theology says that the universe is 5 minutes old, and there was a trickster god who created the universe to lie to us.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

Quote:If there was a "big bang" where did the stuff come from that made the big bang. Where did the energy come from that made the big bang.

Because we do not know something, you conclude Goddidit?

As for the Big Bang, there's plenty of evidence for the theory which states that the universe used to be hot and dense, since it has expanded cooler and less dense. The further one goes back the less clear it is what happened exactly. The BBT says nothing of theology, unless your theology says that the universe is 5 minutes old, and there was a trickster god who created the universe to lie to us.

The universe was not created with a big bang. I believe it was created in a manner similar to the way revelation says the universe will end.

Quote:And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth heruntimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

Revelation 6:13 & 14

See, God doesn't need to use "big bangs" man. Anybody who believs in that simply does not believe in the Godhead and the power of God. I think the universe started like it ends. That is, God just laid it out as if it was a scroll unfolding. God can trump the laws of physics you know? If you read the first 7 or 8 verses of the first chapter of Gensis, you see that God did in fact create the universe this way. Instead of the stars falling to Earth as in the end times, the stars moved outward from Earth. God created the Earth first and then the heavens. The first chapter of Genesis doesn't leave any doubt about this. And since Greybeard loves to be shown things in the Bible, maybe he can explain it to you better than me.

The Lord God doesn't need a "big bang". That's for evolutionist and other people who don't really believe in the power of God.

Endzone2 Wrote:The universe was not created with a big bang. I believe it was created in a manner similar to the way revelation says the universe will end.

Making something seem factual, and backing it up with an assumption, is not a way to win an argument.

I believe this universe was created by God, but there is no way you will be able to prove it. It's called blind faith.

Endzone2 Wrote:The universe was not created with a big bang. I believe it was created in a manner similar to the way revelation says the universe will end.

You been reading the Bible backwards?