Related Questions
- which team do you go for in the state of origin.
- approximately how many stars are in the universe?
- in the multiverse theory, is it true that any action taken in one universe will and always has an alternat e reaction
- From evolution, do humans still retain the (now probably unconscious) ability to detect pheremones and learn things
- How did DNA originate billions of years ago?
I’m an atheist, so I don’t believe in God. If I’m being scientific about it I have to say to myself I see no evidence for a God, but I see a great deal of evidence for things like evolution. I have to follow the evidence. This means that the origin of life is a system that can be studied (people are doing just that) and that the origin of the universe can also be explained. If the explanation is currently unclear (it is), I live with it being unclear and I’m happy with that. As we study it more, we will learn more about it. It’s good to live with uncertainty because it makes you ask questions.
0
When it comes to religion, I’m not religious. This is isn’t because I think religion is wrong, it’s just that it doesn’t sit well with who I am. By nature I ask questions about things looking for evidence to the answers. I am the kid who didn’t believe in Santa because nothing about his story rang true. My family also lived in a flat with no chimney on an island that never seemed to be on any map. I need proof and it is this that challenges the very core of religion, faith. I just don’t have any faith and I am okay with that just as I am okay with people who have faith and are religious.
I know many friends who are religious and are also scientists whose views are that evolution and the origin of life and the universe are ones that agree with the science. They tell me that their religion is something that guides them on how they should be as a person, not something that defines the world. Explanations and definitions of the world change over time as we discover and understand new things around us. This is normal and this shouldn’t challenge religion when it is seen as a way of life rather than a definition of it.
0
Let’s say I grew up as a Catholic, but I don’t really identify with the religion anymore. Lots of things are possible and it’s possible that there is a God (or whatever name you have for ‘God’). However, I haven’t seen any good evidence to prove that God exists, so I have to decide for myself what I think. Personally I don’t believe in the kind of God presented by the religions I’m familiar with, or that God was the creator of life and the beginning of everything. It doesn’t fix the problem of where everything started, it just gives you a new problem: where did God come from?
However, I don’t think that evolution and science have to be a problem for religion. If you want to believe that God created everything, that’s fine; He could have caused the big bang and designed things to evolve, and maybe He knew about and planned out everything that has happened. If you think of it that way, then science isn’t proving that God doesn’t exist, maybe you’re just uncovering all the nifty little things He designed.
However, I think that adding a God to all this makes things more complicated rather than explaining them. You don’t have to choose science OR religion, but I think it’s better if you don’t try to mix them together too much.
0
Science and religion are different. People get into trouble because they mix them up.
Religion is about faith — believing in things which have no scientific proof. The christian bible says blessed are they who cannot see (any proof) but still believe.
Science is about believing only those things for which there is scientific proof, and a willingness to admit we are wrong and improve our knowledge and views iif there is new evidence. Science is a way of learning about the world and about creation with a little “c”.
Science does not deal with the question of god with a little “g” or gods or God with a capital “G”.
Thomas Aquinas tried to prove that God exists using logic. Kurt Gödel has proved that any system of logic cannot be complete. If the system of logic is complete, then there some things that cannot be proven by that system of logic. So Aquinas was wrong. Since science is a system of logical thought, it is impossible to use science to prove the existence of God. On the other hand, it is also impossible to use science to prove the non-existence of God.
It is wrong to think of Creation with a capital “C” as science, because faith is not consistent with the philosophy of science.
How do I see myself? Sometimes I view myself as a christian with a little “c”. Often I have little faith and am a doubter. Whether I am or am not christian (or of any other faith) is not important for me as a scientist. It is also not important for me as a person.
What is important is that each of us does our best in our lives. What is important is that we try to do the right thing. What is important is that we try to be good people. And trying to live a good life is something that we can all do, irregardless whether we are christian or jewish or muslim or buddist or hindu or atheist or druid or humanist or believe or do not believe in any other belief system.
All the scientific evidence is that evolution is real and that we can see it happening right now in the world around us.
I respectfully disagree with people who believe in a literal Creation with a capital “C”: I admire their faith and conviction, but think that they have an incomplete and mistaken view of science.
0