Science and Technology : NASA, Space, Astronomy and Theology

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by UBNaturally, May 20, 2016.

  1. UBNaturally

    UBNaturally Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2014
    Messages:
    6,497
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +1,736
    I have pondered over the conflict between so called "Science" and so called "Theology".

    Some would suggest these two do not belong together, while others claim that both have elements of each other within them.

    So the question comes into being:

    Can one accept NASA and the discoveries in outer space (realms away from this plane called Earth) along with accepting and holding onto the writings within many theological artifacts without rejecting either?

    In other words, can one be aligned with the findings of NASA and "space exploration", and harbor "Theological" content as rational?

    And, can one be aligned with "Theological" content, and still harbor the findings of NASA and "space exploration" as rational?

    Neil D. Tyson and many along with him inside the world of astrophysics and astronomy, would be offended that "Theologians" would dare attempt to conflate their texts with what Tyson thinks to know in regards to the Earth and other planes.



    And a Pastor Gino Jennings would denounce anyone that attempts to use astronomy and NASA based research to suggest that the writings don't have any purpose other than to make people believe a legend or folklore.



    But then you would have those within the MSTA, NOI, NGE to suggest that the theological artifacts and writings are based in "science".

    But these seemingly have a hard time attempting to convince the other side(s) of the think tanks that their concept is pure and sound.

    Example...

    For the "Theologian":
    • How does the Sun stand still?
    • Objects and people coming and going up into the "Heavens"...
    • Did these objects and people go into "outer space" as NASA and astronomy would present?

    For the "NASA supporter/Astronomer":
    • What was present before the "Big Bang" and how were humans created from space dust?
    • If the moon travels 2,300 Mph, and is 1,080 Miles wide, how does a missile land on it from 239,000 miles away in about 72 hours in the 1960s?

    This is posted in the Science and Technology forum, but this could easily be posted in the Religion forum.

    One of the main reasons why I ask is based on a lot of this "FLAT EARTH" movement that has grown over the past 2-3 years (glad I caught on to it in the beginning, because some are becoming fanatical over it).

    I will notice that many of these so called "FLAT EARTH" fanatics are very deep into biblical writings, and will often post scriptures to support their views. And they consider NASA as the evil incarnate that would deceive everyone.

    Then on the other side, the NASA supporters often will not shy away from claiming they are "Atheistic", and opposed to organized dogmas.

    • How does one suggest NASA, science, astronomy, and space exploration be perceived in the context of theology or artifacts of such?

    • How does one suggest theology or artifacts of such be perceived in the context of NASA, science, astronomy, and space exploration?

    Or are these like oil and water, and they will never mix?


    Would like to see a back and forth on the questions that we have on all of this collectively, without choosing the obvious corners in an attempt to "Win" an imaginary prize of "look see, I'm smarter than you" antics.



    Other questions for example...

    1. How does research go into discovering how far the sun and moon are from Earth?
    2. How does one come to a conclusion on what the moon is and why it is there?
    3. Does one think space travel existed BCE?

    These are the patterns of the questioning, not to poke at others or personal beliefs, but the concepts that have often been mysterious still today.

    There is a book and film entitled "Inherit the Wind" that somewhat looks into this apparent conflict of interests. Recommended to anyone that considers these questions relevant as well.


    Respect
     
  2. umbrarchist

    umbrarchist Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    328
    Likes Received:
    92
    Ratings:
    +100
    Theology comes from Europeans, more specifically Greek.

    the·ol·o·gy
    THēˈäləjē/
    noun
    noun: theology
    the study of the nature of God and religious belief.
    religious beliefs and theory when systematically developed.

    That definition presumes there is a "God" to study. All that actually exists is what might be called "religious antrhopology" along with the psychology of such.

    The existence of ancient religious texts does not prove the existence of any god to study, otherwise why are there so many different gods in so many different cultures?

    um
     
  3. Enki

    Enki The Evolved Amphibian STAFF

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,153
    Likes Received:
    4,926
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Civil Eng.
    Location:
    The Third Plane of Existence
    Ratings:
    +5,928
    Hey long time no hear...;)

    Nice to see you are still with us brutha...:10200:

    Peace!
     
  4. umbrarchist

    umbrarchist Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    328
    Likes Received:
    92
    Ratings:
    +100
    My mother sent me to a Catholic school. I suppose I accepted what they said when I was 5 or 6 but I mostly found it boring. Then I discovered science fiction in 4th grade. This was the first SF bookI read:

    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18492/18492-h/18492-h.htm

    That book altered my perspective of reality and hooked me on SF. I do not know the first book I encountered that mentioned "atheism" and "agnosticism" but I decided I was an agnostic at age 12.

    Many so called "Christians" do not seem to get the idea of the difference between atheism and agnosticism and many atheists regard agnostics and intellectual wimps. This SF story covers the ideas better than most I have encountered:

    Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen by H. Beam Piper
    http://mreadz.com/read60713

    um
     
  5. umbrarchist

    umbrarchist Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    328
    Likes Received:
    92
    Ratings:
    +100
    Now I have a problem with Neil de Grasse Tyson. He has admitted that he lived less than a mile from the World Trade Center and was there on 9/11/2001. He says he heard the buildings come down and had to leave his home because of the dust.

    What has he said about the "physics" of 9/11 in almost 15 years?

    But then one has to wonder what would happen to his career if he said airliners could not possibly have done that much damage. What are the "ethics" of people claiming to be scientists supposed to be?

    um
     
    • Thank You Thank You x 1
    • List
  6. umbrarchist

    umbrarchist Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    328
    Likes Received:
    92
    Ratings:
    +100
    Greetings! I look in far more often than I respond. Depends on the subject.

    um
     
  7. umbrarchist

    umbrarchist Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    328
    Likes Received:
    92
    Ratings:
    +100
    I get the impression that a lot of people have a problem with the concept of:

    "I DON'T KNOW"

    They would rather "believe" something that makes no sense than live in admitted ignorance. The atheists cannot prove that there is no God even if there is none and if there is some kind of God then however He/She/It is running the universe in ways more complicated than any religion seems to explain.

    One of the most ironic things in scientific history is the expansion of the universe. In the 60s it was assumed that the universe would either expand forever or it would slow down and fall back in on itself, called The Big Crunch. An SF writer and physicist wrote a classic story about it titled Tau Zero.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_Zero

    However it has since been discovered that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing. Astrophysicists do not know why. No known physics phenomenon can cause that. So they come up with a name, Dark Energy. It is just a name, not an explanation.

    Science is merely the seeking of answers, it does not claim to have all of them. But I think some people do not like, and resent the answers that have been found so far and therefore prefer the words and ideas in dusty old books.

    But if some God is responsible for the existence of the universe then He/She/It must know all of the science, including what we have not figured out YET. So there should not really be any conflict just incorrect ideas in old books. Including some old science books.

    um
     
  8. UBNaturally

    UBNaturally Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2014
    Messages:
    6,497
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +1,736

    Which is why it is best to "question everything"

    Even those that claim they know, haven't questioned everything.
    This is essentially a goal of always being inquisitive and curious without vain ideology.

    upload_2016-5-22_12-25-29.png

    Not sure why the moon orbits like how it is shown in the above diagram, but let's use it for the time being.

    The authors of this theory would have to explain why the moon does not get further away from the Earth when on the "backside" of the solar rotation, and inversely not get closer to the Earth when on the "frontside" of the solar rotation.

    Thinking on this level, the "half moons" should be at the apex and base of proximity to the Earth.

    This image shows the phases of the moon in relation to the sun.
    [​IMG]

    upload_2016-5-22_12-38-8.png

    This phase (3rd Quarter Phase) should appear the largest in the sky, simply because it is the phase that occurs when the moon is in front of the path of the Earth's rotation around the sun.

    upload_2016-5-22_12-40-30.png

    This phase (1st Quarter Phase) should appear the smallest in the sky, simply because it is the phase that occurs when the moon is behind the Earth's path around the sun.

    This is just my general take on it, without all of the extra added pseudo science that is written about in a book, or can only be studied in a $2,000,000 laboratory.
     
  9. umbrarchist

    umbrarchist Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    328
    Likes Received:
    92
    Ratings:
    +100
    I don't know if you take this into account or not:



    um
     
  10. UBNaturally

    UBNaturally Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2014
    Messages:
    6,497
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +1,736

    Indeed

    The claim here is that the Earth rotates and revolves around an axis, and then the moon around it.

    Have an old video of a professor explaining this as well, can't find it at the moment though.

    Then there are others that we can toss into the melee as well...


    Some say this is simply an illusion


    Then others just jump the boat completely

    NASA and Astronomy is has more in common with belief or what they would refer to as "scientific theory".

    Still doesn't clarify if the moon gets closer to and further from Earth at any time during a month or a year?

    Does the video one presented reveal something relative to this?
     
Loading...

Users found this page by searching for:

  1. theology and space