What others said about Science, Religion, or the movie Contact

Dec 6, 1998
Daniel Ball
Hey Keith,
I like the fact that you added the pictures at the top of each section. It helps as a reminder for people who like to get off the subject (namely, me) as to the context in which all of this talk about God is supposed to be framed. By the way... thanks for keeping this forum updated and fresh through out the past couple of years. Even though I get busy and am not able to contribute much, I always find the time to read the various entries. Forums like this one (especially this one) are excellent ways to learn about each other, varying perspectives about something which seems extremely relevant to me as a human being. Thanks a lot.

Dec 19, 1998
Benzoate
There was a time when Religion ruled the earth, it was called "The Dark Ages"......

Dec 25, 1998
Shilo
Dear Keith,
Even though I am only 16 years of age, I find science a fascinating subject. I'm enrolled in an Astronomy course at my high school, and I do have to admit that I'm intrigued to learn something new about our universe every day. I am extremely interested in "The Big Bang Theory" and Black Holes. Also, like Ellie in Contact, I am interested in "Little Green Men".

Now my thoughts on Science and Religion: Until I saw the movie Contact I had always believed in our Lord, no questions about it. But in the movie Ellie brought up some interesting points and questions that made me question it all. What if we are making up some super powerful being so we won't feel so alone? I'm in a confusing state right now. At times I do totally believe in the Lord, but then my head will rush with questions that will make me curious about everything. Did God really create humans? Or were humans children of the stars? As my Astronomy teacher puts it. To me, the scientifical solutions to these questions seem more rational to me then the religious solutions. I do have faith within myself and everybody else. But I also have a curious mind with questions...waiting to be answered. I just hope an answer will come to every single one of them. Thank You.

Dec 25, 1998
Keith
What a surprise to get an entry on Christmas day! Thanks Shilo. Those are the basic questions. They are ones that you can get hundreds of differing opinions on. I am tempted to dump out a few opinions of my own, but for today I think I will just encourage you to never forget those questions, even if someday you think you have found the answers. There is always more understanding to be had.

Jan 21, 1999

is this thing broken or what?

Jan 23, 1999

Faith does not need science by the definition of the word. Science does not need faith, but it never hurt to have a little faith in anything. You can religiously deny there is a God, but you are still being religious. Nobody knew the world was round till they saw it, except the few who had faith that it was. I believe faith can catalyze science,..and science can catalyze faith. I believe in God or what ever name you want to call him/her. I will not detract from anyone's beliefs or disbelief's. All I know is that I don't know everything have a faith that is, a wonderful fascination for science of all kinds, and your or anyone elses life is something betwwen you and God.

The movie was thought provoking, definitely a conversation starter. I will have to watch it again, and read the book

Feb 14, 1999

In response to Shilo's questions, I rather ask some other questions: As the solution (which is brought out at the end of the movie) said, in order not to have loneliness is to contact each other among the aliens and us. Does this really make us not to feel loneliness? In fact, I had already brought out this question/solution before. Why do the human beings have the ability to think of the super nature? Is it apriori or aposteriori? If we are being skeptic, then we should be skeptic in everything, not just only in Religion.

Mar 9, 1999
Keith
This place is dead. Does anyone have any suggestions on bringing it back to life? I'll submit it to some search engines and see what happens.

Apr 3, 1999
test
sdfsf fhjhj

Apr 7, 1999
PJ
Why can't science and religion mix? Einstein himself said, "Science without religion is lame, Religion without Science is blind" I mean Science does not mix with science. I know this sounds rhetorical, but it is none the less true. Relativity and quantum mechanics quite simply do not mix. Sure, there are emerging theories to connect the two, but how different are they from religion? Most being no more than thoughtful interjections. Contrary to popular belief, scientist are the most close-minded of people, most are not open to new ideas. Our most advanced science is unpretentious at best in the "greater scheme" of things and yet many of us choose to accept it as the ultimate truth--regardless. If Einstein would never have lived we would probably still be having this same exact argument, but it would be over classical physics, which is now obsolete. I was once debating with someone and they said that they would accept any theory until something better comes along, that is absurd. Correct me if I am wrong, (I am a physicist, not a historian) but cosmology nearly took a turn for the worse when Einstein simply could not grasp the notion that the universe was expanding, so he just created his infamous "cosmological constant" He later caught his mistake and called it the greatest blunder of his life. I am a physicist, so I believe very strongly in science, but I also realize that science's ever-yielding veracity should always be challenged and NEVER accepted.

Apr 8, 1999
Rodger Cuccio
What do I think about science and religion? Science is religion. Can you tell me who it was that was an eyewitness to the "Big Bang"? Who was it that actually witnessed seeing a reptile turning into a bird? It's all the evolutionists "belief" about what happened in the past. They don't know, they weren't there. So because of their assumption, that there is no God, they make up their stories as they go. Science can't prove anything about the past, because you can't go back in time to observe what happened. Scientists are as biased or more biased than everyone else. Evolutionists and creationists all have the same evidence. For example the Grand Canyon. Evolutionist say this event happened over millions of years of time and erosion. Creationists say it happened as a result of Noah's flood in which the entire world was covered with water. How can both groups of people have the same evidence and come up with such different conclusions? Because of their presuppositions. Evolutionist Creationist Presupposition (No God) Presupposition(God Exists) Data(Grand Canyon) Data(Grand Canyon) Conclusion Conclusion Grand Canyon formed over Grand Canyon formed by millions of years of Noah's flood. water and erosion.

You see science is religion!!! Evolution is a belief system about the past to explain the events of the universe without being held accountable to God.

Apr 8, 1999
Rodger Cuccio
The last part of my comments were in the form of a chart which did not print as I thought it would. Therefore a clarification. How can both groups of people have the same evidence and come up with such different conclusions? Because of their presuppositions. The Evolutionist presupposition is, there is no God. The Creationist presupposition is, that God exists. The evidence/data is Grand Canyon for both the evolutionist and the creationist. However, the conclusions are that the evolutionist, because of his belief that there is no god says that the Grand Canyon exists because of millions of years of time and water erosion. The creationist because of his belief in God and His Word, says that the Grand Canyon exists because of the catastrophic events of Noah's flood. You see science is religion!! Evolution is a BELIEF SYSTEM about the past to explain the events of the universe without being held accountable to God. It's not a matter of being biased. It's which bias is the best bias to be biased with.

Apr 12, 1999
Keith
I can feel a pulse. It is great to see signs of life again.

I have said here before that life is full of faith. From science to religion, from atheism to polytheism, they are based on various foundations that require some degree of faith. Religion faces this fact. Science, for the most part, does not. For example, science believes that the universe is expanding because they see a red shift in the spectrum of starlight. This makes good sense and I happen to believe it is true. But it is possible that this red shift could be caused by something other than the Doppler effect. I don't know what, but it is possible. To believe that the universe is expanding I have to have faith in the Doppler effect.

So I agree with PJ and thank him and Rodger for their entries, especially after all this time.

Apr 13, 1999
Daniel Ball
Rodger,
You've been reading too much YEC (young earth creationism) literature, and have demonstrated a very fundamental misunderstanding about science and evolution.. Listen to what you have just posted... these are your own words... "However, the conclusions are that the evolutionist, because of his belief that there is no god says that the Grand Canyon exists because of millions of years of time and water erosion."

Just because someone accepts evolutionary theory does not mean they do not believe in God. If one is an evolutionist, it does not automatically follow that they are also an atheist, because there are many people who accept both evolution and God. People who accept evolution (regardless of their religious affiliation) do so because they "trust" science, believe that it is a reasonably reliable path to truth. If a scientist has concluded that the Grand Canyon was carved out by water and wind erosion over a long period of time, it is because the evidence points such a conclusion; but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone is an evolutionist, atheist, theist, deist, or whatever. For example, there are many people who accept mainstream science's explanation of how the Grand Canyon formed, yet reject evolution all together. The two theories are NOT connected in that way. To sum it all up: Science is NECESSARILY silent on the existence of a deity or deities. And evolution is no exception.

Apr 13, 1999
Daniel Ball
Keith,
You're right concerning your observation of red shift. However, it is a scientist's job to try and fit red shift with many, many other observed phenomena, like Einstein's field equations for special relativity. The question then, is what hypothesis or cosmological picture fits best with ALL the observed phenomena --not red shift alone? Sure, red shift could be due to some other unknown force. But it is useless to speculate as to what other possibilities exist unless we know what forces could cause it. For example, we know that gravity is the force which keeps me on the ground, and it is not useful to speculate about some other force which could account for my staying put, even though it IS POSSIBLE that gravity alone might not be the reason I do not float away. So until we can observe a particular phenomena which duplicates the effects of gravity, it is not useful to speculate about such things... at least, not at the base of scientific practice. Personally, I think it is these kinds of ideas which fuel philosophy, which in turn fuels our overall "knowledge." So, I'm not saying that the mere speculation is not useful, I just do not think it is any reason to indict scientist for not accepting other possibilities.

Apr 19, 1999

I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and our Savior; science is just another way of meeting who He is. I don't think God is at all threatened by science. He put it all into being in the first place. Science is just another clue to searching people that there is a God.

Apr 21, 1999
Daniel
Science has nothing (or at least very little) to do with god. It is a technique invented by man to study his surroundings, that's all. It doesn't presuppose that god doesn't exist, it doesn't presuppose that he does. It is not a method by which we can all seek out god, it is a way to seek out understanding. If anyone feels that by seeking out the truth about our reality we are searching for God, then that's their opinion and they may be correct, I don't know.

I'd also like to add that one of the things I think that many of us are struggling with here is that we have not developed very many ideas that will hold under any criticism. I think that the only really profound idea that I hold to be true is that (as Descartes said)… I know that I think, and therefor know that I exist as the thinker of my thoughts… All that science has come up with can be thrown out the window in an instant if we consider that we could be living in a reality within a reality. No Scientific postulate is perfect, if we say that gravity is a property of mass, and turn out to be wrong, that's it we change our books. I hope that no one studying these things takes it on faith that they are true. The fact of the matter is that it may not be true, but what else are we going to do… no try to learn… we can't do that, it's in our nature. It is a fundamental part of our species to develop new ways of doing things and greater understanding… evolution points that to be the reason that we took over our planet.

Apr 22, 1999
Tyra Wahl, Archeologist/Anthropologist
As a person of a science that directly deals with human evolution and origin, I have found it very hard since starting my education to put much faith in "faith". I know what I have been taught as a child and what I now know as an adult and those two things do not match. My question is; Does or did faith in God help me to be a better person and build the foundation on which my whole life stands today? or would I have been the same person without it? I would like to believe that I would be who I am now rather by the people who helped to mold me and educate me not some entity that might be floating around somewhere in "heaven".

Apr 23, 1999
Keith
I always thought that it was the Moody Blues that said "I think therefore I am". Just kidding. Actually that is what I was referring to when I said that life was full of faith. True enough the idea is "out there" and it is not very practical when taken to the extreme. On the other hand it does not have to be taken to an extreme. I recently listened to a tape by a young earth creationist claimed to discredit evolution by attacking the basis for the original theory created by Darwin. Sort of like "first cause". I heard way too much propaganda from him to believe everything that he said, but he did make a good point when he questioned some of the foundation ideas of science. What if we interpret the data incorrectly? Then we go a step further and find supporting data that is also incorrect. Just food for thought. The guy lost me when he said that there were dinosaurs on the ark.

Apr 23, 1999
Keith
One more thing: Thank you. thank you. thank you. It is especially good to hear from Daniel and Daniel again.

Apr 25, 1999
Daniel Ball
Hello Daniel,

I agree with you regarding your observation as to whether science has anything to do with God/god. I mean, everyday, normal science is filled with test tubes, bacteria solutions, math, and a bunch of other stuff that has no more to do with God than the door knob on my bedroom door.

I remember when I was attending U.T. I took a class, "The History of the Scientific Revolutions." We started out with the Greeks and Babylonians, and worked our way up to the present. But it was interesting because, for all the scientific advancements we discussed, there were also theological implications to discuss --how does god fit into the picture now that we know such and such is true (or false, as the case may be.) And it was like that all the way to the present day.

At any rate, while I agree that science itself (science as an outside institution) has no relationship with religion, don't you think it's strange that someone always manages to mention God? Obviously, humans want to try and integrate all of our beliefs into a cohesive and comprehensible whole. But I think that inside us, inside humans, we can make them mix together. We've been doing it for centuries.

Apr 25, 1999
Daniel Ball
Keith,
That's an interesting observation about how much we accept on faith. I agree we don't have to take it to the extreme, as you said, but I want to know just how far we SHOULD take it. Where do we draw the line. At what point can we say, "I can trust my perceptions." I'm not challenging anything you're saying. I only want to know what your personal opinion is, about how far one can take it. Where do you draw the line?

Apr 26, 1999
Daniel
Well Keith, since you seemed to appreciate my entry I think I'll write another one. I like what's been said about how much people use faith in our everyday lives. I think that theme was very evident in the movie Contact, nice tie in to the movie huh ;-) In the end the movie depicted Ellie relying on faith in order to convince others that what she had gone through did in fact occur. That's the part about the movie that bothers me. I don't think that should be necessary.

I don't rely on faith at all in my life. I prefer to think of it in terms of probability. Like I don't need to have faith that gravity will be around in a few minutes because from what we have observed in the history of our existence, it probably will be. Likewise in my studies in school when I learn some new piece of information I rely on probability and logic to allow me to consider the information basically truthful.

If I were in Ellie's position at the end of that movie first of all I would be irate at the people who were questioning the validity of my statements. They needed to look at things scientifically, what showed that she was telling a lie, where were her contradictions. What other possible explanations for things were there. I didn't see any of that out of these "scientists". The jump to faith was too quick. That I guess is human tendency, to try and explain things that we shouldn't be able to explain and use faith to make it seem more truthful.

I'd like to divulge in a little philosophy. It was once explained to me by a professor that there are layers of truth to our reality, each of which can be called into question in certain circumstances. If we take everything into question what are we left with… "I think therefor I am" (if you even believe that). Just one step above that there is the existence of logic. It's my understanding that all of math can be derived in logical proofs. So math and logic are on the first level of reality. From there we go to scientific theory and observation. And above that is everything else (I'm skipping stuff now but you get the point). What I'm saying is that I have a certain amount of trust placed in everything that I experience. I truly believe that I exist. It doesn't really require faith so much as I cannot prove Descartes wrong. If you know of anyone who can please tell them to email me so that I can take even that into question. I take logic and mathematics to be some of the more fundamental truths that we can subscribe to. If reality is actually a place where when it the idea of adding 1+1 comes about, another object is created yielding 1+1=3, then maybe our current systems of logic and math are not as valid as I think. It would take an alternate reality to do that though, as it would take one to show that my senses are constantly deceiving me. It does not, however take an alternate reality to call into question basic scientific theories, given our knowledge right now we cannot, but it could happen in the future. We can however question the notion of religion. Mainly because religion requires faith and has very little if any supporting evidence. It's a conclusion that was reached without justified reasoning.

Whew, looks like I got a little long winded. I can't remember where I was going with all of that, but feel free to comment on it.

Apr 26, 1999
D.Ball
Is faith in anything good? Let me clarify. To a Christian, is faith in Allah good? Would a Christian think that "faith" in the general sense is necessarily a good attribute?

I've been wondering why so many Christians champion "faith" as if it were some kind of magical force one could conjure. No, the faith which the Christian must exhibit is very, very specific. He cannot have faith in just anything.

If faith is the path to God, what is the path to Faith? Wasn't it Paul who said that "faith is a gift."

I recently saw on someone's web page the following words: "There is no path to peace. Peace itself is the path." I thought that this sounded a lot like many people's ideas about faith. Can we replace "peace" with "faith?"--"There is no path to faith. Faith itself is the path." I'm just musing along. By the way, since there's more than one "Daniel" I'm just going to refer to myself as D.Ball to avoid any confusion.

Apr 29, 1999
Paul Nikolov
I happened to stumble on this page and I just thought to tell my opinion: The thing is that if there is a god why are there so many different religions, my point is that if there are over a thousand different religion we know of and everyone says that their religion is the right one, even some of the biggest wars are fought because of religion, which one is actually the right one. People say that science has done more destruction but think about all the religious wars and people who have been discriminated because of their religion. I'm asking which one has actually done more damage. If there are other alien species out there do they also believe in some religion or is religion only our invention. Religion seems some times to be around only so we could explain things we cant explain("The Big Bang" etc).

Apr 29, 1999

How could there not be a God? look at the world

Apr 30, 1999
Keith
I have been thinking about the "life is full of faith thing" but I have taken the time to type it down yet. I will do it soon. By the way, someone just called someone else a "moron" on this page. Poof you are gone! The all powerfull has typed his mighty fingers.

May 14, 1999
Macross is back!
Hi! How's everyone? You guys seem like you have been quiet for a while.

May 17, 1999
Keith
Hi Macross. It's good to hear from you! I have often wondered if you were still dropping by this site. You have made my day. Things are quiet, that's true. That's OK with me for now. I hope things are well with you. I haven't heard from Christian for a while either. Thanks for letting us know that you are still out there.

May 17, 1999

I am thinking of other things. If we no longer have something to say about the movie, Contact. Why don't we try to talk about other movies? We can still discuss the topics of Religion and Science within the movies if we can find some, like today's hottest movie, Star Wars.

May 17, 1999
Macross
I am thinking of other things. If we no longer have something to say about the movie, Contact. Why don't we try to talk about other movies? We can still discuss the topics of Religion and Science within the movies if we can find some, like today's hottest movie, Star Wars.

May 18, 1999
Keith
That is an interesting idea. I'm sure something like that would call more attention back to this site. I wish that there were more movies like Contact. The last movie I saw was The Mummy. That movie was OK if you don't think too much. The opposite of Contact. From what I've heard Star Wars is also a no brain movie. There has to be some thought provoking movies out there. I saw Life is Beautiful a couple of weeks ago. That packed an emotional punch. That was one of the best movies I have ever seen.

May 18, 1999
D.Ball
Movies with thological underpinnings? I recently saw, "Return to Paradise." Especially the end really took me by surprise. Does anyone who has also seen that movie remember what the prisoner said when the friend came back to see him? I have only a vague sense, but it was really deep. It was something about there not being any need to pray when you're out among God's creation because God is so evident in everything, in life, in nature. But when you're confined to solitude, where the only voice you here is your own voice echoing off the four, small walls which confine you, there is a need to pray. It was something like that. Has anyone seen the movie?

Jun 7, 1999
Val
Hi. I just stumbled upon this site tonight, and I really like it. It's a good thing to have a place where religion and theology can be discussed. Something my Bible study teacher said the other day is that we are all theolgians. A theologian (golly, I can't spell...I hope that's right) is a person who has a theory about or thoughts regarding God. And EVERYONE has a theory about God. That He does exist, that He doesn't. That he is Allah or Christ or something else. I believe that the God of the Bible is THE GOD. I believe this very firmly. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and is God. John 1:1 tells me that He was in the beginning. John 1:3 states that "through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." Thus, he is the creator. I believe that He is the WAY. The only way. And the truth and the life (also in John, I believe). I cannot look at the heavens and see the stars and ponder the universe without thinking about God. And the most amazing thing to me is that he values US--you and Me, measly human beings--over the stars. Amazing. As far as Contact goes (though I see your about to move on to other movies). I loved the movie--not only because Matthew McConaughy was in it (I am a teenaged female)=) but also because I felt that it was an awesome argument for God. I believe that while science maybe can't prove God (which would leave no room for faith) but it can ultimately support His existance, His sovereignty, His power in creation, and His love. I think I'll have to bookmark this page and come back though I feel I may be somewhat out of my league. Being only a young 'un, I've only had one year of physics, and it was... well it was a high school course!!! Val

Jun 8, 1999
D.Ball
Val, you said that, "I felt that [Contact] was an awesome argument for God." How so? We've discussed this to some length here, but I'd like to know what you mean on this point specifically.

Jun 8, 1999
D.Ball
By the way, Val, welcome to the site. It's always nice to have new input.

Jun 9, 1999
Val
Why did I think it was an awesome argument for God? Oh, this makes me think I need to watch the movie again to get all the good thoughts that run through my head going again. Ok. Let's see. Ellie was very oposed to accepting anything on faith to begin with. Yet in the end, everyone who believed what she said about her trip had to take it with a certain amount of faith and suspend other doubts. To me, that was an illustration. And that's a lot like faith in God. We're never going to prove He's there because that would take out the faith element. But He is there nonetheless. Not only there, but wanting to be involved in our lives. And THAT blows my mind! Perhaps I'm not presenting these ideas well. Sorry! I haven't read the book, and I may just have a really screwball interpretation of what I saw. Maybe next time I watch I'll write down where I go on thoughts along those lines and tell you all.

Jun 9, 1999
Keith
It is nice to see some new people take the time to add their stuff. Thanks Val. It keeps me motivated to keep it alive and do the house keeping. I enjoy hearing from young people the most. It seems like you guys have minds that are not clamped shut like most of us old guys have. It looks like it's time to start a fresh page. I'll put Val's first entry at the top.