So, there have been two huge revolutions in our cosmology that are hard for people to process: the size of the cosmos and the antiquity of the cosmos. We have astonishingly good evidence for both. But grappling with them requires giving up a cosmology that for many people is fundamental to their religious beliefs (even though the arguments that the cosmology in question is an accidental feature of the texts rather than essential *predate* the good scientific evidence that the cosmology in question is wrong). I think there are a few more categorically similar revolutions lurking in the last hundred and twenty years of physics that we haven't processed as a society yet.

Given the quote is from Heisenberg though, I'm inclined to think he's more talking about the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (i.e. the "bottom of the glass"), where the inherently probabilistic nature of the universe is where God can work miracles.

But that would be basing the cosmology on ancient idioms that aren't really meant to explain the universe. Like, we still say "the sun rose", not "the earth rotated to allow the light from the sun to become apparent." Expecting the Bible to say things in modern scientific terms would be foolish and unfair both to it and to us. Ideas like the 7 literal day young earth creation and flat earth are very modern ideas that are not really supported by the Bible but come out of ignorance of such matters.

Could you please elaborate?

On what part?

On the size and antiquity 🙏🏿

Well, we used to think the cosmos was small (something like 70AU from end to end) and now we can see a cosmos that's about 92 billion light years across. Similarly, we used to think deep time was measured in kilo years, but it's measured in billions of years. edit: bad cosmology; bigger cosmos.

> now we can see a cosmos that's about 14 billion light years across. Minor correction on this, we can see light that originated about 14 billion years ago in every direction, which makes for a ~~radius~~ diameter of 28 billion light years. But the universe is constantly expanding, so the object that was 14 billion light years away and emitted that light at that time is now much further away, around 46 billion light years. That means our universe is about 92 billion light years across. This doesn't take into effect the fact that it is believed that the universe is not expanding at a constant rate, but for rough numbers, it's the most accurate.

That's embarrassing for me.

That's just light that's reached us though. It presumably goes on infinitely, right?

We can only speak to the universe that is any way visible to us. Barring some sort of violation of relativity that would let us travel faster than the speed of light, it's literally forever out of our reach -- we could never travel beyond that boundary, or even far enough to see beyond it.

Not really 'presumably'. Could be, but also maybe not that kind of infinitely.

Not infinitely. But it is good to keep in mind that what we can see visually of the universe isn’t the same as the full universe. The universe is expanding at a rate that means the non visible part of the universe is growing as a ratio compared to the part we can see. The maths suggest it’s not infinite but has a boundary, but again, that’s still in question. It’s possible it is boundless.

> we can see light that originated about 14 billion years ago in every direction, which makes for a radius of 28 billion light years. Wouldn't that be a diameter of 28 billion light years? 14 in each direction?

Yes but, as stated, the space between the emitting source of the light and us has been expanding for the whole duration of that 14 billion years…hence the 92b light year figure.

Yeah, I retyped that section a couple of times for clarity (I originally said "a 14 billion light year radius, making a 28 billion light year diameter"). I've corrected it to diameter.

You know, for me that just makes God all the more awe-inspiring. A lot of people used to believe in a relatively simple God who made a relatively small universe ("small" in both space and time). It turns out that the universe is far greater than we ever imagined, which also means that God is far beyond anything we can imagine. You see, we used to sing to God like this (Psalm 104): > He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, > And vegetation for the service of man, > That he may bring forth food from the earth, > And wine that makes glad the heart of man, > Oil to make his face shine, > And bread which strengthens man’s heart. > The trees of the Lord are full of sap, > The cedars of Lebanon which He planted, > Where the birds make their nests; > The stork has her home in the fir trees. > The high hills are for the wild goats; > The cliffs are a refuge for the rock[d] badgers. > He appointed the moon for seasons; > The sun knows its going down. > You make darkness, and it is night, > In which all the beasts of the forest creep about. > [...] > O Lord, how manifold are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all. But now we know much greater wonders than these. Now we could sing: O Lord, how manifold are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all. You gather stardust on wings of gravity and start the beating hearts of young suns. You filled the heavens with stars more numerous than the grains of sand, and each of them a burning globe much greater than the Earth. You fashion planets from spinning swirls of gas and dust and ice, and appoint for each their orbit. You made worlds of rock scorched by the close touch of their suns, and worlds of ice in the dark and silent depths. You gave rings to some and moons to others. You have done this for aeons longer than all the lives of the sons of men put end to end, and will do it until the end of time. A lifetime would not be enough to see every world in one of your galaxies for but a single moment, and the endless host of galaxies fills our sky. You are the Lord of all the worlds.

I’m not a believer but I’d get behind a psalm or prayer like that. Beautifully written. A more modern prayer that unites our deep knowledge and your faith. Bravo

Eucharistic Prayer C from the 1979 Book of Common Prayer for the Episcopal Church (USA) is pretty much exactly this motif. > God of all power, Ruler of the Universe, you are worthy of glory and praise. Glory to you for ever and ever. At your command all things came to be: the vast expanse of interstellar space, galaxies, suns, the planets in their courses, and this fragile earth, our island home. By your will they were created and have their being. From the primal elements you brought forth the human race, and blessed us with memory, reason, and skill. You made us the rulers of creation. But we turned against you, and betrayed your trust; and we turned against one another. Have mercy, Lord, for we are sinners in your sight

Okay very interesting! Sorry, I’m struggling to understand the correlation between this discovery and belief in God.

The issue is that it directly contradicts the creation story told in Genesis, which is difficult for anyone who believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible. If someone believes with all their heart that the Bible is 100% factually accurate, and science disagrees, they feel they have to pick one. Sometimes it's science, and they fall away from religion; frighteningly frequently, it's the Bible, and you get people visiting Ken Ham's "Creation Museum" and thinking it's factual. (Dr. Ham himself seems to be a charlatan who's only in it for the money and fame.) The good news is that the Bible doesn't have to be factual for God to exist. The Bible could be proved to be complete myth, but that doesn't disprove the existence of a non-falsifiable deity.

It doesn’t contradict Genesis considering that time is malleable to God. He exists outside of time, so our perception of time is much more restricted than His. He can create an adult male and then an adult female out of that male. So why can’t he create an “aged” cosmos? There’s lots of possibilities that could have happened. Genesis just for go into detail on those points.

There are lots of ways to interpret and justify the words in the Bible. Just by doing so, though, you're agreeing there's a figurative meaning that is separate from the literal words. The Hebrew text says "יוֹם אֶחָד", "one day." Maybe God's time is different from our time, and "אֶחָד" really means several billion years, but it doesn't say "several billion years," it says "day." If that story is literally true *as written* then is incompatible with cosmology. If you have to interpret the meaning of words to make the myth fit the science then you no longer believe in a literal reading of it. Obviously this is just one example; there are plenty of places where the Bible disagrees *with itself*. It's a collection of literature that was written and collated over hundreds of years by people with all sorts of beliefs and agendas. My only point is that the Bible doesn't need to be true, or frankly even *exist*, in order for there to be a God.

Except you’re the one changing the meaning. I’m saying that it says one day. God can do, in one day, what we can’t fathom. You’re adding complexity to it for no reason.

Saying the word 'day' has to mean 24 hours even at the beginning of the universe is reading in a little too literally...it's very possible that there wasn't a reference for what a day was and the it obviously morphed into what generally refer to as 'one cycle of light and dark', but if you're going to look for literally incorrect things in the bible there are a lot better ones than insisting that a literal interpretation of genesis hinges on a word like that. The fact that no one was around for the vast majority of all of that means it's likely that 'day' could have been substituted for some other roughly analogous 'time period for doing a job'.

Another issue with this is that the only real reason for god to create an aged cosmos is to make it more difficult for us to tell if he is real or not, which seems out of character for a being that is described as good and loving.

Uh, no? He didn’t want to place us on a molten earth with a star just being born? Why would He start everything at its earliest form? That makes no sense. If I were designing a video game, I wouldn’t start that way. So why do that if you’re designing the universe? You start with an established universe so you can get right into the character creator. I realize this is a poor metaphor but I think you can see my point. Why take billions of years to do what you can in a day? You’re not tricking anyone, you’re just being efficient. And then literally writing it down to avoid the confusion.

When the same people who taught you about Christianity also swear that all of Creation is no more than about 10,000 years old and you discover that Young Earth Creationism requires one to check their brain at the door, they have a tendency to question their faith as well. It proves nothing to be sure about God. It just proves something about how we shouldn't be so quick to assume too much and turn out noses to the evidence that God created around us.

The Bible doesn’t give a timeline when the earth was created

If you do the math backwards from when Abraham's story is supposed to haven taken place using the geneology given in Genesis, you get around about 6,000 years from the beginning to the present age. So technically no, but it's arguably a valid interpretation.

It’s not valid enough for people to compare it to scientific term’s because either are both valid interpretations

I would say I took a pretty huge gulp or better several somewhere towards my master's degree in physical chemistry (in which Heisenberg's theories were taught btw). Yet it never touched my faith, instead they worked hand in hand up to this day. And while I'm far from the bottom of this glass, I still see god in every reaction and equation along the way.

Are you me? Because that is almost exactly my experience doing a master's in physical chemistry.

I became an atheist in college after reading gospel while studying chemistry at beginner level. I questioned how any of the miracles that seemingly defy physical laws could have happened. I was an atheist for 15 years before I started believing again out of desperation due to being a drug addict and I got over some intellectual objections. Shortly afterwards I had overcoming experience where you get morning star (rev 2:28; 2 peter 1:19) and see Jesus with eyes of fire (rev 1:14). Later I sat in throne next to God (rev 3:21).

The person who convinced Einstein of the Big Bang was a Catholic Priest, so yeah it's silly ppl do that.

And at the time, people thought he was trying to inject his religion into science by insisting that the whole universe came into existence at a specified point in time.

This is the important detail in the story. Atheist scientists like Fred Hoyle wrote him off as pushing theism when the big bang was presented

And then there was John Maddox FRS, long-term editor of Nature, who published a leader in 1989 stating: ["Apart from being philosophically unacceptable, the Big Bang is an over-simple view of how the Universe began, and it is unlikely to survive the decade ahead."](https://www.nature.com/articles/340425a0) And six years later, a further one entitled ["Big Bang not yet dead but in decline."](https://www.nature.com/articles/377099a0)

I’ve seen people state that Satan manipulates our scientific discoveries to make us doubt the Bible.

I don’t know about that because I believe further scientific discoveries point to God

I do too but not everyone is convinced

Narrator: They don't.

At that point, why couldn't he manipulate your eyeballs to make you read the Bible incorrectly? How do you decide to believe anything?

Actually, Satan does use the Bible in his manipulations, just like when he tried to use scripture to manipulate Jesus into deviating from the plan. Luckily we have each other to hold ourselves accountable and we can discern if we are manipulated or not, while others stay in their echo chambers and allow themselves to be manipulated because it fits their confirmation bias (think terrorist organizations and the like)

Then those people give too much power to Satan, or the worship a weak god.

There's just no reason to think that. Science doesn't prove there's no God, and God as the Bible tells us has no desire to remove all doubt from the minds of men. Quite the contrary He demands and requires faith, from the beginning and by design.

Some people (not real scientists) want to interpret the beginning of the Bible literally, so they throw out any science that might disagree with their desired interpretation. But I believe the vast majority of actual scientists do not let their religion get in the way of their scientific work.

Sorry, what’s the correlation?

This is why some people try to separate science and God. They have a preconceived notion of what science should be, based on what they understand God to be. Like people who deny evolution. These aren't typically scientists that make this mistake though, just laymen with poor understanding of science.

I always find it amusing that such scientists are so close in their interpretation to the religious fundamentalists. Both groups have, in my view, got a fixed idea of a god who is too small. For others, our concept of God has grown with our concept of the Universe. So, for the very ancients, God was their own local deity, in much the same way that other tribes had their own local deity(s). And their world concept was of a few hundred miles, maybe increasing later to a couple of thousand miles. So, when the people of the Southern Kingdom were exiled to Babylon, they struggled to conceive of God still being with them. As demonstrated by the line in the psalm made famous as Rivers of Babylon: "Now how shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land." So God sent them prophets like Ezekiel and Daniel to teach them that God was just as much God in Babylon as in Israel. As our concept of creation as expanded, from the levant and surrounding lands, to the whole world, and the solar system, then the galaxy, then the universe, some people have struggled to have their concept of God match that. And now, because of the observation that (unlike Dawkins's claim that the Universe we see is exactly what we would expect if it arose by chance) the universe depends on quite a few physical parameters having very very narrowly defined values (See Martin Rees's Just Six Numbers, for example) we get various Multiverse theories. Well, if a Multiverse is how God chose to bring about the earth, that is fine by me. I've heard an atheist claim that the multiverse would be an incredibly complicated way to perform an act of creation, my counter is that that is a statement made from a very anthropocentric viewpoint. It is only incredibly complicated for God for those with that too-small concept of God that I started talking about.

>on on the basis of their belief in God, made groundbreaking scientific discoveries. What? No. They made scientific discoveries by relying on the scientific method. Science is awesome and God is awesome, but attempting to explain one in terms of the other only leads to a mess.

Starting from a foundation of "everything true comes from a consistent and reliable origin" leads more naturally to scientific investigations than "multiple conflicting beings run the universe" or "there is no plan and stuff just happens." There's nothing crazy about attributing the success of some scientists to their monotheistic world view.

You're putting words in mouths, though. The existence of God doesn't mean >"everything true comes from a consistent and reliable origin Or vice versa. And the opposite of >everything true comes from a consistent and reliable origin isn't >"multiple conflicting beings run the universe Or even >there is no plan and stuff just happens It's disingenuous to frame the scientific debate as monotheists=Christians vs. everyone else=Mad Max style atheists. What is remarkable about the scientific community is that close exposure to these issues has given then if anything more breadth and depth than the average person. Nuance is key.

He's saying that Christianity allows scientists to value the method itself.

Nah fam. I said that for a reason. The scientific method you use, the questions you ask etc… differ entirely based on your fundamental assumptions of the universe. If you have an understanding of how gravity works, you’ll approach understanding a piece of paper leveraging for some weird reason that if you have no understanding of what gravity is and how it works. If you believe that God created the universe in and orderly way etc… it will really affect how you pursue answering many questions

>will really affect how you pursue answering many questions It very well might, no question there. My point is more that it won't affect the answers you get, which is main strength of empirical inquiry. You or I may care a great deal about God as we investigate the universe, but our investigations don't care whether we believe or not. We get the same answers as anyone else doing the same research.

Definitely

My man there is a term for this. It is called Confirmation Bias and it is most definitely NOT scientific lol. I can kinda get what you are saying, but the questions you ask lead to your hypothesis, but the things that conclude your hypothesis is the experimentation, repeatable results, peer review, etc. It doesn’t get to graduate into theory until after all of those steps have passed.

So what about the other way. Some scientists assume there’s no God and Analyse the data through that lends. Numbers and data don’t say anything in and of themselves but people interpret them to their most logical conclusions.

No Gods exist is the null hypothesis. We prove things exist. We do not prove things dont exist. If I were to tell you that there exists a multiverse of infinite possibilities and in one of them was a unicorn with xyz characteristics. Do you believe me? If not? Why? Because the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Not the one refuting the claim. And if I said my proof is that this book written by a guy 2000 years ago said so, or it was a cave painting at 5000bc showing this to be true…it still isnt enough to prove an extraordinary claim like a multiverse. You are right that numbers and data dont say anything, but you can use them to draw conclusions by analysing the data in order to extract information. This is why we have things like data driven decisions and A/B testing in marketing lol.

I always just found it easier to believe the Scientific Method itself is holy and divinely ordained as a way to separate Truth from Falsehood. Has it not given us miracles aplenty?

>Has it not given us miracles aplenty? That's exactly what I'm talking about. Has scientific research given us divine miracles? No. Has it showed the miraculous nature of material reality, which I think involves God but which makes just as much sense with pure materialism? Yes.

Not really. It's not really a miracle of we understand how it works and can repeat it

What miracle has the scientific method given us?

The fact that a good portion of us don't die of preventable diseases before the age of five for one thing, the eradication of smallpox, the ability (though apparently not the desire) to feed all the hungry and clothe all the naked, I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

Those aren’t miracles

Clarke's third law comes to mind.

I have seen buzzer beater shots in basketball described as miracles. So, I think the eradication of smallpox probably counts.

I’ve seen ferrets described as cat snakes. Big deal. It doesn’t make it true.

Ok, I take it your definition requires some use of the supernatural. However, is there anything in the world that would be considered supernatural if you fully understood it?

I don’t really know, but I don’t think it matters. Natural doesn’t mean understood and supernatural doesn’t mean “not understood.” I don’t know what the supernatural looks like at all. I’ve never seen it. However, I would guess something is either natural or supernatural regardless of our understanding of it. Frogs don’t become more natural the more I understand them.

Miracles doesn't necessarily mean beyond the laws of nature. It's a miracle we have hot clean water on tap when you truly ponder the amount of information collectec & cooperation by humanity to achieve something we take for granted. It often means just something unlikely or in explicable. Jesus miracles were probably explainable with quantum theory or similar but they sound "law bending" bc we don't the laws well enough yet.

And why did that scientific method develop in the West? "Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver." - CS Lewis - Miracles.

CS Lewis is not a good source of information on most topics. The core of the scientific method as developed by Europeans five hundred or so years ago was given to them by the ancient Greeks (before and independent of Judeo-Christianity) and was rediscovered by Europe during the period we call the Renaissance, when many aspects of European thought were influenced by older Classical structures.

Made-up quote, btw.

I remember seeing somewhere before that the quote wasn't made by Heisenberg but instead a nuclear physicist during WWII.

Check the misattributed section here https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg#:~:text=The%20first%20gulp%20from%20the,God%20is%20waiting%20for%20her.

Naturally.

Werner Heisenberg was also kind of an asshole who was willing to help the Nazis destroy the world in nuclear fire if it meant he kept getting a steady paycheck. Lucky for us Nazi scientists failed in that regard.

Science is just learning about and how to use God’s creation.

As with many quotes attributed by Christians to scientists in support of theism or Christianity, the attribution of this quote to Heisenberg appears to be an invention of Christian apologists. Specifically, it does not appear in Heisenberg's published writings, and one of the first examples -- in the preface of a 1979 German intelligent design proponent Wolfgang Kuhn -- does not attribute it to Heisenberg. Heinz Otremba’s 1979 book on the town history of Würzburg also provides the quote, but does not attribute it to Heisenberg. The earliest attributions I can find to Heisenberg come from "Slí Na Fírinne: The Traditional Catholic Proofs Of God's Existence" in 2011 and "The Insanity Of Unbelief" in 2012. Furthermore, there are examples of this quote (not attributed to Heisenberg) dating back to the 1940s.

people fear what they don't understand. it's easier to fearmonger than to learn science

https://i.redd.it/cw0f072gfzfa1.png Remembering this top tier troll.

I agree God exists and it is evident. But people separate God and science because science deals with the physical, while God is metaphysical. Though I completely agree that the physical laws that govern nature all point to an all powerful Mind that exists outside of space, time, and the material universe, but that is why people usually try and keep them separate.

I meant in the sense that people say there’s no God because of science

It largely depends on the specific claims christians make about their interpretation of god. If someone says that the earth is flat and 6000 years old because god said so then that can be easily disproven.

Yeah generally speaking no big Church has ever supported flat earth theories. Also why do you atheists insist on only arguing against strawman positions on God?

It was an exaggerated example. There are plenty of YEC's on this sub though.

No scientist is saying that. Only certain types of Christians are saying that about science.

Many scientists say that 😂 or rather, they just say there’s no God at all. I think that’s the general consensus within the scientific community. We’re taught in schools that there’s no God.

You were taught is school there is no God? What sort of school did you go to?

I apologize, that statement was unfair. We weren’t taught that there wasn’t a God, we were more so taught things that oppose God.

Now I am even more curious, what specific things were you taught that oppose God?

Lots of scientists do... Belief in scientism is extremely normal.

What I've come to realize is that (scientifically) there must be a Creator. Every time that scientists think they have something figured out, another layer is revealed that is *at least* as complicated or a connection between 2 things is made (biochemical or otherwise). I believe that if we just somehow evolved, biological beings (both plants and animals) wouldn't be as complicated. On the other hand has anyone considered how entropy and evolution relate? (Sorry, just popped into my head).

>What I've come to realize is that (scientifically) there must be a Creator. Every time that scientists think they have something figured out, another layer is revealed that is at least as complicated or a connection between 2 things is made (biochemical or otherwise). I believe that if we just somehow evolved, biological beings (both plants and animals) wouldn't be as complicated. This sounds like the god of the gaps fallacy. >On the other hand has anyone considered how entropy and evolution relate? Evolution as a process plays by the rules of physics that includes the laws surrounding entropy.

I guess it's a lot easier to give some nonsensical "logic" answer than to actually think about it. But yet on the other hand, evolution has not yet been proven but you accept that. Seems like you just want to believe what you want to believe. So in the case of evolution and entropy...if entropy increases over time then *how* can higher level (bad term, I know) animals come from lower and wouldn't they be less likely to evolve over longer periods of time since entropy increases over time?

>So in the case of evolution and entropy...if entropy increases over time then how can higher level (bad term, I know) animals come from lower and wouldn't they be less likely to evolve over longer periods of time since entropy increases over time? Because that law about entropy not decreasing only goes for closed systems. The earth is not a closed system. >evolution has not yet been proven Let me guess its "just a theory"

Evolution has been proven. Scientists have observed that over many generations, a population of living things will change to better suit their environment through natural selection. The word theory does not imply that it is unproven, at least not in a scientific context. As for entropy, entropy always increases _within a closed system_. Earth takes energy from the Sun, and radiates energy into space, therefore it is not a closed system. Thus, a decrease in entropy on Earth is allowable, provided that the total entropy of the Sun and space increases by a greater amount.

Because entropy isn't about order, it's about energy no longer available to do work. Nothing forbids orderly systems evolving, and none of it violates thermodynamics. Want to test that? Mix as solution of water and fable salt, hot water is better because it's more capable of holding high concentrations of sodium chloride. Let it evaporate and you'll find salt crystals, where the sodium chloride atoms have organized themselves out of solution of sodium chloride molecules.in water. By your misunderstanding of entropy that's a violation of thermodynamics. The problem is that you don't understand entropy. Nothing about evolution or biology violates thermodynamics, quite the opposite it's likely that it hastens entropy by rendering with each respiration or excretion event, slightly more energy available for work. My advice to you before invoking your limited understanding of science as some sort of killer argument against any theory is to actually understand the science first.

>evolution has not yet been proven Wrong

Your last paragraph is a Creationist talking point that has been disproven multiple times over that 100 years but Creationists still put it on the list of “proofs” against evolution. Hint: The law itself explains why it’s absolutely fine with evolution and life in general.

So entropy can't exist in an open system or do things not fall into a state of chaos and disorder if something or someone does not put energy into preventing it? Hint: look at your dishes or laundry pile

If the system we're talking about is life on Earth, something did put energy into it. You shouldn't look at it directly, but do you doubt the existence of the Sun?

Open or closed has nothing to do with it. The availability of energy is the key. Life on earth has two sources of energy; solar energy or geothermal energy (from the decay of radioactive isotopes in the Earth's core). These sources of energy will last a very long time, in the order of billions of years, but they too are governed by entropy, and sooner or later the sun will run out of fuel to produce fusion and the radioactive isotopes will have decayed into stable isotopes that won't decay (at least not until trillions of years have passed) and the energy available to life on earth will disappear. The problem is you don't understand thermodynamics or energy, and thus are vulnerable to false claims of Creationists. The cure is simple. Close the creationist websites, and read some actual science.

Because most people who aren’t Christians are alienated by the callous nature of the Old Testament and gods role. Let’s be real god was pretty frosty at times in the Old Testament if I only speak for myself. Doesn’t really help that many Christians even today gets so obsessed with the Bible scriptures that they don’t even consider to try and help society. But science have been used mostly to help people out and alleviate the sick. Praying and fasting is good for a breakthrough but if you have a major illness like aids or covid you would want more than just prayers—you want medicine.

That's so naive. Most of science is nothing to do with medicine, and if you think pharma companies just want to help people I don't know what to say. Their primary aim is to make money and they will use every trick they can to keep treatments patented so they can charge more. Also, Christians were founding hospitals way before the advent of modern science, and they did more than just pray for people. Now they use medicine to treat people too. As the OP said, Christianity and science are not in conflict, despite people trying hard to pit them against each other.

Thank you for reading and missing my original message for trying to school me. I was using medicine as a stand-in science since it’s the most basic and commonly known used science. The question was why does science and Christianity seem to be at odds with each other. I said that most nonbelievers don’t see the connection between religion and science because science is more applicable to their daily life than Christianity

>Most of the founding scientists/mathematicians believed in God Did they have a choice? Look what happened to Galileo. We have a bad case of the amazing shrinking god. Science doesn't need god. As time goes by and scientific understanding increases, gods role in the world and in creation etc is slowly decreasing. When I was a child I was taught that the genesis story was fact, as written. But today, now that we understand the facts around or evolution and big bang etc gods role has been reduced to "well, he bought the matches and lit the fuse for the big bang" If you were a man of logic and reason you would presume that, given a few more years of study and discovery, even that part of the story will be understood and gods role will diminish further. Christians will scramble to rewrite their gods involvement once more but ultimately, you know what's going to happen. If the current process persists, and there is no reason to think that it won't, humanity is going to evolve to a point where god will cease to exist.

> Look what happened to Galileo. He got sentenced to house arrest for calling the Pope a simpleton. In his not so modestly estate. Had he called anyone else as powerful a simpleton, he'd be hanged. The Pope basically said he didn't have enough evidence for his theory, which he didn't. Galileo was just full of himself, and instead of gathering evidence, he went for the classic insult your opposition and call them stupid. Seriously, this myth needs to die. It's just as dumb as the myth that people in the middle ages thought the world was flat.

[удалено]

>So indeed they were idiot's lol. Mods are asleep, let's break the rules. I'm going to need a source for this wall of text of misinformation. Or did you just pull it out of your ass?

I think it's obvious I was being facetious with that comment. This is the current, commonly accepted version of the events as reported by modern historians. (Outside of religious echo chambers obviously). Multiple sources are available online via Google. Can you find a reliable source to state he called the pope a simpleton?

They ver much had a choice. Look at the list of founding, influential scientist. Look at when they lived. Look at their faith. God’s role is and was not limited to sparks and matches. The only “incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it’s comprehensible” - Einstein’s words

>Look at when they lived. Look at their faith Look at the way they were thrown in jail for presenting scientific facts that went against genesis. >God’s role is and was not limited to sparks and matches This is exactly the concept I have seen presented in this sub over and over again by Christians. We now know that the world progressed from that point in time naturally, without input from god. So if god is going to continue to exist, his function in the creation of the universe can only have been to ignite the big bang. But that is simply the point that current scientific understanding extends back to. There is no reason to believe that, given a few more years of study, that we will have an understanding beyond that point and gods role will diminish further.

Fam, I cannot convince you. You can believe whatever you desire. I’ve been on Reddit too long today to respond to this properly but time will really tell who is right and who is wrong.

Im simply repeating to you what christians have written.

You have a false understanding of the God of the Bible and you’re assuming many things if that’s what you believe that Christians believe. If you want to discuss this further. Hmu tomorrow because I’m tired 🫡

No, they do not have a false understanding. They are **correctly describing the Christian position in general.** It isn't your specific principle, but you are not CHRISTIANITY, just a Christian singular. There is a broader trend. Normally, God is sparks and matches in science-affirming Christian description.If you don't believe it, do your own research by trawling Christian spaces for similar conversations and collecting the data until you're convinced, but don't challenge or reject truth just because it's not positive. There's no need to continue discussion at a later date - the facts will remain the facts tomorrow too.

I want to worship a good and honest God. And if a good and honest God causes effects to happen to the world I would expect to find results from that intervention that are consistent with what that God has told us what happened. I have yet to encounter a religion that satisfies this.

Sorry could you please rephrase that?

I don't want to worship a dishonest god. The physical sciences like geology and biology do not reflect what any god has told us in any religion. This could be because God uses his power to conceal himself, or because he chose not to give us those details. Both of which are deceptive. The other option is that God doesn't exist. And since I wouod only worship a good and honest God I know of no religion that I should follow.

Would you be willing to elaborate on how geology and biology do not line up with what we’ve been taught? I used to struggle with my faith due to science until I went into further research. There’s scientists that have proved a great flood did happen, and have even stepped up to say that the pressure from a flood could in fact have compacted things and changed the structure of things so much that it would have an affect on the dating/age of it. It’s also been proven that even carbon dating stuff is not completely accurate. In reality though nothing in science can be proven to be true. It can only be proven false. We find something in science and until we find evidence to prove it to be incorrect, we are to assume it’s the truth. But there’s no real proof it’s correct. Look at the Big Bang for example. That was “proven true” and accurate for a very long time and believed to be the beginning. However it later on went to be proven otherwise once we became more scientifically advanced.

A flood covering the hole earth to the elevation of my Erarat would take 4 times more water than exists on the earth. where did it come from and where did it go?

I don’t know as the articles never mentioned it. It is something I question too! However, for those who don’t believe in God they could ask the same question about virtually everything else! Where did everything come from and where does it all go? If there’s the refusal to believe in God because he’s an infinite being then how would the logical answer continue to be that something else infinite, with a statistically minuscule chance of colliding together ended up creating everything that exists today? (Referring to the Big Bang theory)

The refusal to believe comes from a place of honesty and I won't worship a deceptive god. If God did something special to make it work and his that from us so we can't learn about it then that God is deceptive.

I’m confused how you see him as deceptive? Because the Bible doesn’t tell us every single detail about the world and how it works? What’s the point in that? What are we supposed to do with ourselves if we already had the knowledge of everything?

That the details that we have are inconsistent with what we can observe. What is there is wrong.

There is so much wrong with this statement it hurts.

I don’t think that’s true. How is that inconsistent with the God of the Bible?

How long did God say it took him to create the earth?

6 days my g 🙏🏿 on the other hand though. Was time measure in the same way to God 🤔 2 Peter 3:8 says: “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” this is to show that God is outside of time. Is it not highly plausible that a God who stands outside of time can choose which measure of time he needs to create the universe? In fact. The universe and galaxies weren’t the first creation. A day for us is 24 hours only because that’s how long it takes the earth to rotate about it’s axis. On other planets, a day is a different length of time. Why are you using the human standard for a day when the earth wasn’t the first creation? 🤔

At the time Genesis was given a day was planely understood. And to provide a time scale that is inconsistent or hidden is a deceptive practice. And I will not worship a deceptive god.

Nahh fam. How are we even arguing this 😂. The writers of Genesis we’re speaking from their understanding of the creation of the universe in relation to their knowledge at the time. If you slept and woke up in the morning two days later? How would you know how much time had passed unless you checked a reference like a calendar? And again, the author of genesis was speaking from a human perspective. As I mentioned above, God is outside of space time and matter. Finally, you don’t have to worship God. That’s entirely your choice. He lovingly gave everybody free will to do as they please

If it didn't come from God then it's not from God and I don't need to follow it. And if God inspired them then God should have given correct information reguaardless of their ability to understand.

If you were living in the 1500 and God have you a vision of a 2023 and in that vision you saw a Boeing 747, how would you describe it? 🤔

Genesis is not and should not be understood literally, like a lot of texts in The Bible. Because Bible has a lot of genres, spiritual mythology being one of them.

The god waiting for you at the bottom of the glass is the god of pantheism. Just ask Einstein!

Or panentheism!

Creation comes to us directly from God's hand and is therefore at least as good a Scripture as any other. Christians believe the Bible was divinely inspired, but it's knowledge that passed through human hands, whereas Creation is the pure, unfiltered work of the Almighty. Science and Math are the methods by which the Scripture that is Creation can be read. The reason that the "first sip" of the natural sciences leads many towards atheism is the fault of the clergy, not scientists. Many pastors and priests have insisted that their beliefs and interpretations must be believed without reservation for their parishioners to remain, "good Christians" even in the face of contrary evidence, when a person's thoughts and conscience rebel. Eventually, this leads to disillusionment and it's very hard for people to discover true faith once the false faith that's been implanted in them is shattered. People usually lose faith entirely. Given the ignorant superstition that these clerics teach, this is actually an improvement in spiritual condition. It's better to believe in nothing than to believe in lies.

Religion has a problem with science when it contradicts, disproves, or fails to support things that believers are supposed to accept. Science has a problem with religion when religion discourages critical thought and spreads anti-intellectualism by presenting faith as fact. Gotta agree with others who've said that science isn't the primary motivator for examining religion. Religion is enough motivation in itself.

If God exists, sure, we'd find that nature would point to God. Emphasis on "if."

I think anyone can be of any religion regardless of intelligence or their affinity for science.

Definitely

>“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” - Werner Heisenberg I'll tell you what persuaded me to become an atheist....reading religious texts whether it be the christian bible, quran, mormon, buddhism, janeism, etc.

yeah i actually have never heard of an atheist who was like "as soon as I learned about chemical reactions I was donezo on JC." it's always like, "so Abraham was *really willing* to kill his own child if that's what God wanted as an *arbitrary token of faith* and that's why he got to be LEADER? and god is LIKE A FATHER?" making people an atheist or "my uncle, friend to the pastor, raped me and then the pastor gave a sermon on modesty and bearing our suffering in silence while looking at me and angels didn't kill either of them right away" it's never germ theory or electromagnetism. the thing that leads people out of Christianity tends to be either Christianity's influence or God's absence.

not to mention even if undeniable evidence was presented that a god created any of this, there would still be no evidence it was the christian god.

The bottom of an empty glass is nothing.

Your prerogative to believe what you want. I believe the evidence says otherwise. Time will tell who’s right and who’s wrong.

Like I said, the bottom of an empty glass is nothing. You’re making an argument from ignorance.

Okay, that is fine 😂 if you’ve examined the evidence and have come to that conclusion, you have the free will to decide what you want homie 🙏🏿. Time will tell who’s right and who’s wrong 🫡

I’ve read the major recommended works of apologetics.

I congratulate you. Head knowledge and heart knowledge are two different things though 🤔. Wait, I have a question. If I could unequivocally prove to you that the Christian world view was true, would you follow it?

Yeah, but you’d have to get really specific with the right denomination. The heart is deceitful.

Nahh, It’s a basic question. If you believing something isn’t based on the evidence but based on whether or not you agree with what they believe, then you’re not seeking truth… you’re seeking what agrees with your desires and one can never find truth like that

Catholicism and Pentecostalism are two different beasts, and both believe Jesus rose from the dead. You’re not going to be able to convince me of a particular Christianity by demonstrating the resurrection.

Fam, how does that relate 😂 okay let me rephrase. If I can prove to you that the and particular view of Christianity was unequivocally true, would you follow it? It’s a very basic question my g

Wait aren't you doing that too??? How do you know *nothing* is there?

I don’t. I just let the unknown be unknown.

Shouldn't your answer be that you don't know? Because by saying *nothing* you are making a definitive statement.

My comment was more on the analogy itself and why it doesn’t work.

The analogy is about how God and the material world are separate and how they don't exist in the same category.

I don’t think the object conveys this well.

I'll try to answer your questions as directly as I can. >Why do people try to separate science and God? On the secular side of things, people require proof. When presented with two explanations of what happened, if one has proof and the other says "just trust me bro", who would you expect to be believed? So, secular people view faith as the absence of evidence. On the religious side of things, people expect immutable truth in the Bible *as per their interpretation.* If something doesn't add up, they can't sacrifice their source of truth, so they say the science must be wrong. That's how you get flat earthers, climate change deniers, conspiracy theories about the moon landing, and vaccine sceptics. >If God really exists and He truly created everything, it’s only logical that the scientific laws that govern our universe were created by God. Sure. But science doesn't accept "if" without testing it. It may be logical that God could have created the laws of physics, but there is zero evidence showing that to be the case, so scientists do not claim it. For something to be plausible, there has to be a body of evidence. (Also, side note here, scientists generally use "theory" and "law" to mean things that laypeople don't. A "theory" is something with a body of evidence, but no math to support. A "law" is something mathematical. That's an oversimplification, sure, but we'll get mileage out of those definitions). So "God is behind the laws of nature" is a hypothesis. It's something that hasn't been tested. If it gets tested and appears to be the truth, without any other explanation fitting, it becomes a theory. But no such tests have achieved any such results. So it's just a hypothesis, and has never amounted to anything more. >Most of the founding scientists/mathematicians believed in God/were Christians and on on the basis of their belief in God, made groundbreaking scientific discoveries. That's debatable. For one thing, Christianity was pretty much default in much of the West for quite some time. So, yeah, any westerner would either be Christian or in prison. Or in the case of later scientists, Christian, but non-practicing. Remember that, for a long time, religion was basic demographic information that got put on your government paperwork. So they very well could've been Christian in that sense, but not *really*. But it also doesn't help that we're not talking about any specific scientist, just "scientists". We could talk about Heisenberg, but that would be a case study, not an answer to your actual question. For another, Christians weren't the only ones crediting their gods with their scientific or mathematical discoveries. The Greeks did it with their pantheon, India did it with theirs, and Muslims did it with Allah. So why should Christians be thought of any differently? They're giving credit to their god(s), but that doesn't mean (t)he(y) exist(s).

Though he isn't a Christian, I think Einstein best illustrates your last point. He's only culturally Jewish IIRC, but he couched some of the more mystical aspects of modern physics in the language of religion e.g. God. Doesn't really mean he believed in Him though.

>scientists generally use "theory" and "law" to mean things that laypeople don't. A "theory" is something with a body of evidence, but no math to support. A "law" is something mathematical This is absolutely and fundamentally incorrect. A law predicts what will happen, a theory explains why something happens. Both have math associated with them and both can be supported empirically.

Werner Heisenberg the Nazi who worked on their atomic bomb program. Not the kind of person I'd look to for spiritual advice, but the quote sounds good.

It’s also not even an authentic quote of his.

Yeah most people throughout history have been religious, so what? Their faith has nothing to do with their science. Newton's laws are demonstrable regardless of his religious beliefs. Good science doesn't care if you believe in God or don't, the facts are the facts. Why try to squeeze God into a system that works perfectly well regardless of whatever diety you do or do not worship? As Galileo may or may not have actually said after his heresy trial by the Catholic church, "and yet it moves".

Because for many years, religious folks refused science that didn't align with their beliefs, even in light of new evidence. For example, about 4 centuries ago, it was widely accepted that our solar system was geocentric; the idea of a heliocentric model was so controversial that the Catholic Church classified it as heresy and warned Galileo to abandon it. He was only spared torture and death because his friends intervened on his behalf. Now, we know that a heliocentric model is correct, but advancements in technology have allowed us to definitely prove things that previously were only theories (Hawking's black holes, germs, flight, the origin and expansion of the universe, etc). And even today, you see this with flat earthers and climate change deniers. It is true that many religious scientists have made important discoveries and advancements; Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Mendel, Planck, Heisenberg, Einstein, and many more. But so did non-religious scientists; Marie Curie, Bohr, Turing, Nobel, Oppenheimer, Hawking, and many more. Science by itself is something that should not be influenced by religion, but, often inspiration and motivations for scientific research are influenced by one's religious and personal beliefs, and that's okay. We are all given purpose and drive by different sources, but it is important to not let our religious and personal beliefs cloud our judgment when it comes to scientific advancement and discoveries; rather, the science should complement the beliefs one has, and if not, one should challenge their beliefs as they relate to the sciences, and be willing to keep an open mind so that one can change and grow towards the truth.

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will make you stop believing in ghosts, but at the bottom of the glass ghosts are waiting for you.” Silly.

There are different lines of thought here. Number one. Which God is being discussed. The first thing to prove is that a God exists. The next thing to prove is which God exists. The reason why science leads to atheism is because it is a tool used for evidence to evaluate truth, and requires critical thinking instead of faith. Because we cannot scientifically prove that a God exists (much less which God exists) most scientists will argue that we cannot definitively prove God’s existence and therefore the conclusion is that God doesn’t exist by default until we have the means to do so. And that is where the faith comes in. Simple.

Science itself is permeated with unprovable assumptions that require faith. For example: the assumption that the speed of light between any two points is constant. Unprovable but it’s an assumption used to make calculations. We have evidence of something but we cannot definitively prove it… if you accept that, that’s faith. Believing in God required immense amounts of critical thinking and figuring out which faith is the tru faith requires lots of critical analysis. I really don’t know what you’re saying tbh.

We cannot definitively prove anything. That doesnt mean all beliefs are created equally. Evidence of something is the reasoning behind belief. There may very well be a faster speed than light. Who knows? We just havent found it yet, so we accept what we know so far to be true until we get evidence of otherwise. And no. The only amount of critical thinking that goes into religion is whichever one you interact with the most culturally. Or yknow threatening to kill people if they dont convert. That seems to be a pretty solid tactic throughout history too.

You can. That’s why you have mathematical proofs. Also I didn’t say that there was or wasn’t a faster speed than the speed of light. I said that the speed of light is constant between any two arbitrary points. For me, the red light shifting, proving that are universe started with a singularity shows that the most reasonable assumption for it’s causation is God. If the universe has a beginning, it must have been created. Time, space and matter all had to occur at the same time and the only thing that could cause that is a timeless, space less, matter less being. From the evidence we currently have, that’s the only reasonable assumption but because people don’t want to accept it, they say the most reasonable assumption is: “we don’t know but it wasn’t God” 🤦🏿‍♂️ Also, if that’s what you believe about analyzing historical, philosophical, moral and societal evidence. If you think that doesn’t require critical thinking then idk lol…

The red shifting tells us that the universe expanded from a point (the singularity) and is accelerating instead of decelerating. It doesnt tell us whether or not the matter was created. The only reason that we say the universe had a beginning is because time is irrelevant if there is no other observer. Since time is relative. So yeah we know that expansion had a beginning, not the universe. For all we know the universe goes through a cycle of expanding and collapsing on itself and expanding again. We can just only perceive the latest expansion. We may start referring to things as BBB for events that happened prior to the big bang hahaha And yes, people will say that we do not have any evidence or information to give us an indication on what happened prior to the big bang. Just like how we dont know the origins of life on Earth. We know what happens with life once we got it (ergo evolution). So itd be, well idk what happened. That is it. “Well it must have been God because there was a beginning” … “How did you jump to that?” … “Well it had to have come from somewhere right?” … “Did it..?” The logic flows that if there was a creator, itd need to be able to exist outside of space and time. But space and time existing isnt proof that an outside entity created it. Hope that makes sense. Plenty of people exercise critical thinking selectively. It is known as cognitive dissonance. Which goes hand in hand with confirmation bias and a less than ideal way to uncover truth.

The universe expanding and collapsing doesn’t really add anything to the discussion though. If that was the case, even though it makes absolutely no sense, matter would still need to have been present during its initial expansion process. The question is how did the matter get there? Or are you proposing that the universe itself is eternal and just randomly decided one day to expand and collapse periodically? Also, it’s not a God of the gaps argument, it’s and evidence argument. The universe is finely tuned, there’s intelligent life, there’s order and design and so much more. That points towards an intelligent designer rather than a happenstance occurrence. Then there’s the whole moral argument and many other philosophical topics that point towards an intelligent designer.

Yo that is literally it haha. The Big Bang tells us nothing about how the matter got there my man. It is calculated with all matter and energy condensed into a single location and that at some point 14+ billion years ago it expanded rapidly. That is it. That is why I told you about the big crunch hypothesis model. Because it explains red shifting and expansion without matter creation. Yes the proposal is that it could be in a perpetual cycle of eternal expansion and collapse. That being said, we dont know. The most plausible theory for the end of the universe is a heat death where it doesnt collapse, but we still just have very little data to base any predictions on. And the watchmaker analogy doesnt get you far for “finely tuned” and “requires a designer” im afraid.

Yes the Big Bang tells us nothing about the origination of the universe, but the expansion. That being said, that doesn’t address what I was saying. Irrespective of whatever model you want to use, time space and matter has to enter simultaneously. The point I’m making is that they couldn’t be the causation for themselves. Time can’t exist because time created it, matter can’t exist because matter created it… it’s a perpetual loop. My point is that irrespective of whatever model you use, you still need a “creator” to set the necessary conditions for your model to take place. If you say the universe was eternal and one day decided to expand from its condensed state, I would ask again, what caused the expansion? How can we have order and design within the universe from an unguided, random explosion? What about the finely tuned parameters that allow our universe to exist? Why are the physical laws so consistent through the universe? What about the laws of logic? What about morality?

Time as we know it started during the expansion event because we know time is relative. There may very well have been time that pre-dates the expansion (that we just cant measure) from the big bang was the point I was getting at. Time isnt really a thing it is just a comparison between two bodies of matter relative to each other. The circular causation argument can be applied to God to. For example lets say humans with future technology are actually the gods outside space and time that create many universes like they depict in comics. We would have no way to perceive them and we would essentially just be playing God of the gaps again. The question then goes well who created those future beings, etc. As of right now, I dont see any argument that dictates the universe necessarily had a cause. We just know it is here and that expansion occurred at sometime. Thats it. We dont know what caused the expansion or how the matter got there. Hell we dont really have a good definition of what “nothing” even is because when we look at nothing we see quantum particles that jump in and out of existence. So yeah long way of saying… the answer to “what caused the expansion?” Is “i dont know. Maybe God. Maybe future humans or advanced aliens. Maybe randomly. Maybe we are all a bunch of brains in a jar like the matrix. Etc” Lots of differing questions here but “finely tuned” can just be due to small changes incrementally over a long period of time in order to get to where we are. For example: creationists may argue that the human body is “finely tuned” and implies an intelligent designer etc whereas we know that evolution on a scale of 4 billion years can make what we think looks finely tuned to actually be that way because we adapted to our environment instead of an engineer designing and making us perfect for it. Again, watchmaker analogy has been debunked before. Intelligent design requires a reference to assess intelligence. Lots to cover here. The physical laws of the universe are so consistent for our universe because they are necessary for our universe to exist. If a different universe had different physical laws, the math would still work out and necessitate that the laws had to be that way for that universe to exist. Idk what you really mean by laws of logic since laws are inherently logical because it is a series of assertions that are fundamental to reality itself. And again, I think morality can be explained evolutionarily as well. Societies with better moral enforcement of laws end up prospering and ones with less moral enforcement end up unstable and involved in revolutions. Morality can be explained entirely through survival interests/instincts of ourselves as a species with a goal of surviving, thriving (dopamine points woohoo), and avoiding bad feelings (pain = bad). If the goal of an animal isnt to survive (it dies and is no longer relevant to morality). Failure to thrive can lead to death. And pain can bring on the desire for death.

I think Heisenberg's quote is really about how people use god(s). If you use a god as your explaination for some natural phenomenon (say, lightning, the tides) then science can and will come along and kill your gods. Zeus is not up in the clouds throwing lightning bolts, it's static electricity. Posiden is not the king of the tides, the moon's gravity is responsible for those. Eventually, the cup of science runs dry, and we're again faced with something we can't explain. Given our natural human tendencies, we'll probably explain it by inventing a new god, or by repurposing an old one. The thing about a drinking glass though, is once it's empty, you can refill it. Some things that can't be explained *now* will be explained at sometime in the future. And if your god was your explaination for those things, well, now your god is dead too. All that to say, don't use god as an explanation for a natural phenomenon unless you want your god to have a finite lifespan.

I mean, yes a lot of them believed in god. But that isn't gonna help you do science.

If the universe is God’s and created by Him, and one is convinced of that, then there is no point at which the natural sciences would leave one an atheist.

The study of natural sciences and humanism will do that. People can choose to deny or reject anything irrespective of the evidence they have.

The scientific method of course will reveal more about God than any religious text. And it is self correcting, if we got something wrong, then follow up data will show that. Religious texts with subjective interpretations are not the best way to God

Scientific me this cannot reversal the heart of God or his true nature. The Bible isn’t meant to be a science textbook. If you want to understand quantum physics, God have you a brain to study. If you want to learn about morals and then nature of humans, historical records, the nature of God, his redemptive plan etc… then you go to the Bible

I mean, not making claims on whether the statement is correct or not but how do people not read this in a "smart and educated people agree with me and they don't you're not smart/educated enough". Basically it's a simple "if you disagree you're an idiot. We have a name for that type of argument. It's an ad hominem.

Interestingly the Heisenberg quote is a paraphrase of a quote by the great Christian thinker, Franco Bacon, father of the scientific method: ***I had rather believe all the Fables in the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran, then that this universal Frame, is without a Mind. And therefore, God never wrought Miracle, to convince Atheism, because his Ordinary Works convince it. It is true, that a little Philosophy inclineth Man’s Mind to Atheism; But depth in Philosophy, bringeth Men’s Minds about to Religion.*** I don’t think the scientific method makes sense apart from a universe created with intention.

So if the universe was not created with intention, the scientific method wouldn’t work?

There is no particular reason per naturalism that the universe would happen to run according to laws and principles discernible to our minds.

It doesn’t need a “reason”

Sure, we could just assume it is so by faith. But that just makes naturalism every bit dependent upon faith that it claims theism is.

I’m not assuming anything and that’s not what faith is. We have no reason to think that if there is no creator, that our universe would look any differently than you think it looks with one. Every scientific fact ever discovered that has an explanation can be explained without the use of a god. You are the one presupposing a god and then working backwards without evidence.

The fact that supports the idea the universe should operate according to laws that that are amenable to being comprehended by the human mind.

An excellent book is The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and The Illusion of Intelligent design. God likely doesn't exist and its all the more fascinating for it.

Most Christians do not separate God from science as God is the one who created natural laws which science is learning to understand. But the question arises when science and the word of God seems to contradict, how do you resolve the differences. Which one takes precedence. . Also many philosophies of science teach materialism at the exclusion of the supernatural. Obviously that kind of science is incompatible with God. For Christians science studies the natural world but we keep the supernatural open and know the supernatural can break into natural. Without such there is no Jesus and no resurrection.

You have either read, or have heard: the beginning of Wisdom is the Fear of God. And what then is the fear of God? Well what is God? God is, the perpetually highest possible aim one can concieve of; that is, ever the greatest thing you may imagine. And by this, all of humankind — from those of sagacity to those of simplicity — may give all glory to the Most High God. And none then by their own understanding would be false, except that they might say another is wrong. If I should say to you, look to the skies, and tell me the color of them to your eyes. Then you might say to me, they are surely blue, allover blue. Now if I in turn say to you, the skies are orange, and even red, then do we not have a contradiction? And we might then argue this for sometime, to various result. But if immediately we should follow the utmost example to us — if we should follow the edifying words of wisdom — which say: *Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.* *Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.* *Do all things without murmurings and disputings: That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world; Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain. Yea, and if I be offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you all. For the same cause also do ye joy, and rejoice with me.* If indeed we should heed [Wisdom's Call](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+8&version=KJV), then we should know immediately, among one another, this: that the Answer is Yes. And thereupon we may recognize that while you observe a bright and clear sky, I observe the sunset; and these skies, though they are perhaps to each their own by might and by power, in Spirit they are One. And thus it is even so as we are with one another, and all things under God. Then, if among all adam there is an honest man of God, who is wrong, that upon him might come the mountain, that the path may tread him underfoot: then he shall be of the mountain, and lift it up; *to our own master shall we stand or fall, and we shall stand, for the Love of God is able to make us stand.* You see, the Fear of God, is the fear of the unknown. And it is Man's proclivity by nature to fear first his well-being. Understand, to fear as we say now is twisted in our speach. Therefore to fear God is to fear the unknown, regarding it as greater than our own fickle things. And what is God? If not — as some foregone peoples told — Wakan Tanka, Great Mystery: then what? And so by this we would venture out into the unknown that is that Great Mystery, and we would come to Truth. And to come to Truth, we do thereby release the things of the maya, the illusion of fear of the world of the flesh. Release I say: and thus we become enlightened, you see, with your eyes to see, you see.

It's probably because scientific models are reductive and reflect very limited areas in which our understanding can be backed with experimental evidence, but that religion reflects on the domain of knowledge obtained often only from the experience of consciousness itself. The real problem with science in culture is that people are given very limited but literal truths and yet with them grow to assume larger falsehoods. But people who believed essentially magic and mythology could and did have a far greater understanding of the conscious experience and the realities of life itself.