Posted on 04/25/2014 1:42:41 PM PDT by neverdem
In the late 1920s, astronomer Edwin Hubble established that the light we detect from galaxies is shifted toward the redder colors of the spectrum, indicating that they are moving away from us at enormous speeds. And the farther away galaxies are, the faster they are fleeing. Rewinding that expansion through mathematics — dividing distance by speed — indicates that something extraordinary happened about 14 billion years ago, when the entire universe was small, dense and exceedingly hot.
Scientists such as Alexander Friedmann and Georges Lemaitre had anticipated the big bang — which Lemaitre described as a “Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of creation.” Others theorized that such an event would have left a detectable residue of hydrogen plasma grown cold over time. In the 1960s, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson duly detected it — finding microwave background radiation in every direction they pointed their telescope. The whole sky glows faintly at a temperature of about 3 degrees above absolute zero. Part of the static between channels on broadcast television is an echo of the big bang.
These are some of the most regularly confirmed, noncontroversial findings of modern science. Yet a recent poll found that a majority of Americans are “not too” or “not at all” confident that “the universe began 13.8 billion years ago with a big bang.”
Some of this skepticism, surely, reflects the inherent difficulty of imagining unimaginable scales of time and space. And some fault must lie with American scientific education, which routinely transforms the consideration of wonders into a chore and a bore. But the poll also found that confidence in the big bang declines as belief in a Supreme Being increases...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Well, that’s only our local universe. Things may be entirely different in all the others....
All the Millitant Athiests completely deny that the church from the middle ages to the begining of the modern era contributed a LOT to advancing science.
They only love to point out all the roadblock the church put up to science and ignore all the roads that they built because it suits their agenda.
Thomas Aquinas was the first to describe faith and reason as two sides to one coin.
Reason is the working of the mind and faith is the working of the soul.
Without this dual structure of knowledge, man's ability to think properly gets all screwed up.
So, it is not really a strange tension but one that reflects man's ability to think.
The real problem lies in the fact that scientists want to ignore the mystery of faith and theologians want to ignore reason.
We need both - like two legs.
I guess you don’t count Galileo who was imprisioned by the Inquisition or Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake. Nor the fact that both their writings and those of many others were forbidden reading by the Catholic church. Pray tell, what were all these roads that were built?
[ I guess you don’t count Galileo who was imprisioned by the Inquisition or Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake. Nor the fact that both their writings and those of many others were forbidden reading by the Catholic church. Pray tell, what were all these roads that were built? ]
That was a roadblock for sure, but one road was Gregor Mendel who studied plant genetics.
Here is a List of more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Roman_Catholic_cleric%E2%80%93scientists
There are Bad things the Church has done, but they also fostered science as well.
Don’t throw out the scientific baby with the church bathwater.
Not to mention all the schools that Church supported over the centuries that helped educate scientists some persecuted some not to become men of science!
...
On the contrary, This is how "to believe" is defined by Augustine (De Praedest. Sanct. ii).
I answer that, "To think" can be taken in three ways.
First, in a general way for any kind of actual consideration of the intellect, as Augustine observes (De Trin. xiv, 7): "By understanding I mean now the faculty whereby we understand when thinking."
Secondly, "to think" is more strictly taken for that consideration of the intellect, which is accompanied by some kind of inquiry, and which precedes the intellect's arrival at the stage of perfection that comes with the certitude of sight. On this sense Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 16) that "the Son of God is not called the Thought, but the Word of God. When our thought realizes what we know and takes form therefrom, it becomes our word. Hence the Word of God must be understood without any thinking on the part of God, for there is nothing there that can take form, or be unformed." In this way thought is, properly speaking, the movement of the mind while yet deliberating, and not yet perfected by the clear sight of truth. Since, however, such a movement of the mind may be one of deliberation either about universal notions, which belongs to the intellectual faculty, or about particular matters, which belongs to the sensitive part, hence it is that "to think" is taken secondly for an act of the deliberating intellect, and thirdly for an act of the cogitative power.
Accordingly, if "to think" be understood broadly according to the first sense, then "to think with assent," does not express completely what is meant by "to believe": since, in this way, a man thinks with assent even when he considers what he knows by science [Science is certain knowledge of a demonstrated conclusion through its demonstration.], or understands.
If, on the other hand, "to think" be understood in the second way, then this expresses completely the nature of the act of believing.
For among the acts belonging to the intellect, some have a firm assent without any such kind of thinking, as when a man considers the things that he knows by science, or understands, for this consideration is already formed.
But some acts of the intellect have unformed thought devoid of a firm assent,
whether they incline to neither side, as in one who "doubts";
or incline to one side rather than the other, but on account of some slight motive, as in one who "suspects";
or incline to one side yet with fear of the other, as in one who "opines."
But this act "to believe," cleaves firmly to one side, in which respect belief has something in common with science and understanding; yet its knowledge does not attain the perfection of clear sight, wherein it agrees with doubt, suspicion and opinion. Hence it is proper to the believer to think with assent: so that the act of believing is distinguished from all the other acts of the intellect, which are about the true or the false.
Good article. Thanks for posting.
I suspect that Gregor Mendel was creating his own project, not working on something the church asked him to do. Granted, providing room, board and a place to work is helpful, but how many good results were an actual part of church planning. I will read your link.
OK, I have looked at your list of more than 200 names. I recognized 4: Roger Bacon, the lamented burned Bruno, Mendel (genetics) and Mercalli (earthquakes). A few other names caught my attention, but I would have had to look them up to determine what there expertise had been. I had a major in General Science with a minor in education. Thus my conclusion is that either my education was seriously lacking, or most of these men played only a very, very minor role in science.
“I believe in God. I believe our “universe” began with a the Big Bang 13.7 billion yeas ago, but I will give them .1 billion. 13.8 does not offend me...
I do not see that there is a conflict, if one says God is the Creator and He created the Big Bang.”
I agree with you. I might add, that ours may not be the first Big Bang, nor the last. The Universe may contract and re-explode in cycles.
Thanks for the links. Should this post go to Catastrophism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric%E2%80%93scientists
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/fathers-of-science
If one takes the Catholic Church in the year 2014 as the measure, there is no issue between science and theology(faith), unless it is instigated by defensive scientists. Outside the Catholic Church, there is still an isolated remnant of protestant obstinacy as with the "young earth" creationist delusion.
It is useful btw for all the Catholic bashers to note, that the reformation Lutherans were even more geocentric in their readings of scripture than was the Vatican.
There is actually a very long history of both “Faith and Reason” co-existing.
Here’s where things get interesting.
“Reason”, has become the domain of “science” and those that opposed understanding by “faith” or Religion. They pushed through and have dominated the narrative since the early 20th century.
As science has advanced, as it must, the questions that science alone, using materialism/reductionism, was to answer have created more questions than answers. Some would say that “that is how science works”. Always on the path of discovery, and that’s fine.
However, they have narrated and institutionalized conclusions that remain unresolved even under their own standards of the scientific method. These conclusions are easy for them to infer since they must be contained within the narrow framework of their discipline.
What is most interesting to me, is how they now invoke unprovable theories and present them as “scientific”.
Dark Energy, Dark Matter, String theory and a Multi-verse to name a few. All of these are beyond the scientific method but have become necessary in order for them maintain the a narrative that excludes Faith/Religion.
As a result, they are actually placing “Their Faith” in something that they cannot prove nor can ever prove.
There was a lost century where “theologians wanted to ignore reason”, but that is changing very very quickly.
The Scientific Establishment, and yes it does exist, is desperate to counter these pesky Christians.
Beyond Belief: Science, Reason, Religion & Survival
http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-science-religion-reason-and-survival
The above is ten sessions, well over 20 hours of video from our leading “Scientists” describing “their problem” and how to destroy Christianity.
It’s an extraordinary display of arrogance that you will ever see.
In the meantime, I see the results of this indoctrination into the “Scientific Method”, as being the only way to know truth, on display in virtually every aspect of our lives.
It’s crazy stuff.
This kid is not stupid. He is actually very intelligent, but his head has been filled with so much crap that the only thing he knows to be “Certain” is “Uncertainty”.
This is what is being taught and promoted and is influencing our public policies.
No Science, No Logic and No Morality: Atheism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hsZIauQex4
There’s more.
I welcome feedback.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.