32 ms·

I was just thinking about Lemaitre as an example of the power of combining religious and scientific approaches. As a scientist, he was undoubtedly educated on

I was just thinking about Lemaitre as an example of the power of combining religious and scientific approaches. As a scientist, he was undoubtedly educated on the idea that the universe had no beginning. But as a Catholic priest, he must have deeply believed in the moment of Creation as described in Genesis. Perhaps, without his faith he would not have been "looking" for the moment of creation in the data, and would not have conceptualized the Big Bang. An atheist scientist may have missed this. It's interesting to consider this in context of many scientists to whom we owe our understanding of the universe having been deeply religious (beyond what was normal during their eras.) An obvious another example is Newton, who probed theology deeply enough to arrive at what may even have been considered heretical views at the time. My theory is that Religion is about the deep desire to understand and connect with the Creator, and at its truest, so is Science.

dylan604 4y ago
>so is Science this stipulates that science believes there is a Creator. to me, at best, science's stance on a Creator is "data inadequate". i think science would be just fine if it happens that (Creator === false), but it would also be happy if (Creator === true) but there would at least be proof beyond faith for science to make that a fact.
- edgyquant 4y ago
  Science is not a sentient being. Scientists have all kinds of beliefs, a lot of them are thiests though or at least have been historically.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    right, but the OP i replied to used capital S Science, not Scientist. The individual beliefs of those practicing science is totally different than Science itself.
- xyzelement 4y ago
  Yes, but I am speaking on the highest level. The true scientist seeks to understand the deep truth. The fundamental pattern. The deep function and meaning. At some point, this deep desire to understand is in itself a religious thing. Why bother understanding anything if it's all just random and and accidental? Why seek meaning and order in a universe if it's all just happenstance? The very assumption of meaning and truth and order and the scientific pursuit of it, subtly implies that the scientist believes they are present, which (whether he sees it that way or not) implies something of intent.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    i understand your thought process on science becoming one's religion, but that also does not hold true for everyone. it is totally possible to admit one doesn't have all the answers and seeks those unknown answers without it becoming a religious crusade. one can accept that the answer is unknown, and just live with that. one can accept that the answer is unknown but through scientific rigor find an answer, and then be okay with accepting that answer. not everything has to be a religious experience. my religious belief is that the need for religion is keeping humans from evolving further. it may not be very sound, but that's the beauty of religious beliefs. everybody is entitled to their own (at least in some countries).
  - ookdatnog 4y ago
    > Why bother understanding anything if it's all just random and and accidental? Sheer curiosity? Why do you feel like your feelings (for example the desire to understand) need cosmic validation?
    - xyzelement 4y ago
      Imagine I show you a string of numbers and letters. Will you spend time trying to decipher the code? Does the answer depend on whether I told you there was a meaning encoded in there, vs it was produced by a random number generator? In the most logical view if the universe was randomly created, there's nothing to be curious about, it's all noise.
dieselgate 4y ago
Your theory genuinely brings a smile to my face. It's nice to think of things "in their truest" and build bridges of commonality rather than setting them ablaze. Of course life is complicated, though
wahern 4y ago
> But as a Catholic priest, he must have deeply believed in the moment of Creation as described in Genesis. Catholicism permits a literal interpretation of creation in Genesis, but does not require it. Debates regarding literal vs allegorical interpretations of Genesis and similar biblical narratives go back at least as far as the 2nd century. For example, Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD), one of the earliest Christian theologians, argued that the 7 days of creation were allegorical. AFAIU, allegorical interpretations of Genesis began to predominate in mainstream Christianity rather quickly, though even in Catholicism today there are literalists. Some narratives are interpreted literally, but not in the obvious sense. For example, AFAIU "God created man in his image" was never interpreted by most Christians to mean physical image, but rather in the sense of moral consciousness, etc, and today (and perhaps even originally) interpretation as physical similarity would be, I think, heretical. Such nuance in meaning and implication is important for understanding, for example, the Galileo Affair, as well as the far more minor debates regarding the Big Bang (were there any major debates?). Also, because at any one point there's always some kind of literal vs allegorical debate within the context of the current Overton Window, someone's feathers always seem to get ruffled no matter the topic.
- xyzelement 4y ago
  Thank you for all that great context. For what it's worth, as I study my religion more, I get a deeper appreciation for the non literal interpretations. After all what does it mean to have 6 days of creation when the sun wasn't even around for some of the days. I do think "created" vs "always been there" is a pretty good definition of the chasm between religious and scientific views before the big bang
  - wahern 4y ago
    These debates between the created vs the eternal are all over the place in Christianity, not to mention most other religions. Excluding all the gnostic and neoplatonist sects, one of the first big fights in Christianity was between the Arians and what would become mainline Christianity. It concerned whether Jesus was eternal or created. (Excuse me if that's a botched gloss.) The Arians believed Jesus was created, albeit before time. The orthodox Christians insisted Jesus was eternal and uncreated, though the Nicene Creed (drafted to refute and fight Arianism) uses the curious phrasing "eternally begotten". That and similar debates resulted in a ridiculously complex and fascinating ontology around ideas of substance, time, and creation. EDIT: FWIW, for similar, non-Christian debates see, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash%27arism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash%27arism vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutazilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutazilism That's still Abrahamic and Greek-adjacent, though, which I think maybe results in a preoccupation with these questions, as compared to some other traditions which don't find them very interesting.

dylan604 4y ago

>so is Science this stipulates that science believes there is a Creator. to me, at best, science's stance on a Creator is "data inadequate". i think science would be just fine if it happens that (Creator === false), but it would also be happy if (Creator === true) but there would at least be proof beyond faith for science to make that a fact.

edgyquant 4y ago
Science is not a sentient being. Scientists have all kinds of beliefs, a lot of them are thiests though or at least have been historically.
- dylan604 4y ago
  right, but the OP i replied to used capital S Science, not Scientist. The individual beliefs of those practicing science is totally different than Science itself.
xyzelement 4y ago
Yes, but I am speaking on the highest level. The true scientist seeks to understand the deep truth. The fundamental pattern. The deep function and meaning. At some point, this deep desire to understand is in itself a religious thing. Why bother understanding anything if it's all just random and and accidental? Why seek meaning and order in a universe if it's all just happenstance? The very assumption of meaning and truth and order and the scientific pursuit of it, subtly implies that the scientist believes they are present, which (whether he sees it that way or not) implies something of intent.
- dylan604 4y ago
  i understand your thought process on science becoming one's religion, but that also does not hold true for everyone. it is totally possible to admit one doesn't have all the answers and seeks those unknown answers without it becoming a religious crusade. one can accept that the answer is unknown, and just live with that. one can accept that the answer is unknown but through scientific rigor find an answer, and then be okay with accepting that answer. not everything has to be a religious experience. my religious belief is that the need for religion is keeping humans from evolving further. it may not be very sound, but that's the beauty of religious beliefs. everybody is entitled to their own (at least in some countries).
- ookdatnog 4y ago
  > Why bother understanding anything if it's all just random and and accidental? Sheer curiosity? Why do you feel like your feelings (for example the desire to understand) need cosmic validation?
  - xyzelement 4y ago
    Imagine I show you a string of numbers and letters. Will you spend time trying to decipher the code? Does the answer depend on whether I told you there was a meaning encoded in there, vs it was produced by a random number generator? In the most logical view if the universe was randomly created, there's nothing to be curious about, it's all noise.

dieselgate 4y ago

Your theory genuinely brings a smile to my face. It's nice to think of things "in their truest" and build bridges of commonality rather than setting them ablaze. Of course life is complicated, though

wahern 4y ago

> But as a Catholic priest, he must have deeply believed in the moment of Creation as described in Genesis. Catholicism permits a literal interpretation of creation in Genesis, but does not require it. Debates regarding literal vs allegorical interpretations of Genesis and similar biblical narratives go back at least as far as the 2nd century. For example, Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD), one of the earliest Christian theologians, argued that the 7 days of creation were allegorical. AFAIU, allegorical interpretations of Genesis began to predominate in mainstream Christianity rather quickly, though even in Catholicism today there are literalists. Some narratives are interpreted literally, but not in the obvious sense. For example, AFAIU "God created man in his image" was never interpreted by most Christians to mean physical image, but rather in the sense of moral consciousness, etc, and today (and perhaps even originally) interpretation as physical similarity would be, I think, heretical. Such nuance in meaning and implication is important for understanding, for example, the Galileo Affair, as well as the far more minor debates regarding the Big Bang (were there any major debates?). Also, because at any one point there's always some kind of literal vs allegorical debate within the context of the current Overton Window, someone's feathers always seem to get ruffled no matter the topic.

xyzelement 4y ago
Thank you for all that great context. For what it's worth, as I study my religion more, I get a deeper appreciation for the non literal interpretations. After all what does it mean to have 6 days of creation when the sun wasn't even around for some of the days. I do think "created" vs "always been there" is a pretty good definition of the chasm between religious and scientific views before the big bang
- wahern 4y ago
  These debates between the created vs the eternal are all over the place in Christianity, not to mention most other religions. Excluding all the gnostic and neoplatonist sects, one of the first big fights in Christianity was between the Arians and what would become mainline Christianity. It concerned whether Jesus was eternal or created. (Excuse me if that's a botched gloss.) The Arians believed Jesus was created, albeit before time. The orthodox Christians insisted Jesus was eternal and uncreated, though the Nicene Creed (drafted to refute and fight Arianism) uses the curious phrasing "eternally begotten". That and similar debates resulted in a ridiculously complex and fascinating ontology around ideas of substance, time, and creation. EDIT: FWIW, for similar, non-Christian debates see, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash%27arism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash%27arism vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutazilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutazilism That's still Abrahamic and Greek-adjacent, though, which I think maybe results in a preoccupation with these questions, as compared to some other traditions which don't find them very interesting.