Comments on: God Versus Science

By: brandon

brandon — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:07:38 +0000

# 4 Sean Says: August 23rd, 2008 at 10:00 pm He did write a paper titled “Science and Religion” Below is a section from Wikipedia. If you want to further your religious agenda, please be intellectually honest about it. > > > Yes, because going to wikipedia is intellectually honest....

By: Virgil

Virgil — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 05:51:00 +0000

Science and faith arise from two fundamentally different ways of thinking. Science arises from objective thought. Objective thinking deals with objects – things we can see or smell or otherwise sense by some means. Faith and the concept of God arise from subjective belief. They are conceptual ideas devoloped in the mind of man. From a scientific point of view, a formal objective proof of God's existence cannot be written. We have no idea what we're talking about. Jesus of Nazareth said that God is spirit. In the Koine Greek, the word used is pneuma, which provides the allegorical image of a breath of air barely rustling the leaves on a tree. That's all we can say. Beyond that we know nothing about God or the supernatural realm we call Heaven. So when an atheist says God does not exist, he is expressing his own personal belief and nothing more. Atheism is as much a religion as is theism.

By: Siobhan

Siobhan — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 21:29:12 +0000

Jesus talked about 'Straining gnats and swallowing camels' Matt 23:24 This whole discussion kinda proves His point don't you think!

By: George

George — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 15:29:38 +0000

Fr. Bob,
Did everyone miss the line "You are working on the premise of duality."? It is the central supporting column of the entire piece. The author, whoever he or she was, obviously had some understanding of non-duality which puts a different light on science, faith, life death and the whole idea of a personal god. Sin is missing the mark; missing the point. Omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent eternal Being (God if you will) by the very nature of all its eternal "omni-nesses" is not jealous; is not angry; neither wants nor needs ANYTHING from anyone or anything. All wanting and needing and begging and pleading and demanding arises from a sense of lack. By definition, God lacks nothing; encompasses everything. My personal feeling is that all scripture needs to be interpreted from the level of one's understanding. If I thought that the Pope interpreted scripture the same way a school child does. I would have to flush the entire Roman Catholic faith. I am not Roman Catholic but I recognize that for all we know of Jesus, the vast majority of it we owe the Catholic church. Jesus is reputed to have said,"The Kingdom of Heaven is within you." I am unable to interpret this in any way other than from a non-dual viewpoint: I am in no way separate from God- I just think I am; and my spiritual work in this life is to regain this understanding and make it hard and fast.

By: Terry Goliath

Terry Goliath — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 12:55:12 +0000

Lets call Bob, pastor or elder or teacher bob – Not father, you dont call a man of God, Father or Fr. there is no biblical foundation for it.
I too enjoyed the message in that story , albeit not from Albert Einstein.
Glory to God. He is our Father and Jesus Christ is alive.
God bless you all

By: Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 07:28:24 +0000

Kudos to Yvonne... Christians should not have any type of negative feeling (Hatred, resentment, anger) towards non-believers because Jesus always loved everyone regardless of how he was treated. For example when he was crucified, he never rebelled against God, Romans, or the Jewish people he accepted it. I would rather live my life as if there is a God, And die to find out there isn't, than live my life As if there isn't, and die to find out there is. How would you live your life?

By: Yvonne

Yvonne — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 03:27:00 +0000

Hmmm. I believe in God. I believe in Jesus. I do not believe that religious people should argue about faith. It does not set a good example for all the non believers to want to know God or religion. I like the story. I have forwarded it to many people. If Einstien did not write it, that is a big bummer, but the theories remain the same.
I have always talked with the people who believe in The Big Bang over the God theory that science believes that for "every action there is a reaction" so what caused the Big Bang? What caused the first movement in space? What caused the action? Which came first the chicken or the egg?
My belief is that the chicken came first because God created it.

By: Lynne

Lynne — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 19:14:46 +0000

Extremely interesting debate – I love the dark/light and heat/cold. Both are, of course, scientifically correct. Yet in context, we experience both heat and cold.

Also, the argument about not being able to see or hear the professor's brain and then taking it on faith, simply isn't true. We can in fact, scan brains, watch the synapses fire etc. Although it is possible this was written before that technology was available. Although they were doing lobotomies, so clearly brains are tangible…

I also spent some time looking up this and it wasn't Einstein who was the student. Nor did he ever write a book called Religion vs Science – a list of every paper and book he ever published is on wikipedia. His religious views are well documented and here are some of his more famous comments:

The question of scientific determinism gave rise to questions about Einstein's position on theological determinism, and whether or not he believed in God, or in a god. He once said:

You may call me an agnostic… I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.
He also said:

“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems.”

One of the reasons I love science is that it is always prepared to say "we don't know yet" or "oh hey – new information has come along – so we were wrong about that…" Religion is not.

My own path has been from atheism to hinduism to catholicism and now back to atheism. A wonderful website is http://www.iamanatheist.com.  Not rabid like Dawking and his God Delusion – just calm and more focused on moral atheism than anything else.

By: Diane

Diane — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 14:53:17 +0000

I think most have missed the point of the initial email which I have seen in many forms-this has a new twist by asserting Albert Einstein was the student. There's enough evidence that he wasn't and did not write the alleged book. But the greater impact is the philosphical arguement posited in the diactic. The arguement for God. Who cares if Einstein said it or wrote that book. The elegance is in the philosophical arguement posited, not in, "Did Einstein say it?" People always expect science and thesism to be mutually exclusive concepts. Yet, I went to Catholic school K-12 and we were taught both and I don't see a true disconnect. As a scientist, I can actually see more clearly the wonder of God in all His complexity. If others cannot, so be it. But to fight about it seems counter productive.

By: GalapagosPete

GalapagosPete — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 07:59:32 +0000

#87 Chris says, "I have spent the better part of an hour reading through all these responses, some angry, some rational, some not so rational. Most of these reactions are completely missing the (or actually proving Fr. Bob’s) original point of the posting."
That it's necessary to falsely assert that a great man said something he didn't and wrote something he didn't in order to try and give a really sophomoric screed a cachet it neither has nor deserves?
Yeah, I think we all got that. Well, some of us did.
#95 Jeff Bricks says, "[H]ow sad that anyone who ever hears truth always seams [sic] to somehow totally miss to [sic] point altogether."
Do you even understand that this isn't true? It's a lie. It isn't a fable, or a parable, it's just a lie.

By: Steve Seamans

Steve Seamans — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 03:35:55 +0000

Here's some things Einstein really said Einstein on the Soul From p. 39 On 17 July I953 a woman who was a licensed Baptist pastor sent Einstein in Princeton a warmly appreciative evangelical letter. Quoting several passages from the scriptures, she asked him whether he had considered the relationship of his immortal soul to its Creator, and asked whether he felt assurance of ever lasting life with God after death. It is not known whether a reply was sent, but the letter is in the Einstein Archives, and on it, in Einstein's hand writing, is the following sentence, written in English: I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it. From p. 40 In Berlin in February 1921 Einstein received from a woman in Vienna a letter imploring him to tell her if he had formed an opinion as to whether the soul exists and with it personal, individual development after death. There were other questions of a similar sort. On 5 February 1921 Einstein answered at some length. Here in part is what he said: The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning. Einstein on a Personal God On 22 March 1954 a self-made man sent Einstein in Princeton a long handwritten letter-four closely packed pages in English. The correspondent despaired that there were so few people like Einstein who had the courage to speak out, and he wondered if it would not be best to return the world to the animals. Saying "I presume you would like to know who I am," he went on to tell in detail how he had come from Italy to the United States at the age of nine, arriving in bitter cold weather, as a result of which his sisters died while he barely survived; how after six months of schooling he went to work at age ten; how at age seventeen he went to Evening School; and so on, so that now he had a regular job as an experimental machinist, had a spare-time business of his own, and had some patents to his credit. He declared himself an atheist. He said that real education came from reading books. He cited an article about Einstein's religious beliefs and expressed doubts as to the article's accuracy. He was irreverent about various aspects of formal religion, speaking about the millions of people who prayed to God in many languages, and remarking that God must have an enormous clerical staff to keep track of all their sins. And he ended with a long discussion of the social and political systems of Italy and the United States that it would take too long to describe here. He also enclosed a check for Einstein to give to charity. On 24 March 1954 Einstein answered in English as follows: I get hundreds and hundreds of letters but seldom one so interesting as yours. I believe that your opinions about our society are quite reasonable. It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. I have no possibility to bring the money you sent me to the appropriate receiver. I return it therefore in recognition of your good heart and intention. Your letter shows me also that wisdom is not a product of schooling but of the lifelong attempt to acquire it.

By: Cayla Catenaccio

Cayla Catenaccio — Sun, 26 Sep 2010 08:31:05 +0000

I stumbled upon your webpage and it really is ideal for I need. It has marvelous and helpful discussions. I read almost all of them and got so much from them. In my opinion, you are doing an impressive work. Carry on! I’d really like to thank you for preparing this kind of nice webpage.

By: JOSE A TORRES

JOSE A TORRES — Sun, 12 Sep 2010 13:06:24 +0000

-458 DEGRES IS NOT ABSOLUT ZERO, is the temperture man aknowlage, speed of light is what man recognises as maximum speed,

to this DAY MAN CAN NOT SEE THE SMallest particle of mater, not even the largest molecule with a microscope, not even there is the most powerful telescope to see the end of the univerese in detail,

very simply, like everithing :

“God is God”

By: paleos

paleos — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:38:56 +0000

GOD created the kaleidoscope in which physical and biological reality resides as people of science just connect the dots from within and create humanistic transient frameworks to understand reality. Ones faith in God creates the ultimate framework for the kaleidoscope. As God peers into the kaleidoscope he is the alpha and omega as time is a humanistic creation of inference from within its facets.

By: paleos

paleos — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:28:00 +0000

Framework=depth + facets + resolution….science is all about FRAMEWORK not just humanistic framework but universal …GET THE PICTURE?

By: paleos

paleos — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:17:27 +0000

Despite who wrote the post God vs. science it make a good point. Science is a western creation that has its roots in Christianity. Without a concept of one God there would be no concept of linear time in which the field of science resides. Despite what some think science has its roots in monotheism. Until the term Scientist was coined by William Whewell in 1836 all who practiced in the field were reffered to as natural philosophers and this includes Darwin. Christianity was central to natural philosophy..with the sweeping of a pen the title natural philosopher was changed by the merging of ther terms science and artist to create the title scientist. It was in 1836 with the changing of a term that God was taken out of the framework of science. All one need to do is read Francis Bacon. Ironically, Darwin was a natural philosopher. Atheists that use him to promote their cause OBFUSCATE … to the natural philosopher everything was a result of God. Darwin addressed the Cambrian Explosion in terms of a creationist..proof is hanging on a wall at the American Museum of Natural History…HINT!

By: SteveC

SteveC — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 00:58:54 +0000

Fr Bob, thank you for the post. I love a good argument when people are so sure of their opinion being correct. As a believer, I feel it is my duty to help explain the life of Jesus to people and help them understand, to the best of my ability, what he is about and help them become believers. At the same time, if they are not believers and want to argue why I am wasting my time, I have a simple answer: “If I’m wrong, all I have done is waste some of my time and hurt no one. But if YOU’RE wrong, where will you spend eternity? Is it really worth not giving Jesus a chance?”

By: Jeff Bricks

Jeff Bricks — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 21:54:11 +0000

Oh and ps, My opinion doesnt matter either. But that wont change the fact that Jesus Christ died on the cross for the sin of mankind. That is the truth regardless if I believe it or not. You think youre a good person? Ever compared yourself to the 10 commandments? We will not be judged by our standards but by Gods standard. If you go through each commandment and compare yourself to it then all of a sudden you are not good. See your sin yet? IF not then thats called pride and the bible calls you self righteous. If so, Then repent and trust in Jesus alone. The wages of sin is death. But God stepped in 2000 years ago and paid your fine and my fine upon that cross. If you dont allow Christ to pay your sin, Then you can pay it yourself in a horrible place called hell for all eternity. Oh, and Jesus spoke of hell more than any other subject, so take this one up with him…. not me.I speak truth in a world of lies. Not a popular message but i can lie to you and flatter you with empty words and Just tell you God loves you this and God loves you that, but if a dr fails to tell his patient he has a deadly illness, because he dont want to offend someone, then thats not love. True love sometimes offends. Man has a deadly illness called sin and the only thing that can cure it is to remove it. Jesus is The Answer

By: Jeff Bricks

Jeff Bricks — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 21:30:51 +0000

I love this conversation. How sad that when I printed this out and gave it to an atheist, his response was, ” enstein didnt write that.” How sad. how sad that anyone who ever hears truth always seams to somehow totally miss to point altogether. You can show them fact after fact after fact after fact and they AALLWWAAYYSS miss the point. The bible says that the god of this world( satan ) has blinded their eyes so they would not see. Anyone who is reading this must ask yourself one question. Ask yourself if your opinion really matters? Who cares what you dont believe. If 1 plus 1 equals 2, then your opinion doesnt matter. Truth is truth regardless if you believe it or not. Jesus Christ is the ONLY WAY TO HEAVEN if you believe it or not. You think your hurting anyone if you dont believe? NO.Stop running from God and stop justifying your sinful life.Repent and trust in Christ. There is much joy in denying yourself

By: Polly

Polly — Fri, 28 May 2010 04:22:22 +0000

I think it’s very interesting how so many are caught up in the last line and miss the big picture, it’s sad!! Thank you for posting it! I’m very glad it got some people thinking!!!!!!!

By: SANDY JOHNSON

SANDY JOHNSON — Sat, 01 May 2010 23:56:32 +0000

I read an article about Enstein proving to one of his teacher’s that GOD IS GOD— do you know where I can find this article. I recall he said Enstein was in school.

THANKS

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 03:21:34 +0000

Oh, and further more I love how soooooo many people have replied to this amazing story, though it may not actually have been by Einstein.

John 3:16

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 03:19:34 +0000

@ Rudy from your post, #12

“The bible was not meant to be a measuring device. But a guide to peace and Harmony”.

The Bible is meant to show the glory of God, and to show his people, ALL people, what you MUST do to enter into Heaven.

That is all…

By: R Lyons

R Lyons — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:43:45 +0000

I arrived at this web page through a variation of the debate (by Einstein) sent to me via email. It seems we are ever to debate the veracity of God and who He is. I am a fundamentalist Christian (for those who have a bad taste in their mouth when they hear the word ‘fundamental’ I’ll explain), which means Solo Scriptura. Only Scripture. No Quran, no Latter Day Saints, no Pope, no ‘other’ texts or translations of anything – just Scripture. God is certainly capable of preserving His Word throughout all time!
The debate between science and faith is really absurd. My ‘faith’ is built on the science of the revelation of ‘scripture’. Try to understand that all scripture has been thoroughly ‘tested’ over longer periods than anything else in history by persons more intelligent than all of us. There is nothing new under the sun. The proof of this 66 book of science is being revealed almost daily by people abhorrant to supernatural beings, yet on they go proving more and more of what they don’t believe in looking for answers that match their own beliefs, not God’s answers. A crowd of Einsteins could not have written a tome of science which doesn’t contradict itself for more than 5000 years and has so much detail that lectures every day for several lifetimes couldn’t reveal everything available amongst Its pages.
Time. God says He existed before there was time, and that He made time by creation. Quite logical to me. Anything with no beginning and no end doesn’t exist in time, but outside of it. Since none of us can claim to have been ‘there’, guess we aren’t God. In fact, the one fact I can be sure of is that I am alive and will die. Unless you believe we are not really awake but just dreaming, there is so much data on birth, life, and death that to not call this fact on life a fact is to be illogical and therefore unscientific. My Creator MUST be everlasting from before the beginning or He cannot be God – what happened before He was created? Logic says this is blasphemy even before the Bible does. God is.
The arguments proposed in the dialog of the email are really good if not taken out of context but reviewed through scripture. The idea that science can prove the existance of God is only half possible. Science by its very ‘nature’ explains the evidence of ‘creation’. Before there was anything, there was only the Creator, and He wrote the book of rules we call physics. We are still discovering Creation even as we speculate the existance of dark energy and dark matter, and an accelerating universe. Should we be so arrogant as to deny the obvious beginning of Creation without speculating the existance of One outside of the creation? And if we agree to investigate the part of creation we can never explain through ‘evidence’ we can rely on by the application of physics, then can we really ignore the revelations obtained over millenia about who He is? Einstein would call this a semicircular argument, perhaps, but 1 plus 1 is always 2 and the evidence of 66 books is undeniable to anyone wishing to explore the truth of existance. Solo Scriptura. Pax.

By: Ray Clausen

Ray Clausen — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:02:25 +0000

Albert Einstein was one of the most brilliant thinkers ever to live on this Earth.

Jesus Christ was (is) the only Son of God ever to live on this Earth.

Draw your own conclusions as to their veracity, according to your own lights.

By: A believer

A believer — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:23:44 +0000

Actually, God does not care that much about good vs. evil. What He cares about is whether or not we have life – not the human life, but the divine life. This can be seen at the beginning of the Bible where there are 2 trees. They are NOT the tree of good and the tree of evil. Rather, they are (1) the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and (2) the tree of life. Notice both knowledge, good, and evil are of the same tree and partaking of this tree issues in death. God wants man to partake instead of the tree of life, which represents God Himself as the divine, eternal, uncreated, indestructible life. Jesus said, “I am the resurrection and the life…” (John 11:25) and “I am the vine…” (John 15) and “I have come that they may have life and may have it abundantly…” (John 10:10). Let’s not be distracted by good vs. evil or right vs. wrong but rather focus on having and enjoying Christ as our life. At the end of the Bible, only one of the two trees remained. Do you know which one?

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:09:49 +0000

I have spent the better part of an hour reading through all these responses, some angry, some rational, some not so rational. Most of these reactions are completely missing the (or actually proving Fr. Bob’s) original point of the posting. Which boils down to words mean things. And we all must be mindful of what each of us says through our daily lives regardless of individual faiths.

Both science and religion deal in faith. And both actually mirror one another. This comment always sends athiests into a fit. I really never mean for that reaction, but like anything, when one tries to have a discussion on another’s faith it can become quite heated. However, to qualify my statement of science and faith, science tries to apply what is “law” to what is theory to find more law. The three step scientific process (hypothisis/theory/law) are the basis for finding new laws in the universe. Everyone understands this. But when the theory becomes stuck lacking other laws or factual basis, certain people continue the theory out of faith.

The theory of evolution is the main example continually brought up during these discussions. Unfortunately, the scientific community has yet to find the “missing link” in the fossil records. I have heard lectures on this theory, read Darwin’s book (Origins of Species), and who knows how many documentaries. I have watched as brilliant scientists the world over have infatically yelled that this theory is “FACT!” But everyone, on each side of this argument, should take note; these scientists never yell “LAW” (because it cannot be proven into law), and regardless of which species from the fossil record is referenced it always remains that species. For example: an earlier comment in this post had referred to dogs from one breed to another. And this would (as he pointed out) proved the existance of evolution. But the glaring fact (as scientists say) is that the dog remains a dog, and doesn’t become another species. One should not discount evolution entirely, for as the comment points out, evolution exists to a degree. Through environment is the prime example of this. There was a Nobel Prize for Science even handed out for research of this evolution some years back reference the Galopagos Finch. The finch actually changed beak size to obtain water over a short period of time. When water became more available, the beak returned back to original size. But the significant conclusion of the paper written wasn’t what was said, but rather not said. The finch….remained a finch.

There are many religious faiths out there, and I know I am about to get the wrath of the religious people for the following statement. The same as I get with my previous faith and science discussion from athiests. The vast majority of ORGANIZED (I purposely emphasized that) religions out there are based on tradition followed by the bible to back them up. A lot of these put “the church” over the bible, considering them one in the same. But you have to ask yourself this plaguing question: If you were to destroy all of the physical structures and church doctrines from a certain religion, would it remain the same? Can going to an empty field in the middle of nowhere be the same as going to a temple structure? It should…we adopt certain places as “Holy” through our natural want and desires to be close to places of significance. In Christianity for example, people cling to these structures or places for dear life. However, Jesus expressly tought that the people are the church. It does not matter where they are. If they follow the Bible, and follow the truths of Jesus, place is irrelivant. Furthermore, in certain Christian faiths, I have personally witnessed un-Christian acts in the name of their own religion. They purposely exclude helping others others in need unless they join “their” church. This goes against everything the Bible teaches, Old and New. Which leads me into the second point most frequently brought up during these discussions: Good and Evil. I enjoyed reading these I think the most. Because it is the battle of good and evil everyday. Evolution and creationism, when it comes right down to it, are meaningless. We are all here now, and what we do now is the most important. What everyone needs to take from the good and evil battle is simple. God instilled the right of man to maintain freewill. We all possess this. It is what drives people through decisions everyday, both major and minor. Both good and evil. While God could stop any evil in the world at a moments notice, and He has from time to time (the flood, the plagues, directing armies, etc), He allows man to choose his own path through freewill. A person must choose sides.

I have to go now, but I felt compelled to weigh in. Not sure why, but sometimes I feel I just need to vent a bit. God Bless you all in all you do. Take care.

By: JoePublic

JoePublic — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 06:02:43 +0000

Fr. Bob,
It’s a wonderful story without the lies at the end. It is “popular” because nobody REALLY believes Albert Einstein wrote anything of the sort, and they all want to see it for themselves.

By: Christine

Christine — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:10:47 +0000

I did not read through all the replies but I think the book in question is Ideas And Opinions. There is a chapters “The Religious Spirit of Science”, “Science and (not vs) Religion” “Religion and Science; Irreconcilable?” I assume that is what they are talking about.

By: Mike Farrell

Mike Farrell — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:22:46 +0000

I’d like to see less “we’re right, you’re wrong” from both sides. The heart of this argument is rooted both in a lack of tolerance for one another, and from differing opinions about the nature of faith. I have a few simple ideas on religion- Every religion is valid to the extent that an individual believes in the precepts of that religion. One understanding of spirituality should not be held in higher or lower regard than another understanding. People of faith are not less than because they yearn for meaning. People of no faith are not less than because they do not yearn for the same meaning. If you have embraced a belief system, then that system is real, for you. What matters most to our race are the universal values, kindness, love, compassion, and yes, tolerance.
When our nation was founded, we separated our public from our private lives to allow us the freedom to interact successfully with one another outside the sphere of religion. The freedom to believe, or not believe is a primary right we share.
Thanks for letting me express my thoughts on this issue. Mike.