God – The greatest scientist of all time?

11 Jan

Science and religion seem to be two opposing subjects. Science is based on verifiable facts and figures while religion is mostly based on tales, allegories and transcriptions.

The pope (Benedict the XVI) says that God is also a scientist. He was behind the big bang. Scientist might be shocked to read such a statement  coming from the church. For decades the church was incompatible with science and now the pope himself announces something like that?! “The universe is not the result of chance, as some would want to make us believe, contemplating it (the universe) we are invited to read something profound into it: the wisdom of the creator, the inexhaustible creativity of God.”

On the other hand we have scientist like Stephen Hawking who objects to the assumption that “God” could be the creator of the universe. He says: “ Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,” and in addition “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

These are two completely different point of views. Funnily enough it is the church that accepts science as a profound matter, not vice versa.

Advertisements

12 Responses to “God – The greatest scientist of all time?”

  1. Marius January 11, 2011 at 7:34 pm #

    Personally I cannot quite understand the position of Hawking. How can he proclaim that God isn’t omnipotent and everything is attributable to a “silly” law,
    coming from an human being with a limited mind?
    For religious people it is clear that God is the Alpha and Omega. If we think we are great scientist and have discovered the secrets of the world, we should keep
    in mind, God combines and perfections all the wisdom, science and theoretical as well as practical knowledge in him.
    So he is the greatest scientist of all time.

  2. peterwicks January 11, 2011 at 8:28 pm #

    This has personal significance for me since I was brought up as a Christian (though not as a Roman Catholic).

    But I think it’s important to think about what we are really saying when we use this word “God”. Marius says that God “combines and perfects all the wisdom, science and theoretical as well as practical in him”. I’ll leave the gender bias aside and assume that “him” includes “her” (just as “eMan” includes “eWoman”!). But who is “he”? Is “he” any more than a figment of our imagination? Perhaps more importantly, what does believing in “his” existence actually do for us? How does it help us to lead good lives, and what does it mean to lead a good life anyway?

    That said, I also find it difficult to understand the antipathy of people like Hawking and Dawkins to the idea of God. They seem to see it as somehow opposed to science, whereas the (historical) reality is much more complicated.

    As for the Pope, when is he going to have the courage to declare, without caveat, that condoms are an important part of the battle against AIDS?

    • victor January 12, 2011 at 1:41 pm #

      The scientist don’t create the scientist can discovered things, can explain the reason of the movement of the earth. But they can not create anything. So God is not a scientist, God is a creator, but God cannot explain the reasons of the live (maybe the religion or the Pope).

  3. Giovanni R January 13, 2011 at 6:20 pm #

    The church doesn’t really accepts science. They are just trying not to be cut off and left behind. They cannot say anymore “science is wrong”, because many things have actually been proven right. So they try (pitifully) to adjust saying “Yes, science is right BUT… there is more to it” and of course this “more” is the old mouldy idea of God.
    The church is just trying to USE science discoveries, to bring back people to old ideas.
    Science and religion are, and will always be, opposite. Science deals with facts, accepts the Universe for what it is and tries to know more about its structure. Religion deals with everything but facts, it is mainly based on authority, on the passive acceptance of some “truths” that are not and cannot be proven.

    • Marius January 14, 2011 at 1:09 pm #

      ok, I respect your opinion but I don’t share it!
      There are also quiet a lot assumption is science, but because there is no 100% certainty or other models, we accept some laws as “reality”.

      As for religion, how come millions even billions of people believe in “(…)everything but facts, which are mainly based on authority, on the passive acceptance of some “truths” that are not and cannot be proven?” Sounds strange isn’t it?!
      I experienced God several times, cause I allow him to be in my life. I opened my heart for him and let him show me the beauty of life.
      And by the way, it is almost 100% proven that Jesus existed!!

      • Giovanni R January 14, 2011 at 6:15 pm #

        Millions of people believe in what religions say. Very true.
        Millions of people believe that a black cat crossing your path is a sign of bad luck too. This doesn’t make it true.
        Regarding the hystorical existence of Jesus, this is a site I found interesting:
        http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm.

  4. Stravos January 14, 2011 at 12:01 pm #

    In religion you believe.
    With science you prove.

  5. peterwicks January 18, 2011 at 10:33 pm #

    I want to pick up on Marius’s comments about the role that faith in God has played in his life. As I noted previously I was brought up as a Christian, and one of the reasons why I ultimately rejected this belief system was precisely that I could never unequivocally say that I had “experienced God”. For this reason I am always somewhat intrigued by those who claim they have.

    I also think that this is a fairly crucial issue in the context of the future of humanity. As Marius rightly points out, billions of people believe in God in one form or another, and while I basically share Giovanni’s view that this does not make them right (after all a majority of people used to believe the earth was flat) we at least need to understand what is driving such beliefs, and I agree withMarius that there is more to it than just authority and passive acceptance of unprovable “truths”. The fact is that belief in God plays an important and positive role in many people’s lives.

  6. Seiwat February 12, 2012 at 6:09 am #

    Dose wo preach d posibility of god using evolution 2 creat d universe hav nt read their bible as for d pope can he show me d big bang n d biale?

  7. Michael Hentrich November 21, 2012 at 9:03 pm #

    Science and religion are not opposed, it’s just that the scientists that have really high IQ’s tend to be atheist or agnostic and fundamental religious types can’t understand that very much. I’m a Christian Atheist for this reason.

  8. Michael Hentrich November 21, 2012 at 9:20 pm #

    Christian atheists can also reject the notion of God-incarnate on the basis of the impossibility of an omniscient being residing on Earth at any moment in time without residing in abstract imperfection of the knowledge which he claims to have. There is a certain sense in which this is contradictory to the other forms of Christian Atheists because, while it does not explicitly reject the God of Christianity, it does imply a means to believe in God.

  9. Michael Hentrich February 5, 2014 at 2:59 am #

    Just a note on what I meant – reading the Wiki now on Theism. I am by non-classical means a theist. Read from the Wiki on ‘Theism’ – “As such theism describes the classical conception of God that is found in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism and Hinduism.”

    So I disagree with the conception brought about by modern society. But to be clear I definitely believe in God, hence the “Christian” component. I’m in belief of God, always have been to my knowledge, just not in doctrinal impositions.

    And I love the Bible, I think it’s great, but there are three ways to look at a Christian Atheist:
    1. doesn’t believe in God
    2. believes in God incarnate but no God above
    3. believes in God above but not God incarnate
    4. believes in God but not according to the classical definition as God is beyond comprehension

    The only logical conclusion is #4. Another way to put it is I’m a Christian skeptic.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: