Are you sometimes filled with Wonder looking at The Universe?

Question

I have had the opportunity to know many religious people in my life, and the ones I admired the most all shared this feeling of wonder. I have also known several scientists, and those I admired the most were also filled with wonder. As both were looking at this Universe and were inspired to understand more, to discover its "meaning," I could see they shared a very similar response to what they were looking at. The big difference between the two lies in how they go about understanding; the religious do it subjectively, and the scientist does it objectively. What is True can be seen both ways, and they need not be in opposition to each other. The truly religious always seek a deeper understanding, and so do the best scientists. For humanity to rise above war, starvation, disease, and the other serious problems we face, we will need the best that each one of us can contribute to do so. Is it not time to stop fighting over who's way is better and work together to put out the fires?

Answer 1

One night I was looking at Pleiades with my binoculars and I had to run inside because I was so spooked. I was looking at 440 year old light... Pleiades is an amazing structure and 440 light years away is very close, too. Our galaxy alone is 100,000 light years across.

What we can see is only the visible portion of our universe. There are other dimensions that we don't see occupying the very same space. Our atoms are shared with these. Particles only have a probability of being where they should be at any given time. Heck yeah, I'm filled with wonder looking at the universe!

Answer 2

Albert Einstein was on a religious quest. He made reference many times to the wonders that God has placed in the universe. He didn't see a contradiction between science and religion, however, he wasn't satisfied with the presumption that something is because it is. He felt that to understand physics and the universe was to glimpse the wisdom of God.

Many scientists who study physics, evolution, DNA, astronomy, etc, believe that what they are seeing is God's blueprint. Just because science may contradict a particular religious dogma or doctrine, doesn't mean that it is atheistic. It only means that those religions may be at fault.

Text in a book, religious or otherwise, can only be true if it is consistent and unassailable. The laws of nature can also be considered text in a book, and they must coincide with religion in order for the religion to be true. Nature, after all, is written in rocks, soil, DNA, fossils, and stars. It lacks the faulty hand of man in its transcription.

Answer 3

sure, as an atheist, I do each so often discover myself in awe of the grandeur of the universe. There are in basic terms 4 forces, (fewer, even, at intense temperatures and pressures), however the way they have interaction with ordinary subatomic debris produces lots of complicated arrays of capability, which includes existence! existence is definitely astonishing, from a actual attitude. yet so, too, is the great expanse of galaxies, stretching for lots a procedures longer than maximum human beings's seen infinity. the way the forces dance consisting of count-capability and spacetime is at as quickly as stunning and disarming, or perhaps will all our awareness, nevertheless mysterious, as we've yet to totally understand dark count and dark capability. can we ever understand the actuality on the start of the great Bang? can we ever see the cohesion of all forces? no you may nevertheless understand. you will even say... i admire the universe. i replaced into born from it, I stay through it, and when I die, the products that composed me would be a area of it nevertheless.

Answer 4

I really admire your wise reasoning.
Only one little point I want to add: religious people cannot observe the universe subjectively, but they use their rational sense to learn about the world of creation and the world of revelation from the Holy Books of the Messengers of the One True God.

Answer 5

In the end there is still a duality, the subjective seeker and the objective knower. Should there be room for emotional poetics in describing the macrocosm, or should there be mathematical theorems to justify reality?

As Jiddu Krishnamurti states, "We need to have freedom, freedom of the known for truth is a pathless land. Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophic knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection."

However, it is up to the individual to see if he will become one with the machine if any should begin to exist.

Answer 6

Reminds me of this verse,

003:191] Those who remember God (always, and in prayers) standing, sitting, and lying down on their sides, and think deeply about the creation of the heavens and the earth, (saying): "Our Lord! You have not created (all) this without purpose, glory to You! (Exalted are You above all that they associate with You as partners). Give us salvation from the torment of the Fire.

Answer 7

All the time

Answer 8

Yes. Because God loved, He created. He must love to create. I even think of the universe or world within a single cell, and I realize I can't comprehend anything. It's all too big for me.

Answer 9

A proper sense of wonder is the only hope for humanity.

Thank you for saying that science and religion need not be mutually exclusive. It makes me disappointed to see so many people saying that. Personally, I think they are (or should be) complementary.

Answer 10

I am an Atheist and to me the pictures taken of the universe in the last few years certainly fills me with wonder. It is the most amazing thing imaginable. It just fills me with awe that the universe is so much greater than any silly God could ever passably be. xx