Some of you may know about my fascination for the night sky. Recently in my astronomy class, we’ve been looking at stars, including the structure and properties of our own Sun and the study of the most distance stars. I’ve grown found of these astronomical objects, so I wanted to share my perspective on stars is.
I kinda see stars having a very prominent role in God’s creation. Other than black holes (especially the supermassive variety) and perhaps galaxies (depending on what you consider a single object), stars are the most prominent material “gods” of this side of creation simply because of how their gravity shapes the universe around them. Heavy elements including oxygen and carbon, both vital to life as we know it, are only possible through the life and death of stars (specifically the high-mass variety, which are doomed to a vastly shorter lifespan than their lower mass counterparts). Also, without the energy and gravitational anchoring they provide for planets, life (again) is unlikely to be possible (though there are now hypotheses for rogue gas planets to possibly harbor life in their moons through infrared radiation output, but those planets are still only possible through the birth of stars). Indeed, they seem to hold a very God-like role on the mortal side of the universe.
I also kinda see stars are being able to do things that humans have always dreamt to doing: their longevity (especially red dwarfs, expected to live for a trillion years) reflects human desire for immortality. They hold a prominent role in society; literally everything revolves around them. They are literally larger than life and their massive size enable them to “see” the vastness of space in a lessened way than we do.
Of course, stars are able to do this without any thought to actually doing it (at least that’s what we know now. I’ve always wondered if God would have provided the universe with the same free will as us to “decide” how it wants to be created, so as to explain why not all planets will have life because they decided not to). To me, this is a very humbling fact that kinda pairs with Carl Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot poem, reflecting on the fleeting desires of man and how many exploits like war and conflict are ultimately fruitless in the grand scheme of creation (I meant Sagan not because I agree with his views on God but because others in this forum have helped me appreciate how he is able to appreciate life no matter his beliefs).
While stars are nice and all, I have no interest in worshipping them or superseding them in place of God. So, I was wondering what your thoughts on allowing my love of astronomy feed my faith rather than take from it. Again, thank everyone for their help thus far!
Many have enjoyed storybook anthropomorphizing of stars. I think of Lewis’ Narnian universe (and Tolkien’s Middle-earth too if I’m not mistaken) where stars had identities and roles to play, without being deified in those worlds of course. And yet their roles were prominent (even if only incidentally covered in the plot-lines) and very god-like as much as creatures could be.
The universe can be engaged as a quite enchanted place indeed!
I think that’s great. My son loves Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s book (Astrophysics for People In a Hurry), and has a large poster on his wall of a nebula; he has thought of becoming an astronomer. Deb Haarsma, who used to be the leader of Biologos, was a prof in Calvin in astronomy. She and her husband presented on evolutionary creationism, and used some illustrations of her astronomy here, as I recall.
I’ve always been a bit nervous thinking about interacting with resources of prominent voices against Christianity. Has he had any problems with the book? Would you recommend I read it? I don’t mean to be “xenophobic” against atheists but my long history of trying to find sound footing in my faith admits long periods of anxiety has always made me nervous that something could set that off again.
Hm good question; I think it’s ok to wait till you are comfortable with it. I did the same thing in undergrad. My son read it when he was 13 (he’s 15 now) and as he’s pretty devout (it’s funny, his brother is not), I think he would have told me if it was worrisome to him. I think that he doesn’t wander too much into the philosophy in that book. I’ve not read that one, though I did scan through the shorter version for young people for some reason. Maybe someone else here has read the whole one.
Another example of this are science fiction books by Frank Herbert: Whipping Star and Dosadi Experiment, where they are portrayed as an alien race called the Caleban, with the ability to teleport us between planets. In both stories the Calebans have made some unusual (dangerous) contracts with people.
BTW Google AI gets the description wrong of Calebans being a near extinct alien race or that Fanny Mae is the last of them – or that they appear in human-like form: NEVER!
Well, while staying within the epistemic bubble of Fox News and News Max, one might never suspect that perhaps the current Administration and its political party might not always be on the side of the angels and exclusively favored by God.
I don’t understand what you mean. I get what your saying, and I completely agree with you that mixing politics and religion is a very bad idea (I had left the party system behind a year ago because of how I realized it was twisting my faith. For the same reason I no longer depend on Fox News for anything). However, could you elaborate on how this relates to my worries about atheist counter points?
I can think of a number of solid reasons to avoid atheist counterpoints, like ‘Don’t have the time”, “Not interested”, “Don’t feel the need”, “Won’t be a productive or healthy use of my time”. Not everything in the Internet requires one’s attention.
However, most of Tyson’s work has nothing to do with an atheist agenda. The overwhelming majority is about astronomy and cosmology – basic science. So, if you’re interested in digestable accounts about the science, he’s a perfectly reasonable and solid resource. If you are avoiding reading his work out of fear that it may lead to a crisis of faith then recognize the ideological bubble you create. Come back later, if it still matters, when you’re feeling less fragile or skip through past his parts on religion. He’s not bringing anything new to the table on the religion side of things
I’ve got an idea, Argon. Here’s Tyson’s Startalk with Niel Degrasse Tyson. Go through his 1.7K videos, watch each one in order to make sure which mention God or religion and which don’t and list the ones that don’t for Max.
Sounds like a job for AI! The transcripts appear to be behind a paywall, however. Also note that Tyson refers to himself as an agnostic, not an atheist though he will critique particular religious beliefs he doesn’t think jibes with current understanding of the world (eg. Young Earth Creationism and Flood geology). What he doesn’t like, and what most scientists prefer not to do, is try to directly ascribe God to unexplained physical phenomena. Now, is someone going to read one of Tyson’s books or listen to a podcast and see new arguments for becoming an atheist? I think not. I’d suggest the risk is very slim, but YMMV. Compared to the details he provides about cosmology, astronomy, earth and other sciences, his output on religion is pretty thin gruel and can be skipped over if one prefers.
I guess I’m coming from a frustrating observation about some people or groups trying to censor or restrict books about subjects they fear will ‘lead some astray’.
“Does the publisher also print books that describe an old earth or evolution as a legitimate option?” Well, we can’t trust books from them!
“Is the author of the geology textbook a Christian (insert your preferred faith here)?” Well, if not, they’re naturally suspect.
I find that sort of “data filtering by tribal proxy” a bit “limiting” and opposite to the classic, liberal arts scholarly tradition that dates back hundreds of years.
Personally, I’m not a fan of censoring or restricting books about subjects “feared will ‘lead some astray’”. I read what I get interested in, don’t read what doesn’t interest me, and stop reading when I’ not interested any more. Like with Youtube videos.
I don’t typically do this (I’ve enjoyed stories, films, and other content from a wide variety of faiths). However, I’m still a bit shaky moving into science, so I do my best to try and stick to the most mainstream (I.e. official NASA or Library Britannica) information before moving into author specific research when I feel my faith is stronger to recognize that everything isn’t a threat.
