Wednesday, 23 June 2010
-
Christianity Defying Scientific Laws
People always go on about how they don't have to choose, that it's possible to be Christian and "believe in science"
"I'm not religious in the normal sense. I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws."
-Stephen HawkingI thought about that quote a bit. And I thought about religion. And I have been doing both quite regularly for the last few months.
First, you should all know I am Jewish, but (there is always a "but" isn't there) I don't believe in miracles or that the stories in the Torah are necessarily true. I think there are a lot of metaphors, and then I think that some of the stories are just morals for us to learn from. Just like no one believes the story of the Mouse and the Lion, but it is read to young children anyway because there is always a moral at the end.
Then, after I found solace in my own beliefs, I thought about Christianity for a while. I thought about the morals thought in the bible, about how they pray, and then I thought about Jesus. Christians see him as the son-of-god and born of a virgin. And then I thought about Jesus' birth some more.His birth goes against science and any natural law that governs humans. There are mammals that have reproduced a-sexually, but never have humans. And even if Mary had a-sexually had a child, it would have had to be a female, since she is a female and has no "Y" chromosome to give her son.
Then I think that she got pregnant not from an angel, but from her ear. Anyone who ever studied human anatomy knows this is ludicrous and kinda funny. I could make a lot of inappropriate jokes about it, but you get my drift. So from a scientific viewpoint, if you sincerely believe in the laws govern our species, then you would think the whole story was preposterous and impossible.
Coulumb's law isn't only true on the days you feel like it--same with all the other rules that govern our life. But Jesus is an exception. He is a miracle. He goes against science. That is faith. Faith is thinking that the laws that govern our world change on the whim of a God; there are no set rules.
But I say no. My mass will always be attracted to other masses. This is true. It will always be true. Because I believe in a scientific world, I need not fear that I will fall of the earth, or that the bonds that hold my DNA together will reverse. Humans sexually reproduce, and males need "Y" chromosomes. These are facts. But Jesus, as a divine being, contradicts these facts.
Faith is believing in those things, even though they are improbable or even impossible. Christians, have faith that at least once, female+male was not needed to make a baby; and at least once, a Y chromosome didn't have to come from a male to have a male child. So you don't believe in science. Because scientific laws are always true, that's what makes them laws.
Are faith and science compatible? If God changes scientific laws on His whim, then why study science at all? Does the possibility of a miracle automatically negate scientific laws?
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: splinter1591@xanga
- About Me: This is Splinter1591, also knows as Splinter. I am who I am, and that is all that I am. I am a student. I am an alcoholic I have GAD, depression, and occasional panic issues. I am working on becoming better. I currently go to school to study teaching and am seeing a boy who I call my dear radish. I have fallen in love, messed around, grown up, and I've grown down. I love most everyone and I hope you all are well.
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 1 Views: 0 941 Comments: 0 70 View all posts by splinter1591@xanga
Comments (71)
Actually, had Mary and Joseph been doing "everything but" intercourse, it would still be possible -- albeit very rare, but still possible -- to get pregnant, thus the "virgin birth" story does in fact hold water.
Then again, that's not what Christians believe. But God is a supernatural being and therefore cannot be proven using physical scientific methods. Science only takes us so far, the world and the universe are full of mysteries no one can explain and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Couldn't you have just said "I don't believe in miracles" and left it at that? I'm not sure that the rest of the post was needed.
"Because scientific laws are always true, that's what makes them laws"
What is a scientific law?
If you're Jewish in the sense that you believe in God, then you believe that there is one fact about reality that completely defies *natural* laws, and that it was by this nature-defying power of his that nature came into existence. So your criticisms of the rest of Judaism/Christianity swings back with equal force at you.
Btw, I think you have an out-moded conception of science and natural laws. Scientists, when they talk about laws nowadays, only mean statistical regularities. Laws don't govern nature. Laws didn't precede human beings. They are concepts we use in describing nature, which preceded laws. There's nothing that literally "violates" a law - if it truly happened, then what it indicates is that we have to find a law behind the law (or do away with the law altogether) that accomodates that fact. The history of science shows alot of paradigm shifts in just this way. Roger Penrose, for a modern example, thinks that science now needs to include concepts of purposiveness and teleology back into our conception of nature in order to explain consciousness.
revelife, seriously why are you putting this drivel on your christian community sight?
1. He is jewish and not a christian2. it went completely against the christian community, not edifying tearing down3. it was not even that good of an argument, he contradicts his own beliefs.If Mary was a hermaphrodite......
There are actually alot of genetic disorders involving misplaced X and Y chromosomes.Read Frank J Tipler's "The Physics of Christianity". Though some of his arguments are controversial, he does explain that miracles don't necessarily break natural laws.
If God is omnipotent, then He exists beyond - to a point of manipulation - whatever coalesced universe (bridging quantum mechanics and relativity, and any other massive theories we might not know about yet) we exist in. He throws around gravitons and creates singularities in His spare time. It's not that the rules of physics apply or don't apply, because He would literally be a part of those rules. Divine intervention couldn't possibly be a violation of the laws of science, because the intervention would itself provide empirical evidence for further scientific study.
Secondly, to address something previously mentioned, scientific laws aren't "true." It seems nit-picking, but that's not how the scientific method actually works, especially since our system is one of evidence and experimentation. Scientific laws are in a state of not being unproven. Instead of always happening, they've just never been witnessed to fail. (When they do fail, either the law is amended and localized to a new set of parameters, or is replaced by more reliable thinking.) To think according to this philosophy of the scientific method is to think scientifically - to think contra-wise is to think faithfully. In the case of God, considering a beyond-ness from the scientific universe as we think of it, it's very prudent to think in a mode of faith. Otherwise, you're due for a heap of paradoxes.
@squanto_07@xanga - I do not contradict anything. It is possible to not hold the torah as absolute fact and still be jewish
Christians just love to point out the problems in science, spin their own interpretation of scientific law, and distort the scientific method, however it still doesn't make virgin births true. Mary was most definitely inseminated by a male and there are many more likely options to examine before the supernatural is accepted. However you don't want to be reasonable about things, you want to accept the supernatural. You spend an inordinate amount of time discrediting science to do so. Then you proceed to use the benefits of science all day and night. Hypocrites the lot of you.
@nyclegodesi24@xanga - judism is a lot more open when it comes to what we believe regarding nature and the "facts" on the torah.
It is possible to be an atheist and a jew.
@zretrareo27@xanga - but they are incapable of reproducing.
@thatsnotarealword@xanga - ur my favorite response so far. Here is a cookie ^^
Since God is technically outside the universe, and he made it, he could theoretically manipulate occurrences at well. The virgin birth is an example of something that could have happened, technically, but the likelihood seems to be rather substantial that the entire story was made up, in light of other biblical inconsistencies. I may also point that Jesus wasn't the only or even the first "virgin birth", nor was walking on water, converting water to wine, resurrecting after three days, ascending into heaven, or human divinity.
I think a better scientific case against Christianity is built on the verses that say the earth is flat, the sun and moon rotate around the earth, pi is exactly 3, we're all descended from two people, or the earth is around 6,000 years old. These are boldfaced claims about the universe that have been shown go be false, unlike Jesus's birth which can't be replicated or studied empirically. If you haven't checked it out yet, skepticsannotatedbible.com is a great resource for becoming familiar with various inconsistencies in the Bible (and Qu'ran and Book of Mormon).
@nyclegodesi24@xanga - Please excuse my ignorance, but I've never heard of some of the things you've mentioned and I was wondering if you wouldn't mind clarifying. What do you mean by this, "Laws don't govern nature. Laws didn't precede human beings. They are concepts we use in describing nature, which preceded laws." If there wasn't the law of gravity, the earth wouldn't rotate around the sun and we'd all freeze to death. The Newtonian physics that governs centripetal motion preceded human life, and was necessary for it. Besides, how can you have mass without the laws to govern that mass?
New ideas, that's all. Thank you.
@vwxya@xanga - I don't claim to know what "nyclegodesi24@xanga" was saying nor do I wish to put words in the commenter's mouth but maybe I can shine a bit of light here. Quantum physics has changed the way scientists see the world. Newtonian physics still work as far as our perception goes but breaks down to a large extent in the world of subatomic particles.
There was a time when science looked at trees and broke them down into rudimentary parts, each part having a function in the life of the tree. Scientists at the time thought they'd broken the tree down to it's fundamental fundamental building blocks but eventually, with the advent of the microscope, scientists discovered that each of the parts they had believed were the basis of a tree's life, bark, leaves, roots, were made up of smaller building blocks they called "cells". Now they thought they'd discovered the basic building blocks of life...until years later microscopes were developed to be able to see smaller objects. Now science discovered the building blocks of life were not cells but things they called molecules which were the components of cells. Molecules were considered to be the building blocks of life until some numbskull ruined it all once again by building a better microscope. We know how long that lasted. Atoms came next followed by what atoms are made of, a nucleus, neutrons and protons.Every step of the way science thought it had discovered the physical basis of life, the solid foundation upon which all animate and inanimate objects are built. Then quantum particle physics came along and blew everything out of the water. Nothing in this universe is actually solid. We view things and touch things and they seem solid to our perception but in fact they are constantly regenerating themselves, disappearing and reappearing every nanosecond. Subatomic particles are in constant flux, disappearing and reappearing in everything around us, including ourselves. There is something that holds together the integrity of everything around us, a glue that binds us all together as an interacting existance.
An interesting discovery was made several decades ago. Imagine a river flowing south and at the end of the river is a wall with only a small opening through which the river's water can pass. If this opening is 4 feet wide, the river will push as much water as is possible through the opening each moment depending on the force of the river. On the other side of the opening the water does not simply continue along a straight path but expands it's path, some droplets pathing to the right and left as the water exits the other side of the wall in much the same way water expands its path as it's poured into a glass via the mouth of a Brita canister.
The same scenario was set up in an experiment where, instead of our river of water, a river of subatomic particles were flowed through an opening in a wall. They behaved in the same way, expanding or branching out to become again wider after making it through the wall. However something strange happened. When they were sent through the wall collectively the expansion took place but the same thing happened when single particles were shot through the opening. Some would go straight through and continue on a straight path but, and here's the mystery, the paths of some bent outwards after passing through the wall as if they had passed through with all of the other particles. It's as if you send one drop of water through the opening and it suddenly changes it's course as it would if it was pouring through the opening with the rest of the river. It would seem the particles knew what they were supposed to do, much like a singer in a choir practicing his part by himself. Even though the rest of the choir isn't there he still sings his part.
I am in no way using this to argue whether or not Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. It's just that we do not perceive everything that is going on around us. Our minds normally perceive in "Newtonian". Scientists have transported particles instantaneously a distance of 600 meters and claim they will soon be able to transport particles from the Earth's surface to the space station. This is "Beam me up Scotty" transporter stuff in its infancy. We also apparently know how to travel through time already. We cannot do it yet because as one scientist put it, with the technology available to us today the size of the device needed would be to massive to realistically build. Projections are that mankind will have sufficient technology to build a time traveling device in about 200 years. The scientist joked this means that although we cannot travel in time, if someone comes to your door and claims to be your great great great great great great great great granddaughter, don't be too quick to slam the door in her face.
If this sounds outlandish, consider that early last century one scientist who invented the vacuum tube claimed that it would never be possible to land on the moon.
I was raised in a family of Christian ministers but I practice Buddhism. Even when I was a Christian I wondered, what does it matter whether or not Mary was a virgin. It can't be proven or disproved. It serves more as a stumbling block for both Christians and non-Christians than it does as a helpful insight. It has been fodder for a lot of jokes and I enjoy jokes as much as the next person but religious jokes always insult *somebody*. If Mary was not a virgin does that diminish anything Jesus taught? I don't see how. It doesn't in my mind anyway.
Are faith and science compatible? If God changes scientific laws on His whim, then why study science at all? Does the possibility of a miracle automatically negate scientific laws?
My short answer is yes, they are compatible and becoming more compatible as scientists and people who have faith in this or that religion gradually come to understand more. On the scientific side, quantum physics has shown us that matter and energy are not always or even often as they appear to our normal senses. On the religious side, in the 1980s the Vatican finally conceded officially that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
"Miracles" are only miracles because we don't understand how they are done. "Miracles" are not limited to those Jesus manifested nor to anyone else in the Bible. They have been witnessed and recorded throughout history both before and after the time of Christ and outside of Judeo-Christian texts as well as within them. I believe, no, I know that "miracles" occur today but there are social problems that keep them hidden. One is that when a person is truly a player in a "miraculous" event he/she doesn't have the urge to run around talking about it because 1) frankly, when miracles happen they feel quite natural and organic and the person who initiated a miracle understands just how it happened and there is enormous respect and appreciation by that person for the miracle while at the same time 2) the person knows that telling others will anoint oneself with the dubious title of "fruitcake", not to mention it will likely insult a lot of people who believe miracles to be something of which their religion owns the corner of the market, 3) of what good is a miracle anyway except to the beneficiary(s) of that miracle? and lastly 4) "Ok, if you did make that happen let me see you do it again." Miracles don't work that way nor for that purpose, at least not most of the time, and 5) Oddly enough, in the minds of many someone who *can* produce a miraculous effect time and time again is more often labeled an agent of the devil. So where's the upside of coming out and saying "Look what I can do people!"?
@TheSutraDude@xanga - That was a really great response, thanks so much for posting it.
If God changes scientific laws on His whim, then why study science at all?
By God's very nature he must circumvent the laws of nature to make himself known to us. How else could an infinite being become present in a finite universe?
@TheSutraDude@xanga - @caroliiineee@xanga - Even when I was a Christian I wondered, what does it matter whether or not Mary was a virgin.
That Mary is Virgin matters so much that it is critical to Christian theology.
Only God can be the father of his Son. Consequently, Jesus could not have been conceived by man.
@caroliiineee@xanga - You're welcome. Thank you. :)
@TheNewSeminarian - Then that is true for many others throughout time.
@splinter1591@xanga - then we're operating by different definitions of jewish.. maybe what you're jewish genealogically rather than doctrinally. oops.
@vwxya@xanga - in the process of being as concise as i could, i wasn't clear. a chunk of what i mean was filled in by @TheSutraDude@xanga (thanks!). to add to his point, here's what i mean when i say that laws don't precede human beings: when scientists talk about light, sometimes they diagram it as an indivisible wave that refracts and bends and has wavelengths like sound. but other times they diagram light as though it were a string of beads called photons that are discrete and separate from other beads of photons. they even have a name for this, they call this the particle-wave duality. these diagrams are models that are useful to predict its behavior, but they blatantly contradict each other, so nobody takes them literally - there's some truth to them and yet the truth is so much more complicated than what is represented by our models. when scientists think of the laws of nature nowadays, they use them as models - ways of diagramming and predicting the behavior of stuff. these diagrams are instruments (there's a whole field of philosophy of science that explains "instrumentalism") to observe nature. and even diagrams that contradict each other can be both used in different contexts - newtonian physics, even though it got supplanted by quantum mechanics, is still happily used in science classrooms everywhere because it's useful to predict the movement of big things.
@squanto_07@xanga - submit something better and we'll post that. In terms of posts that we don't write we're kind of stuck with whatever gets submitted.
Also, I don't care if the post itself is edifying. I'm only interested in whether or not I think the resulting conversation will be edifying.
I don't think this poster understands what "science" is.
Science is a means of observation, of inductive reasoning, of coming to general far-reaching conclusions from the gathering of specific data. It is not about the forming of irrevocable laws which automatically disprove anything that disagrees with them and tosses out any evidence to the contrary. It's about gaining a clearer understanding of our surroundings, constantly modifying our paradigm to fit the evidence we discover. And thus a crucial aspect of science is that we don't understand everything yet--if we did, there'd be no need for actual acts of science to exist.
Thus, this poster can say that it is highly improbable for human parthenogenesis to exist. But he cannot say it is impossible. This post is roughly the equivalent of saying airplanes don't exist because they would break the Law of Gravity.
@TheSutraDude@xanga - that doesn't really seem like a mystery to me. It has to do with the bonding and charges in a water molecule.
yay for middle school physics class