Religion vs. Science?

Question

Alright, scientists belive in Occum's Razor, which states that for a given situation, the simplest answer tends to be correct.

Now take the beginning of our universe, lets keep it simple, and go with the two most common ideas. The big bang theory, and creationism.

The Big Bang Theory: For whatever reason, space began expanding, time was created, all matter that ever existed and ever will exist was created in one second, we don't know how, but it did.

Creation: A higher being created the universe, and everything in it, using powers unkown to man.

Which of these is simpler? I just thought of this while reading a god v. science question on the second page. Does Occum's Razor 'prove' God?

Answer 1

Occum's Razor doesn't prove or disprove anything. It is simply one tool that can be used to further examine an idea.

More on creationism and the big bang. Why can't they co-exsist? Most people tend to pair Creationism up with religion and the big bang up with science. Science and Religion co-exsist! They are not opposites! They prove eachother. The Catholic Chuch even opens itself to the possibility of the big bang:

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).

Answer 2

No, it does not prove God. If you are looking for proof of God, you will be disappointed. In the long run, existence of God is not based on proof, but rather on faith. Nothing wrong with that, but that is why Occam's Razor doesn't apply here, since God really does not attempt to explain anything in a logical fashion, nor does He have to. The simplest explanation for the origin of the universe is not that a higher being created it; that is simply an answer that requires no further thought, because all subsequent questions are answered with "because God wanted it that way." As an example, a friend of mine who happens to be a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses is convinced that the entire universe is about 4,000 years old. We go outside and I show him the Andromeda Galaxy with a pair of binoculars, and I make it clear that the galaxy he is seeing is 2.5 million light years away, and that there are billions of galaxies much further away. Therefore, the light he is seeing left that galaxy long before he claims the universe was created. His answer to this paradox is, with all seriousness, that God put it there to fool us.

Now that's tough to argue with. So when you apply Occam's Razor, you have to apply it to all the known observations concerning the issue at hand. If it is simple but doesn't explain anything, then you cannot claim any benefit. Another example: the cosmic background microwave radiation - religion says nothing regarding this observation, other than that God apparently put it there. Depends on what you mean by God, I guess. Fred Hoyle's regenerative steady state theory explained a lot of stuff, but it didn't explain that. The simplest explanation for the observation is that it is the leftover remnants of the big bang event; it fits the theory perfectly, and this was after the theory was developed.

Finally, just because you don't understand the theory (e.g. "all matter that ever existed was created in one second, we don't know how") doesn't mean that nobody else does.

I think that, when you look at all the facts, the concept of Occam's Razor clearly supports the Big Bang approach, until something better comes along.

Answer 3

What he was really saying was the solution which is based in the least assumptions tends to be correct.

We can argue many things here. How many assumptions are creationists making?
1. There is a God
2. God existed before the universe
3. God has powers to create the univers, and everything in it.
4. God did this in a very direct a literal way.
etc

What is this all based on? A book based on what essentially comes down to oral tradition.

Cosmologists and Evolutionists
1. The current universe underwent a "explosive" expansion.

This is based on observations that show the universe to be expanding and uniform distribution of background radiation.

2. This happened over 13 billion years ago.

This is based again on observations and our knowledge of the speed of light.

So which has more assumptions?

There are mathematical models that make a lot of assumptions about the universe but no one is claiming they are 100% correct. In fact mathematical models are usually assumed to be somewhat incorrect, or only correct under certain conditions, in the scientific commuity.

Also, Occam's Razor is not a law that is always followed. It is really just an observation that William of Ockham managed to take credit for.

Answer 4

If there was a god who created the universe, then we would have to assume it would have: powers beyond belief, total control over laws of physics, ability to break laws of phisics, omnipotence, and that this deity would have just popped into existence with no explanation before the creation of the universe. I think the deity idea seems a lot more complicated. And not all scientists go for the Occam's Razor thing, the primary activity of science: formulating theories and selecting the most promising ones, is by no means always Occam's Razor.

Answer 5

This is a very very complicated question :)
shortly:
Science and religion DON'T MEET. EVER. science is forced on our consciousness. Religion is pure choice of will. The bible is not a physics book. The whole point is that the person who believes in god, accept his reality with no proofs. It is an admirably value. We all have values - subjective wills that can not be rationalize.

What you are saying about proving god is like a triangle made out of 4 lines.

and the creation theory doesn't explain anything (so much for being the simplest explanation) but leaves everything unknown.

Answer 6

Hey, listen to some real, honest, down to earth logic about this stuff...

If you don't believe in Aliens, how can you possibly believe in Creationism? This supreme someone who created the Earth was not born on, and did not live on the Earth, and so was not an Earthling. He or She lived somewhere else, other than Earth. Therefore He, or She, was or is an Alien.

Now, let us think for a minute... Some really powerful He, or She, built all of this stuff in a very short period of time and now here it all is...right? Okay. While the building was getting ready to start, where did He, or She, store all the stuff that it took to make all of this? The raw material warehouse...where was that?

Seriously what difference can it possibly make how we and all of this came to be? It is here and your job is to be able to make the best of it that you possibly can. Some of us seem intent on screwing up things as a mission in life. I think it is much better to achieve something worthwhile, and messing with topics like this solves nothing, and produces nothing of any value.

Answer 7

Science and Religion need not be dichotomous. The thing is that in the last millennia or so, and especially in the last couple centuries, science has begun to explain the myriad mysteries of our existence. The explainations for these facets of reality were things for which people traditionally relied upon religion to explain. When the explanations delivered by science do not coincide with those given by religion (and they rarely do), many believers see it as an affront to their beliefs. Unfortunately, this leads to people choosing ignorance in the form of obsolete beliefs that are really not important to true faith in the first place, and in so doing, eschewing the use of the great intellect that we as humans possess.

I can respect the faith a person has so long as that faith doesn't replace that person's ability for critical thinking. We need not rely on a deity for understanding of things that we have the capability of figuring out ourselves.

Answer 8

(physical reality) - (empirical reality) = faith

Science and religion are orthogonal. In the whole of human history across the entire planet not one deity has volunteered Novocain. It is a telling omission. Yahweh is singularly disinterested in human suffering other than to inflict it. His bill collectors evince irrepressible enthusiasm for pre-payment, "hodie mihi, cras tibi."

Hindus have 30 crores of gods - 300 million deities. How is India doing?

Answer 9

God must be very complex. Where did He come from? I'd say the Big Bang sounds simpler.

Answer 10

(Prank!!)For me science is true, not realigions..... even though i am a catholic but i believed in science.....