Follow Patheos Catholic:
VERY INTERESTING….BUT ISN`T IT STRANGE, NO MENTION OF THE (OUR) CREATOR….ALMIGHTY GOD. THAT PART LEFT ME FEELING EMPTY…AND VERY COLD AND SAD. IT`S LIKE TALKING ABOUT A PAINTING AND NEVER ASKING……WHO PAINTED THIS? IMAGINE….SUPPOSEDLY INTELLIGENT MEN, TALKING ABOUT CREATION….BUT NEVER ASKING OR WANTING TO KNOW WHO THERE CREATOR IS. A YOUNG CHILD MIGHT EVEN DO BETTER.
Bob: AWSOME! cool. the thing about atoms was way cool. I LOVE IT! My bro and I wached it untill our dad said to stop. Joe:You make it simple and cool.
Don’t despair Dane. As I said to all my secular and religious friends when I sent the email link to this… I was listening to David Berlinski on Michael Medved’s show today talking about his book The Devil’s Delusion; Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions. If I remember correctly, Berlinski, who is a renowned mathematician, is an atheist (cultural Jew). But he makes the argument in this book that atheists are using science incorrectly to try to disprove God and one of their conceits is the randomness of human evolution. He said essentially the same thing as Carl Sagan… it appears that evolution has produced humans in order for the universe to know itself. That’s pretty incredible for purposeless randomness! God often uses the most unlikely people to help Him reveal Himself. From Numbers, think of the prophet Balaam, hired to curse the Israelites and instead, ends up blessing them. Sagan, Feynman, Tyson and Nye are helping to reveal the Creator whether they intend to or not. Even the secular Berlinski sees it. God is awesome!
Thanks for this, Anchoress. It was the highlight of an otherwise awful week for our society.
Pingback: “So The Cosmos Can Know Itself” « ricketyclick
Gorgeous, beautiful piece, and I cannot thank you enough for showing it us.
I have seen this technique of massaging speech into song used for parody, but this is truly a hymn.
With the greatest respect, I have to say: the proper use of science of science is not to show that there is no god. The proper use of science is learn the story told by the stars and stones, the cells and bones. It is the steadfast refusal of science to accept God’s will and his miracles as explanations that has achieved the insights so beautifully summarized here.
Again, I say that with great respect; my point is not to undermine or mock faith, but to acknowledge the necessary gap between faith and the way of knowing we call science.
I’m sitting here with tears on my face. Thanks you!
You and I agree, DJ. Science is the pursuit of understanding the natural world and therefore lacks the tools to explain our supernatural God. As such, it should not be used to try to disprove *or* to prove God. Since Galileo and up until the sinful political corruption of science by Al Gore and disciples of AGW, science has been led by the evidence.
Interesting, though, that you recognize the “beauty” of the insights and Sagan recognizes the “beauty” of a living thing not in the atoms, but the way the atoms are put together… and yet resist the exploration of the concept of “beauty” being totally superfluous to dispassionate science. What was it about nature of Nature which necessitated the evolution of humans so that the Cosmos could know itself?
I’m not saying these things are proof of God. But for believers, they are a glimpse behind the curtain.
They are more than a glimpse, WC. Even as a militant skeptic, perhaps especially because I’m a skeptic, I must admit — embrace — the fact that things like beauty are outside the grasp of science, at least so far.
There is more than the data.
By my training, I cannot have faith. Cannot. But that still does not prevent me from experiencing beauty, and when I do, as with the Symphony, I think, “That is God, right there out in the open.”
It is what Gregory Bateson called The Pattern That Connects, and it is beautiful, and it is sacred.
This was a delightful video. So many of the auto-tune things are hamfisted, but as DJ points out, this is a hymn. I find it interesting that all of these scientists make a point of discussing the enormity of the universe and the fact that we still understand so little of it, but some (Sagan in particular) feel they know enough to disprove God. There’s some arrogance there. For me, it underlines my belief in God. We can use science to understand the mechanism of creation, the building blocks of life, and so on; but we can’t use it for a full understanding of the Universe. To get beyond that, we need reason allied with faith.
Response to Dane I can admire a work of art without knowing the artist. I may wish to know the artist to find more of that person’s creativity. BUT I do not need to know the science of making the paint, paper, or other media used to create the work of art that I embrace. I admire, desire and now in Texas long for the hybrid beardless iris. I hold in awe the beauty of the falls, the infinite variety the subtlest tints of color, the gentle curves of the falling petals. i admire, i desire, i envy the ones who hybridize, but i do not need to know these persons i do not need to understand botony For me it is sufficient to behold the beauty of the flower without saying some creator is responsible I accept that fact and i am comfortable in the beauty that surrounds me. Thanks be to God whoever, whatever, wherever PPM
Elizabeth Scalia is a Benedictine Oblate and the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos. She is an award-winning writer and a regularly-featured columnist at [Read More...]
Rosary; The Joyful Mysteries
Rosary; The Sorrowful Mysteries
Rosary; The Glorious Mysteries
Rosary; The Luminous Mysteries
Compline for 7 Nights
Litany Sacred Heart Jesus
Treasury of Catholic Prayers
Why I Remain a Catholic
Follow Patheos on