Our NATURE remains the same. we are made in the image and likeness of God, who is a Loving Trinity. How we understand and respond to God in the here and now can be expected to change as a result of prayer.
Many people unfortunately think that religion is there to undermine science, and science is there to dismantle religion, but true Christianity is about faith and reason, that God as Creator of everything there is (well, except Himself), will have His truths undiminished by true and objective scientific discoveries. Nonetheless, the Truth of God ultimately comes from divine revelations, faith, and rational understanding.🙏
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is simimar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
What I always took from the verse in Exodus 3:14 *"God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” And He said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I am has sent me to you.’"* was that God IS existence. Not only existence of course, but we can find Him through the very fact that existence exists. This is actually supported by John 1:1-3 _"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."_
For 24 years I held this opinion and dismissed Religion because it was "disproved" by science. There is zero conflict between the two and religion has strengthened science, science has strengthened Religion.
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Thank you Brandon , you’re very good at what you do. Bishop Barron, this is exactly what is needed to bring people in , open them up. This is the argument, this should be the root of Word on Fire. Everything I feel , sense, and think about so often is what you are able to put into words. I can’t stress enough how important this topic is.
I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is simimar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is simimar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is simimar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
I was watching the alpha series about faith and all, and I really like how they explained faith and science come together and answer different questions. Science answers the how, and faith answers the why. Their example was, with science, you can find out what a cake was made out of and what procedures it went through, but you cannot find out who it was made for and why unless the baker tells you. Just like knowing our purpose is impossible based on evolution, unless God revealed it to you through the Bible or what u believe in.
I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is simimar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
I have never had an issue holding onto both. I've never seen either as a dichotomy in the strictest sense, rather that one unveils the other in its purest form.
I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is simimar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
@@russellmiles2861 Having faith to me isn't just holding to some emotional or intellectually lofty ideals and hoping it's an insurance policy for the afterlife. If I didn't see God's word, grace, peace, care and love alive and active in the lives of myself, the rest of humanity and the universe, including science, then I wouldn't bother. That would just be Cray Cray 😆✌️
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is simimar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Sorry but you are demonstrably wrong. Science and religion are most definitely not "completely" compatible. Just read 1 Corinthians 15: 14, there is nothing scientific about a belief that 37.2 trillion eucaryotic cells that have been dead and decaying for a little over two days can be restored to full functionality. The is also nothing scientific about the transubstantiation.
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
For me it comes down to the observation that Science and Religion answer to different and separate questions. Science seeks to answer the question of HOW an thing happened. Religion seeks to answer the question of WHY a thing happened.
Agree! Btw I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is simimar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚 I will pray for you Jonathan!
I really like Bishop Barron's answer to Nina the caller about opening yourself up to belief in God. He says to her that even if it feels stupid to pray, do it anyway. I would add to that answer as well that what do you have to lose if God doesn't exist anyway? You have nothing to lose in everything to gain by praying.
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is simimar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is simimar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is simimar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
1. Science comes from religion 2. Religion and science as fields are not in competition 3. Scientism is not science 4. Galileo is only a small part of the story 5. The kalam (word, speech) argument
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
I will pray for you Brenda! As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Ive been looking forward to this one. I would like the see the Bishop talk some time about the Catholic teaching on divine inspiration for scripture & how that specifically ties into science in a way that some ecangelical protestant teachings on divine inspiration fails to.
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is simimar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Thanks for bringing up this topic again!! It would be great if the videos were subtitled in Spanish! There's a huge Spanish speakers' community that follows the work of bishop Barron and Word on Fire; many times I feel like sharing a video with my friends, but not all of them understand English. :)
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
A man I worked with came to me and out of the blue asked me “if a being from another planet plopped down in front of me and said hi, would you still believe in God?”. All I said was “why would that change anything?”. It takes a bit of mental work to take big picture subjects like religion and science and view them at a micro level so as to put them in proper perspective. It’s the same reason so many young people have left the Catholic church. They’re lazy! They don’t want to do the mental exercises that it takes to gain understanding.
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
I think that nowadays there is a basic confusion about what we mean when we say “I believe”. The Greek and Latin equivalents mean “I trust” (i.e. I cannot prove it, but I have reason to accept it as true). In modern times, however, it has come to be used as “I know” (i.e. I have proofs, therefore I am certain it is true). On the other hand, in conversation we still use “I believe” to mean “I think it is so, but I’m not entirely sure” - while “to give the benefit of doubt” actually expresses the positive choice to trust a person or an idea we’re not entirely sure about… To believe in God is not simply to believe he exists - but to trust in his love.
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
It seems only Bishop Barton is intelligent enough in Philosophy and Theology to explain what the world needs to know about our our faith and it applies to the World. I think a lot of people fudge the issue of God because we presume it may be an uncomfortable relationship we have with the Devine being and that we presume we are not good enough so we half heartily deny God exists and go for our half understood belief in what we presume is Science as an answer to all.
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
The more theology papers we can leave in the dustbin of history the more we can explore the nature of the Universe. Thanks Isaac for not totally wasting your life.
@@giuseppesavaglio8136 I'm sure Isaac Newton would have bowed to your superior intellect on the matter lol. Look, joking aside, dismissing anything without understanding it is nothing I associate with science. It's also no accident that the scientists who actually conceptualise beyond our limitations tend to require a God-shaped category, be it Spinoza's God as in the case of Einstein, or simply an external ruler that holds the universe together. Spacetime can not account for that by itself and when you step outside the classroom full of self-affirning peers, you need to acknowledge that truth so it can illuminate whatever aspect of reality no one else has been able to teach you. When you're just satisfied to learn science and never theorise, it's easy for that category to be filled by these very authorities like Newton or Einstein, but they needed more.
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 Hi thanks for the reply: "I'm sure Isaac Newton would have bowed to your superior intellect on the matter lol. Look, joking aside, dismissing anything without understanding it is nothing I associate with science". I hear what you are saying, but my comment was more about take the good were we find it and leave the bad, as it were. So his scientific achievements, great, we teach it and build on his work. As for his theological stuff not so much. "It's also no accident that the scientists who actually conceptualize beyond our limitations tend to require a God-shaped category, be it Spinoza's God as in the case of Einstein, or simply an external ruler that holds the universe together". Require a god-shaped category? If you mean speak metaphorically or poetically sure let them knock themselves out. But if you mean an actual god/s holding the universe together?, then a lot of work needs to be shown before that even gets to a round table discussion as it were. "Spacetime can not account for that by itself and when you step outside the classroom full of self-affirming peers, you need to acknowledge that truth so it can illuminate whatever aspect of reality no one else has been able to teach you". Not quite sure i understand what you are saying here, but i will give you what i gleaned. Science works on methodological naturalism, what can be derived via nature/the universe. If you are proposing supernatural shenanigans (whatever that may mean)not a fan. "When you're just satisfied to learn science and never theorize, it's easy for that category to be filled by these very authorities like Newton or Einstein, but they needed more". Theorize of course a fan, that's how some brilliant ideas have been conceptualized. It's in the experimentation and verification that we confirm those ideas or put them in the trash bin of history. As for needing more (a god/s?) for me, not part of the equation as far as i am concerned. Cheers G
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Amen, Bishop. If God's will is what shaped the universe & sustains it, why should we fear seeking to understand our world through the sciences? What we've learned through the sciences may conflict with a fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture, but hopefully that only teaches us to take more care when reading the Bible so as to not apply a single lens from the first page to the last. I hope it isn't ego, but understanding the mechanisms of physics & biology seems to me a bit like taking a peek under the hood of the universe & perhaps getting an understanding of some small aspect of the mind of God. Then again, I was a lifelong atheist who converted two years ago. I can't pretend to have all (or many) of the answers.
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is simimar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
@@BiblicalBookworm For better or worse, my curiosity when it comes to ideas tends to win out. I'll give it a look, & thanks for the heads-up. There isn't a limit I'm aware of when it comes to YT channel subscriptions.
Jesus had many critics. Many people said things that were untrue and hurtful. He could have straightened them out, spent time arguing, trying to change their minds. But the scripture says, “He answered them not a word.” He didn’t give them the time of day. Don’t waste your time trying to change your critic’s mind. Don’t argue with people that don’t matter. What they think of you is not going to stop your destiny. Their opinion is not going to keep you from your purpose. Thanks for reading this comment, I hope you are blessed and uplifted by it. We are a new and growing channel, your support and blessings is much appreciated. Thanks and God bless you. Amen
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Totally agree with Bishop Barron. Two subjects were not mentioned: the Bible and the topic of evolution. In my experience, at least in English speaking countries, one of the biggest problems is how to interpret the Bible. I know, Bishop Barron has addressed that topic in other videos, but the apparent controversy around evolution is probably the biggest issue in this apparent tension between religion and science. I recommend watching Francis Collins videos on that topic. He is an evangelical Christian and a top scientist on the field of evolution.
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
@@BiblicalBookworm Sorry for disagreeing with you. Dr Michael Guillen might be an Emmi Award winning journalist and a former physics instructor, but quantum physics is part of the natural world and shouldn't be confounded with the supernatural world, and certainly not with the New Testament. The author is strongly leaning towards, if not supporting, the so-called theory of Intelligent Design, which is pseudo-science.
A clear rebuttal of foolishness that, seems to me, can only be explained by a base human desire to "do what you want, whenever you want". I got a degree in Electrical Engineering and marveled at how all the formulas and laws reflected an ingenious design of the world.
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is simimar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Why is "doing what you want, whenever you want" a bad thing? I am a secular humanist and I want do things that improve the flourishing and wellbeing of all of mankind and the planet and that is something that I always want to do.
@@downenout8705 What YOU want is good for yourself and others. A SELFISH person couldn't care less about anyone else, nor about how his actions affect them and/or the environment. By the way, define "good" - and what is your basis for the definition?
@@margueritelangton6362 Sorry but I have no intention of allowing you to selfishly impose your agenda on this conversation. I asked a simple question and as you clearly have no interest in providing an answer, I say take the last word if you wish, but it's goodbye from me. As an aside if you want to know what "good" means I suggest that you use a dictionary.
To others who are interested in this topic, I would also recommend some of the works of Arthur Eddington ("The Nature of the Physical World", "The Philosophy of Physical Science", and "Why I believe in God") he was also a contemporary of Einstein and was one of the first people to help confirm the Theory of Relativity. His work will help show how there is no conflict at all between Science and Religion, or there at least doesn't have to be.
Of course there is a conflict between faith and science. Just read 1 Corinthians 15: 14. A eucaryotic cell that has been dead and decaying for a couple of days stays dead, that's science. A belief in a story that 37.2 trillion eucaryotic cells regained full functionality after being dead and decaying for a couple of days, is faith.
@@Epiousios18 If your epistemology is so broken that you can't recognise a statement of fact, then frankly any conversation with you would be utterly pointless. Don't concern yourself however, I'll just add you to my ever growing list of Christians who conveniently forget 1 Peter 3: 15.
@@downenout8705 "my list," Haha go for it. I'm always more than happy to discuss theology or apologetics with people who ask or inquire in "good faith" as they say, otherwise it is "utterly useless."
@@Epiousios18 Do you seriously think that there was anything of substance in your reply? I suggest that read Matthew 7: 1-5 before you judge others as not acting in "good faith". Just take care and remember Matthew 7: 13-14.
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
The 5 Steps to Critical Thinking: What is critical thinking? In general, critical thinking refers to actively questioning statements rather than blindly accepting them. Critical thinking results in radical free will. 1. The critical thinker is flexible yet maintains an attitude of healthy skepticism. Critical thinkers are open to new information, ideas, and claims. They genuinely consider alternative explanations and possibilities. However, this open-mindedness is tempered by a healthy sense of skepticism (Hyman, 2007). The critical thinker consistently asks, “What evidence supports this claim?” 2. The critical thinker scrutinizes the evidence before drawing conclusions. Critical thinkers strive to weigh all the available evidence before arriving at conclusions. And, in evaluating evidence, critical thinkers distinguish between empirical evidence versus opinions based on feelings or personal experience. 3. The critical thinker can assume other perspectives. Critical thinkers are not imprisoned by their own points of view. Nor are they limited in their capacity to imagine life experiences and perspectives that are fundamentally different from their own. Rather, the critical thinker strives to understand and evaluate issues from many different angles. 4. The critical thinker is aware of biases and assumptions. In evaluating evidence and ideas, critical thinkers strive to identify the biases and assumptions that are inherent in any argument (Riggio & Halpern, 2006). Critical thinkers also try to identify and minimize the influence of their own biases. 5. The critical thinker engages in reflective thinking. Critical thinkers avoid knee-jerk responses. Instead, critical thinkers are reflective. Most complex issues are unlikely to have a simple solution. Therefore, critical thinkers resist the temptation to sidestep complexity by boiling an issue down to an either/or, yes/no kind of proposition. Instead, the critical thinker expects and accepts complexity (Halpern, 2007). Critical thinking is not a single skill, but rather a set of attitudes and thinking skills. As is true with any set of skills, you can get better at these skills with practice. In a nut shell, critical thinking is the active process of minimizing preconceptions and biases while evaluating evidence, determining the conclusions that can be reasonably be drawn from evidence, and considering alternative explanations for research findings or other phenomena. CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS >Why might other people want to discourage you from critical thinking? >In what situations is it probably most difficult or challenging for you to exercise critical thinking skills? Why? > What can you do or say to encourage others to use critical thinking in evaluating questionable claims or assertions?
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
I found it very sad that in my private, Catholic school, the majority of students were atheists and so few were actually raised Catholic. Coming from an intelligent Catholic family, I was very much in the minority. We were taught science well, and religious education, yet we were never taught a defence of the faith or good reasons to believe in God - I had to do my own research to justify my faith. I can’t help but feel like we were let down educationally, because showing God’s existence is far more important for people’s lives than any one academic topic or subject.
I am wondering why you didn't give a reason as to why it's important to show God's existence. You also said that you did research to justify your faith but don't say how you came to your conclusion that your fellow atheist students were mistaken. From my perspective you appear no better at defending your faith than those who you castigate.
@@downenout8705 If God exists, many atheists agree, it would be important to know. If atheism is true there is nothing to know, if theism is true it’s vitally important to know. Also I don’t have to state my reasons and arguments for my belief in every comment I make, by that logic, everything you believe is baseless because you didn’t state your reasons for them in your comment. Bishop Barron has done plenty of videos in defence of faith, if you’re interested in my reasons, I advise you watch some more of them.
@@berserkerbard Again you simply restate that it's vitally important to know if a god exists without explaining why. From my perspective if a god considers it to be that "vital" then just turn up and let us know. Whilst I would probably choose not to worship or follow that god at least we would have no doubt of its existence. I personally don't care if you want to disregard 1 Peter 3: 15 and not give your reasons for your faith, I am simply making the observation that this makes you no better at defending your faith than those you criticised in your post.
@@berserkerbard I love how this guy thinks you are obligated for some reason to answer him and play along with his arbitrary rules while doing so. I agree with your original premise in general though, although I did have one or two teachers who taught some great apologetics (I had the pleasure of reading Lewis' "Mere Christianity" in a class which I am now thankful for, for instance).
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Great as usual, Bishop. I (and countless others I'm sure) would like to hear what you have to say on the German bishops' commotion. I know you probably don't want to fan the flames of what's already a messy controversy, but it would be very nice to hear what you have to say on the matter.
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Science will never explain why all people have inherent worth. If there is no universal truth then nothing is good and nothing is evil. It's simply a matter of whose beliefs win out in the long-term.
@@russellmiles2861 God has not left us to the help of guess games. Too many have answered the question besides Bishop Barron himself here quite often as to why God who doesn't need anything created us. Don't tell me you are living under some rock. Else you are trying to have some fun. If you are self centered you will never understand God's selflessness and LOVE that chose to beget you. Pray to God in humility and you will begin to 'understand' a host of facts with the mind that God has given you.
@@russellmiles2861 Don't we know that God is someone who has revealed himself to us. Every human being is endowed with the ability to know him 'personally.' Why do we need to change to or stop at anything less than that?
@@russellmiles2861 Every religion is the result of man's search for God. *Christianity alone is the result of God's search for man.* If you happen to be a Christian you will give yourself the best service by getting to know who exactly is Jesus Christ. No one can make make you a truly successful personal and help you live a meaningful life.
I again blame John William Draper and Andrew Dixon White for unknowingly starting this myth of warfare between the two. I also blame pop scientist like Sagan, Tyson, Dawkins, Carroll, Greene, Cox and others for keeping this myth going.
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is simimar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
I'm very fortunate, my parents were Christian _and_ scientists. My mom was a geologist and my dad was a biologist. There was no conflict between religion and science in my house, so I grew up with a great appreciation of science and the natural world. However, because I was homeschooled, I didn't have much socialization and I desperately wanted to attend a "real" school. My mom was afraid that a public school would corrupt me, so she decided to enroll me in a high school run by an Independent Fundamental Baptist church. Those people were militant young earth creationists, and it was baffling to see their contradictions. They taught that the earth was only 6 to 10 thousand years old and that Satan planted fossils in the ground to trick people into believing the earth was old. But at the same time, they taught the periodic table of elements as factual truth. So chemistry was real, yet somehow carbon dating was false. It's because of people like them that so many Christians grow up thinking that science and God can't coexist. It also makes it very easy for atheists to point to Christians and say we're a bunch of uneducated backwards idiots. It may be an unfair generalization, but when you have well-known things like the Creation Museum in Kentucky, it's hard to fault them for the assumption.
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
There is still one point where my faith is in conflict with science -- and this really bothers me and stresses me out. It is the most important message of all -- that Jesus Christ has risen from the dead. We say this is evidenced by the gospels and the tradition, including many people that have seen the Lord after He died and has risen. When we analyse non-religious historical texts that may or may not report about actual, historical events, we implicitly use science to limit which interpretation could at least be true. If one was to investigate whether or not Ulysses was a historic person, we may refer to the Odyssey, but we know for sure that poseidon has not caused any storms because he doesn't exist. What is possible, however, is that there were many natural storms after the Trojan war that made sailing home very hard. I agree that the gospels and the testimony of the early church lead to the conclusion that something extraordinary has happend in Jerusalem. There are many extraordinary things possible within the rules of science, but these rules do not allow for exceptions. Just like no apple has ever fallen upwards and no apple will ever fall upwards, no man can walk after he suffered the injuries that were reported and "dies". As we know from the conversation around cryogenics, what actually is biological death is tough to define, but we don't want to weasel out of this by assuming that the Lord was just in a deep coma. So if we assume that He died just like men die, that is in a way that muscle and neuron cells break within minutes, he can't walk and talk two days later. I could be OK with an explaination that believing means suspending science here for once, but we have to be absulutely honest. In Providentissimus Deaus, Leo XIII teaches: "Let [scholars] loyally hold that God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures - and that therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures. If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be made to remove it. Judicious theologians and commentators should be consulted as to what is the true or most probable meaning of the passage in discussion, and the hostile arguments should be carefully weighed. Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself; and if no such mistake can be detected, we must then suspend judgment for the time being." So, do we have to suspend judgement on the biological nature of the Lord's death and resurrection?
I made I video recently about the book "The case for Christ" where the author explains what evidence there is to believe that Jesus lived, died and rose from the dead. My you'd find my summary helpful :)
Is the same the mist and most huge came from the Glory from God from the LOVE of God Father self for be share it for we and with us cause God is sharing his Happiness! 😇👼🥰😘
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊
As you seem to like science and theology: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
I think that it is you who needs to study the Shroud more closely as you might come to learn why the church calls it an "icon" and not a "relic". I trust this piece of cloth is not your 1 Peter 3: 15 reason for your faith.
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
2nd law of thermodynamics: energy is neither created nor destroyed. As Christians we believe God is neither created nor destroyed. If ur a scientist who does not believe, u can’t bash Christians for believing in the same truth. In many ways God is an intelligent energy who is neither created or destroyed. And that is currently my way of marrying both science and spirituality!
That's actually an interesting observation, thanks for pointing it out! As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Love the Harry Potter analogy....Anyone (I think) who is intellectually honest can reach the conclusion that there has to be a God. But coming to a belief in Jesus requires the intervention of the Holy Spirit.
Yeah no competition between faith and science please. The only scientific advances we have to watch out for are the ones that repeat the same mistake of the tower of babel where we try to become God. The biggest offenders I can think of are birth control, invitro, and transgender procedures. But other than that the sciences are great, especially science fueled by faith. Thanks for the wise words Bishop!
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊
The Liturgy of the Hours sounds great, but it is completely impractical if one does not live in the USA. A book from the USA takes 2-3 months, if not longer, to arrive here (South Africa). Isn't there an electronic means of transmission/acquisition for us out-of -towners? Thanks.
I'm reading Stephen Kotkin's "Stalin: Part I". YES...we need religion. A world without religion and that which transcends is so brutal and meaningless because there is no Good or Evil, but Power. And, evidence of God is all over the place if we simply would pause and take a close look.
• what is the difference between: *A Mammal that can speak, think, and have preferences ←vs→ The Ideal Mammal Also seeks to alleviate suffering and participate in joy when it happens?* • and then, well, what's the result when you combined them? is my typed comment made up of: matter or what matters, or both?
I am a great fan of Bishop Barron, and have been for many years. Being a philosopher myself, I really appreciate his knowledge in philosophy, arts and history. And theology, of course! But in a 30-minute discussion on the "war" between religion and science, the topic of evolution cannot be glossed over. Nor the topic of the age of the universe. Bishop Barron always mentions Georges Lemaître and the billions of year-old universe. But there are more than 40% of Americans who believe that the universe is 6,000 years old. One should speak out against this type of fundamentalism, which greatly contributes to this religion-science conflict. I think these people do as much damage, and chase as many young people away from our churches as do the atheists. The age of the universe is not a big issue in Catholic circles, but it still is with many prominent evangelical churches. It should also be stated clearly that the process of evolution simply is the way God has chosen to create this wonderful diversity of life. In my opinion there are only two ways religion clashes with science: (1) If you want to take the Bible literally, and (2) if you want to use science to 'prove' that there is a God.
Whilst I agree with your two ways that religion clashes with science, you cannot escape the fact that Christianity "literally" is dependent on 1 Corinthians 15: 14 being true. Science tells us that a eucaryotic cell that has been dead and decaying for a couple of days stays dead. Whilst faith is required to believe a story that 37.2 trillion eucaryotic cells regained full functionality after being dead and decaying for a couple of days. I see no way to resolve this conflict.
@@downenout8705 The Virgin Birth and the Resurrection of Christ are two examples of what we call 'miracles'. They are outside the purview of science and are not regarded as contradicting science. They are seen as a kind of suspension of the laws of science. No problem for Christians. Atheists, of course, will deny the occurance of miracles.
@@hansweichselbaum2534 As an atheist, I take offense at Christians constantly telling me what I think. If you would like to know my position on a subject, just ask and I will be happy to explain. Sorry, but simply labelling a phenomenon a "miracle" doesn't resolve the conflict. If it did then logically you should also believe in a "miraculous" winged horse that is capable of flying a person from Mecca to Jerusalem. Science tells us that it is anatomically impossible for a horse to fly, whilst "faith" tells us that it can. Applying the scientific method of methodological naturalism to both phenomenon, gives a conclusion that neither event is scientifically possible. Results that are in direct conflict with the faith conclusion that they are.
@@downenout8705 Nobody should tell you what to think. But being an atheist, you need to believe that there is nothing above (or underneath?) the natural world. We Christians need to believe that there is a Creator God, who created everything "visible and invisible". And there are a few other things we need to believe, if we want to call ourselves Christians. These things are based on faith. We cannot call on science to give us evidence. There is only historical evidence. You mention 'methodological naturalism'. I have done a Masters thesis on that topic, so I can give some comments. As an atheist you will to be a follower of 'ontological naturalism'. In short, this is the belief that nothing exists outside of nature. There are no supernatural entities or processes. Methodological naturalism, on the other hand, makes no commitments as to what exists, but only outlines the proper methods of practicing science. Methodological naturalism does not deny the possibility of the existence of a transcendent , non-natural world; it simply ignores - in the context of scientific enquiry - any possible supernatural realm. As an atheist, you are committed to ontological naturalism. You MUST believe that there is nothing supernatural, including God. Otherwise you need to label yourself as an agnostic!
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
The profound foundation for science was laid our by the father of scientific philosophy Rene Descartes " God being benevolent would not deceive us through our senses " . that the problem with Catholic church imbroglio with Galileo ,TRUTH was internalized and it led to errors .Reality as experienced by our senses, some believed then was mere illusion. Lord in his discourse with Samaritan woman by the well "In future your are not going to worship God on this mountain or in Jerusalem" but worship God in spirit and truth .truth that cuts away the clutter of false assumptions, Descartes principles Those of us who have donned the lab coats know you have to suspend your ingrained hypotheses, beliefs or preclude any bias "divine mathematical equation " outside the lab and let discovery of truth lead you in your research.
I’ve had an issue with accepting evolution and Adam and Eve as real people, I still don’t understand how that can be true at the same time, I truly want to believe the doctrine but I can’t get past that one, anyone have any thoughts on this?
@@downenout8705 part of the problem is that it’s too easy to just write off God and say it’s all fiction, some of the best philosophers in the world were theists and still believed and came to the conclusion of God regardless of their knowledge. Descartes is one of my favorites as an example, but I can’t do the Adam and Eve thing I’m with you there
@@jarrettpierce5626 If you are advocating for deism, I consider that to be a bit of a cop-out. Anyone can argue for some vague unfalsifiable type deity. A god that doesn't interact with the universe in some discernable way (like making a garden and placing a couple of people in it) is however, indistinguishable from a god that doesn't exist. If you are a Christian then it is 1 Corinthians 15: 14 that is important and there is no more evidence to support the truth of this biblical claim than there is for Adam and Eve. I always find it difficult to understand why many Christians will readily accept some miraculous biblical stories and have difficulty accepting others. A talking snake or a man living in fish is far more plausible than 37.2 trillion eucaryotic cells regained full functionality after being dead and decaying for a couple of days. I do find it somewhat telling that none of your fellow Christians have offered anything to help allay your doubts.
Wall of text warning: I believe in evolution up to a certain point. It's simply the process of creatures gradually adapting over long periods of time due to natural selection, and there's no reason why that couldn't be the system that God put in place. Where I think evolution begins to struggle is explaining the origin of humanity. For decades now scientists have been teaching the Out of Africa theory as if it's fact. Yet the more archaeologists find out about the Neanderthals and Denisovans, the more they have to bend over backwards to make that theory work. Bones have been found in Israel and Greece that are much older than when anatomically modern humans were supposed to have migrated out of Africa. Neanderthals seemed to have developed independently in the Middle East and Europe, before homo sapiens migrated. Denisovans also seem to have developed independently in Russia and China, even before the Neanderthals. So archaeologists keep having to push back dates and say there were multiple waves of migration. There's also the matter of prehistory. Supposedly, ancient Sumer and Egypt were the first true civilizations to arise, and before that we were mostly nomads or groups who lived in small tribes. But discoveries like Gobleki Tepe have thrown a wrench into that idea. The site is around 12 thousand years old, and people were _not_ supposed to have been able to build structures that sophisticated back then. There are anomalous sites like that all over the world, and mainstream academia tries its best to ignore them because they destroy the established narrative. Just like how scientists still dismiss the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis, despite growing evidence for it. My personal belief is that humans originated in the Fertile Crescent and spread in all directions from there (makes more sense than primitive hominins somehow migrating from tropical Africa into Russia when much of the northern hemisphere was covered in ice sheets). As for how Adam and Eve fit into it...to be perfectly honest, I'm not really sure. Maybe God let earlier species evolve naturally, and then when he felt the time was right, he uplifted them. At a certain point you just have to take things on faith.
LET GOD ‘S LOVE , LIGHT UP YOUR LIFE: There is One God in three persons, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Humans are ONE person (in three parts) The body, soul and spirit. The Bible says that we are all sinners. As it is written: There is none righteous no not one. Romans 3:10 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23 But we are all as an unclean thing and all our righteousness are as filthy rags. Isaiah 64:6 For the wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23(the word “death” in this verse means eternal separation, from God in hell). Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow.Isaiah 1:18 Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures and that He was buried and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures.1CORINTHIANS 15:3-8 In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins. Colossians 1:14 For by grace ye are saved, through faith; and not of yourselves it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Galatians 2:21 If you would like to receive Jesus as your Savior. Realize that you are a hopeless sinner and tell Jesus that you trust in Him and only Him to save you from hell. The moment you trust in Jesus and His shed blood on the cross to pay for your sins, you are saved. After people get saved , God wants them to get baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
As you seem to like science and theology: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
I'm pretty sure that 60% would be a lot lower if you didn't count members of Pentecostal and Evangelical churches, since their theology traditionally has undermined the paper of reason
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Everything about this that drives you crazy drives me crazy too!! I don’t understand why there is this problem! All the great Saints and intellectuals come to the Truth that faith and science are not opposed. If a person studies on their own they come to see it. There comes a point where people have decided not to believe and this nonsense provides a convenient excuse.
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
I’ve always thought that God intervened in human affairs. It’s hard to believe that a Lincoln would have been born had there been no God. Also the standing on giants in science definitely was caused by God.
This is all very suggestive, but still requires a leap of faith. The mathematics of the big bang theory and string theory both suggest the existence of multiple universes. These two theories are unrelated to each other. There is no physical evidence of another universe, but scientists tend not to ignore mathematics, especially when it comes from two separate areas. I'd rather go with the scientists who say it like they see it, rather than take that leap of faith. I agree with you about scientism.
If it’s unmeasurable and undeterminable, then you are taking a leap of faith By definition And the existence of Multiverse is far more fishy than you make it sound
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊
One more comment on the topic of the compatibility of science with faith & religion. It is not science per se that is the difficulty or the belief in science per se that leads to disaffiliation, but the underlying assumptions about science. So scienticism as you describe is not compatible . But there are other difficulties. One of them is the belief about "matter" . It is critical to remember that matter is a construct, it is not "real" -- as it has no ontological status! Or another way to say it is, in Genesis God did not create matter as with trees and flowers and animals and other living things. In the context of science matter is a helpful construct but it gets mired in difficulties about faith once we enter into the realm of metaphysics. So the question is and always will be what grounds scientific principles? Here the basic underlying assumptions must be organic! If we got that sorted out there would be no difficulties about the compatibility of religion and science, nor would people fall away because of their belief in science. Of course, metaphysics is as much an anathema to the present world as is faith, but perhaps, Bishop Baron in your discussions on this topic of religion and faith you could dialogue with some philosophers who have actually delved into the realm of tough metaphysics and could provide us with some insights into the deeper issues on this topic. Although if they have taken on this task they are usually believers, or become so! I love that you have taken on this topic, but we need more depth about it to get to the real issues concerning the attitudes to the the assumed conflict.
FOR EVOLUTION TO HAPPEN IT HAD TO EXIST ONE LIVING CELL, WHO PROVIDED THAT CELL? BIOCHEMISTRY CAN CONFIRM THIS. FOR EVOLUTION TO HAPPEN IT HAS BE THE "POTENCIAL' FOR THIS TO HAPPEN WHO PROVIDED THIS POTENCIAL?
One should only comment on science and religion if one is following God’s plan. Science caused the Catholic Church to sin against the spirit. You Bishop Barron trusted science over God and that is a fact. Stop talking and read the Bible. You broke the spirit of many Catholics. “The spirit of a man will sustain him in sickness, But who can bear a broken spirit?” Proverbs 18:14 NKJV
The "intelligibility" argument is so ridiculous, all it is is "God of the gaps" under a different name. The scientific method doesn't just "assume" intelligibility as if it's a known scientific fact, it's merely a necessary presupposition if you want to engage in the pursuit of knowledge of any kind - if you don't start with the assumption that something CAN be figured out, why would you bother ever trying to learn anything at all? All we know is that thus far humans have been able to ultimately figure things out given enough time and effort, it is entirely possible that we could reach a point where that stops being true. And when you get really deep into stuff like quantum mechanics and particle physics, what stands out is how UN-intelligible the universe seems to get. The whole problem is our understanding of physics and mathematics starts BREAKING DOWN! The "intelligibility argument" also just assumes (on NO evidence) that the universe HAD to be exactly as we have so far observed it to be, therefore it is proof of a creator/designer. At the risk of stating the obvious - we only know of one universe. We have no other universes to compare it to. "Science" doesn't know what other kinds of "universal structures" could or could not be possible, and neither do you. And as I said at the outset, you're just trying to take that lack of knowledge and say "we don't know, but doesn't that "sound" a lot like it was "created," so therefore God?..." - classic "God of the gaps".
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
If Genesis were written by a geologist we would have a little different perspective. Even God had to use the “earth” to create Adam. Earth has a unique chemistry that supports life. I am a geologist. The earth is about 4.6 billion years old and we have only found life in the last 500 million years.
As you seem to like science and theology: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Well there is a conflict between science and Christianity. It's a very big problem if you take you the Bible litteraly. The creation story directly contradicts what we know to be scientific fact. The story of Adam and eve and how God allegedly created every animal in 6 days directly contradicts evolution and most forms of environmental science. The fact religion is based on faith and faith alone directly opposes science which is NEVER faith based, and fact and empirical evidence based and only fact snd empirical evidence based. So there is a direct conflict between the two ideologically speaking and at their core they are directly opposed. In short, to put it super simply: religion is faith based. Science is fact based. Faith VS fact. No scientists ever uses faith. They have to use fact. And yes. Religion was used to explain things that science now does. It is not tragic nonsense. It has happened all throughout history. And Thomas Aquinas advocated for the death of heretics. Aquinas was very adamant about how he believed that blasphemy should be punishable by death. And no, science did not come religion. Math and science came from Greece. Which dates before the church. And the actual ideas like gravity and evolution never came from religion. Just because a church pays for a university doesn't mean all the ideas came out from the church or religion. That is a horrible argument. Litterly nothing about the scientific method comes from scripture. Not once in the Bible did it ever mention math, physics, evolution, biology, etc. No where. And it is not reasonable to assume that a "creative intelligence" designed the universe. The universe is filled with flaws, innumerable mistakes, and an infinite amount of things that were designed to kill you. What on earth about that is intelligent? It's borderline counter intuitive and stupid.
"The function of prayer is not to influence God, but rather to change the nature of the one who prays." *- Søren Kierkegaard*
Beautiful. Thanks you and God bless you
Stay blessed@@Autobotmatt428 ☆
Our NATURE remains the same. we are made in the image and likeness of God, who is a Loving Trinity. How we understand and respond to God in the here and now can be expected to change as a result of prayer.
Many people unfortunately think that religion is there to undermine science, and science is there to dismantle religion, but true Christianity is about faith and reason, that God as Creator of everything there is (well, except Himself), will have His truths undiminished by true and objective scientific discoveries. Nonetheless, the Truth of God ultimately comes from divine revelations, faith, and rational understanding.🙏
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is simimar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Sheep of the flock 🐑
What I always took from the verse in Exodus 3:14 *"God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” And He said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I am has sent me to you.’"* was that God IS existence. Not only existence of course, but we can find Him through the very fact that existence exists. This is actually supported by John 1:1-3 _"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."_
Religion is like a failed science
For 24 years I held this opinion and dismissed Religion because it was "disproved" by science. There is zero conflict between the two and religion has strengthened science, science has strengthened Religion.
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
@@BiblicalBookworm I'll watch and subscribe, thank you
Praise Be God 🙏❤️
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Thank you Brandon , you’re very good at what you do. Bishop Barron, this is exactly what is needed to bring people in , open them up. This is the argument, this should be the root of Word on Fire. Everything I feel , sense, and think about so often is what you are able to put into words. I can’t stress enough how important this topic is.
I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is simimar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Biblical bookworm....can you put it on UA-cam.
I just love to hear Bishop Barron he really knows how to bring it across in a interesting and understandable way 😍😍
I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is simimar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
@@BiblicalBookworm thanks much
Thank you Bishop Barron and Brandon, i love listening to both of you on Word on Fire show. Thank you and GOD bless you. Stay safe ➕❤
I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is simimar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
I was watching the alpha series about faith and all, and I really like how they explained faith and science come together and answer different questions. Science answers the how, and faith answers the why. Their example was, with science, you can find out what a cake was made out of and what procedures it went through, but you cannot find out who it was made for and why unless the baker tells you. Just like knowing our purpose is impossible based on evolution, unless God revealed it to you through the Bible or what u believe in.
I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is simimar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
I make my own purpose, no god required, nothing "impossible" about that.
@@BiblicalBookworm could you drop the link here?
I have never had an issue holding onto both. I've never seen either as a dichotomy in the strictest sense, rather that one unveils the other in its purest form.
I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is simimar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
@@russellmiles2861 Having faith to me isn't just holding to some emotional or intellectually lofty ideals and hoping it's an insurance policy for the afterlife. If I didn't see God's word, grace, peace, care and love alive and active in the lives of myself, the rest of humanity and the universe, including science, then I wouldn't bother. That would just be Cray Cray 😆✌️
I love the "No, no, no!" Makes me smile every time.
Me too. It makes smile when he says no no no .😊
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is simimar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Same, and also the "why... why..."
Thank you for spreading Gods Word and pointing out that religion and science completely compatible.👍🙏
Sorry but you are demonstrably wrong. Science and religion are most definitely not "completely" compatible.
Just read 1 Corinthians 15: 14, there is nothing scientific about a belief that 37.2 trillion eucaryotic cells that have been dead and decaying for a little over two days can be restored to full functionality.
The is also nothing scientific about the transubstantiation.
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Praise the Lord
yes
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
For me it comes down to the observation that Science and Religion answer to different and separate questions. Science seeks to answer the question of HOW an thing happened. Religion seeks to answer the question of WHY a thing happened.
Agree! Btw I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is simimar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
What is evidence? If you see something, does that count?
Friends, I am from Philippines, sorry to bother you but we need your prayers.
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚 I will pray for you Jonathan!
@@BiblicalBookworm Thank you!
I really like Bishop Barron's answer to Nina the caller about opening yourself up to belief in God. He says to her that even if it feels stupid to pray, do it anyway.
I would add to that answer as well that what do you have to lose if God doesn't exist anyway? You have nothing to lose in everything to gain by praying.
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is simimar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
You have time, energy and rational ways of thinking to lose
"God is the reason why there is an empirically verifiable world at all." *- Bishop Robert Barron*
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is simimar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Thank you, bishop Baron, I enjoy your talks 👍😇🤗🙏
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is simimar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
1. Science comes from religion
2. Religion and science as fields are not in competition
3. Scientism is not science
4. Galileo is only a small part of the story
5. The kalam (word, speech) argument
Thank you bishop Barron. Topics like this are very useful.
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Thank you so much Bishop Barron. I have learned and experienced joy listening to Word on Fire.
Pray for the grace to believe. Father help my belief.
I will pray for you Brenda! As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Ive been looking forward to this one. I would like the see the Bishop talk some time about the Catholic teaching on divine inspiration for scripture & how that specifically ties into science in a way that some ecangelical protestant teachings on divine inspiration fails to.
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is simimar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Thanks for bringing up this topic again!! It would be great if the videos were subtitled in Spanish! There's a huge Spanish speakers' community that follows the work of bishop Barron and Word on Fire; many times I feel like sharing a video with my friends, but not all of them understand English. :)
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
A man I worked with came to me and out of the blue asked me “if a being from another planet plopped down in front of me and said hi, would you still believe in God?”. All I said was “why would that change anything?”.
It takes a bit of mental work to take big picture subjects like religion and science and view them at a micro level so as to put them in proper perspective. It’s the same reason so many young people have left the Catholic church. They’re lazy! They don’t want to do the mental exercises that it takes to gain understanding.
Why waste mental energy doing catholic mental gymnastics?
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
@@BiblicalBookworm thanks, I’ll check it out!
I think that nowadays there is a basic confusion about what we mean when we say “I believe”.
The Greek and Latin equivalents mean “I trust” (i.e. I cannot prove it, but I have reason to accept it as true). In modern times, however, it has come to be used as “I know” (i.e. I have proofs, therefore I am certain it is true).
On the other hand, in conversation we still use “I believe” to mean “I think it is so, but I’m not entirely sure” - while “to give the benefit of doubt” actually expresses the positive choice to trust a person or an idea we’re not entirely sure about…
To believe in God is not simply to believe he exists - but to trust in his love.
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
@@BiblicalBookworm Thanks!
Excellent! I'm going to share this discussion with my family and colleagues.
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Always worth repeating
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
@@BiblicalBookworm tell me more about this
It seems only Bishop Barton is intelligent enough in Philosophy and Theology to explain what the world needs to know about our our faith and it applies to the World. I think a lot of people fudge the issue of God because we presume it may be an uncomfortable relationship we have with the Devine being and that we presume we are not good enough so we half heartily deny God exists and go for our half understood belief in what we presume is Science as an answer to all.
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊
Bishop Barron is a treasure and a gift for the Catholic Church.
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Newton wrote more theology papers than science.
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
The more theology papers we can leave in the dustbin of history the more we can explore the nature of the Universe.
Thanks Isaac for not totally wasting your life.
@@giuseppesavaglio8136 I'm sure Isaac Newton would have bowed to your superior intellect on the matter lol. Look, joking aside, dismissing anything without understanding it is nothing I associate with science. It's also no accident that the scientists who actually conceptualise beyond our limitations tend to require a God-shaped category, be it Spinoza's God as in the case of Einstein, or simply an external ruler that holds the universe together. Spacetime can not account for that by itself and when you step outside the classroom full of self-affirning peers, you need to acknowledge that truth so it can illuminate whatever aspect of reality no one else has been able to teach you. When you're just satisfied to learn science and never theorise, it's easy for that category to be filled by these very authorities like Newton or Einstein, but they needed more.
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 Hi thanks for the reply:
"I'm sure Isaac Newton would have bowed to your superior intellect on the matter lol. Look, joking aside, dismissing anything without understanding it is nothing I associate with science".
I hear what you are saying, but my comment was more about take the good were we find it and leave the bad, as it were. So his scientific achievements, great, we teach it and build on his work. As for his theological stuff not so much.
"It's also no accident that the scientists who actually conceptualize beyond our limitations tend to require a God-shaped category, be it Spinoza's God as in the case of Einstein, or simply an external ruler that holds the universe together".
Require a god-shaped category? If you mean speak metaphorically or poetically sure let them knock themselves out. But if you mean an actual god/s holding the universe together?, then a lot of work needs to be shown before that even gets to a round table discussion as it were.
"Spacetime can not account for that by itself and when you step outside the classroom full of self-affirming peers, you need to acknowledge that truth so it can illuminate whatever aspect of reality no one else has been able to teach you".
Not quite sure i understand what you are saying here, but i will give you what i gleaned. Science works on methodological naturalism, what can be derived via nature/the universe. If you are proposing supernatural shenanigans (whatever that may mean)not a fan.
"When you're just satisfied to learn science and never theorize, it's easy for that category to be filled by these very authorities like Newton or Einstein, but they needed more".
Theorize of course a fan, that's how some brilliant ideas have been conceptualized. It's in the experimentation and verification that we confirm those ideas or put them in the trash bin of history.
As for needing more (a god/s?) for me, not part of the equation as far as i am concerned.
Cheers
G
Scientific discovery begins with God. God is the author of science. Master the truth in Science and you walk in the path of God.
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Amen, Bishop. If God's will is what shaped the universe & sustains it, why should we fear seeking to understand our world through the sciences? What we've learned through the sciences may conflict with a fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture, but hopefully that only teaches us to take more care when reading the Bible so as to not apply a single lens from the first page to the last.
I hope it isn't ego, but understanding the mechanisms of physics & biology seems to me a bit like taking a peek under the hood of the universe & perhaps getting an understanding of some small aspect of the mind of God. Then again, I was a lifelong atheist who converted two years ago. I can't pretend to have all (or many) of the answers.
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is simimar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
@@BiblicalBookworm For better or worse, my curiosity when it comes to ideas tends to win out. I'll give it a look, & thanks for the heads-up. There isn't a limit I'm aware of when it comes to YT channel subscriptions.
Jesus had many critics. Many people said things that were untrue and hurtful. He could have straightened them out, spent time arguing, trying to change their minds. But the scripture says, “He answered them not a word.” He didn’t give them the time of day. Don’t waste your time trying to change your critic’s mind. Don’t argue with people that don’t matter. What they think of you is not going to stop your destiny. Their opinion is not going to keep you from your purpose. Thanks for reading this comment, I hope you are blessed and uplifted by it. We are a new and growing channel, your support and blessings is much appreciated. Thanks and God bless you. Amen
Everyone matters.
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
I heard William Lane Craig's health has deteriorated badly a week or so ago so let's all pray for him.
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
@@BiblicalBookworm Sounds very interesting, I'll check it out thank you. Subbed to you too. God bless.
Both men so educated and a joy to listen to
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Totally agree with Bishop Barron. Two subjects were not mentioned: the Bible and the topic of evolution. In my experience, at least in English speaking countries, one of the biggest problems is how to interpret the Bible. I know, Bishop Barron has addressed that topic in other videos, but the apparent controversy around evolution is probably the biggest issue in this apparent tension between religion and science. I recommend watching Francis Collins videos on that topic. He is an evangelical Christian and a top scientist on the field of evolution.
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
@@BiblicalBookworm Sorry for disagreeing with you. Dr Michael Guillen might be an Emmi Award winning journalist and a former physics instructor, but quantum physics is part of the natural world and shouldn't be confounded with the supernatural world, and certainly not with the New Testament. The author is strongly leaning towards, if not supporting, the so-called theory of Intelligent Design, which is pseudo-science.
A clear rebuttal of foolishness that, seems to me, can only be explained by a base human desire to "do what you want, whenever you want". I got a degree in Electrical Engineering and marveled at how all the formulas and laws reflected an ingenious design of the world.
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is simimar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Why is "doing what you want, whenever you want" a bad thing? I am a secular humanist and I want do things that improve the flourishing and wellbeing of all of mankind and the planet and that is something that I always want to do.
@@downenout8705 What YOU want is good for yourself and others. A SELFISH person couldn't care less about anyone else, nor about how his actions affect them and/or the environment. By the way, define "good" - and what is your basis for the definition?
@@margueritelangton6362 Sorry but I have no intention of allowing you to selfishly impose your agenda on this conversation. I asked a simple question and as you clearly have no interest in providing an answer, I say take the last word if you wish, but it's goodbye from me.
As an aside if you want to know what "good" means I suggest that you use a dictionary.
@@downenout8705 Be my guest. God bless
To others who are interested in this topic, I would also recommend some of the works of Arthur Eddington ("The Nature of the Physical World", "The Philosophy of Physical Science", and "Why I believe in God") he was also a contemporary of Einstein and was one of the first people to help confirm the Theory of Relativity. His work will help show how there is no conflict at all between Science and Religion, or there at least doesn't have to be.
Of course there is a conflict between faith and science. Just read 1 Corinthians 15: 14.
A eucaryotic cell that has been dead and decaying for a couple of days stays dead, that's science.
A belief in a story that 37.2 trillion eucaryotic cells regained full functionality after being dead and decaying for a couple of days, is faith.
@@downenout8705 Nah, go fishing elsewhere, I have no interest in "debating" you (even though I don't find your point convincing in slightest).
@@Epiousios18 If your epistemology is so broken that you can't recognise a statement of fact, then frankly any conversation with you would be utterly pointless.
Don't concern yourself however, I'll just add you to my ever growing list of Christians who conveniently forget 1 Peter 3: 15.
@@downenout8705 "my list," Haha go for it. I'm always more than happy to discuss theology or apologetics with people who ask or inquire in "good faith" as they say, otherwise it is "utterly useless."
@@Epiousios18 Do you seriously think that there was anything of substance in your reply?
I suggest that read Matthew 7: 1-5 before you judge others as not acting in "good faith". Just take care and remember Matthew 7: 13-14.
Posted a video yesterday about a book were a physicist explains how faith is necessary in science!
Depends on your definition of faith, because methodological naturalism definitely does not make any use of Hebrews 11: 1.
How is believing things without evidence necessary in science?
Good discussion- thanks!
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Exactly! Thank you!
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
The 5 Steps to Critical Thinking:
What is critical thinking?
In general, critical thinking refers to actively questioning statements rather than blindly accepting them.
Critical thinking results in radical free will.
1. The critical thinker is flexible yet maintains an attitude of healthy skepticism.
Critical thinkers are open to new information, ideas, and claims. They genuinely consider alternative explanations and possibilities. However, this open-mindedness is tempered by a healthy sense of skepticism (Hyman, 2007).
The critical thinker consistently asks, “What evidence supports this claim?”
2. The critical thinker scrutinizes the evidence before drawing conclusions.
Critical thinkers strive to weigh all the available evidence before arriving at conclusions. And, in evaluating evidence, critical thinkers distinguish between empirical evidence versus opinions based on feelings or personal experience.
3. The critical thinker can assume other perspectives.
Critical thinkers are not imprisoned by their own points of view. Nor are they limited in their capacity to imagine life experiences and perspectives that are fundamentally different from their own. Rather, the critical thinker strives to understand and evaluate issues from many different angles.
4. The critical thinker is aware of biases and assumptions.
In evaluating evidence and ideas, critical thinkers strive to identify the biases and assumptions that are inherent in any argument (Riggio & Halpern, 2006). Critical thinkers also try to identify and minimize the influence of their own biases.
5. The critical thinker engages in reflective thinking.
Critical thinkers avoid knee-jerk responses. Instead, critical thinkers are reflective. Most complex issues are unlikely to have a simple solution. Therefore, critical thinkers resist the temptation to sidestep complexity by boiling an issue down to an either/or, yes/no kind of proposition. Instead, the critical thinker expects and accepts complexity (Halpern, 2007).
Critical thinking is not a single skill, but rather a set of attitudes and thinking skills. As is true with any set of skills, you can get better at these skills with practice.
In a nut shell, critical thinking is the active process of minimizing preconceptions and biases while evaluating evidence, determining the conclusions that can be reasonably be drawn from evidence, and considering alternative explanations for research findings or other phenomena.
CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS
>Why might other people want to discourage you from critical thinking?
>In what situations is it probably most difficult or challenging for you to exercise critical thinking skills? Why?
> What can you do or say to encourage others to use critical thinking in evaluating questionable claims or assertions?
God Bless Bishop Barron and Brandon 🙏🏽❤️
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Looking at this again , so so good. “ The doctrine of creation “!
I found it very sad that in my private, Catholic school, the majority of students were atheists and so few were actually raised Catholic. Coming from an intelligent Catholic family, I was very much in the minority. We were taught science well, and religious education, yet we were never taught a defence of the faith or good reasons to believe in God - I had to do my own research to justify my faith. I can’t help but feel like we were let down educationally, because showing God’s existence is far more important for people’s lives than any one academic topic or subject.
I am wondering why you didn't give a reason as to why it's important to show God's existence.
You also said that you did research to justify your faith but don't say how you came to your conclusion that your fellow atheist students were mistaken.
From my perspective you appear no better at defending your faith than those who you castigate.
@@downenout8705 If God exists, many atheists agree, it would be important to know. If atheism is true there is nothing to know, if theism is true it’s vitally important to know. Also I don’t have to state my reasons and arguments for my belief in every comment I make, by that logic, everything you believe is baseless because you didn’t state your reasons for them in your comment.
Bishop Barron has done plenty of videos in defence of faith, if you’re interested in my reasons, I advise you watch some more of them.
@@berserkerbard Again you simply restate that it's vitally important to know if a god exists without explaining why. From my perspective if a god considers it to be that "vital" then just turn up and let us know. Whilst I would probably choose not to worship or follow that god at least we would have no doubt of its existence.
I personally don't care if you want to disregard 1 Peter 3: 15 and not give your reasons for your faith, I am simply making the observation that this makes you no better at defending your faith than those you criticised in your post.
@@berserkerbard I love how this guy thinks you are obligated for some reason to answer him and play along with his arbitrary rules while doing so. I agree with your original premise in general though, although I did have one or two teachers who taught some great apologetics (I had the pleasure of reading Lewis' "Mere Christianity" in a class which I am now thankful for, for instance).
@@Epiousios18 You appear to have forgotten 1 Peter 3: 15.
I'm happy to have joined the live stream
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
@@BiblicalBookworm thanks. Where can I check it out?
To add to the response to Nadene, there is a quote by Einstein that addresses her question: "Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous".
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Faith and Science go together because they are apart of Reality.
Great as usual, Bishop. I (and countless others I'm sure) would like to hear what you have to say on the German bishops' commotion. I know you probably don't want to fan the flames of what's already a messy controversy, but it would be very nice to hear what you have to say on the matter.
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
@@BiblicalBookworm I'll check that out, thank you
Would love to have a link to the articles and books Bishop Barron and Brandon referenced
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Why do so many people receive holy communion and Saturday afternoon Confession is almost “empty “……..every Saturday……?
Excellent! Good work.
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Science will never explain why all people have inherent worth.
If there is no universal truth then nothing is good and nothing is evil. It's simply a matter of whose beliefs win out in the long-term.
@@russellmiles2861
Is it for faith to 'explain' sciences?
@@russellmiles2861
God has not left us to the help of guess games.
Too many have answered the question besides Bishop Barron himself here quite often as to why God who doesn't need anything created us. Don't tell me you are living under some rock. Else you are trying to have some fun. If you are self centered you will never understand God's selflessness and LOVE that chose to beget you. Pray to God in humility and you will begin to 'understand' a host of facts with the mind that God has given you.
@@russellmiles2861
Don't we know that God is someone who has revealed himself to us. Every human being is endowed with the ability to know him 'personally.' Why do we need to change to or stop at anything less than that?
@@russellmiles2861
Every religion is the result of man's search for God. *Christianity alone is the result of God's search for man.*
If you happen to be a Christian you will give yourself the best service by getting to know who exactly is Jesus Christ. No one can make make you a truly successful personal and help you live a meaningful life.
@@russellmiles2861
You wouldn't want to get involved with Jesus Christ. Right?
I again blame John William Draper and Andrew Dixon White for unknowingly starting this myth of warfare between the two. I also blame pop scientist like Sagan, Tyson, Dawkins, Carroll, Greene, Cox and others for keeping this myth going.
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is simimar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Word. Science came from religion.
great
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊
👋 I am All Saints Anglican Episcopal Church today. ⛪ 😍😍❤Love Mother💁♀️
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
I'm very fortunate, my parents were Christian _and_ scientists. My mom was a geologist and my dad was a biologist. There was no conflict between religion and science in my house, so I grew up with a great appreciation of science and the natural world. However, because I was homeschooled, I didn't have much socialization and I desperately wanted to attend a "real" school. My mom was afraid that a public school would corrupt me, so she decided to enroll me in a high school run by an Independent Fundamental Baptist church.
Those people were militant young earth creationists, and it was baffling to see their contradictions. They taught that the earth was only 6 to 10 thousand years old and that Satan planted fossils in the ground to trick people into believing the earth was old. But at the same time, they taught the periodic table of elements as factual truth. So chemistry was real, yet somehow carbon dating was false. It's because of people like them that so many Christians grow up thinking that science and God can't coexist. It also makes it very easy for atheists to point to Christians and say we're a bunch of uneducated backwards idiots. It may be an unfair generalization, but when you have well-known things like the Creation Museum in Kentucky, it's hard to fault them for the assumption.
I would like to add, that many hard core YEC - people would call you an atheist.
I’m saying the Rosary for the members of the Supreme Court …..they must be fearful…..
🙏🙏🙏
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Bishop Barron begging educated STEM Catholics to not give up the faith again 🥱 It sure is hard losing the donations of high earning Catholics.
13:09 fantastic analogy!
Where can I find this Air Force talk ? Thank you Bishop for evangelizing all of us. May the Holy Spirit blessed you always
There is still one point where my faith is in conflict with science -- and this really bothers me and stresses me out. It is the most important message of all -- that Jesus Christ has risen from the dead. We say this is evidenced by the gospels and the tradition, including many people that have seen the Lord after He died and has risen.
When we analyse non-religious historical texts that may or may not report about actual, historical events, we implicitly use science to limit which interpretation could at least be true. If one was to investigate whether or not Ulysses was a historic person, we may refer to the Odyssey, but we know for sure that poseidon has not caused any storms because he doesn't exist. What is possible, however, is that there were many natural storms after the Trojan war that made sailing home very hard. I agree that the gospels and the testimony of the early church lead to the conclusion that something extraordinary has happend in Jerusalem. There are many extraordinary things possible within the rules of science, but these rules do not allow for exceptions. Just like no apple has ever fallen upwards and no apple will ever fall upwards, no man can walk after he suffered the injuries that were reported and "dies". As we know from the conversation around cryogenics, what actually is biological death is tough to define, but we don't want to weasel out of this by assuming that the Lord was just in a deep coma. So if we assume that He died just like men die, that is in a way that muscle and neuron cells break within minutes, he can't walk and talk two days later. I could be OK with an explaination that believing means suspending science here for once, but we have to be absulutely honest.
In Providentissimus Deaus, Leo XIII teaches: "Let [scholars] loyally hold that God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures - and that therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures. If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be made to remove it. Judicious theologians and commentators should be consulted as to what is the true or most probable meaning of the passage in discussion, and the hostile arguments should be carefully weighed. Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself; and if no such mistake can be detected, we must then suspend judgment for the time being."
So, do we have to suspend judgement on the biological nature of the Lord's death and resurrection?
I made I video recently about the book "The case for Christ" where the author explains what evidence there is to believe that Jesus lived, died and rose from the dead. My you'd find my summary helpful :)
Is the same the mist and most huge came from the Glory from God from the LOVE of God Father self for be share it for we and with us cause God is sharing his Happiness! 😇👼🥰😘
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊
The Shroud of Turin is science not yet understood. Young people should study it and be inspired !
As you seem to like science and theology: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
I think that it is you who needs to study the Shroud more closely as you might come to learn why the church calls it an "icon" and not a "relic". I trust this piece of cloth is not your 1 Peter 3: 15 reason for your faith.
Why it’s not a podcast anymore?
Science…God thought into being.. through the wondrous study of science we can see the face of God.
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
@@BiblicalBookworm yes please 🙌
2nd law of thermodynamics: energy is neither created nor destroyed. As Christians we believe God is neither created nor destroyed. If ur a scientist who does not believe, u can’t bash Christians for believing in the same truth. In many ways God is an intelligent energy who is neither created or destroyed. And that is currently my way of marrying both science and spirituality!
That's actually an interesting observation, thanks for pointing it out! As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Love the Harry Potter analogy....Anyone (I think) who is intellectually honest can reach the conclusion that there has to be a God. But coming to a belief in Jesus requires the intervention of the Holy Spirit.
Yeah no competition between faith and science please. The only scientific advances we have to watch out for are the ones that repeat the same mistake of the tower of babel where we try to become God. The biggest offenders I can think of are birth control, invitro, and transgender procedures. But other than that the sciences are great, especially science fueled by faith. Thanks for the wise words Bishop!
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Discuss Tielhard DeChardin.
✨🙌🏼✨ … ✨💯✨… Amen 🙏🏼
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Thank you for the video :)
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊
@@BiblicalBookworm
I would be interested. Thank you very much! :)
The Liturgy of the Hours sounds great, but it is completely impractical if one does not live in the USA. A book from the USA takes 2-3 months, if not longer, to arrive here (South Africa). Isn't there an electronic means of transmission/acquisition for us out-of -towners? Thanks.
Science can never explain the human mind, free will, emotions, sensibilities , sensitivities, , abstract attributes of humanity...
I'm reading Stephen Kotkin's "Stalin: Part I". YES...we need religion. A world without religion and that which transcends is so brutal and meaningless because there is no Good or Evil, but Power. And, evidence of God is all over the place if we simply would pause and take a close look.
I cannot say that I'd be happy if they left me alone to sleep, drink, eat and live in peace.... I cannot say I'd be happy
• what is the difference between:
*A Mammal that can speak, think, and have preferences ←vs→ The Ideal Mammal Also seeks to alleviate suffering and participate in joy when it happens?*
• and then, well, what's the result when you combined them? is my typed comment made up of: matter or what matters, or both?
I am a great fan of Bishop Barron, and have been for many years. Being a philosopher myself, I really appreciate his knowledge in philosophy, arts and history. And theology, of course! But in a 30-minute discussion on the "war" between religion and science, the topic of evolution cannot be glossed over. Nor the topic of the age of the universe. Bishop Barron always mentions Georges Lemaître and the billions of year-old universe. But there are more than 40% of Americans who believe that the universe is 6,000 years old. One should speak out against this type of fundamentalism, which greatly contributes to this religion-science conflict. I think these people do as much damage, and chase as many young people away from our churches as do the atheists. The age of the universe is not a big issue in Catholic circles, but it still is with many prominent evangelical churches. It should also be stated clearly that the process of evolution simply is the way God has chosen to create this wonderful diversity of life.
In my opinion there are only two ways religion clashes with science: (1) If you want to take the Bible literally, and (2) if you want to use science to 'prove' that there is a God.
Whilst I agree with your two ways that religion clashes with science, you cannot escape the fact that Christianity "literally" is dependent on 1 Corinthians 15: 14 being true.
Science tells us that a eucaryotic cell that has been dead and decaying for a couple of days stays dead. Whilst faith is required to
believe a story that 37.2 trillion eucaryotic cells regained full functionality after being dead and decaying for a couple of days.
I see no way to resolve this conflict.
@@downenout8705 The Virgin Birth and the Resurrection of Christ are two examples of what we call 'miracles'. They are outside the purview of science and are not regarded as contradicting science. They are seen as a kind of suspension of the laws of science. No problem for Christians. Atheists, of course, will deny the occurance of miracles.
@@hansweichselbaum2534 As an atheist, I take offense at Christians constantly telling me what I think. If you would like to know my position on a subject, just ask and I will be happy to explain.
Sorry, but simply labelling a phenomenon a "miracle" doesn't resolve the conflict. If it did then logically you should also believe in a "miraculous" winged horse that is capable of flying a person from Mecca to Jerusalem.
Science tells us that it is anatomically impossible for a horse to fly, whilst "faith" tells us that it can.
Applying the scientific method of methodological naturalism to both phenomenon, gives a conclusion that neither event is scientifically possible. Results that are in direct conflict with the faith conclusion that they are.
Tut, tut someone is deleting posts again and interfering with conversations between consenting adults.
@@downenout8705 Nobody should tell you what to think. But being an atheist, you need to believe that there is nothing above (or underneath?) the natural world. We Christians need to believe that there is a Creator God, who created everything "visible and invisible". And there are a few other things we need to believe, if we want to call ourselves Christians. These things are based on faith. We cannot call on science to give us evidence. There is only historical evidence.
You mention 'methodological naturalism'. I have done a Masters thesis on that topic, so I can give some comments. As an atheist you will to be a follower of 'ontological naturalism'. In short, this is the belief that nothing exists outside of nature. There are no supernatural entities or processes.
Methodological naturalism, on the other hand, makes no commitments as to what exists, but only outlines the proper methods of practicing science. Methodological naturalism does not deny the possibility of the existence of a transcendent , non-natural world; it simply ignores - in the context of scientific enquiry - any possible supernatural realm.
As an atheist, you are committed to ontological naturalism. You MUST believe that there is nothing supernatural, including God. Otherwise you need to label yourself as an agnostic!
Agree
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊
❤️
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
The profound foundation for science was laid our by the father of scientific philosophy Rene Descartes " God being benevolent would not deceive us through our senses " . that the problem with Catholic church imbroglio with Galileo ,TRUTH was internalized and it led to errors .Reality as experienced by our senses, some believed then was mere illusion. Lord in his discourse with Samaritan woman by the well "In future your are not going to worship God on this mountain or in Jerusalem" but worship God in spirit and truth .truth that cuts away the clutter of false assumptions, Descartes principles Those of us who have donned the lab coats know you have to suspend your ingrained hypotheses, beliefs or preclude any bias "divine mathematical equation " outside the lab and let discovery of truth lead you in your research.
I’ve had an issue with accepting evolution and Adam and Eve as real people, I still don’t understand how that can be true at the same time, I truly want to believe the doctrine but I can’t get past that one, anyone have any thoughts on this?
Very easy, just wake up; realise that your beliefs are based on ancient mythological writing; leave it behind and get on with the rest of your life.
The bible hints at there being other people around Adam and Eve.
@@downenout8705 part of the problem is that it’s too easy to just write off God and say it’s all fiction, some of the best philosophers in the world were theists and still believed and came to the conclusion of God regardless of their knowledge. Descartes is one of my favorites as an example, but I can’t do the Adam and Eve thing I’m with you there
@@jarrettpierce5626 If you are advocating for deism, I consider that to be a bit of a cop-out. Anyone can argue for some vague unfalsifiable type deity. A god that doesn't interact with the universe in some discernable way (like making a garden and placing a couple of people in it) is however, indistinguishable from a god that doesn't exist.
If you are a Christian then it is 1 Corinthians 15: 14 that is important and there is no more evidence to support the truth of this biblical claim than there is for Adam and Eve.
I always find it difficult to understand why many Christians will readily accept some miraculous biblical stories and have difficulty accepting others. A talking snake or a man living in fish is far more plausible than 37.2 trillion eucaryotic cells regained full functionality after being dead and decaying for a couple of days.
I do find it somewhat telling that none of your fellow Christians have offered anything to help allay your doubts.
Wall of text warning: I believe in evolution up to a certain point. It's simply the process of creatures gradually adapting over long periods of time due to natural selection, and there's no reason why that couldn't be the system that God put in place. Where I think evolution begins to struggle is explaining the origin of humanity. For decades now scientists have been teaching the Out of Africa theory as if it's fact. Yet the more archaeologists find out about the Neanderthals and Denisovans, the more they have to bend over backwards to make that theory work.
Bones have been found in Israel and Greece that are much older than when anatomically modern humans were supposed to have migrated out of Africa. Neanderthals seemed to have developed independently in the Middle East and Europe, before homo sapiens migrated. Denisovans also seem to have developed independently in Russia and China, even before the Neanderthals. So archaeologists keep having to push back dates and say there were multiple waves of migration. There's also the matter of prehistory.
Supposedly, ancient Sumer and Egypt were the first true civilizations to arise, and before that we were mostly nomads or groups who lived in small tribes. But discoveries like Gobleki Tepe have thrown a wrench into that idea. The site is around 12 thousand years old, and people were _not_ supposed to have been able to build structures that sophisticated back then. There are anomalous sites like that all over the world, and mainstream academia tries its best to ignore them because they destroy the established narrative. Just like how scientists still dismiss the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis, despite growing evidence for it.
My personal belief is that humans originated in the Fertile Crescent and spread in all directions from there (makes more sense than primitive hominins somehow migrating from tropical Africa into Russia when much of the northern hemisphere was covered in ice sheets). As for how Adam and Eve fit into it...to be perfectly honest, I'm not really sure. Maybe God let earlier species evolve naturally, and then when he felt the time was right, he uplifted them. At a certain point you just have to take things on faith.
LET GOD ‘S LOVE , LIGHT UP YOUR LIFE:
There is One God in three persons, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Humans are ONE person (in three parts) The body, soul and spirit.
The Bible says that we are all sinners.
As it is written: There is none righteous no not one. Romans 3:10
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23
But we are all as an unclean thing and all our righteousness are as filthy rags. Isaiah 64:6
For the wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23(the word “death” in this verse means eternal separation, from God in hell).
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow.Isaiah 1:18
Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures and that He was buried and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures.1CORINTHIANS 15:3-8
In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins. Colossians 1:14
For by grace ye are saved, through faith; and not of yourselves
it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Galatians 2:21
If you would like to receive Jesus as your Savior. Realize that you are a hopeless sinner and tell Jesus that you trust in Him and only Him to save you from hell.
The moment you trust in Jesus and His shed blood on the cross to pay for your sins, you are saved.
After people get saved , God wants them to get baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
As you seem to like science and theology: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
I love how animated the good Bishop gets about this subject.
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Doing the Lord’s work
I'm pretty sure that 60% would be a lot lower if you didn't count members of Pentecostal and Evangelical churches, since their theology traditionally has undermined the paper of reason
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Everything about this that drives you crazy drives me crazy too!! I don’t understand why there is this problem! All the great Saints and intellectuals come to the Truth that faith and science are not opposed. If a person studies on their own they come to see it. There comes a point where people have decided not to believe and this nonsense provides a convenient excuse.
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
logic = order = logic = logos
I’ve always thought that God intervened in human affairs. It’s hard to believe that a Lincoln would have been born had there been no God. Also the standing on giants in science definitely was caused by God.
This is all very suggestive, but still requires a leap of faith. The mathematics of the big bang theory and string theory both suggest the existence of multiple universes. These two theories are unrelated to each other. There is no physical evidence of another universe, but scientists tend not to ignore mathematics, especially when it comes from two separate areas. I'd rather go with the scientists who say it like they see it, rather than take that leap of faith. I agree with you about scientism.
If it’s unmeasurable and undeterminable, then you are taking a leap of faith By definition
And the existence of Multiverse is far more fishy than you make it sound
As you seem to like science and religion: I uploaded a video recntly where I summarize a book ("Believing is Seeing) about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊
One more comment on the topic of the compatibility of science with faith & religion. It is not science per se that is the difficulty or the belief in science per se that leads to disaffiliation, but the underlying assumptions about science. So scienticism as you describe is not compatible . But there are other difficulties. One of them is the belief about "matter" . It is critical to remember that matter is a construct, it is not "real" -- as it has no ontological status! Or another way to say it is, in Genesis God did not create matter as with trees and flowers and animals and other living things. In the context of science matter is a helpful construct but it gets mired in difficulties about faith once we enter into the realm of metaphysics. So the question is and always will be what grounds scientific principles? Here the basic underlying assumptions must be organic! If we got that sorted out there would be no difficulties about the compatibility of religion and science, nor would people fall away because of their belief in science. Of course, metaphysics is as much an anathema to the present world as is faith, but perhaps, Bishop Baron in your discussions on this topic of religion and faith you could dialogue with some philosophers who have actually delved into the realm of tough metaphysics and could provide us with some insights into the deeper issues on this topic. Although if they have taken on this task they are usually believers, or become so! I love that you have taken on this topic, but we need more depth about it to get to the real issues concerning the attitudes to the the assumed conflict.
FOR EVOLUTION TO HAPPEN IT HAD TO EXIST ONE LIVING CELL, WHO PROVIDED THAT CELL? BIOCHEMISTRY CAN CONFIRM THIS. FOR EVOLUTION TO HAPPEN IT HAS BE THE "POTENCIAL' FOR THIS TO HAPPEN WHO PROVIDED THIS POTENCIAL?
When Barron says ”serious theist”, he is talking about someone who does not believe what the Bible teaches. 😗
Science advanced era and death psychology and analysis after lab reports what is death ?
One should only comment on science and religion if one is following God’s plan. Science caused the Catholic Church to sin against the spirit. You Bishop Barron trusted science over God and that is a fact. Stop talking and read the Bible. You broke the spirit of many Catholics.
“The spirit of a man will sustain him in sickness, But who can bear a broken spirit?”
Proverbs 18:14 NKJV
The "intelligibility" argument is so ridiculous, all it is is "God of the gaps" under a different name. The scientific method doesn't just "assume" intelligibility as if it's a known scientific fact, it's merely a necessary presupposition if you want to engage in the pursuit of knowledge of any kind - if you don't start with the assumption that something CAN be figured out, why would you bother ever trying to learn anything at all? All we know is that thus far humans have been able to ultimately figure things out given enough time and effort, it is entirely possible that we could reach a point where that stops being true. And when you get really deep into stuff like quantum mechanics and particle physics, what stands out is how UN-intelligible the universe seems to get. The whole problem is our understanding of physics and mathematics starts BREAKING DOWN! The "intelligibility argument" also just assumes (on NO evidence) that the universe HAD to be exactly as we have so far observed it to be, therefore it is proof of a creator/designer. At the risk of stating the obvious - we only know of one universe. We have no other universes to compare it to. "Science" doesn't know what other kinds of "universal structures" could or could not be possible, and neither do you. And as I said at the outset, you're just trying to take that lack of knowledge and say "we don't know, but doesn't that "sound" a lot like it was "created," so therefore God?..." - classic "God of the gaps".
The scientific method itself doesnt assume intelligibility but rather, its devotees assume all intelligibility should be derived from it.
As you seem to like science and religion: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
@@BiblicalBookworm your review was amazing . I have saved for future reference. Thank you 💕🙏
@@katrinagiovanni891 i'm happy you liked it! Maybe you could share it with others :)
If Genesis were written by a geologist we would have a little different perspective. Even God had to use the “earth” to create Adam. Earth has a unique chemistry that supports life. I am a geologist. The earth is about 4.6 billion years old and we have only found life in the last 500 million years.
As you seem to like science and theology: I just uploaded a video where I summarize a book about how science requires faith and how there are similarities between the two (eg how quantum physics is similar to the new testament). Maybe you'd be interested. 😊📚
Well there is a conflict between science and Christianity. It's a very big problem if you take you the Bible litteraly. The creation story directly contradicts what we know to be scientific fact. The story of Adam and eve and how God allegedly created every animal in 6 days directly contradicts evolution and most forms of environmental science. The fact religion is based on faith and faith alone directly opposes science which is NEVER faith based, and fact and empirical evidence based and only fact snd empirical evidence based. So there is a direct conflict between the two ideologically speaking and at their core they are directly opposed. In short, to put it super simply: religion is faith based. Science is fact based. Faith VS fact. No scientists ever uses faith. They have to use fact.
And yes. Religion was used to explain things that science now does. It is not tragic nonsense. It has happened all throughout history. And Thomas Aquinas advocated for the death of heretics. Aquinas was very adamant about how he believed that blasphemy should be punishable by death.
And no, science did not come religion. Math and science came from Greece. Which dates before the church. And the actual ideas like gravity and evolution never came from religion. Just because a church pays for a university doesn't mean all the ideas came out from the church or religion. That is a horrible argument. Litterly nothing about the scientific method comes from scripture. Not once in the Bible did it ever mention math, physics, evolution, biology, etc. No where.
And it is not reasonable to assume that a "creative intelligence" designed the universe. The universe is filled with flaws, innumerable mistakes, and an infinite amount of things that were designed to kill you. What on earth about that is intelligent? It's borderline counter intuitive and stupid.