The Emmy-winning scientist angered a few audience members when he criticized literal interpretation of the biblical verse Genesis 1:16, which reads: “God made two great lights — the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.”
He pointed out that the sun, the “greater light,” is but one of countless stars and that the “lesser light” is the moon, which really is not a light at all, rather a reflector of light.
A number of audience members left the room at that point, visibly angered by what some perceived as irreverence.
“We believe in a God!” exclaimed one woman as she left the room with three young children.
Looks like ol' Nye made some people mad, but they have no reason to be mad. First of all the Bible wasn't written by God, it was written by his servants the prophets. Not only that, it doen't state that the lesser light generated light in and of itself. The Bible simply states that the moon is a lesser light, which it is, but it does not state that it makes the light it sheds on the Earth. Besides someone with truly firm faith in God would not be so offened by this because they would know that despite what scientists claim to have proven that God exists.
(Yes, I did just attack the strength of your faith. Oh, well)
2 comments:
"Besides someone with truly firm faith in God would not be so offened by this because they would know that despite what scientists claim to have proven that God exists."
I agree, nobody should be offended by Science. It is not a religion or a position. It is simply a framework for replacing poor, outdated evidence with better evicence, as our data-collection methods improve over time. It doesn't lie, or make sweeping generalizations, rather it simply states what is, and leaves people to interpret the facts. How can people be offended by a simple fact, like the moon not generating it's own electro-magnetic radiation within the visible light spectrum?
I do disagree with you on one point, however. Science does not - nor would scientists waste their time to try to - prove that God does not exist. Why? Because Science is based on collecting measureable, observable evidence.
God simply does not leave measureable, observable evidence of his interaction with the natural world. Sure, he may exist. He may even touch people's hearts. But he just doesn't leave a recordable trail. So he is outside of the observatable realm of Science.
Simply put, any Scientific theory in existance must have some evidence, which if found, would prove that theory wrong. What evicence would you expect to find that would prove there is no God? What one peice of data, should you be presented with it, would lead you to believe there cannot be a God? If it is impossible to prove that there is no God, then it is impossible for Science to prove that there IS a God. For God to be provable, he must also be disprovable. [This is not to say that we have the evidence right now to disprove God, only that it would ever be possible at any time.] Therefor, Science and God are independend of each other, and one will never contradict the other.
So, how is a God who doesn't leave a hard evidence trail different from no god at all? There is no difference. Which is why it's silly to get all upset about religion in the first place.
@TheNerd
I totally agree, and I don't think I phrased that sentence properly. I was trying to say what you said, that "God simply does not leave measureable, observable evidence of his interaction with the natural world. Sure, he may exist. He may even touch people's hearts. But he just doesn't leave a recordable trail. So he is outside of the observatable realm of Science."
Thanks for the comment
Post a Comment