• Whilst I d ont think you can be a scientist and believe in the Bible as literal truth, there is not fundamental clash between Scince and a view of the Bible oa s human document subject to the normal errors of such things. Scince has traced back very close to the Big Bang. No scintesit could believe in a 7-day creation. But it is perfectly possible to believe in a God as the creator of the Big Banf, who set up the univers in the way He/She/It/They wanted so that it would unwind into the universe we se. Wuch a God, outside the Universe, could then intervene as desired. Science cann onlu talk about what is in the universe, not what is outside it.
  • It is not unscientific at all to believe in a creator. In fact MOST scientists believe in God. Why don't you ask him why he does? It could very well be that his own studies led him, or even solidified his belief. More information here: (there was a link here that now goes nowhere, I will try to get back to this and provide another.) The belief in God has no connection to senility. And I for one find that to be a very prejudicial remark. You may want to ask yourself a more important question. Why do most scientists believe in God?
  • Many atheists mean "naturalistic science" when they say "science," and I suspect you do too. That is the opinion that matter in motion is all there is, that there is nothing outside of it, and that if there were anything outside of it it couldn't affect the universe. But what if it's not so? What if there IS more than just matter in motion? What if there IS more than just the physical universe, and what is outside of it CAN have an influence on it? In that case, naturalistic science is wrong. Your grandfather apparently came to this conclusion--which used to be universal among scientists, until Darwin came along. Heck, science itself--the scientific method--was invented by Roger Bacon, a monk; and the first scientific experiment in history is described in the book of Daniel, chapter 1, verses 1-16.
  • First of all, let me write that I am both a scientist and a man of faith. I know that God lives. The more I study science and see the complexity of the universe and of living organisms, the more I believe that an intelligent Creator is behind it all. In my view, science does not diminish my belief in God. It causes me to stand all the more in awe of Him and the majesty of what He created. Think what you will, but science and religion are not mutually exclusive. There is no reason why all that we see, all that is, could not have been created by a Supreme Being. It is just the closed mindedness of some people that keeps them from even contemplating the possibility. ************* "Science Geek: What kind of scientist are you?" I am a geologist.
  • Since this is in the Atheist question category I'll take a crack at it.. Whether someone is religious or atheist generally has nothing to do with intelligence. I can tell you from experience that there are plenty of stupid atheists and smart christians/jews/hindus/etc out there. Someone like you or I has found no factual basis for religion and conclude that there is no point in it, and that's our choice and it works for us. And I'll argue with anyone who tries to make a factual case for a god, because I don't think it can be done and it irritates me when people try. But religion isn't about facts, it's about faith. As has been pointed out, there are many scientists out there who are generally logical and factual in their work but their faith is entirely seperate from all that, and it sustains them in a spiritual way. Your father-in-law is lead by his heart to faith - I don't think that means that he is senile. On the contrary, I'll bet you can have some lively debates with him on the subject assuming he's not hostile to the non-religious. As for why someone would decide to rely on faith and not on facts... I suppose it's a combination of how you were raised, what your personal approach to life is, what kind of education you've had regarding theology/philosophy, and many other factors. Church is sometimes a very supportive community, and there is always comfort to be found in ritual. Bottom line is that it's his choice, and he has his reasons for it just like you do for your atheism. Try to respect him for his mind and for how he lives his life. If he's a good person, it's really irrelevant whether someone is religious or not. That is, to someone like us, anyway.
  • I like Kabuki's answer. One of my views on religion is that it is not an it, but a they. Science has been able to build one story that covers (mostly) everything that has happened or is presently happening, with proof to back up much of it and an admission that the rest is educated guesswork. Religions rely on dogma and belief, and often contradict each other in their race to announce that they are the only truth. So why, then would someone who has spent their life want to turn to dogma? I think it is entirely possible that he has spent so long looking for answers, occasionally finding them, and has decided that he can't fathom the greatest of his questions. His geology is closely related to the earth, its contents and its movements. He feels there are answers to be had somewhere, but after a lifetime of searching has got no further forward. So is it not natural, when he finds an institution that tells him that they have the answers, that he may be interested? Perhasps his church community is very welcoming, and he feels that here are people who will include him after what may have been a quite lonely life. Just the sense of being included may be what he is after, and it is not right to try and take that from him, however much you disagree with his choice, as long as the church does intend being unlawful. Mostly, though, I believe that he feels his mortality and is starting to be scared. None of us really wants our life to end, and knowing that your days are numbered can be scary. Reaching out for any hope is natural and having others with the same fears and the same desires makes him feel included. It would not matter if it were Christianity or Hinduism or Islam. If he is content with his choice, then try to understand, and be there for him when he needs you too.
  • I believe in God so I am, of course, happy to hear when someone else has come to Him. I think that your father-in-law concluded that infinite God, who created everything, including finite men, can not be eliminated from the equation when God allows men to use the materials He made for experiments to learn what He already knows.
  • it's called faith
  • Every theory proposed by atheists has required a beginning of some form. The big bang theory requires a source for the densly packed sand particles that led to the explosion (besides the fact that no other explosion in history has ever led to a creative force. Explosions, by their nature, only lead to destruction). Evolution requires something to evolve from (eventually, if you go far enough back you run out of stuff to evolve from, so something had to evolve from nothing). Even string theory requires an origin for the strings. Interestingly, string theory actually raises more questions than it solves because it creates several universes even though we can only see ours (think of other demensions), meaning the creation debate has to be answered for several universes, instead of just ours. The only atheist theory that does not require a beginning is that our universe has simply always been here. Of course this theory is illogical because everything we see has a point of origin. For example, babies and animals are born daily, and plants sprout into existence daily. On a larger scale, we have even experienced the formation of new stars. If every theory requires something to start it, a point of origin, how can an atheist say definitively that this beginning was not caused by something larger than the creation itself, something that actually exists outside of time and space, such as God? I have never seen a logical explanation for the existence of our world by an atheist that is able to stay faithful to the worldview of the absence of a God (or at least an ultimate reality existing outside of time and space that is responsible for the creation). Honestly, I don't believe there is a truly atheist opinion to explain the universe. Somebody please try to prove me wrong (I only say this because I know there isn't one. One Christian biologist has offered a $1,000,000 reward for anyone that can prove this, and after a couple decades no one has been able to claim the reward). Suffice it to say Creationism and Science are not exclusive, but interdependant. Obviously, the Creator worked within the relm of science for his creation.
  • Your husband's father simply came to the same conclusion that many great scientists have come to for themselves, that there must be a God. They have been seeing evidence of it all through their careers, so why should they deny what they have discovered? Einstein believed in God. Sir Isaac Newton and Joseph Priestley also were avid Bible readers.
  • A person who believes in a creator knows how unlikely the alternative is! A big bang, and then something as wonderful as humanity evolves. Think about it! Could you throw a bomb into a junk yard and pull out a 67 chevy? If you think about it science can't disprove God, Mybe you should pick up a bible and a scientific journal and see if they could more in common then you think!!
  • Albert Einstein believed in God. I'd say your father-in-law is in good company.
  • You can believe in God but not all of what's written in the bible. The bible was written by man.
  • Most scientists believe in God. Most Christians do not take the stories of creation in the Bible literally. Catholics believe the book of Genesis tells religious truth and not necessarily historical fact. One of the religious truths is that God created everything and declared all was good. Catholics can believe in the theories of the big bang or evolution or both or neither. On August 12, 1950 Pope Pius XII said in his encyclical Humani generis: The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. Here is the complete encyclical: The Church supports science in the discovery of God's creation. At this time, the theories of the big bang and evolution are the most logical scientific explanations. However tomorrow someone may come up with better ideas. As long as we believe that God started the whole thing, both the Bible and modern science can live in harmony. Here is a list of a few Catholic scientists: + Fr. Roger Boscovich - the father of modern atomic theory + Nicolaus Copernicus - the Heliocentric Universe + Marie Curie - Radioactivity + Leonardo da Vinci - Artist, Inventor, Scientist + Rene Descartes - mathematician, scientist and philosopher + Enrico Fermi - Atomic Physics + Alexander Fleming - Penicillin + Galileo Galilei - the New Science + Johannes Gutenberg - printing press inventor + Fr. Athanasius Kircher - a father of Egyptology + Antoine Laurent Lavoisier - the Revolution in Chemistry + Marcello Malpighi - Microscopic Anatomy + Guglielmo Marconi - Radio Developer + Gregor Mendel - the Laws of Inheritance + Louis Pasteur - the Germ Theory of Disease + Fr. Giambattista Riccioli - first to measure the rate of acceleration of a freely falling body + Erwin Schrodinger - Wave Mechanics + Andreas Vesalius - the New Anatomy + John von Neumann - the Modern Computer With love in Christ.
  • The absence of proof is not the same as proof of absence. I hold 5 university science degrees, Ph.D. Math, Bachelors Chemistry & Physics, Masters Astronomy & Cosmology, and I am a computer programmer & systems analyst ... a very logical person ... When trying to pick a Ph.D. thesis subject, my math professor suggested I try to prove the existence of God using math ... he then wrote the now famous "Fundamental Laws of Chaos Dynamics" , in which my equations clearly prove that there is no such thing as chaos, only increasingly complex order ... while this does not actually prove God exists, it does rule out a random accidental creation.
  • Yes, How could you turn your back on the fact that God exists, even after your husband's father figured it out?
  • To answer your first question, many do. I haven't got a clue whether your father-in-law is senile and I haven't got a clue what fact you are alleging he has turned his back on. I do know that trying to make somebody else look silly just because they have a different point of view to yours is arrogant and shows an appalling lack of manners.
  • All them laws of physics - who created them? How come electrons orbit protons? Why don't they just collide and turn the whole earth into a tiny neutron star? There's plenty of them about. Surely it should've happened a couple of times by now? Apparently tiny things orbit other things and huge things orbit other things (planets, stars) but nothing my size! Everytime I throw something it just crashes with something else. I never see anything start orbiting. Yes I know, it's something to do with the gravitational constant and masses and stuff but still, don't you think it's a bit too convenient?
  • Could be that the geologist found facts that proved gods exist, after all god does say the earth is his witness, there are no facts to suport revolution, not one,but pleny to support creation, even the astronauts admit earths being here was no accident dont let man dictate what you believe, do the research and make your own dission, (1) for what purpose were you born? (2) what is your destiny ?
  • there are 2 ways this could happen, 1 he could be compartmentalizing his work with his religion. or he could just be following wherever the evidence leads him, which being a scientist that's his job.
  • I think you will find that "FEAR" is the key. Fear of dying, fear of hell, fear of the unknown etc etc. Ever heard of the god shaped hole, well sometimes trying to fill that hole can be a comfort to people nearing the end of their lives. Self delusion through religion isn't as hard as you may think. If it brings him comfort then best to leave him be.
  • I can certainly see clashes between some other sciences and religion (like evolutionary biology or paleontology) but I'm having a tough time imagining geology to be particularly troublesome to a Christian. If he once did scorn religion and has recently changed his mind, could it be because he's starting to worry about what happens after the final curtain call? He's 75 years old. They say there are no atheists in foxholes, but they rarely mention the curious lack of them in nursing homes.
  • "God always takes the simplest way." Albert Einstein "God does not play dice." Albert Einstein "I want to know all Gods thoughts; all the rest are just details." Albert Einstein "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." Albert Einstein "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
  • He has finally found out was fact is. Newton, Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, Kelvin and Louis Pasteur all believed in God. The non-belief in God is relatively new, attributed mainly to faith in the theory of Evolution. All modern scientists are standing on the shoulders of men who believed in God.
  • Why is there a notion that science and faith are complete opposites of each other. Science and faith can go hand in hand. He is not turning his back on science. I'm a scientist who believes in God.
  • It's called hedging your bet. The closer you get to dying you change course just in case.

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy