I’m not sure whether I should have this in GD or just IMHO… mods please move if necessary.
Following this thread discussing what scientific theories had not been accepted for religious reasons, I got to thinking.
On this board there have been several debates about evolution and creation. Both sides are on a hiding to nothing really - I can’t see either changing their collective (or not) mind.
To all the Christian dopers - are there any other scientific theories you reject because they disagree with your beliefs? Evolution seems to get a fair amount of flak, because most people get taught about it in school. Other possibilities I’ve considered don’t tend to get taught till much later.
For example, chaos theory states that sometimes, simple rules governing a system lead to completely unpredictable behaviour. Not just that it’s hard to predict what’ll happen, but that it’s actually impossible. An example is a double pendulum. Does the implication that God cannot forsee what will happen cause anyone to reject it?
Or the Pauli exclusion principle - it’s not possible for two like particles to occupy the same space with the same quantum numbers. This allows the shell model of the atom to exist. Does the suggestion that God can’t put two identical electrons in the same place lead to debate?
I will admit my recall of uni Physics is failing now so someone may be able to confirm the following - the uncertainty principle declares that it is not possible to know ALL the quantum values of a particle - this means God can’t know, and therefore doesn’t know everything. I mean, it’s not just impossible for us to measure, it’s actually impossible to know.
Are there any other theories / postulates etc that you discard for religious reasons?
I’d be interested to know if anyone from other religions has a similar view. I’d like to avoid discussing the creation of the universe, and the evolution of life if at all possible. They’ve been done to death.
Chaos theory doesn’t imply absolute unpredictability. Every chaotic system is in principle predictable, given infinite-precision arithmetic. That’s the limitation.
I think the problem with your examples is that they say what can’t happen, not what did happen. Because of the laws of physics, it is impossible to predict the movement of a double pendulum. But if you posit an omnipotent creator, he is by definition not bound by the laws of physics. He could, if he wanted, suspend or ignore whatever portion of physics he wanted to achieve an effect he desires. The fact that he has never done so* does not mean that he could not decide to do so later on.
Evolution and the Big Bang, however, do not simply put forward principles of the physical universe, but also describe the history of the universe, which is in contradiction with the hitory of the universe as presented by a literal reading of the Bible. Since the Bible is the highest authority for truth for a literalist, it must be science that is in error. There’s nothing in the Bible that says, “And so God placed to particles of the same type in the same place at the same time,” so there’s no contradiction there. The Bible does seem to be pretty clear that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, though, which makes the Big Bang apostate.
*So far as we know. Maybe he spends all his free time predicting the movement of double pendulums, but he’s not sharing his guesses with any of us.
My understanding was that it did actually imply unpredictability - do you know of a
source that would explain this well? My reading on the subject was some time ago.
Two very good points there that I’d not considered. This may be why a fuss is sometimes made over the laws of thermodynamics - they enforce some kind of history, and more importantly future, on the universe.
If we are to assume then that an omnipotent God is outside the laws of physics, which is not unreasonable, does anyone consider what might lead to this God acting outside of them?
I get the impression God has been a bit more subtle in recent years so we’re unlikely to see evidence of him tinkering - however, if the physics that means the brakes on my car are going to actually stop it could be overturned as a one-off exercise, I might hang more religious icons from the rear-view mirror.
First of all, rejection of Evolution is by no means universal within Christianity. You didn’t actually say that it was, but I wanted to make sure you understood that most Christians are perfectly able to reconcile their faith with the possibility of evolution having ocurred.
But what I really posted to say is that “God can move faster than light” is pretty nonsensical when you are talking about a non-corporeal, omnipresent being.
I can think of plenty of applications of science that can be distressing to religious people in varying degrees, but no scientific theories or laws that are very controversial.
However, I do seem to recall (this may be a joke) a fundamentalist argument that pi must be equal to 3.000… due to the dimensions of a fountain given in the old testament (diameter of 10 and circumference of 30). But even if true, that’s pretty fringe.
You raise a good point - I’m not trying to make generalisations - really I’m looking for someone’s personal point of view - is there anyone on this board that has difficulty reconciling the laws (or if you prefer, theories) of physics with their religious beliefs?
As for the faster than light thing - if God is everywhere, presumably the bit of him in New York can see the fall of a sparrow, or something, and instantaneously tell someone about it in London - therefore information can travel faster than light, against the laws of physics.
Again, all of this becomes moot if we assume (again, not surprisingly) that God lives outside the laws of physics.
Alot of christians I know do not reject evolution outright, they reject natural selection and chance as the sole cause of evolution. They believe in Intelligent Design as well as natural selection.
Now, I can see no scriptural support that can not be downplayed by apologists, but personally, I have always seen the whole of christianity as being very anti-technology and knowledge. Off the cuff, perhaps that is due to how Christianity has been practiced.
This may not be relevant, since the Catholic Church officially accepts (with minor qualifications which do not interfere with the science) the scientific theories of evolution and of the Big Bang. But if you read up on the doctors of the Church (philospher-saints such as Augustine and Aquinas) and offical Church theology, one of the tenets is that God is eternal. “Eternal” as used here is a technical term, which roughly means that God is outside the bounds of causality. For God, all times and all places are simultaneous. One consequence is that God can predict anything, regardless of how perplexing it may be to us temporal beings, simply by observing the outcome when it happens. Another is that God knows of distant events right now.
Since God is apparently not observable, this view is not inconsistent with any law of science, as science can and does only concern itself with that which is observable. If, however, God were to communicate acausal information to a temporal being, this would constitute a violation of physical law. While an omnipotent Being could, presumably, do so, it very much appears that, for whatever His reasons, He does not generally choose to, so there’s still no conflict between religion and science on this score.
It’s not so much that Christianity is opposed (or for) science, but that the powers that be considered independent thought to be dangerous, and so suppressed it as much as they could under the guise of “THUS SAITH THE LORD (or at least His Press Agent, anyway)”.
Dunno if this fits with the OP’s question, but many Christian organizations reject the notion that condom use prevents the spread of AIDS, despite the almost unanimous agreement of the medical and scientific communities that they do.
Well, saying that God can’t do things outside of phyics makes no sense from my perspective. There are possibly infinite universes out there, and who knows wat physics they use. We probably can’t even comprehend it.
Christianity in and of itself is not opposed to any scientific theory. Some people may interpret Christianity in such a way as to believe that certain theories may be incompatible with Christianity, but there cannot be a theory that all Christians would reject.
Personally, I do not oppose any theory based on my religion.
The words "any other’ are incorrect. :rolleyes: Xtians do not- in general- reject Evolution. Note that many of the more Orthodox Jews and Muslims accept a literal 7 day Creation along with a good number of Xian* Fundamentalists*. So do several other religions. Hinduism for instance.
So true. Muslims love books that show that evolution and Big Bang creation are false. Every single Muslim bookstore I have gone into that has books in English - in the US and in Pakistan - have a number of books supporting the Qur’an’s “science” and putting down Western science. While young, I was taught that God created the universe in seven days, and that God created Adam and Eve, who are humanity’s origin. These strictly oppose evolution and the scientific theories of creation.
I have also seen ultraorthodox Jews putting down evolution and stuff.
So Christians are not the only one. Far from it. It’s less an issue of religion and more an issue of perspective: traditionalists and conservatives are more prone to opposing modern scientific theories; fundamentalists of all religions can almost always be counted on to oppose modern scientific theories.
I’ve seen news reports that indicate some individual Roman Catholic clergy take that position, but I’m not aware of any organizations that set that out as part of their beliefs. Can you provide a cite to the many Christian organizations that you are referring to?
Another thing rejected by some Christians would be certain aspects of abnormal psychiatry and psychology, replacing them instead with concepts of demonic influence/possession. Again, by no means universal, but not absent either.
