Scientists + God

Modern-day scientists want to exclude the very mention of God from anything. This is not science, but scientism. It is a belief system as surely as any religion is.

But the one thing scientism overlooks is the reliance on God that the greatest scientific minds in the world had.

Johannes Kepler“Oh You who through the light of nature has aroused in us a longing for the light of grace, so that we may be raised in the light of Your Majesty, to You, I give thanks, Creator and Lord, that You allow me to rejoice in Your works. Praise the Lord you heavenly harmonies, and you who know the revealed harmonies. For from Him, through Him and in Him, all is, which is perceptible as well as spiritual; that which we know and that which we do not know, for there is still much to learn.” —Johannes Kepler, the astronomer who discovered the laws of planetary motion

“It is reasonable to believe, however, that the Creator, if He paid attention to the relation of the orbits [of the planets] in their general aspect, paid attention also to the relation of the varying distances of the individual orbits in detail….” —Johannes Kepler

“Nevertheless, all the observations which could possibly be made in so short a time, I was enabled, by Divine Providence, to complete….” —Jeremiah Horrox, astronomer who used Kepler’s principles to chart the orbit of Venus 

Galileo Galilei“All these facts were discovered and observed a few days ago by the help of a telescope devised by me, through God’s grace first enlightening my mind.” —Galileo Galilei, mathematician, philosopher and astronomer

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” —Galileo Galilei 

“In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence.” —Sir Isaac Newton, physicist and mathematician

Isaac Newton“Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.” —Isaac Newton

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” —Isaac Newton

“We are compelled to acknowledge the effect of a cause; chance alone could not have given a form nearly circular to the orbit of all the planets.” —Pierre Simon, one of the fathers of the scientific revolution 

Advertisements

14 Responses to “Scientists + God”

  1. kaptonok Says:

    I think you will find as you go back through history more and more people , including scientists , were theists. Today less and less people , including scientists, are not theists.
    Some are atheists and others doubt the old religious certainties.

    Like

    • Craig T. Owens Says:

      Undoubtedly many of them were theists, but many were Christians. To wit: “I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.” —Sir Isaac Newton

      Like

      • kaptonok Says:

        I will be honest , it was much easier to believe in those days. Even the out spoken Richard Dawkins admits he would have been a believer if he was born in pre- Darwin times.
        As science unrolls many more explanations of the world the old fashioned Christianity is being replaced with new ideas. The Pope accepts the big-bang. There is a website run by up to date Christians
        called reasons to believe.
        The church has thought again about same sex relationships and women have become more equal.
        It is true tha Islam is lagging behind but even in Saudi Arabia there are pressures to change things.

        Like

        • Craig T. Owens Says:

          I’m not sure what you mean by “old fashioned Christianity.” Can you elaborate?

          Like

        • kaptonok Says:

          Things like taking the Bible literally.
          The most famous example is Adam and Eve in Genesis. Most mainlinet churches do not believe Adam and Eve existed.
          I know we still have young earth creationists but they are finding their position increasingly difficult to maintain.
          The Bible is no longer looked at as if it were historically accurate.

          Like

        • Craig T. Owens Says:

          Aha! Now I see where we diverge in our thinking. Apparently I’m still one of those “old fashioned” folks who takes the Bible literally and views it as historically accurate.

          Like

        • kaptonok Says:

          No offence intended to you I’m not in the business of insulting anyone we are all entitled to our viewpoint.
          I was merely pointing out how things have changed and the change is becoming more rapid year by year.
          If I inadvertantly called you old fashioned I apologise. I’m 74 and my children regard me as old fashioned.
          Thanks for your reply.

          Like

        • Craig T. Owens Says:

          I’m 25 years your junior, and people regard me as old fashioned too. Just I guess that label’s not tied to our age 🙂 I was intrigued by one of your previous comments about science disproving the existence of a literal Adam and Eve. I would encourage you to read this paper by well-known geneticist Dr. John Sanford. In this scholarly work, he shows that an analysis of genetics clearly trace back to two original DNA sources (whether you want to call them Adam and Eve is up to you). Please read this and then share your thoughts with me. I guess the reason I remain “old fashioned” in my views about the Bible is that all of the discoveries in all the branches of science (from archeology to zoology) confirm, rather than contradict, the account in the Scriptures. I’d be happy to continue the dialog with you either here, or via email (craigtowens1 at gmail.com).

          Like

        • kaptonok Says:

          Thankyou for your reply. I will read the paper it is quite a long document but I’m retired so I have time.
          I’m just a layman and sometimes find texts difficult . I did read Richard Dawkins ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ but it was rather difficult in parts. Once read I will reply as best I can. I believe sometimes we have to accept the consensus of experts on tricky concepts. So I may quote some other experts on the subject of evolution.

          Like

        • kaptonok Says:

          I did read the paper, with some difficulty and I had a bit of delving to do to find the opposing veiws.
          The main difference between science and old holy documents like the Bible , Quran and Hindu writings.
          is science changes all the time but old holy documents do not , they are fixed in time.
          This means if you are going to use science to prove or disprove the accuracy of such documents you are using a moving body of evidence.
          What science proves today it may call into question tomorrow.
          To my mind such use of an invaluble tool as science is a waste of energy when we could be using it for all sorts of practical purposes.
          Laymen like myself must make up their minds what they believe.
          What we believe will inevitably be affected by the present state of knowledge.
          It seems to me that those who believe in the infalibility of old documents are the ones who struggle to fit modern knowledge into their statements.
          I do not see science as attacking belief although some scientists seem to use it for that purpose.
          I don’t blame believing scientists for retaliation.
          We stand on a brink of serious danger an antibiotic apocolypse and climate upheaval. What is our answer? To build a bigger hadron collider or talk about a trip to Mars.
          Darwin new virtually nothing about genetics his purpose was not to disprove the Bible but to try and explain what he saw.
          The very unearthing of stone flints and crude stone aged tools will naturally lead to disbelief without complex arguments about mutation.

          Like

        • Craig T. Owens Says:

          I’m afraid I’m not quite following your line of reasoning. You stated earlier that modern science refutes the Bible, but now you seem to be saying that science is constantly changing. The point I’m trying to make is simply this: In all of my extensive reading of scientific discoveries, I see no findings that refute what I read in Scripture; rather, I see a confirmation of what was recorded in those pages.

          Like

        • kaptonok Says:

          Most people feel it refutes the Bible but some like yourself feel it vindicates the scripture.
          I’m in no position to debate deep science or genetics with experts I’m a layman all I can do is consult the experts and read what I can understand. I can talk about the Bible as I read it but I’m not a theologan. We are all reliant on experts in the modern world but we are entitled to make our own judgement.
          For centuries the Bible was denied us and kept in Latin and now we can read it we have a host of experts telling us what it means.

          Like

        • Craig T. Owens Says:

          I feel it all comes down to this. There is an unreasonable faith that believes something in spite of the evidence; there is a blind faith that believes without any evidence; and there is a reasonable faith that believes because of the evidence. I think the Bible presents the most reasonable faith, that continues to be verified by science. I hope that you will keep reading, keep searching, keep thinking, and follow the evidence to its most reasonable answers. But especially in your all your reading, please read the Bible. As you have said, for a long time it wasn’t available to us in our own mother tongue, but it is now. You don’t need to read what other people say about the Bible, but simply read the Bible for itself and see what it says about itself.

          Like

        • kaptonok Says:

          I’m glad that you have found science to verify the Bible but remember many have not found that to be the case.
          Some of those searchers are far smarter than you or I so what I suggest is set up the scales, rather than pick the experts whose opinions you like.
          I read the new testament often not so much the Acts or Pauls letters but the gospels because they contain the essence of Christianity the impossible task of ‘loving our neighbor as ourselves.

          Like


Tell me what you think about this...

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: