Are Science and Religion Contrary? w/ Trent Horn  

Trent Horn is my hero. He is probably the most sincere and intelligent person in the public eye. My dream is to have a creative collaboration with him one day.

I shared this w my Dad, who remains an atheist... because of science. Thanks for the great apologetics, gents. 🌹🙏

I had a conversation with an atheist. We were both into science. I brought up and gave an explanation of cultural moral relativism and she got it, how something in one culture is justified honor kill and murder in another. In context, we were discussing fetal development and abortion. I then said “Relativism is compatible with atheism where the universe has no real purpose or meaning. So let’s get back to science.” I then asked her “What is the scientific description of a person?” You could see the gears turning as she’d never confronted that question. I said there ain’t one. A person is a moral entity.” She was a bartender and took off…then came back. She got it. What is the scientific description for the Three Persons in the Trinity? There isn’t any. I once heard a congresswoman say, “ A fetus isn’t a person.” To which I responded to the TV: “Who died and made you god?” If there’s no such thing as a True Morality then there’s no such thing as a True Person, either. A culture simply arbitrarily defines which Homo Sapiens get legal personhood status within that culture. The US Supreme Court ruled slaves were property, not citizens (not having personhood entitlements). And the Supreme Court ruled similarly in Roe v Wade.

I definitely agree that Guatemala is an incredible country. When I was younger I cycled down there from Az. Very tough biking as you go from sea- level to 10,000 ft in 50 miles from Malacatan to San Marcos. Very rich country culturally.

iir it was mentioned that Steven Hawking in his last paper said that infinite multiverse is not possible. The chance of this world existing randomly without an infinite multiverse is also not possible. This means clearly there is a Creator.

Here’s the thing, and I say this as a practicing Catholic: which aspects of the faith and which aspects of scientific knowledge? Because IMO, no big dogma of The Church comes into conflict with science. When I say this, I’m talking the big stuff that every Catholic should know and believe: concerning the sacraments, the Marian Dogmas, the papacy, the creeds, the precepts, the most essential moral teachings concerning the healing of the sick and the poor, the immorality of murder, execution, abortion, torture, etc. When you get into some doctrines however, conflicts *do* begin to arise. An example is that of masturbation, which the catechism calls “gravely and intrinsically disordered” and “contrary to the purpose of sexuality”. Meanwhile, we can observe at least that in primates, masturbation serves the practical function of maintaining sperm quality, lowering stress levels, maintaining prostate health and reducing the risk of several complications down there, and many other benefits. Similar benefits exist for women as well. To anyone who isn’t automatically dismissive of possible contradictions to previously held doctrine (and The Church has several alterations or changes in history to *doctrine*, though has never and can never alter a *dogma* itself only develop the understanding of it.) it would appear that God’s design of the body, mind, and soul includes what The Church’s Magisterium deems contrary to nature or gravely disordered. This should give us pause when we discuss science, reason, faith, and The Church. We must consider all evidence, pray, and follow the conscience informed by reason and faith when navigating these matters. Sometimes it’s quite clear, other times it’s not as cut and dry as we’d like to believe and that’s when we may have to reevaluate our beliefs and behaviors.

Something I've noticed that was touched upon in this video clip, Christians, when asked how certain they are in their beliefes will admit they, have at times, a small doubt regarding God's existence but that doubt quickly passes away and may go on the state the reasons why. Contrast that with atheists that never express doubt, or maybe they were never asked, The media is biased.

As an engineer the book that helped me with this is “The Great Partnership” by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. I highly recommend it for all those scientifically minded people struggling with faith.

Gavin mentions Pascal, but for me Leonhard Euler completely solved any problem I could have with "Divine Hiddenness" in his essay "A Defense of the Revelation." I'd recommend it to anyone who is interested (it is pretty short).

And you too Matt ! Gavin is a very nice guy as well

For me, faith, free will, and God's obscuration are all intimately related. I find hard to fathom the possibility for us (as mortal human beings) to maintain our free will while simultaneously in the undeniable presence of an omnipotent and omniscient God. The ability to plausibly deny God is necessary for us to have free will.

Sometimes I think the discussion about God requires some clarification when discussing. The atheist will have their own image about who or what God is and, of course, will disprove it very quickly. When people argue about physical evidence or for an immediate response such as lighting, it is evident to me that there is a misunderstanding about what God is. If God were the kind of being that would strike lighting on request, then we would know. However, if we assume that He exists and the phenomenon does not happen, we can conclude that we know more about Him. Talking with an atheist, I would try the following discussion: -Do you believe in gravity? -Yes. -Look at this helium balloon, which is going toward the sky; therefore, gravity does not exist. That is obviously silly, and that is only helping us to understand how gravity works a little better. I think it is a similar case for God. For the one who assumes God to have created everything, everything is evidence for God's existence. The same goes for the argument of the God of the gap; I do not know, therefore, God. We need a name for things. We hardly argue about the gravity of the gap or the "I do not know why things are attracted toward the ground, therefore gravity" argument. These are my thoughts for now; I hope they make sense to some of you. :) Feel free to criticise; I am trying to find ways to talk about God with atheists in a way that they can understand.

Trent horn rocks!

if god is the creator of all things, then God is the author of all, including science. "a kingdom divided cannot stand", therefor one cannot contradict the other. If one claims that the earth is 6000 years old based on the bible, yet science claims otherwise, then there are other gods in charge of the universe, and our ability to use reason would therefor not be of god, but some other source.

mountains are sacred and in essence your son wasn't incorrect. From a metaphysical and religious standpoint the tops of mountains are axis mundi, we have a intuitive knowing that mountains are a connector between this world and the divine, this is why in my opinion the Ten Commandments was given on a mountain not a field, city or woodland.

I love Matt and Trent (who doesn't right?) But there's just something about Gavin that I really like, despite him having opposing views to the Catholic faith.

Thomas wanted physical evidence and he got it. After witnessing the risen Christ he no longer had faith. He got evidence. I often wonder when an atheist asks for physical evidence of God if they really understand how drastically their life would change if they got it.

One of my favorite "Physical" forms of evidence is the argument using time. If we existed on an infinite timeline in both directions. The likelihood we could interact with any sentient being on an infinite timeline would be impossible statistically. Therefore, the universe is finite and there was a beginning :)

Myth caused by the Enlightenment, though Christendom, and the Islamic world gave us a lot scientifically. Religion doesn't contradict science and viceversa, they talk about different things.

Einstein and many other’s who were smarter than Tyson believed there was a God.

Tyson can't even define what a woman is so no one should listen to him.

The universe more readily resembles what one would expect to find if it were governed by naturalistic principles, and not by an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving god.

Science is approximately 3,000 years behind scripture. “Life is in the blood” - Deuteronomy, “paths of the sea” - Psalms, the universe is expanding - Psalms, springs at the bottom on the ocean - Genesis, the sun has a circuit- psalms, humans DO sweat blood - Jesus, the center of the earth is fire and sulfur- Revelation, the earth will be destroyed by fire - Peter, there actually WAS a beginning- Genesis. We were created from dust- Genesis. All confirmed by the scientific community in the 20th century.

Your faith may be BS (and in the hands and pens of humans most definitely must be distorted) but your belief that the universe has a Creator is not BS. It’s by far (like 99.9 to .1) the most likely scenario.

I am tired of this false dialectic given by the secular world that science and God do not mesh, and I am even more upset at apologists like Trent Horn that fail to explain it properly. Trent is the type of apologist that sees science as a tool which can express either the atheistic side, or the theistic one. He then wants to claim that, science actually shows that God is real! No no no... Every apologist fails to explain that, the only sound worldview is a Christian one. This is an epistemic point of view, where we demonstrate that science operates on a handful of assumptions that need to be the case, before it can function properly at the pragmatic level. So we cannot begin with science... It is not as if we do science, then we affirm our belief in God. These questions are justified in philosophy, and a specific philosophical view can only cohere and correspond properly with God. So God gives credence to epistemic justification of a whole host of philosophical problems, and these then give a basis for science. Science is like 3 steps removed, and we can't just start with it. We need to ask prior questions about how science presumes causal inference, induction, and logic works the way we rely on it. These then demand a specific justification in philosophy, and these are granted by a belief in God. So stop with the false dialectic that it's science or faith when really it is, faith then science... Failing to address this allows the atheist to continue using their presuppositions that aren't justified yet...

I'm glad he pointed out the role celebrity scientists play in this debate. A great number of scientists don't share their views when it comes to the supremacy of science but they aren't given a platform to express their beliefs. Scientism differs a great deal from science. I hear so called experts referring to settled science and I shake my head because that notion dismisses the scientific method out hand. It pays well though. They even put a guy like Bill Nye on their panels and feature him in their documentaries. Bill Nye, a guy who was a failed comic with a degree in engineering before landing a gig where he played a scientist on a kids TV show. Now he's all over the place, talking about the certainty of life on other planets, how gender is fluid, and the dangers of climate change, subjects as foreign to him as brain surgery is to me. DeGrasse-Tyson is the worst, commenting on everything from social justice to theology because he thinks he is the smartest guy on the planet while the media feeds his ego by agreeing with him. I used to watch the Science Channel but I stopped after seeing the same scientists spouting the same absolutes and theories as fact over and over again. Then when a hole the size of the Caloris crater gets punched through said theory, no problem, we'll just scrub the tape and act like we never said it. It's all about money I suppose, and if people want to give them credibility, they're free to do it. There was a time when a well-balanced education included studying theology and philosophy along with math and science. Now God and critical thought has been pretty much removed from the public school curriculum and even Christian schools are hesitant to hit the subject's too hard for fear of offending some group or another. Some of the greatest scientific discoveries were made by men of faith, men like Newton. The Fauci's of the world want to change that because they crave power. The thing is, the deeper they go down the cosmologic rabbit hole the stronger the case for God becomes, or at least the more questions get generated in that direction. Honest scientists keep all options and possibilities open. Guys making a buck say what their paymasters want them to say.

There are two different languages. There is the language of the atheist and there is the language of Yahweh. There is no communication between the two because the atheist does not want to communicate in the same way that Yahweh wants to communicate. For example, Yahweh says, “Let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet...” (Isaiah 1:18). The first thing on Yahweh's lists for discussion is your sin. However, for the atheist that topic is the last thing on the list. Also, it's not what you believe in, it's about what you love (Mark 12:33). The atheist's remedy to explain all his theories and to discredit the Genesis story is to add the construct of billions of years. But on the other hand, everything in Genesis is created in its adult form from the beginning. The trees, the animals, mankind are all created in their adult form. That also includes the universe. And an adult universe would and should appear to be billions of years old. Atheist do not understand that consciousness is not a chemical formula which could ever be created in a lab. When we talk about the elements we are talking about our experience of the elements through the miracle of consciousness. I would agree that the churches today are defective. In fact, the Apostle Paul pronounced a curse on most churches today because the main Christian denominations of today preach a different gospel than what Paul preached. To quote exactly what Paul said, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8). Both apostle Paul and Peter preached the same gospel and quote from the prophet Joel (2:32) saying, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of Yahweh shall be saved." (Romans 10:13 and Acts 2:21). The English translations say “Lord” instead of “Yahweh.” But “Lord” does not translate “Yahweh” it is a substitution of a totally different word altogether. This substitution activates two additional curses because if you substitute a word you are both adding and subtracting at the same time. “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Revelation 22:18, 19) We are commanded by Messiah that, “...repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:47). In other words, we are supposed to preach the gospel that came out of Jerusalem and not preach the gospel that came out of Antioch, or Rome, or England, or New York, or Chicago, etc. By the time the gospel got to Antioch it had already been perverted as we read, “...And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” (Acts 11:26). The problem with this is that YHWH spoke of a people called by His name (Deuteronomy 28:10; 2 Chronicles 7:14; Isaiah 43:6, 7; Daniel 9:19; Amos 9:12; Acts 15:17). YHWH did not choose the name “Christian” for Himself. The people of Antioch chose that name and all the so called main denominations of today embrace that name “Christian” for themselves. When Peter and Paul preached the gospel they quote the prophet Joel, “Whosoever shall call on the name of YHWH shall be saved.” (Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21; Rom. 10:13). I ask you, how many of the church fathers and so called main denominations of today preach that gospel? None of them. Absolutely none! Paul makes it very clear that the end result of him preaching the gospel was that the people would call on the name YHWH. He says in (Rom. 10:14,15), The preachers are sent. They preach. The people hear. The people believe. The people call on the name YHWH (Rom. 10:13). I ask you, how many of the church fathers and so called main denominations of today preach that gospel? None of them. Absolutely none! It took only one generation after the death of Joshua for the children of Israel to forget the mighty works of YHWH which He had worked through Moses and Joshua and to began to serve the idols of the people around them (Judges 2:7-13). It took only one generation. .....