In the first day, light and darkness (day and night) were mad... ... middle of paper ... ...do not totally agree with it because the possibilities of an accidental origin are tiny. Although I am considered Catholic, I do not believe in its theory of the creation because science provides explications, contrary to religion, which is based on believing what the bible and the church says. The scientific theories of creationism have a rational explanation step by step not including philosophical part, but the chemical coordination of the formation of the universe and life since its most minimum expression. Religion explains the origin of life in its own way by forcing people to believe in its principles without any discussion, therefore, humans’ logic rejects its impositions and to my point of view, what may be called their fantasies. On the other hand, both theories could be either real or false by the very fact that they are theories and are not ascertained.
I was aware than many of the Greek philosophers before Christ had turned from poly-theism to some sort of “impersonal” force or God, yet this was more far reaching across ancient society than I suspected. Traditional religion was not revived in the time of Julian, although he attempted to present such a view. The one phrase in the book that clarified and haunts me was this one: The gods were no longer needed (242). Since the old gods and the T... ... middle of paper ... ... has been deeply rooted in Christianity and influenced by Christianity. This is primarily reflected in our laws that attempt to create all equal, although we know this is not the reality, yet it is before us; but, the part of the book that haunts me: The gods were no longer needed.
Krauss also claims that we can prove from the laws of physics that all matter was created and we can’t do that through religious studies. Lastly Krauss makes the point that we as a society need to bury God in order to produce a better moral and ethical world. During the first debate Krauss spends a lot of time attacking Craig’s points and explaining why he was wrong. Craig, who is on the religious studies side, says that God is not buried and does not need to be buried. Craig even points out that God has made his way into the pages of astrophysics science book.
Pulling in the Biblical side of this argument was interesting to me and made me think what if scientist have it wrong. The scripture to this argument makes perfect sense as to why people would have had a hard time when scientist started saying that the earth moves and the sun does not. The whole thought of whether the earth moves or sits still now has me perplexed. After all these years of hearing the earth moves, it has never been mentioned that the sun might actually be what moves and not the earth. I believe this would be an interesting thing to be brought up again in today’s time.
No longer was the world constructed as the somewhat simple Ptolemaic Model suggested. The Earth for the first time became explicable and was no longer the center of the universe. Many beliefs that had been held for hundreds of years now proved to be false. In addition to this, the Roman Catholic Church, which had always clarified the movements of the universe with the divine power of God, was now questioned by many. The Roman Catholic Church was naturally set as an opponent of the Scientific Revolution, not so much because of opposition to new ideas but instead because the new information contradicted the model of the world the church had created.
How could we be only a tiny part of something greater? It was believed that God created the Universe to accommodate humankind and that everything in that Universe revolved around this. It now became apparent that this is not true. During the seventeenth century the Catholic Church was quick to reject these findings. Galileo didn’t understand the conflict, and pointed out that scripture is very old and is meant to ... ... middle of paper ... ... science, and who feel that the bible should be taken literally.
This fact can ONLY be explained by a RECENT Creation and a WORLDWIDE FLOOD, and NOT by evolution. I thought that evolution was true just because the majority accepted it. The MAJORITY also used to believe that the Earth was FLAT!!! Then I was confused about all the different religions out there. Which God should I serve?!?!
This is contrary to science which focuses on factual knowledge and relies on empirical evidence. The relationship between religion and science never used to be an issue for early philosophers as scientific explanation would work around the existence of a deity (generally). However in recent times we’ve seen various conflicts arising due to disagreements and even cases of religion holding back scientific progress. For example, in 1610, the Catholic Church banned Galileo’s works (specifically his studies on the Heliocentric model) and branded him as a heretic. Unfortunately today we still see the the long term effects of this decision as 1 in 5 Americans still believe that the Sun orbits the Earth (Study by Jon D. Miller of Northwestern University in 2005).
Another theory that the Church supported was that the Earth stood still while the sun rose and set every day. Society in the 1500’s believed that the Pope spoke for God through a divine connection and to against the church was to go against God. To speak out against the church in this time was strictly taboo. If one was to speak against the church was considered to be heresy, which is exactly what happened to Galileo. Galileo invented the telescope and began studying the heavens above and noticed that changes within the stars and planets.
The main assumption was that the universe operated geocentrically, that is, the planets and sun revolved around the Earth. The Church believed that since according to the Bible, God created man as “ruler” of the world, the Earth had to be the center of the universe (The History Channel: Galileo’s Battle for the Heavens). Besides, to the naked eye, the Earth did not seem to be rotating. Since the majority at that time heavily leaned towards empirical evidence, the flow of logic in regards to the rotation of the Earth seemed reasonable to them. However, it was curious and somewhat ironic how influential the Bible was in promulgating certain beliefs, since the book itself seemed contrary to empirical evidence in that it was thought to be divinely inspired.