I am a science fiction nut. From Star Wars to Star Trek, Firefly to Farscape, Orson Scott Card to Isaac Asimov, I enjoy nearly all writings, shows, and movies that look at the possibilities of science and how it might affect humanity. Thus I was quite excited to see the return of Cosmos to the airwaves, and while my family was not completely impressed (I think pacing had something to do with it), I felt young again while watching it.
Of course, this might come as a surprise to people who only read my religious writings. How can I possibly believe in science and God at the same time? Wasn't I upset when they talked about the universe being 13.9 billion years old? Wasn't I insulted by the presentation of Church officials and their persecution of poor Bruno? Wouldn't I want the show to talk about God's hand in the creation of everything?
I believe in God. I believe He made a world of infinite complexity. Science, for me, is not a belief, its a process of understanding our universe (perhaps even multi-verse), a universe which God created. The two are only mutually exclusive in the minds of the ignorant (religious and atheistic alike).
While I believe that God has the power to create everything in seven days, I don't believe that was the case. To me, the stages of creation in Genesis are an apt description (especially considering when they were written) of the same "cosmic calendar" that Neil Degrasse Tyson presented on the show. If we, in our modern and advanced age, need for time to be explained using a calendar year as a reference, why would the ancients not need something similar?
While the presentation of the medieval Church was rather stereotyped, it was a cartoon. It still got the basic facts right. As much as I am often embarrassed by the historical actions of my country which I love (such as its treatment of Native Americans), so too has the historical actions of the Church been a source of shame for me. I do not put my head in the sand when it comes to these events. In fact, as a student and teacher of history, I probably know more about them than most people. Much of the Church hierarchy at the time were narrow-minded at best, greedy and power-hungry at worst. Still, many scientific advances occurred not just in spite of the Church, but through its help and funding. Acknowledging an organization's faults does not discount its successes.
I was actually impressed with how much Cosmos talked about God. It in no way discredited God's contribution to our creation. In fact, the portion dealing with Bruno almost seemed to evangelize the idea of an infinite God, even if it did have a harsh view on the religion of the time. When I saw the show's recreation of the big bang, I could almost hear God's voice say "Let there be light!"
Despite what some false prophets (both religious and atheistic) would like people to believe, religion and science are not mutually exclusive. In my mind, as well as in the minds of many famous scientists, each can actually help us better understand the other.
Of course, this might come as a surprise to people who only read my religious writings. How can I possibly believe in science and God at the same time? Wasn't I upset when they talked about the universe being 13.9 billion years old? Wasn't I insulted by the presentation of Church officials and their persecution of poor Bruno? Wouldn't I want the show to talk about God's hand in the creation of everything?
I believe in God. I believe He made a world of infinite complexity. Science, for me, is not a belief, its a process of understanding our universe (perhaps even multi-verse), a universe which God created. The two are only mutually exclusive in the minds of the ignorant (religious and atheistic alike).
While I believe that God has the power to create everything in seven days, I don't believe that was the case. To me, the stages of creation in Genesis are an apt description (especially considering when they were written) of the same "cosmic calendar" that Neil Degrasse Tyson presented on the show. If we, in our modern and advanced age, need for time to be explained using a calendar year as a reference, why would the ancients not need something similar?
While the presentation of the medieval Church was rather stereotyped, it was a cartoon. It still got the basic facts right. As much as I am often embarrassed by the historical actions of my country which I love (such as its treatment of Native Americans), so too has the historical actions of the Church been a source of shame for me. I do not put my head in the sand when it comes to these events. In fact, as a student and teacher of history, I probably know more about them than most people. Much of the Church hierarchy at the time were narrow-minded at best, greedy and power-hungry at worst. Still, many scientific advances occurred not just in spite of the Church, but through its help and funding. Acknowledging an organization's faults does not discount its successes.
I was actually impressed with how much Cosmos talked about God. It in no way discredited God's contribution to our creation. In fact, the portion dealing with Bruno almost seemed to evangelize the idea of an infinite God, even if it did have a harsh view on the religion of the time. When I saw the show's recreation of the big bang, I could almost hear God's voice say "Let there be light!"
Despite what some false prophets (both religious and atheistic) would like people to believe, religion and science are not mutually exclusive. In my mind, as well as in the minds of many famous scientists, each can actually help us better understand the other.
RSS Feed
