What are your beliefs and thoughts about God and science?

Some years ago Hawking (going back to the original post) said that he thought the universe could create itself from nothing. (whatever that is).

In this new book he's saying it again and presumably presenting evidence ( which only a handful of people will understand.) He says that this is possible because the laws of gravity require it. I assume he's going to also explain where the laws of gravity came from, otherwise he's just stuck in the infinite regress of the 'who made god' type.

My theory is simple - Science 1, Religion 0. Don't belive in God, never have, never will :)

I think I am quite rational and reasonably sane. I have yet to find the answers and I don't suppose I ever will - at least not in time to impart my newly found knowledge to those left behind. I do see science and religion as being compatible, I don't see them as enemies.

As I said in my last post, I do have trouble with infinity and "who created the creator" question so I spoke with a mate who has researched religions extensively and asked him the question. The answer "..... I don't know".

Gary

My final post on this interesting subject which I'm sure Gary will endorse is;-

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy"

thanks to everybody who posted - I forgive easily!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm sure that this won't be your last post on the subject. It is far too interesting a thread.

Yes, I endorse the quote (by Benjamin Franklin) wholeheartedly. For other beer quotes, might I suggest a visit to http://inveralmond-brewery.co.uk/history-of-beer.html . Once there, why not buy a few bottles. I'm not a great beer drinker but I love these guys, all great brews. My favourites are Lia Faile and Santa's Swallie. Great beers and a really nice bunch of lads.

Gary

We differ there. I see them as polar opposite locked in eternal mortal combat enemies till one of them dies.I know the flow chart is a condesending insult, but the core principle remains:

One is about questioning everything and truth and facts, the other is faith, acceptance of a given explantion.If you drew a line, the approaches will always be at opposite ends.

If you don't think so - then our definitions of religion and science are different. (see the flow chart)

My definition of regious faith is = the opposite of scientific enquiry.

Sure we don't know everything - but we just climbed out of the trees a few hundred thou years ago, give us a break. We already put a naked chimp on the moon, and worked out some amazing stuff about the universe. I'd guess we only know 10% of whats out there, but thats an incredible achievement for one little animal on on little planet in the mind boggling reaches of the multiverse.

As naked apes we struggle imagining things like the the start of time, and also that time, matter and energy being the same things.

 

We climbed out of trees a few hundred thou years ago. Proof please. There isn't any, but it is a belief and it is plausible so I would go along with that but please don't say it is fact, it is simply a belief of one aspect of a religion called science.

We already put a naked chimp on the moon. I agree, I stayed up to watch it but even now many people say that it didnt happen. You believe that this scientific event happened, so do I, but many don't.

So, is the religion of science so different from other religions, it requires faith. On another matter, the Bible is full of enquiries, there are millions of "Why's".

Gary

 

Wow heated discussion thread here! Can I put my two penneth in?

I have been brought up an Atheist. By that I mean I never went to Church (of any kind), I wasn't baptised, I wasn't exposed to Religion at home or on a day to day basis. I was always taught that there are many different opinions and that they should all be respected in their own right. I don't believe in 'God' or 'Heaven' but there have been times when I've thought 'this can't be it' - namely when I lost my Grandad. To this day I find it hard to accept that I won't ever see him again, so I suppose in that sense I'm hoping for more while not saying 'I am a Christian'.

One thing that bothers me is people calling Buddhism a religion. I know that's what it is on forms etc but in my view it's more of a philosophy. Buddha was never nor will he ever be seen as a deity or a devine being. He was a man who talked with others about life, the universe and everything. I agree with a lot of what he said as a lot of it makes sense to me. That said I do not count myself as religious.

Here's another thought though...If religion says that God created the universe and science says it came about because of all the laws of physics etc. then maybe we could say that the 'God' character is the bunch of the laws that created the universe. Because I would ask the religious, 'who made the 'God'?'

It has been a good thread. Very interesting and often thought provoking.

I agree with you about Bhuddism, it was through that philosophy that I gained a little bit more of an understanding of reincarnation.

As for there being anything else after death, who knows. I do know that I have seen on several occasions, what most people would term "ghosts". Is this a glimpse of the afterlife, a holograph type effect from released energy or many other explanations (not too much alcohol I hasten to add). I don't know. 

With regard to the "who created God" question, that was raised earlier this page and the previous one. It is a big question because it is easily countered with the question "who created the mass that went on to become the Big Bang". There are those who say that creating something from nothing in physics is possible (in economics this is called Quantative Easing). I don't as yet believe that, but they may be right. If they are then the same rules apply to God as it does to the Mass. The alternative answer is that both God and the Mass have always been there. This means getting your head around infinity and I struggle with that.

 Gary

Garry, your either trolling me, or don't understand what the scientific process is.

Google a few indepth pages on the scientific process (hint: faith is in no way required - in fact the opposite of faith is required for the scientific process)

I mean, look at my flow chart in this thread, it sums it up nicely.

And I mean proper science, not crack pot science stuff. (a loony in a white coat calling himself a scientist and claming to have invented perpeptual motion is NOT a scientist)

The history of the theory of gravity is a classic example. A pretty rock solid theory got thrown out, by a smart bloke, unending questioning, evidence and not accepting anything given in faith.

Saying science is like a religion is about as crazy as saying religion is scientific. err but I think you already said that, so perhaps I should give up here.

 

 

A lot of buddhists believe in gods, spirits and demigods, well most of the ones I have met and quizzed do.

Some don't I believe, but theres also a lot of mixing with Hindu and their gods.

Thats probably why its often labeled a religion, with good reason I think.

Interesting thing about buddhism is that, they haven't created a supernatural reason for the creation of the universe and time, which is probably the most common theme amongst hundreds of religions. Its almost the main reason so many religions exists I think, to get over the very human need to have an explantion for the "start of things".

Another very cool thing about some buddhists is that the end "reward" of living a "good life" is nirvava, or an end to all suffering, enlightenment, which means not being reborn! Sort of the opposite to most religions which have a live forever clause if your a behave are "good" and do as your told.

 

 

BRADDISM ROCKS

BRADDISM ROCKS??
All faith based organisations expanded by "word-of-mouth" - in modern terms referrals/networking. Jesus was a member of a 'sect'. After his death his front-line networkers/disciples expanded his teachings/philosophy around the world and named it Christianity. Paul & Peter did a great job recruiting a Roman Emperor and suggesting if he persuaded (Roman style!) all his citizens to convert he would become the Roman Catholic leader and could call himself (as Bishop of Rome) the Pope, who has direct access to head office.

So if you start a network for the benefit of others what should your 'Title' be?

Another belief I have, somewhat related to religion and science, is that Professor Brian Cox is a Timelord. He 's so clever he blows my mind!

Brilliant man! Able to take the most complex bits of scvience and present them to ordinary people in a way they can understand.

Interesting to read this quote of his:

"But I do think there’s common ground between religion and science in that you notice that the world is beautiful and that nature is absolutely fascinating."

Full article here