Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: FlamingCobra on August 28, 2013, 08:15:19 pm
-
http://freethinker.co.uk/2013/08/28/christianity-is-dying-in-england-and-in-france-catholic-priests-are-only-preaching-to-pensioners/
I'd like to discuss why this trend is happening all across Europe, not just in England and France, but not in the United States. Does it have to do with a lack of urbanization?
-
FlamingMamba, as an attempt to keep this from getting out of hand early (because unlike many posters here, I am still religion-friendly, even if I am not religious, please expound and create a basis for discussion that is both appropriate and relevant for conversation.
Drive-by posting of links on notoriously prickly subjects is not something that's a good idea, and could be seen as deliberately trying to fan flames.
-
I think that this is pretty much established now, though. It's well documented that religiosity is decreasing all over the Western world. Even in America, which is almost certainly the most religious western country (possibly excluding Italy and Ireland), atheism and irreligiousness is growing. In more... shall we say moderate countries, the decline has been steady and is well established.
Personally, I don't see how it's news any more. Demographics shift, better educated younger people are beginning to outnumber people who grew up in an age where belief was simply taken as a given, in large part because they probably weren't taught any sensible alternatives - The big bang (and cosmology as a science even) was contentious well into the middle of the twentieth century - evolution too, to a lesser extent. The coherent alternative narrative we all take for granted today has only existed in a sensible, defensible form for a relatively short period, and things take time to filter from acadaemia into the school system and broad public understanding.
That's probably why the church is still doing so well in poorer countries (see the comparison in this very article between French catholocism and African). As the internet allows greater education in poorer parts of the world, religion should start to follow a similar (if slower) path worldwide.
Good news for everyone. :)
-
I think we should note something form the start. Europe is mostly Catholic, America is mostly Protestant. You'll notice "Catholic priests" in the title. Of all variations of Christianity (and even compared to Islam and Judaism, which work off the same "core"), Catholicism is the most bureaucratized and stiff. It's difficult to compare much more flexible and decentralized Protestantism to Catholicism. The latter is just too far behind the times, despite every attempt to change that. The new Pope Francis is very interested in changing that, but it'd be a long process. We'll see how this goes, but I expect religion to keep declining in importance, the question is just how quickly.
-
Ha! I'd say it is almost the same case in the US. I really have no idea if it is because urbanization or some say the media (AKA Californication), but it happens, just look at the people today. You can see many wouldn't call themselves Atheists or something like that, but they are definitely no longer Christian. My father's friend who live in Spain said many churches are abandoned, and turned into cafes. Which is actually ironic if you compare to the Eastern worlds. Where I live (Indonesia), it is very difficult in many areas just to build a church, that is if some of the more fanatic locals and corrupt government officials don't try to kick you out for it, yet countless struggled and try to have a place of worship.
-
Well, it's pretty much universal. Even the most adaptable Protestant churches tend to resist progress and change. Religion was extremely important in early stages of human history (which is why it's still big in poorer countries), but now it's a relic which is no longer necessary. Also, it's not a recent trend. Compare the progress of literature over the ages. The first "emotional" age (Medieval) emphasized God and religion. Baroque was also religious (but to a lesser extent), and after that, Romanticism focused on Man and human emotions instead. You can observe a similar progression through "intellectual" ages, where we've come from Renaissance (God and religion were quite an important theme) to Modernism (where they were mere background). This is a natural progression and I believe the logical conclusion will be ditching religion completely, focusing entirely on Man. You can see that already in the most recent works.
-
The UK has its own Church, the CofE, which is not aligned with the Catholic Church, which hasn't had a particularly firm hold here since Henry VIII's time.
Do you mean a lack of Urbanisation in Europe or the US (not that I was aware of such a thing in either) I am assuming you mean the US, since a lack of Urbanization in Europe would probably result in an increase in Religious influence not a decrease?
-
I think that lack of urbanization in any place has the opposite effect, religion always had a firmer hold in rural areas. In both countries (really, all over the world), progressing urbanization usually goes hand in hand with decline of religion.
As for CofE, it is, for all intents and purposes, Catholic Church with the Queen as the Pope. Bureaucracy might be less extensive, but from what I've seen of it, it's just as stiff as the Catholic Church. Soon it might be even more, considering the new Catholic Pope. The head of CofE doesn't look like she's going to quit anytime soon.
-
With regards to Urbanisation, that's exactly what I'm saying, that if there was a lack of it, we'd see Religious control increase because secluded communities tend to be more receptive of Religious doctrines.
With regards to CofE, I'm not stating an opinion of it, merely explaining why the Catholic Church has a limited hold in the UK.
-
If you're equating the Queen with the Pope, you're making a big mistake about how the CoE works. The Queen is no more involved in running the CoE than she is in running the UK. The Pope's counterpart in the CoE is the Archbishop of Canterbury.
As for urbanization, in general, urbanisation leads to better education. I suspect that is the main driver.
-
Oh yes, I forgot about that part. With Modernism, people are starting to believe in logic to be the most important thing, putting religions aside. That is similar to Plato's belief. Now in post-modern society, people are shifting back to emotion, and they actually went further away from religion.
Lastly, I think nobody likes how the Catholic Church antagonize sexuality to hell and back, so am I of course. 'Darth Bento' actually tried to remove the celibacy requirement for the priests, but most of the cardinals didn't agree with him.
-
The UK has its own Church, the CofE, which is not aligned with the Catholic Church, which hasn't had a particularly firm hold here since Henry VIII's time.
More Catholics currently attend services in England than do CofE members, perversely, so I'm not sure how accurate this statement can be treated as.
-
yay!
-
The UK has its own Church, the CofE, which is not aligned with the Catholic Church, which hasn't had a particularly firm hold here since Henry VIII's time.
More Catholics currently attend services in England than do CofE members, perversely, so I'm not sure how accurate this statement can be treated as.
Catholics tend to attend more frequently per month, but far, far fewer people associate themselves with the Catholic church in the UK. 9%, or 1/12 people in the UK, compared to the 37.5%, over 4 times higher which is the European average (Source : Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_by_country)
Now explain to me again how the statement that the Catholic Church has not established a particularly strong hold in the UK is 'not accurate'. Whilst the fact that fewer CofE members attend is a contributing factor, it wasn't the factor I was referring to, it was the low level of Catholicism in the UK in the first place.
Further to that, the level of attendance for both Churches has been slowly dropping for a long time, with fewer new members each generation, hence the preaching to pensioners. There's no single factor involved, but the fact remains that a lot of people in the UK don't attend Mass simply because they are not Catholic.
-
http://freethinker.co.uk/2013/08/28/christianity-is-dying-in-england-and-in-france-catholic-priests-are-only-preaching-to-pensioners/
I'd like to discuss why this trend is happening all across Europe, not just in England and France, but not in the United States. Does it have to do with a lack of urbanization?
Re: why Europe and not the US
Liberal democratic values are largely incompatible with theocratic methods of governing. The US has become markedly more conservative and theocratic in the last 50 years. This is in part due to a resurgence of religion in the southern US due to mass immigration, and a political resurgence of religion in non-urban areas of the US as a response to political conflict in the last two decades. It's no coincidence that religion began playing a greater role in US politics again right around the time the US started getting re-involved in military action in the Middle East.
Furthermore, the main areas of immigration to Europe are of non-Christian origin. The main immigrants into the US have strong Christian roots - and the US has many well-established churches that do not belong to the major branches of Christianity. Membership in tradition Christian denominations has dropped, but evangelicals in the US have actually seen an increase.
And far more of Europe's population lives in urban areas than does the population of the United States on a per capita basis.
-
Good riddance. What makes you think that Christianity isn't dying in the United States?
-
I just hope the emerging non-religious majority populations will manage to be less dickish to minority groups than the religious ones they replace. It will be interesting to see.
-
I just hope the emerging non-religious majority populations will manage to be less dickish to minority groups than the religious ones they replace. It will be interesting to see.
Or perhaps the non-religious majority will simply be dickish to the religious minority?
Except Muslims of course, since criticizing Islam would be "racist." Yet criticizing Christianity and Judaism is perfectly acceptable.
-
And there goes the thread! :yes:
<cue applause>
-
And there goes the thread! :yes:
<cue applause>
The thread will only go downhill if we allow it to go downhill. If everyone remains civilized and respectful, I see no reason we can't have a legitimate discussion.
-
Good riddance. What makes you think that Christianity isn't dying in the United States?
Hell yes of course, if you are not a Christian, you may or may not notice it, it is not that clear from some point of view. If you are one however, unless you are unaware of the situation or a maybe little dumb, it is pretty obvious. However, I am more concerned with the internal damage inside the church, rather than Christianity losing followers.
I just hope the emerging non-religious majority populations will manage to be less dickish to minority groups than the religious ones they replace. It will be interesting to see.
Or perhaps the non-religious majority will simply be dickish to the religious minority?
Except Muslims of course, since criticizing Islam would be "racist." Yet criticizing Christianity and Judaism is perfectly acceptable.
I am not sure why regardless of the group, people like to oppress the minority group. If they do, even the so called "Christians" sometimes, then they are not so different.
-
I just hope the emerging non-religious majority populations will manage to be less dickish to minority groups than the religious ones they replace. It will be interesting to see.
There are certainly enough dicks in the comments of that article.
-
Except Muslims of course, since criticizing Islam would be "racist." Yet criticizing Christianity and Judaism is perfectly acceptable.
The thread will only go downhill if we allow it to go downhill. If everyone remains civilized and respectful, I see no reason we can't have a legitimate discussion.
Part of being civilized and having a good discussion is to keep myths and prejudice out of it. That also includes not trying to perpetuate the myth that christianity is somehow a persecuted religion in the US, given that flying while brown during Ramadan is not exactly safe, and given that at least the New York police habitually puts Mosques under covert surveillance.
One can criticize any religion for what it teaches. But it would be wise to remember that, for example, a mainstream christian in the US and a mainstream christian in Europe have vastly different outlooks on what the religion is, and so take care to be specific when criticizing. Saying "Churches who spread faith healing is bad for the community, as they tend to forego vaccinations and thus heighten the risk for everyone around them to catch diseases" is valid. Saying "Christianity teaches faith healing, and thus is bad for the community" is not. Are we clear on that?
-
Catholics tend to attend more frequently per month, but far, far fewer people associate themselves with the Catholic church in the UK. 9%, or 1/12 people in the UK, compared to the 37.5%, over 4 times higher which is the European average (Source : Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_by_country)
Okay, so you could have just said "you're right, more Catholics do attend services!"
Associating themselves with the church is, perforce, not a measure of their interest in the church, as evidenced by the fact their attendance rate is rather poor.
Now explain to me again how the statement that the Catholic Church has not established a particularly strong hold in the UK is 'not accurate'. Whilst the fact that fewer CofE members attend is a contributing factor, it wasn't the factor I was referring to, it was the low level of Catholicism in the UK in the first place.
Again, stating affiliation to the church is not an endorsement of the church's stated ideals or goals. (c.f. the US Catholic Bishops opposing contraception that most who would identify as Roman Catholic were for.) The Church of England has a weaker grip on its own country than Catholicism does, which was the point.
Church-going regularly on the other hand, by its nature, usually indicates closer adherence to the goals and ideology of the church in question. If only because you're subjected to a good deal of talking about them on regular basis and wouldn't if you found it that offensive.
(I could elaborate that this because the Church of England has to some extent become a social club, as its moral stances are, for better or worse, far less clearly defined or non-negotiable compared to Catholicism or many other sects of Protestantism; in effect it lacks something to stand for, and has for whatever reason neglected its ability to point to lesser-privileged brothers and sisters in faith who need help. I assume congregations of the Church of England probably remain in areas of India or Africa formerly a part of the Empire.)
-
And, as is your normal modus operandi, you deliberately misinterpret the point I was trying to make purely for the sake of your own ego.
You really aren't worth the effort, and, quite frankly, I'd rather have as little communication with you as possible.
-
NGTM1R: I am really not sure what kind of point you're making or trying to make here. From what you and Flip have posted, it seems that while Catholics are a minority group among the religious of the UK, those that do exist tend to be more active in their religious community (More church attendance and the like).
That does not impact the general statement Flip made about the Catholic church not having a particularly strong foothold in the slightest.
-
Alright, let me put this down on the table so both those involved and the Admin can be aware of my stance on this...
I have no problem with NGTM1R getting involved in these threads, he has as much right as everyone else, however, after my experiences with him recently, I'd MUCH prefer it if he did not attempt to talk to me directly, and especially not attempt to flame-bait me directly.
I made a mistake when I joined here 10 years ago in assuming that everyone here, because they shared a common interest, was a nice person.
I've learned my lesson.
Id like to stay a member of the community if possible, but I can no longer treat all members equally after what happened. I know this makes matters slightly awkward for Moderators and I apologise for that, but that's just the way things have turned out.
Anyway, piece said, hopefully we can leave it at that.
-
From my perspective, I was completely blown away when I first realised that foreigns would look at my country (in internet groups) and declare it absolute christian, almost fundamentalist. When these people got me the stats that they were looking at, I was also blown away. According to census, 98% of the Portuguese population *is* a christian. I couldn't reconcile it with my reality, where most of the people I met along my life were either really soft deists, agnostics, "wouldn't care-ists", full blown atheists and one or two christians. Didn't match.
Then I figured it out. Those 98% quoted in all international orgs, etc., is just the number of "christians" that the catholic church was accounting for. How they did this? Well, they just counted every single person who was baptized! No wonder the mismatch! Everyone I know is in fact baptized, but that's so hardly correlated to what they actually believe that's not even a joke.
So no, these news are not foreign nor news to me for a long time. The major reason why Catholicism took a real beating for the past 50 years is mostly due to its connections with the fascist regimes. In Portugal (and in many other EU countries) for example, the Chruch was high up there with Salazar and absoslutely joyfully cooperative. They maintained the propaganda status quo. Of course, when the revolution came, no one was too happy about the Chuch's role.
In Portugal's case (and I guess similar things happened in other countries ruled by fascists), the Church just quieted down and pretended history didn't exist, etc., all the religious people were just embarrassed by all the situation and neglected a lot their christian duty to proselityze. A curious social phenomena started to happen. Parents were religious while their sons were not, and there was no backlash whatsoever. Meanwhile, the revolution was made by the communists and socialists and they mostly managed to arrange a proper secularized government, and all public discussion about religion just disappeared. Add to that the growing education stats and all the things already outlined here, it is no wonder that the churches are becoming empty. They are even having trouble forming priests to do the jobs.
-
The interesting thing about religion in Urban areas is that I can't help thinking there is a correlation between religious friction and religious devotion. For example, in Ireland, where there is friction between Catholics and Protestants, religion is a big thing, with each side eager to show their dedication to their chosen denomination. The situation was similar with Islam, oddly enough, I know several Muslims who went from Smoking, Drinking and Partying to abstainers who regularly attended the Mosque, and the catalyst for that was a growing distrust of Muslims.
-
And NGTM-1R is also taking a break from Gen Discuss. Looks like it's a good day for banning people today.
He can come back when he's proved he's capable of having a discussion without being condescending about it.
-
The interesting thing about religion in Urban areas is that I can't help thinking there is a correlation between religious friction and religious devotion. For example, in Ireland, where there is friction between Catholics and Protestants, religion is a big thing, with each side eager to show their dedication to their chosen denomination.
Ireland probably isn't a good example, since religion in Ireland (like football team affiliation) is merely a convenient shorthand for politics.
The mess in Northern Ireland in particular stopped being about religion a long, long time ago, despite the claims of the most vocal members of the political factions. That's part of the reason the latest round of power-sharing has worked out so [comparatively] well - it gets to the root of the problem, rather than operating on the assumption that the problem is actually religious differences just because that's what the most vocal people say its about.
I still have quite a number of cousins in Northern Ireland (mostly Protestant), and it's always eye-opening hearing how bat**** crazy otherwise rational people become when you talk about politics and religion in a place where the two are indistinguishable. One of my cousins told my parents (my mom's family is Irish Protestant, my Dad's is Irish Catholic) when they were visiting a few years ago that "I respect that its not an issue for you in Canada, but if one of my boys brought home a Catholic girl, I'd disown him and kick him out on the spot." Of course, when you talk to him at length he doesn't have a real issue with the fact that people are Catholic; his issue is with the politics associated with Catholics in Northern Ireland.
I'd be careful using Ireland as a basis for any conjecture about religion generally - the place is completely unique in terms of mix of politics and religion and how that's played out over the last 800+ years.
-
You have a valid point, there is a great deal more affecting the situation in Northern Ireland and religion does tend to sort of simply be the gloss over the top of it, possibly not the best choice of examples, but I do still think there is a link between the amount of overt religious activity and perception of that religion.
Unfortunately, the only comparison I can think of is probably not the best image to combine with a religious thread, which is the Gay Pride festival, where the more overt behaviour is designed to point out that these people exist and are not intending to go away.
-
Except Muslims of course, since criticizing Islam would be "racist." Yet criticizing Christianity and Judaism is perfectly acceptable.
The thread will only go downhill if we allow it to go downhill. If everyone remains civilized and respectful, I see no reason we can't have a legitimate discussion.
Part of being civilized and having a good discussion is to keep myths and prejudice out of it. That also includes not trying to perpetuate the myth that christianity is somehow a persecuted religion in the US, given that flying while brown during Ramadan is not exactly safe, and given that at least the New York police habitually puts Mosques under covert surveillance.
One can criticize any religion for what it teaches. But it would be wise to remember that, for example, a mainstream christian in the US and a mainstream christian in Europe have vastly different outlooks on what the religion is, and so take care to be specific when criticizing. Saying "Churches who spread faith healing is bad for the community, as they tend to forego vaccinations and thus heighten the risk for everyone around them to catch diseases" is valid. Saying "Christianity teaches faith healing, and thus is bad for the community" is not. Are we clear on that?
Couldn't have said it better myself. I just wish for no more of those kind stupidities, which unfortunately still happens a lot around here. Being a protestant also means I am a minority around this part, double points with my race. On the other hand, I have been living surrounded by muslims all my life, most of them aren't those terrorist types in people's stereotypes.
Lastly, may I add that a friend of mine, who works in a local university said that most of the people who studies Philosophy in the university 'end up' becoming atheist? Well, actually not, they were Atheists from the start, and their studies just confirmed their 'faith'.
-
I guess from my own perspective, as someone who is Catholic but is having some issues right now, what bums me out the most about declining church attendance in a lot of places is seeing so many of these beautiful old inner-city churches essentially being abandoned as different parishes are merged or shut down. All else aside, organized religion has produced or funded countless spectacular works of art and architecture over the centuries--we're talking some of the most notable pieces of any given culture--and I think we'd be losing something very tangible and valuable if that were to eventually fade away.
-
I guess from my own perspective, as someone who is Catholic but is having some issues right now, what bums me out the most about declining church attendance in a lot of places is seeing so many of these beautiful old inner-city churches essentially being abandoned as different parishes are merged or shut down. All else aside, organized religion has produced or funded countless spectacular works of art and architecture over the centuries--we're talking some of the most notable pieces of any given culture--and I think we'd be losing something very tangible and valuable if that were to eventually fade away.
I'm a staunch atheist, and I 100% agree with this.
I make a point to visit any major religious site (Cathedral, monastery, whatever) when I'm near one, because I like to be absolutely blown away by the artistry.
-
I guess from my own perspective, as someone who is Catholic but is having some issues right now, what bums me out the most about declining church attendance in a lot of places is seeing so many of these beautiful old inner-city churches essentially being abandoned as different parishes are merged or shut down. All else aside, organized religion has produced or funded countless spectacular works of art and architecture over the centuries--we're talking some of the most notable pieces of any given culture--and I think we'd be losing something very tangible and valuable if that were to eventually fade away.
I'm a staunch atheist, and I 100% agree with this.
I make a point to visit any major religious site (Cathedral, monastery, whatever) when I'm near one, because I like to be absolutely blown away by the artistry.
Ditto. Drives my wife (who is Catholic in name if not practice) nuts, because whenever we plan trips to "old" places, churches are always near the top of my list of places I want to see. It's why I support historical societies and governments buying out the old properties and seeing to their preservation.
On a tangent; here in Canada, we tend to try to preserve historical sites that are even just a century old through historical societies or government ministries. Imagine my shock when visiting the UK to not only see several-hundred-year-old castles crumbling down, but find out that a number of them are privately owned and operated. Or a small chunk of Hadrian's wall in the middle of a hedgerow with no preserving measures around it to speak of. I was somewhat less horrified when I discovered that I was in a part of the UK where a short drive in any direction would land me at a different castle, but still. I guess when literally the whole countryside is built on a thousand years of history you don't get quite as worked up about it =)
-
It's always sad to see a great work fall into disuse/disrepair, but I wouldn't be too worried about religious artistic output fading from the world. Church attendance might be down, but the number of people interested in and capable of accessing and appreciating the work has gone way way up, and I'd argue that Westminster can be just as enriching to the life of an architecture lover as it is to a devout Anglican.
We might (thankfully) not have the sort of extreme and entrenched monocultural concentrations of wealth that enabled things like 100-year church construction projects, but because our base is so much broader and our means are so much greater, I would definitely say the best days of religious art are still ahead of us.
-
http://freethinker.co.uk/2013/08/28/christianity-is-dying-in-england-and-in-france-catholic-priests-are-only-preaching-to-pensioners/
I'd like to discuss why this trend is happening all across Europe, not just in England and France, but not in the United States. Does it have to do with a lack of urbanization?
Both the US and Europe are pretty urbanized, so why it should be a lack of urbanization ?
In Europe the catholic church has a problem with a shirking basis.
Younger persons don't attend so often to church, and even leave the church as organisation because they don't participate the services at Sunday or Christian holy days.
That doesn't mean the Europeans are the Vanguard of Atheism and Reason.
Many Persons that left the church or claim to be a non-believer don't seem to bother to use homoeopathic Medicine and other esoteric "alternative" practices, like buying organic food that was fertilized by the moonrays hitting buried cattle horns full of ****.
And while the churches are getting more and more empty, schools and preschools which are organized by catholic or anthroposophic principles are very popular in the circles of the upper middle class.
-
One big reason for the decline of religion in much of Western Europe can be attributed to better economics, urbanization, and rationalization among the general populace. However, I will cynically note it does nothing to change my opinion stupid and bias flows from simply breathing, taking a dump, and doing human things. I would argue that even with the decline of religion, it changes little of already projected trends of secularization and other outlets for spiritual endeavor that doesn't require tilting a hat to a pope or reading a best-seller penned by an irate biologist who trolls Muslims on twitter.
I just wonder how this will continue to affect minorities in Europe, especially the Muslim segment - how long it takes before secular laws begins to encroach on personal beliefs and liberties.
-
I also do not think that the appreciation of christian art will ever be a problem.
No one really cares about the cult of Athena or the cult of Isis or whatever anymore, and we all know everyone loves the Parthenon, Ancient Greek and Ancient Egypt culture, art, architecture, philosophy, etc.,etc.
So don't worry too much on that front!
-
http://freethinker.co.uk/2013/08/28/christianity-is-dying-in-england-and-in-france-catholic-priests-are-only-preaching-to-pensioners/
I'd like to discuss why this trend is happening all across Europe, not just in England and France, but not in the United States. Does it have to do with a lack of urbanization?
Both the US and Europe are pretty urbanized, so why it should be a lack of urbanization ?
I think somebody doesn't realize just how much acreage the United States covers, and just how much of it is sparsely populated... if populated at all.
To paraphrase Douglas Adams, the US is big. Really big.
-
To paraphrase Douglas Adams, the US is big. Really big.
Your point about urbanization is well put, but I'd like to point out that the US really isn't all THAT big... (http://fildebrandt.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/canadian-flag1.jpg)
=)
-
To paraphrase Douglas Adams, the US is big. Really big.
Your point about urbanization is well put, but I'd like to point out that the US really isn't all THAT big... (http://fildebrandt.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/canadian-flag1.jpg)
=)
Yes, the US really is all that big. The thing about Canada is that the vast majority of the population is right along the US border. :P
Besides, I mostly meant in comparison to Europe.
-
To paraphrase Douglas Adams, the US is big. Really big.
Your point about urbanization is well put, but I'd like to point out that the US really isn't all THAT big... (http://fildebrandt.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/canadian-flag1.jpg)
=)
So, Canada really isn't all that big. :D
Canada is a potentially interesting addition to the subject, but I have no idea how thinly spread it's populous is, despite it's vast land mass, or what it's religious demographic is like.
-
Yes, the US really is all that big. The thing about Canada is that the vast majority of the population is right along the US border. :P
Besides, I mostly meant in comparison to Europe.
I know what you meant, I was just having fun with you as many Americans don't realize that their northern neighbour is a quite a bit bigger country in terms of total land mass :P
Lorric, Canada is the second largest country in the world, but is 228th in terms of population density. More people live in cities here than rurally, so the country itself might be considered heavily urbanized, but those urbanized areas are spread quite far apart. According to the 2011 census, 81% of the population is urbanized. And our religiosity is also dropping like a stone, though religion has never played much of a role in our politics (with the exception of Quebec).
-
Thanks for the information. I guess you can't use Canada as a counter to the urbanisation argument then. More like it's following the trend in the same way as all the others.
-
Just as an aside to the urbanisation debate.
http://mapsontheweb.tumblr.com/post/58924412797/world-map-adjusted-for-population-size
-
I'll just add here that Christianity - for whatever reason - has always moved West. Started in Israel 2k years ago, moved into Europe, then the Americas, and more recently, China, Iran, and other dictatorships. Personally I think it's more than just an interesting fact, but I'll leave it at that.
Post-Christian Europe and getting-to-be post-Christian America don't seem to be doing very well, though. There's the overall feel that things are crumbling.
-
Post-Christian Europe and getting-to-be post-Christian America don't seem to be doing very well, though. There's the overall feel that things are crumbling.
In case you were unaware, western civilization has been in decline since the time of the old Greek. There are always bits and pieces that are crumbling, but they're generally the old disused parts that we no longer need or care about.
-
Post-Christian Europe and getting-to-be post-Christian America don't seem to be doing very well, though. There's the overall feel that things are crumbling.
Oh no Sambo, you don't get to post that and just walk away. :P
Norway. Sweden. Australia. Denmark. Belgium. New Zealand. All "post-Christian" nations with very high standards of living and highly desirable to live in. Evidence of "crumbling" please.
-
The fact that every civilisation ever, from the dawn of time, has been obviously about to collapse (regardless of actual or future growth). Generally it's the fault of the damn youth (who have lost all respect for their parents) or those newfangled computers/cars/writing/fire making everyone forget how to think/walk/remember things/freeze.
-
“Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.”
People have been complaining about the demise of Western civilization since a time before it was even called "Western civilization."
In other words:
The report of my death was an exaggeration.
-
I also do not think that the appreciation of christian art will ever be a problem.
No one really cares about the cult of Athena or the cult of Isis or whatever anymore, and we all know everyone loves the Parthenon, Ancient Greek and Ancient Egypt culture, art, architecture, philosophy, etc.,etc.
So don't worry too much on that front!
And many of the those buildings were built as religious structures. To put it succinctly, you can't preclude the influence of Christianity upon the growth of Western Society, despite some jabs of modern amateur philosophers and so-called intellectuals.. Modernism was built entirely on the notion of "leaving the past in the ditch," and the movement ground to a halt in the 1960s as artists ran out of ideas. We live in a Post-Modern world of aesthetics, theory and design. The problem is much of the intellectual and scientific community has yet to receive the Post-Modern eureka that happened in the 1970s.
And I would argue our pop culture, even games to a good extent, has openly embraced its roots from ritualistic cave paintings to brightly colored blue slabs of paint. The argument you need to always look forwards fails to grasp the monuments and ideas of the past has failed quite often, and more than ever, we turn our gaze to what we where, and how it means we can be in the future.
-
Oh come on it's obvious we are utterly becoming more and more degenerates, depressed and crumbling overall. Not only the kids are nowadays becoming a rarity, we are even barred to have any meaningful interactions with them, lest anyone starts looking at you with funny eyes thinking you are a peadophile. Guns are everywhere, and soon wmds will be a privatized thing. Look at Global Warming! And over pop. And then there's the relentless crescendo of idiocracy-level tv shows whose barriers are being shattered every year so that we never really get to say that this year's shows are the dumbest you'll ever see in your lifetime. No, for next year new barriers will be shattered. You have robots and AIs taking over jobs, governments taking over the networks and creating the most efficient secret police ever, pollution going bonkers, resource limitations starting to have a slight impact in the economies, until it gets worse and worse and you end up having scumbags with a lot of resource-power in their hands (wait that's happened already? darn!). Some religious folks are getting more and more polarized and just fkin crazy.
Yeah, ****'s tough to be positive sometimes. Just look at movies. Which "blockbusters" do not incorporate the end of the world as a plot device? Gimme one of them. We dream of it. We desire it, at a masochistic (low key) level.
And of course it's all coz Christianity is going down. I mean, just look at the Bible and tell me it's not such a positive story!
-
Oh come on it's obvious we are utterly becoming more and more degenerates, depressed and crumbling overall. Not only the kids are nowadays becoming a rarity, we are even barred to have any meaningful interactions with them, lest anyone starts looking at you with funny eyes thinking you are a peadophile. Guns are everywhere, and soon wmds will be a privatized thing. Look at Global Warming! And over pop. And then there's the relentless crescendo of idiocracy-level tv shows whose barriers are being shattered every year so that we never really get to say that this year's shows are the dumbest you'll ever see in your lifetime. No, for next year new barriers will be shattered. You have robots and AIs taking over jobs, governments taking over the networks and creating the most efficient secret police ever, pollution going bonkers, resource limitations starting to have a slight impact in the economies, until it gets worse and worse and you end up having scumbags with a lot of resource-power in their hands (wait that's happened already? darn!). Some religious folks are getting more and more polarized and just fkin crazy.
Yeah, ****'s tough to be positive sometimes. Just look at movies. Which "blockbusters" do not incorporate the end of the world as a plot device? Gimme one of them. We dream of it. We desire it, at a masochistic (low key) level.
And of course it's all coz Christianity is going down. I mean, just look at the Bible and tell me it's not such a positive story!
Your Poe-slaw/sarcasm gets a B for length-effort, but a D for delivery :P
-
oh **** it, [redacted]
mp-ryan handled it better anyway
-
Trying to think of cute response to Luis sarcasm, but meh.
-
Let it be known: the forum has concluded that "Reducto ad Nuke" posts get weaker and weaker the further they stray from typical Nuke post length. Venture here at your own peril. :warp:
-
/me simply decides to bear-hug everyone instead.
-
meh, I kinda tried to give nukeism a try but at the end of the very first sentence I was actually getting more and more depressed. That kinda took my sarcasm out of the loop at it just dwindled into a miserable list of depressing realities shoved off without wit, emotion or intelligence.
I agree with the rating. Perhaps Im just tired.
-
I have noticed a fairly self destructive tendency in western civilization, there is a fairly large vein of people who utterly love hating their culture. I cannot tell you how many times I remember people being all boastfull about how much of a horrible place America was when I was growing up, and so much art with that attitude (more general than just against america), sometimes it spreads to the human race. I mean we all have run into the guy who likes to boast about how 2edgee4u he is by calling the human race a virus. maybe this is more wide spread and i only notice it in westerners because thats all I've been exposed to, but I just can't help but think someone in rural africa with that attitude would just not survive very long.
tl;dr
it seems like selfhatred is treated as an auto enhancer for a perssons "deep" stat.
-
There's nothing worse like using a "depression" to bolster your creds. For teens I think there's a word for that kind of **** and I can't recall. When I am really depressed the last thing I do is share my thoughts as if I'm spelling the truth or something. I know the condition is entirely personal and I have the sufficient rationality to understand that it is absolutely pretensious to generalize my own predicaments.
However keep in mind that anyone in a depressing state is much less in tune with the rest of the world and thus his her thoughts will be subsquentely much more mysanthropic...
-
Oh no Sambo, you don't get to post that and just walk away. :P
Norway. Sweden. Australia. Denmark. Belgium. New Zealand. All "post-Christian" nations with very high standards of living and highly desirable to live in. Evidence of "crumbling" please.
Sure, quality of life is often high in most civilized countries, but I'm not looking at quality of life... that's almost always a depiction of how "good" a situation can be in a country if everything at the personal/family level is hunky-dory. I'm looking at what I guess could be called "cultural health". Society. We idolize these Hollywood stars whose lives more often than not are frankly horrific role models. Suicide rates, kids going on murderous rampages at school, divorce becoming the typical end to "lifelong" marriage vows, adultery, drugs, etc - the usual suspects. These are the things I see that, frankly, make me glad to live in a vaguely sane society like Israel, where my wife is actually safe and has no need for fear if she decides to go jogging around the neighborhood at 9pm.
-
@ Bobboau, Luis, I'm with you.
It's not "deep" or "cool", it's pathetic.
Here in the UK, I know I live in one of the best countries on Earth, and I am eternally thankful that the dice roll of life put me here. Whatever the doom-and-gloom media and people who haven't got a clue how lucky they are have to say.
-
Ooooh, now that's a provocative line to go down. I mean, I'm pretty sure this is just your own cultural biases kicking in (I know I have a probably unreasonably positive view of Scotland myself) but hopefully someone older and wiser than myself to go into the details.
-
Sure, quality of life is often high in most civilized countries, but I'm not looking at quality of life... that's almost always a depiction of how "good" a situation can be in a country if everything at the personal/family level is hunky-dory. I'm looking at what I guess could be called "cultural health". Society. We idolize these Hollywood stars whose lives more often than not are frankly horrific role models. Suicide rates, kids going on murderous rampages at school, divorce becoming the typical end to "lifelong" marriage vows, adultery, drugs, etc - the usual suspects. These are the things I see that, frankly, make me glad to live in a vaguely sane society like Israel, where my wife is actually safe and has no need for fear if she decides to go jogging around the neighborhood at 9pm.
“Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.”
Please point out how what you said is any different from the sentiment expressed in this (apocryphal, but nonetheless ancient) statement. Then show how your concerns are more valid than those offered there.
In other words, please prove that the way that culture evolves is in any shape or form a sign of it coming to an end (If you choose a word like "crumbling" or "eroding", this implies a certain degree of certainty that complete dissolution is somewhere in the future).
EDIT: Not that you'll be actually able to convince me. I have a deep distrust towards philosophies that elevate the past to such a degree that the present seems unbearably degraded and headed for certain doom. While I personally do not like some of the changes that have happened over the past few decades, I am firmly of the opinion that a culture without change is one without a future, and that trying to steer culture (which is as amorphous a blob as you can find) is doomed to failure from the start.
Suicide rates, kids going on murderous rampages at school, divorce becoming the typical end to "lifelong" marriage vows, adultery, drugs, etc - the usual suspects. These are the things I see that, frankly, make me glad to live in a vaguely sane society like Israel, where my wife is actually safe and has no need for fear if she decides to go jogging around the neighborhood at 9pm.
I'm going to requote this piece of your post here, because I think it deserves a more in-depth look.
(All following stats for Germany)
Suicide rates: Have steadily fallen in the past 30 years, from 18.000 in 1980, to 10.000 in 2010.
Divorce rates: Has risen from ~10% in 1960, to a relatively stable niveau of ~50% over the past decade. Cause here is a massive shift in the default family model, one that came with increased emancipation for women.
I can't for the life of me figure out why marriage shouldn't be something that we can dissolve if it doesn't work out.
Adultery: I have no idea. It's not a crime (so it isn't tracked in the relevant stats, and thus is probably part of the divorce rate), but I am pretty sure that the actual rates haven't changed much. Now, you may be of the opinion that someone with nonstandard relationships may be doing something wrong, but "adultery"? Please.
Drugs: Drug use has been steady, with a small trend towards fewer users (and corresponding fewer deaths). I also have difficulty seeing drug use by itself as a huge problem. Someone getting high I don't care about. Someone being criminalized for doing so is a different story. Drug use should, in my opinion, be legalized so that it can be done safely and in control.
Criminality: Sees an overall decrease, but also a shift in the type of crimes being committed. Violent crimes, while becoming less frequent, have also become on average more violent, while "white collar" crimes like various con schemes have seen an increase (Due to increased frequency and prosecution of net crimes)
-
Well cultures do degrade over time. The trick that history invented was to constantly invent new "barbarians" who were way fresher and more creative, stronger, not corrupted but enlightened by sheer belief in their own myths, religions, ideology, etc. who then overran the status quo degenerated corrupted empires... and then those barbaric new kingdoms become the new empires, etc. We all see how capitalism understands this dynamic and incorporates it in its logic.
However, we are dealing increasingly with a "World Order", a Fukoyama kind of world usually called "Globalization". And this hegemonity means that the empire is just stretching to the entirety of the planet. I wonder if there is any space left for the new "barbarians" to challenge the current status quo. In the last half of the 20th century we had at least the challenge of the Soviet Union and the communists to keep some check, but not now.
-
This kind of sweeping social commentary is exactly the kind of thing I'm inclined to trust when coming out of the mouth of an architect with no demonstrated academic credentials in the thing he's claiming extensive knowledge of!
-
And why should I trust the incredible critical analytical capacity that you are claiming to have* about my words at all?
* Yes, I know, you didn't, but then again neither did I claim anything you said I claimed and that didn't stop you from making that up.
But to anyone who cares about this particular trait, what I am referring to is a very old idea that has been verified so many times that it's mostly taken as a fact. The story of the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire (Gibbon) is a very famous book that drives its analysis from this idea, formulated by Ibn Khaldun in the 14th century here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asabiyyah
Ibn Khaldun uses the term Asabiyyah to describe the bond of cohesion among humans in a group forming community. The bond, Asabiyyah, exists at any level of civilization, from nomadic society to states and empires.[3] Asabiyyah is most strong in the nomadic phase, and decreases as civilization advances.[3] As this Asabiyyah declines, another more compelling Asabiyyah may take its place; thus, civilizations rise and fall, and history describes these cycles of Asabiyyah as they play out.[3]
Ibn Khaldun argues that each dynasty (or civilization) has within itself the seeds of its own downfall. He explains that ruling houses tend to emerge on the peripheries of great empires and use the much stronger `asabiyya present in those areas to their advantage, in order to bring about a change in leadership. This implies that the new rulers are at first considered "barbarians" by comparison to the old ones. As they establish themselves at the center of their empire, they become increasingly lax, less coordinated, disciplined and watchful, and more concerned with maintaining their new power and lifestyle at the centre of the empire—i.e, their internal cohesion and ties to the original peripheral group, the `asabiyya, dissolves into factionalism and individualism, diminishing their capacity as a political unit. Thus, conditions are created wherein a new dynasty can emerge at the periphery of their control, grow strong, and effect a change in leadership, beginning the cycle anew.
This is nothing new. It's a very basic social insight, and I don't think an architect is not entitled to know these things.
-
I guess from my own perspective, as someone who is Catholic but is having some issues right now, what bums me out the most about declining church attendance in a lot of places is seeing so many of these beautiful old inner-city churches essentially being abandoned as different parishes are merged or shut down. All else aside, organized religion has produced or funded countless spectacular works of art and architecture over the centuries--we're talking some of the most notable pieces of any given culture--and I think we'd be losing something very tangible and valuable if that were to eventually fade away.
I'm a staunch atheist, and I 100% agree with this.
I make a point to visit any major religious site (Cathedral, monastery, whatever) when I'm near one, because I like to be absolutely blown away by the artistry.
i take the other side of this stance with my nuke the vatican policy. anything tainted by religion needs to be annihilated.
-
That would mean you'd have to wipe out the entire plan.... oh right, forget it.
-
This is the best time to be alive (as a human) in all of history. If you're a polar bear you're pretty screwed, but they eat people so **** them.
As for people who enjoy criticizing their own countries, I would argue that far from being a self-destructive tendency, that is one of the best qualities you could hope for in your fellow citizens. It might make everybody cringe to hear pampered adolescents whinge about how everything in their lives is ****ty, but it's super important to let them feel things out and establish that dissenting voices should not and will not be silenced. It's people who immediately rush to the defense of their country from any perceived slight that you have to be worried about.
Can't speak for everyone in every nation, but IMO the counter-culture is by far the best part of American culture (besides our giant balls of twine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biggest_ball_of_twine)) and it has been from the start.
-
meh, I kinda tried to give nukeism a try but at the end of the very first sentence I was actually getting more and more depressed. That kinda took my sarcasm out of the loop at it just dwindled into a miserable list of depressing realities shoved off without wit, emotion or intelligence.
I agree with the rating. Perhaps Im just tired.
only by busting up long held illusions does the reality of the world come through. so its better just to shut up and suffer than to lie to yourself and others about the state of things, or carry on existing illusions. of course once you done that how you feel about things becomes irrelevant. you are just another iterations in a for loop started by our ancient ancestors, the first germs. you could also try to balance out the depressing crap with drugs, whores, and other questionable activities.
-
I can't help but wonder if I fall under one of those undesirable headings on account of having a boyfriend. Sandwich, your thoughts?
-
make me glad to live in a vaguely sane society like Israel, where my wife is actually safe and has no need for fear if she decides to go jogging around the neighborhood at 9pm.
Oh no Sambo, you don't get to post that and just walk away. :P
Norway. Sweden. Australia. Denmark. Belgium. New Zealand. All "post-Christian" nations with very high standards of living and highly desirable to live in. Evidence of "crumbling" please.
Sure, quality of life is often high in most civilized countries, but I'm not looking at quality of life... that's almost always a depiction of how "good" a situation can be in a country if everything at the personal/family level is hunky-dory. I'm looking at what I guess could be called "cultural health". Society. We idolize these Hollywood stars whose lives more often than not are frankly horrific role models. Suicide rates, kids going on murderous rampages at school, divorce becoming the typical end to "lifelong" marriage vows, adultery, drugs, etc - the usual suspects. These are the things I see that, frankly, make me glad to live in a vaguely sane society like Israel, where my wife is actually safe and has no need for fear if she decides to go jogging around the neighborhood at 9pm.
I could make a long post about Israel is a country which relies a lot on foreign aid, how it's religion seems to affect it's foreign policies, how the economy has been crumbling due to a massive commitment towards bombing the **** out of Palestenians because a lot of people do not feel that your last sentence is actually true for the country they live in...
This is the best time to be alive (as a human) in all of history. If you're a polar bear you're pretty screwed, but they eat people so **** them.
'Oi! You humans napalm, bomb, and shoot the **** out of everything, and then you don't even utilize the meat to it's fullest! It's all a matter of perspective! :P
Agree with the rest though. Your country is part of your idendity. Being able to critize even one small part of your own identity is a lot better then that hatefull combination of ignorance and arrogance.
-
And there goes the thread! :yes:
<cue applause>
The thread will only go downhill if we allow it to go downhill. If everyone remains civilized and respectful, I see no reason we can't have a legitimate discussion.
"The rock will only roll downhill if I allow it to roll downhill"
- Sisyphus
:)
-
there isnt a rock big enough.
hint: it needs to be the size of the earth and made entirely out of antimatter.
-
I can't help but wonder if I fall under one of those undesirable headings on account of having a boyfriend. Sandwich, your thoughts?
Ok, this whole post is presuming you're male, otherwise why would I find issue with a girl with a boyfriend, right? :)
Understand something about my beliefs and where I'm coming from. I'm what's commonly termed a "Messianic Jew", which means a person of Jewish lineage who believes that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah, etc - a Jewish Christian, if you prefer. I hold the Bible to be the word of God, which has parts that should be taken literally, and parts that are poetic in nature and should not be taken literally.
That said, let me be blunt. It is my belief that homosexuality is a sin, according to the Bible. I don't hate homosexuals (the people), but there are certainly things that the homosexual community does that I hate, such as how they shove their beliefs and opinions into people's faces through Gay Pride Parades. My kids don't need to be exposed to that (just like they don't need to see PG-13 or R rated movies at 5 years old).
To give some perspective here, in a similar fashion I believe that Islam is a deception by Satan. That doesn't mean that I hate Muslims - I hate Islam, but I love Muslims and want what is best for them according to what I truly believe to be true.
However, none of that means that I am going to shove my beliefs down anybody's throat. When asked, as you just did, I won't hold back from sharing my POV, but otherwise, I'll let my way of life speak for itself.
So to directly answer your question, your chosen way of life is what I find undesirable, but not you yourself. Heck, I have "undesirable" things in my life, habitual sins that have been a lifelong struggle. Thankfully, neither your actions nor mine can separate us from the unconditional love of God. He hates the sin but loves the sinner. :)
-
I certainly harbor no ill feelings (and am very much male, yes), but that's not exactly what I was asking. I'm just as certain that I don't shove my beliefs and opinions into peoples' faces on that particular subject, given that you had to start your post with a caveat about whether I was actually homosexual or not!
Now, with that in mind, could it not be entirely possible that when society looks as if it's crumbling, it's that an no more: that it just looks like it, as a direct result of invasive, pervasive, and omnipresent media and networking of the modern world? The more of the world you can see, the more of the world you won't agree with. That doesn't make it bad, or impending social collapse, it makes it different. If there's one thing that false claims of the fall of society have had shadowing them at every turn (when it wasn't actually true, see: European Dark Ages) is improved reach and speed of communication.
-
*Words*
Wow. I get that he asked and all that but still...
I find that there's this massive, massive disconnect between religious people - properly into it the way Sambo obviously is - and the rest of us. You really believe that, don't you? Like as a factual piece of information like the sky being blue or something. And yet, I read it and I just see it as utterly, utterly ridiculous.
I don't even really have a point here. It's just that reading your post really brings home the sheer scale of the gulf between your view of the world and my own. :-\
-
Now, with that in mind, could it not be entirely possible that when society looks as if it's crumbling, it's that an no more: that it just looks like it, as a direct result of invasive, pervasive, and omnipresent media and networking of the modern world? The more of the world you can see, the more of the world you won't agree with. That doesn't make it bad, or impending social collapse, it makes it different. If there's one thing that false claims of the fall of society have had shadowing them at every turn (when it wasn't actually true, see: European Dark Ages) is improved reach and speed of communication.
There definitely is something to be said for increased communication and awareness of global issues making it easier for the "ignorant" or not-completely-informed lay-person to see something on TV for a moment, make a rash judgement on how "good" or "bad" it is, and go out and protest or otherwise make his/her opinion known to the world at large.
I've felt for many years that modern warfare (the actuality, not the game) is "hampered", if you will, by being reported back to the civilian sitting in their comfy chair at home, watching the choice morsels that the media decides to reveal. It brings alongside too much second-guessing, too much criticizing, and too much judging by too many people who, in all fairness, haven't got a clue what they're talking about. Every time I hear of a politician making what appears to be a completely irrational move, part of me wonders what intel they're basing that decision on that they're unable to reveal to the public. I'm probably too idealistic, but I find it hard to imagine a public figure acting out of maliciousness when it could easily be explained by them knowing something I don't. I've always been that way - I try to understand both sides of a situation, figure out their motives.
Wow. I get that he asked and all that but still...
I find that there's this massive, massive disconnect between religious people - properly into it the way Sambo obviously is - and the rest of us. You really believe that, don't you? Like as a factual piece of information like the sky being blue or something. And yet, I read it and I just see it as utterly, utterly ridiculous.
I don't even really have a point here. It's just that reading your post really brings home the sheer scale of the gulf between your view of the world and my own. :-\
And yet there's not that much difference between us, once push comes to shove. I'm sure we both love our families, like our friends. We both want to succeed in life. Neither of us wants harm to be done to anyone, but I bet both of us would be willing to cause harm to someone trying to harm us or our loved ones.
The only difference is that I believe that what the Bible says is true, while you believe (I'm guessing) that what liberal science says is true.
Or were you referring to something else?
-
Oh no Sambo, you don't get to post that and just walk away. :P
Norway. Sweden. Australia. Denmark. Belgium. New Zealand. All "post-Christian" nations with very high standards of living and highly desirable to live in. Evidence of "crumbling" please.
Sure, quality of life is often high in most civilized countries, but I'm not looking at quality of life... that's almost always a depiction of how "good" a situation can be in a country if everything at the personal/family level is hunky-dory. I'm looking at what I guess could be called "cultural health". Society. We idolize these Hollywood stars whose lives more often than not are frankly horrific role models. Suicide rates, kids going on murderous rampages at school, divorce becoming the typical end to "lifelong" marriage vows, adultery, drugs, etc - the usual suspects. These are the things I see that, frankly, make me glad to live in a vaguely sane society like Israel, where my wife is actually safe and has no need for fear if she decides to go jogging around the neighborhood at 9pm.
She needs to be careful if she passes through an ultra-orthodox (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2078771/Israel-braced-protests-treatment-women-girl-8-spat-Jewish-extremists.html) neighborhood though...
-
The only difference is that I believe that what the Bible says is true, while you believe (I'm guessing) that what liberal science says is true.
Or were you referring to something else?
Science is not something you "believe" in as the whole point of "science" is to test and retest to find the best model to describe the nature and laws of the universe we inhabit.
"Believers" tend to claim they know certain things to be true because they "believe" in them - sometimes despite verifiable and repeatable tests showing something else entirely.
I.e.: Science is based on logic and reason - not belief, and ...
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them."
- Galileo Galilei
-
Jesus christ Sandwich, you're sounding like Conservapedia now.
-
Watch it, Phantom_Hoover. There's no reason to be slinging slander like that. :P
-
I'm actually interested in the definition of 'Science' in this case, since Israel is one of the main R&D countries in the world, I'd like to know whether that is considered 'believing' in Science or 'using' it?
-
That's where the 'liberal' part comes in, it lets you tack a frowned-upon worldview to something for that instant air of disapproval.
-
religion really needs to get out of the buisness of describing the universe. the story of adam and eve was probibly though up by a caveman when his son asked the question "why are we here", although with a different deity(ies) and in a much simpler form. through word of mouth the story was passed down, embellished, added to, names of deity changed, in folktale fashion, until it was heard and written down by a literate holy man (even if moses sited sources, theve been long erased from the text). sodom and gomorrah, same thing, except this time when the story gets embellished, the story tellers add their own prejudices to the to the tale. id hate to think that religion's stance on homosexuality is based on the bigoted embellishments of ancient storytellers (who lived in a cave). then i look back and wonder how many of those books of the bible were actually meant to be the word of god and not just some ancient horrifying fanfic that got thrown into the mix. also john the baptist was clearly on drugs.
science doesn't fall into that kind of trap thanks to peer review and the need to site sources to avoid sounding like a quack. of course the current way of doing science isnt that old, so check back in a few thousand years to see if it gets worse.
-
Again, PH, there is exactly zero need to make this a hostile conversation. We're doing just fine right now, so keep it that way. The veiled (and not so veiled) personal disagreement is alright as long as you keep it civil, and using language like that makes it much more difficult to stay that way.
-
PH
Excuse me. What's PH?
-
The only difference is that I believe that what the Bible says is true, while you believe (I'm guessing) that what liberal science says is true.
Or were you referring to something else?
Science is not something you "believe" in as the whole point of "science" is to test and retest to find the best model to describe the nature and laws of the universe we inhabit.
"Believers" tend to claim they know certain things to be true because they "believe" in them - sometimes despite verifiable and repeatable tests showing something else entirely.
I.e.: Science is based on logic and reason - not belief.
tl;dr: I believe science by and large reveals to us "the truth" about the physical world around us, but I also realize that it's not "the whole truth", nor is it "nothing but the truth". EDIT: And read the article linked at the bottom of this post. It's truly fascinating. :)
Seems to me that science most definitely is a belief system. Does it not require a belief that the tools we've created to measure the world around us are sufficient for the task - bug-free and completely accurate (we know that to be false - look at the hype a year or so ago about the "discovery" of faster-than-light particles)? That there's nothing to this world besides the observable or measurable (whether directly or indirectly makes no difference)? It's a system jam-packed with theories - theories which, to date, have yet to be disproven, because the moment a theory is proven wrong, it's no longer counted as science.
Yes, there are basic laws (thermodynamics, etc), but can you be 100% certain that those will not also someday be proven wrong - or at least, not supremely accurate? Seems to me that its the height of hubris to presume that our scientific observations are totally, 100% accurate about the world around us. I mean, quantum mechanics has some pretty whack, "illogical" stuff going on, and we've barely scratched the surface.
Now, don't get the wrong impression. I don't believe the world is flat, or the center of the solar system, or any crazy nonsense like that. Sure, some scientific theories I find less believable than others (evolving from one species to another, for example), but in all honesty, I do put a lot of "faith" in scientific observations about the universe. I suspect that most things that scientists conclude to be fact are pretty accurate and true. I just also keep in mind that there's no way we're anywhere near understanding everything there is to know, and that the universe can and does still have many, many surprises in store for us (Hubble Deep Field, anyone?).
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them."
- Galileo Galilei
I fully agree, even as far as it influences a Christian's walk of faith. For example, there's the typical example of a Christian who insists on hearing from God which pair of socks to put on in the morning. Most Christians will agree that that's ridiculous. However, what if we make that decision being faced something of more importance? Say, whom to marry? Most Christians would say that you have to "hear from God" (pardon the Christian lingo) before making a decision of that magnitude.
I disagree.
I see no basis for using God as a life crutch in the Bible. He created us thinking, reasoning human beings, with minds and wills of our own. Throughout the Bible, people went about their own business, doing what seemed wise at the time. The only times I see God "stepping in" and actively telling people to do this or that were times when the rational mind would never have arrived at that course of action. Noah building the ark... Moses striking the rock for water to come out... Gideon attacking the enemy encampment with a whole 300 men... Peter stepping out of the boat onto the water. The pattern I see is that when God wants something "crazy" (from our point of view, with our limited knowledge), He specifically tells us. Otherwise, we have our rational thinking minds, our consciences, and the life guidelines He gave us for living good lives, being nice, helping people in need, not murdering, etc.
I'm actually interested in the definition of 'Science' in this case, since Israel is one of the main R&D countries in the world, I'd like to know whether that is considered 'believing' in Science or 'using' it?
Interesting that you ask about Israel and its approach to science. I'm not sure. If a "belief" in science means a disbelief in God, I think that even the secular Israeli would not fit that description - most secular Israelis still observe the high holidays, despite not considering themselves "religious".
Anyway, I'll end with this article by Dr. Gerald Schroeder called "The Age of the Universe" (http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=53). It's a 20 minute read or so - and definitely well worth it. In this article, Dr. Schroeder explains how the 14 billion years that science says the universe has been around does not, in fact, conflict with the Biblical 6 days of creation, but that the two accounts agree with each other.
It is hard at times to reconcile what science says about certain aspects of reality around me with what the Bible teaches, so when someone goes as deep into the historical aspects of the Biblical text as Schroeder does and discovers that there's no contradiction... well, it's stuff like that that I love learning. :)
-
PH
Excuse me. What's PH?
potted herring
-
Posh hippopotamus.
-
Petty humour... :rolleyes:
-
It's not their fault that they're joking at your expense because you're obtuse.
-
It's not their fault that they're joking at your expense because you're obtuse.
Yes. It is. No. I'm not.
-
Yes. It is. No. I'm not.
Phreakin' heck, just drop it. :D
-
Seems to me that science most definitely is a belief system. Does it not require a belief that the tools we've created to measure the world around us are sufficient for the task - bug-free and completely accurate (we know that to be false - look at the hype a year or so ago about the "discovery" of faster-than-light particles)? That there's nothing to this world besides the observable or measurable (whether directly or indirectly makes no difference)? It's a system jam-packed with theories - theories which, to date, have yet to be disproven, because the moment a theory is proven wrong, it's no longer counted as science.
This is where the very religious get things wrong. They make the assumption that scientists believe that science is the best tool to measure the world around us. This simply isn't true. Science is the best tool we've discovered so far. It may indeed turn out to be the best tool, but it may not. But what is true is that nothing else we've found comes even remotely close. You're not going to come up with thermodynamics from reading the bible. Nor from astral projection. Nor from meditation and waiting for inspiration from the cosmos.
If you feel that this is a belief, then you are perverting the meaning of the word belief. You don't put on a warm coat when you go outside in the winter because you believe in coats on cold days. You put on the warm coat cause you have observed that when you put it on you are warm, and when you forget it at home, you are cold. Science is a formal version of common sense in many ways. Observation, logic, testability, etc are all things we do in our own daily lives in much more ad hoc ways. So if you say science is a belief, you say that common sense is a belief and the whole meaning of the word belief becomes nonsensical.
-
I think people are getting 'belief' and 'trust' confused. We trust the results of Science because they can be tested against other results and incongruity suggests error. Science does not have room for the cognitive dissidence that can exist in religion, where two or more conflicting things can be considered true at the same time, sometimes even by the same person. In science, if one book says one thing, and another, equally respected book says another, then someone will set out to find a testable way to see which one is correct.
Belief, to me, suggests an unknown element, that, for example, a generator produces electricity because that's what a generator does, which is kind of looking at things the wrong way round, a generator was designed to create an electric current from studying the behaviour of what eventually became its components.
That said, an awful lot of science, as used by the masses, is based on the trust that it will work, very few people actually understand the details of how or why, and, like religion, a lot of people feel that how and why does not matter as long as it works. That, from a distance, looks like 'belief', but I don't actually think there is a word that properly describes it. It's not ignorance because, for most people, it's not important to know that information.
-
This is where the very religious get things wrong. They make the assumption that scientists believe that science is the best tool to measure the world around us. This simply isn't true. Science is the best tool we've discovered so far. It may indeed turn out to be the best tool, but it may not. But what is true is that nothing else we've found comes even remotely close. You're not going to come up with thermodynamics from reading the bible. Nor from astral projection. Nor from meditation and waiting for inspiration from the cosmos.
We're basically saying the same thing here. Science is potentially fallible, but it's the best we've got so far, and there's always room for new facts and discoveries to shine a new light on previously-held "beliefs" about how this or that in reality works.
Take the age of the universe. 50 years ago, scientists believed the universe always was, that it was eternal and had no beginning. Since then, evidence pointing to the occurrence of the Big Bang was encountered, and thus the previously-held belief was disproven in the face of newly discovered information. Unlike politicians, scientists get brownie points for consistently reevaluating their conclusions based on new evidence.
...of course, the Bible has been saying that there was a beginning to the universe from the very first word (in Hebrew - first 3 words in English). ;)
I'm not trying to claim that we can get magical quantum equations from the Bible or anything like that. All I'm saying is that just because science hasn't proved something is true yet doesn't mean it's untrue, and more importantly, just because something is believed to be true scientifically doesn't mean that conclusive evidence can't come up to disprove it.
I feel like I'm saying the same thing multiple times, so forgive me if that's the case - it's nearly 6am and I need to get to sleep - and that's a fact. ;)
-
...of course, the Bible has been saying that there was a beginning to the universe from the very first word (in Hebrew - first 3 words in English). ;)
It then goes on to explain how plants existed on Earth before the Sun, Moon or stars. So let's not start patting ourselves on back about the strange coincidence that a creation myth includes an act of creation.
-
I'm not trying to claim that we can get magical quantum equations from the Bible or anything like that. All I'm saying is that just because science hasn't proved something is true yet doesn't mean it's untrue, and more importantly, just because something is believed to be true scientifically doesn't mean that conclusive evidence can't come up to disprove it.
Which is exactly how scientists feel about it, so I don't understand how you just grouped science as a "Belief" system.
-
I'm going to defend Sandwhich's narrow views with an already well worn and tread subject:
Science is not belief, nor is it the flaunted religion that many pushers of so-called logic and reason attempt to force down my throat through gutless and cowardly means (insert atheist neck beards). Broad accusation, yo!
Science is a system to test a set of assumptions and testable hypothesis, in many ways, it say NOTHING about truth in so much as a set of results - the predictions are determined in the end by human senses and dealt with by the human mind. Information we receive into our mind isn't just photons and receptors in our eyes - they're metaphors for knowledge and experience. So depending if one is narrowly rooted and in fact fooled into believing the dangerously seductive low hanging fruit espoused by the recent rash of physicalist or materialist philosophies, science is not belief (though I would argue quite a few figureheads are already turning one of beloved subjects into an idol, forsooth). Insert terrible jokes about Neuroscience.
Science is a method, tool of explanation, albeit a form of testing "assumptions" according to a set a standards. But when it comes into matters of Truth, you pretty have to take logic, and kill it.
As I've said, Logic is "Complete" and "Sound" by our systems of reason, but "Math" is a language, and still has vague elements lodged into it. Quite frankly, that's why we can do algebra by placing an "x" in equation and denoting a value or trying to solve for one. Language is quite similar, as words we have today using in slang will have different meanings from the past, take the word "Gay," back then it meant "happy" but has now come to symbolize a sexual choice.
That being said, "Science" cannot form a fathomable notion of meaning - following the disaster known as Logical Positivism, there was a problem discovered that even language refused to be narrowly defined by logical means. Getting back to the earlier rant, simply put Kurt Goedel showed that the there were serious problems with Logical Positivism, and gave a firm death blow that is still to be felt in the mind of the broader scientific community that dabbles in philosophy lightly. It's easy to brush "Philosophy" as a "hobbyist" approach, but it deals in matters that science cannot, will not, and for all might and mane, do.
Science is not truth, and should not be. Problem is there's quite a few who think that way, and I've grown a bit more rash, dogmatic in my refusal to bend to this mindless pandering to labcoats and test tube faeries espoused as god-clothed angels of wisdom and enlightenment. I don't become enlightened by turning on a light bulb, I've got faith the damn thing still works until it reaches the end of its life. I know science is at work, how it functions, and I don't give a ****. There's no "Truth" from my lightbulb aside from the fact I take it for granted. Science cannot be used to derive meaning, or even deal with matters of art, philosophy, and questions of self. It's simply not that venue. Hell, Gould (with his notion of qualia) at least got it right that are problems that science cannot deal with or properly explain.
@Nuke: I don't believe religion taints things as religion is intrinsically human, I'm more saddened the "intellectually" charged have decided to turn a broad topic as "religion" into a bogeyman used to extoll our worst fears and virtue. To those who say "Crusades!" I counter with Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot. When dogmatic leaders of atheist movements are shown to actually to support "it may be ethical to kill for believing nonsense" (Sam Harris, good job btw) I think we should damn well step back and question very well what they are thinking and espousing. Believing we can solve the world's problems by "destroying" religion makes as much sense as destroying science. Rather, I find it a lazy intellectual answer to dealing with fundamentalism when we decided to castigate entire sections of humanity as "nutcases" before even delving into what, who, and why they are.
It is worthy endeavor to ask why? But it also an equal endeavor to argue why not?
And I'm starting to sound like John Lennox of all things, hmm....
-
...of course, the Bible has been saying that there was a beginning to the universe from the very first word (in Hebrew - first 3 words in English). ;)
It then goes on to explain how plants existed on Earth before the Sun, Moon or stars. So let's not start patting ourselves on back about the strange coincidence that a creation myth includes an act of creation.
Err, no. This is why I wanted people to read that article I linked to. I'll leave the reasoning behind this correlation to the article (http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=53), and just point out the conclusion here.
The Genesis account of creation does not take into account time dilation in its wording, and is written from the POV of an impartial observer (as far as space-time goes) at the moment time began. If we take time dilation into account, we end up with the 6 days of Genesis being equivalent to 7.1, 3.6, 1.8, 0.89, 0.45, and 0.23 billion years in length (respectively) - which adds up to 14.07 billion years as measured from our coordinates in space-time. Wikipedia states that "According to the Big Bang theory, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago".
On to your point of plants before the Sun, moon, and stars. According to Genesis, God created light on Day One (has to be the sun), and separated it from darkness (rotation of the planet).
The second day He separated the dry land and the waters - the condensation of the extreme moisture in the planetary haze into the oceans, leaving behind... a perfectly clear atmosphere? Nope - probably still quite hazy and cloud-covered.
The third day was plants.
The fourth day, He says, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years" - the gradual clearing of the atmospheric haze to the point where the stellar bodies became visible from the planetary surface.
-
I'm very sorry, but that to me sounds more like trying very hard to retrofit a genesis story onto what physics and astronomy have discovered over time.
And that to me is the big difference; Science never, ever assumes it has the final answer, whereas religion assumes the final answer is known and tries to reinterpret it so it fits into reality.
-
I'm very sorry, but that to me sounds more like trying very hard to retrofit a genesis story onto what physics and astronomy have discovered over time.
That's exactly what it is. I doubt that anyone espoused that theory until science showed that the stars were actually older. Then suddenly the biblical "truth" was retrofitted to what actually happened.
I guess that goes to show that for all Sandwich's comments that current science could be wrong, the interpretation of the bible espoused by everyone on the planet has also been proven wrong.
Perhaps that section about stoning homosexuals means that we should give them pot. :p
-
I think the order of creation is Genesis is almost exactly the same as what you can find in science books. It is important to note that Moses didn't have access to all our fancy telescopes, carbon dating technologies, computers, various measuring devices, or even a nice collection of science books. It was also written in a way so the people on that time can understand, we would probably make their heads explode if Moses used our fancy science language and technical jargons.
-
I'm sorry, that's once more trying too hard.
Look, the big problem you have in trying to defend this bonkers "Genesis describes actual stellar evolution" thing is that it's an interpretation of the text. There's nothing in there that even hints at the astronomic timescales involved. There's nothing in there that mentions dinosaurs.
There's also the slight problem of the judeochristian genesis story not being the only, or even the oldest one. If your religion claims to be the bearer of absolute truth, why are there so many competing truths out there? Why did it take a couple thousand years of recorded human history for the truth to come out?
Why, I have to ask, is the absolute truth about the creation of the universe, earth and human beings enciphered in a text that is so open to interpretation, so malleable, that it can be used to justify everything from going along with current scientific observations to "the Earth is only 4000 years old!"?
-
I'm sorry, that's once more trying too hard.
Look, the big problem you have in trying to defend this bonkers "Genesis describes actual stellar evolution" thing is that it's an interpretation of the text. There's nothing in there that even hints at the astronomic timescales involved. There's nothing in there that mentions dinosaurs.
There's also the slight problem of the judeochristian genesis story not being the only, or even the oldest one. If your religion claims to be the bearer of absolute truth, why are there so many competing truths out there? Why did it take a couple thousand years of recorded human history for the truth to come out?
Why, I have to ask, is the absolute truth about the creation of the universe, earth and human beings enciphered in a text that is so open to interpretation, so malleable, that it can be used to justify everything from going along with current scientific observations to "the Earth is only 4000 years old!"?
Let me expand this further: We *might* have what Moses said, but are not sure about it. But at least is more compelling than the milling masses of idiots who blindly worship the scientific method without even conducting one experiment in their moronic lives (provided they leave their parent's basement to pay off student debt) or have a grasp of greater historical and overly biased attitudes towards Biblical scholarship. The other problem is we don't have enough evidence or secondary sources outside the Old Testament, and that's going by long shot.
Welcome to the problem of interpretation: The Bible doesn't say anything about the Earth being 4000 years, in fact, nothing on this matter, we can thank a guy known as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology He tried to determine the age of the Earth according to their scientific principles of the day, and is now sadly associated with Young Earth Creationism. Point is he was eventually panned by critics, but at least more scientists of brevity try to give him credit for establishing a chronology.
On the other hand, I don't recall Science being a Bible, a Quran or a Torah, just a bunch of opinionated humans flapping their gums about the latest cosmological hodunkery they pulled from trash cans we put in orbit. Unless your Stephen Hawking, who decided that he write a book about the Cosmos and ride the New York times best-seller list while selling stupid junk-science dressed as philosophy (yes, I will call out Hawkings a douche after trying to read his latest book). Same thing can be said of theists, but who are they to question when not held aloft by legions of heavenly test tubes and protected by halos of stalwart scientific dogma and their ever present God of Relativity?
(Full of tongue and cheek hodunk right now).
-
I think the order of creation is Genesis is almost exactly the same as what you can find in science books. It is important to note that Moses didn't have access to all our fancy telescopes, carbon dating technologies, computers, various measuring devices, or even a nice collection of science books. It was also written in a way so the people on that time can understand, we would probably make their heads explode if Moses used our fancy science language and technical jargons.
Actually it fails even on a simple level.
Day One - Light.
Day Two - Separating the waters, whatever the **** that means in scientific terms.
Day Three - Dry Land. Plants and fruit
Day Four - The Sun, the Moon, the stars
Day Five - ALL the creatures of the ocean. All the birds
Day Six - All the land animals. Humans.
Even a savage could explain those in simple terms and still get it correct. For a start Day 4 should come before Day 3 (and possibly Day 2). Birds should appear on Day 6 AFTER the land animals. These are simple, very basic mistakes.
If you want to claim that Genesis is allegorical, fine. But don't try to bull**** us about how it actually fits the scientific explanation. It doesn't. It's like trying to argue that a cube is a very simplified sphere.
-
Someone told me, so I am not sure how right am I on this part, if you continue putting very large amount of energy to water to split it into its atomic components, that is hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Then 'let there be light' to create a fusion and so 'light' was created, like the big bang. I am not sure how much the scientists managed to prove the big bang theory so no comment on that part.
Lastly I said not exactly a scientific explanation, haven't managed to get that far yet myself, but rather the ORDER the universe is created and put it next to what science tell you. Or in other words, what is created first, what is next, and so on. The 'day' is not exactly earth's day, it is just a symbolic term, so no exact amount time is given.
Doomsday 'prophets' love to use the term in 2 Peter 3:8 that 1 day is 1000 years to God, but Peter in that letter was saying something about the timelessness of God, not the equality statement 1 day = 1000 years, so we can't just say, for example, the earth is 4000 years old based on that.
-
As I pointed out the order is wrong. Even if you accept that a day is an arbitrary unit of time, the bible still has several things in the wrong order. And as I said that's pretty much a major flaw in the whole "The bible has things in the same order as science says it happened" theory.
-
Someone told me, so I am not sure how right am I on this part, if you continue putting very large amount of energy to water to split it into its atomic components, that is hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Then 'let there be light' to create a fusion and so 'light' was created, like the big bang. I am not sure how much the scientists managed to prove the big bang theory so no comment on that part.
None of the facts mentioned here have anything to do with each other. Yes, you can break up the bonds between Oxygen and Hydrogen by electrolysis, but that has nothing to do with fusion, or the initiation thereof (Star formation being a pretty well understood process by now). There is no "let there be light" moment, there's just gravitational interactions between inconceivable amounts of hydrogen atoms in a stellar nebula.
Doomsday 'prophets' love to use the term in 2 Peter 3:8 that 1 day is 1000 years to God, but Peter in that letter was saying something about the timelessness of God, not the equality statement 1 day = 1000 years, so we can't just say, for example, the earth is 4000 years old based on that.
And how do you know the doomsday prophets have it wrong?
I agree that that passage is highly allegorical, making a statement about how in Gods' timeless view, each moment is an eternity and eternity is a moment, but how do you know which parts you can take as a description of truth, and which are just allegories? Is there a secret second bible that god wrote that explains which parts should be read as literal truth and which ones are just similes and allegories and metaphor?
-
The main thing however, you have to understand the context of what is it written for. You can't just pick a single sentence, or even less than that while completely forgetting what is around it, that way you can easily miss the original meaning. One of the most (in)famous is people saying that 'money is the root of all evil'.
How the 'prophets' get it wrong isn't actually that year part, but rather the bible said that no man nor angels knows the exact time.
Sorry, I forgot to mention the earlier part. That was the second part of Genesis 1 :2 saying "And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." . That is what water I was talking about, not sure if what that man meant is star creation or the big bang. That was the first time I heard someone tried to mention it this way.
-
Are people really going to take genesis seriously? It contradicts itself and other texts in the bible.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/stars_made.html
etc...
-
Seems to me that science most definitely is a belief system. Does it not require a belief that the tools we've created to measure the world around us are sufficient for the task - bug-free and completely accurate (we know that to be false - look at the hype a year or so ago about the "discovery" of faster-than-light particles)? That there's nothing to this world besides the observable or measurable (whether directly or indirectly makes no difference)? It's a system jam-packed with theories - theories which, to date, have yet to be disproven, because the moment a theory is proven wrong, it's no longer counted as science.
I'm going to have to call you out on this, because it's exactly the opposite of how science is done. You can't just believe your tools work and trust their measurements blindly. You have to know how they work and to what degree of accuracy, so that you can know how much confidence to place in your results, what kind of errors can skew those results, and how to decide if those results are bogus or not. Everything has error bars. Science is all about second guessing, refining, and solidifying its findings.
If things exist that aren't observable or measurable, that is, they don't affect the universe at all, then they may as well not exist. If something is not observable yet that doesn't mean it will always be that way, and doesn't mean it has no effect on the world.
And the whole faster than light neutrino thing was more a case of "we probably screwed up, but we can't figure out how" instead of "we totally broke physics guys. :smuggo:"
Is there a secret second bible that god wrote that explains which parts should be read as literal truth and which ones are just similes and allegories and metaphor?
Yeah, the Book of Mormon. :V
-
@Nuke: I don't believe religion taints things as religion is intrinsically human, I'm more saddened the "intellectually" charged have decided to turn a broad topic as "religion" into a bogeyman used to extoll our worst fears and virtue. To those who say "Crusades!" I counter with Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot. When dogmatic leaders of atheist movements are shown to actually to support "it may be ethical to kill for believing nonsense" (Sam Harris, good job btw) I think we should damn well step back and question very well what they are thinking and espousing. Believing we can solve the world's problems by "destroying" religion makes as much sense as destroying science. Rather, I find it a lazy intellectual answer to dealing with fundamentalism when we decided to castigate entire sections of humanity as "nutcases" before even delving into what, who, and why they are.
its kinda useless to try to reason with nuke, both him and the voices in his head are beyond reason. didnt your mother ever tell you not to argue with crazy people? obligatory nuke all the things.
-
I'm very sorry, but that to me sounds more like trying very hard to retrofit a genesis story onto what physics and astronomy have discovered over time.
That's exactly what it is. I doubt that anyone espoused that theory until science showed that the stars were actually older. Then suddenly the biblical "truth" was retrofitted to what actually happened.
Let me get this straight. A professor uses modern science to finally figure out that a highly-controversial passage of the Bible agrees with science, and it's retrofitting? Why are liberals/atheists/whatever-the-term-you-prefer-is so resistant to the idea that the Bible might contains some truth, that they make up reasons why the Bible agreeing with modern science is invalid and bogus? Seems to me like you're the ones who have your heads in the sand, adamantly refusing to consider anything beyond your own narrow worldviews even when it agrees with said worldview.
Speaking of changing our understanding of something:
In 1959, a survey was taken of leading American scientists. Among the many questions asked was, “What is your estimate of the age of the universe?” Now, in 1959, astronomy was popular, but cosmology – the deep physics of understanding the universe – was just developing. The response to that survey was recently republished in Scientific American – the most widely read science journal in the world. Two-thirds of the scientists gave the same answer. The answer that two-thirds – an overwhelming majority – of the scientists gave was, “Beginning? There was no beginning. Aristotle and Plato taught us 2400 years ago that the universe is eternal. Oh, we know the Bible says ‘In the beginning.’ That’s a nice story; it helps kids go to bed at night. But we sophisticates know better. There was no beginning.”
That was 1959. In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the echo of the Big Bang in the black of the sky at night, and the world paradigm changed from a universe that was eternal to a universe that had a beginning. Science had made an enormous paradigm change in its understanding of the world. Understand the impact. Science said that our universe had a beginning. I can’t overestimate the import of that scientific “discovery.” Evolution, cave men, these are all trivial problems compared to the fact that we now understand that we had a beginning. Exactly as the Bible had claimed for three millennia.
Anyone know where that quote is from? If not, I'm taking away your brownie points. :p
It details science doing exactly what you accused people of doing with the Bible - changing our understanding based on new evidence. In this case, new evidence that the universe had a beginning arose, so scientists the world over retrofitted their theories and opinions to adapt to this new evidence. How DARE they?!? And it agrees with the Bible, to boot! Blasphemy! :p
I'm going to have to call you out on this, because it's exactly the opposite of how science is done. You can't just believe your tools work and trust their measurements blindly. You have to know how they work and to what degree of accuracy, so that you can know how much confidence to place in your results, what kind of errors can skew those results, and how to decide if those results are bogus or not. Everything has error bars. Science is all about second guessing, refining, and solidifying its findings.
Seriously? You mention about science needing to solidify findings and yet deny that it's a belief? Scientists believe their instruments are reporting accurately. If they knew without a shadow of a doubt that the readings were true, they wouldn't need the instruments to begin with. Science has to rely on the accuracy of things based on past experience. I'm not saying that that is an unreasonable thing to do, mind you, it's quite a reasonable and logical process to take. I'm just pointing out how at the most basic level, there has to be that basic belief in the accuracy of your instrumentation.
If things exist that aren't observable or measurable, that is, they don't affect the universe at all, then they may as well not exist. If something is not observable yet that doesn't mean it will always be that way, and doesn't mean it has no effect on the world.
Your second sentence overrules your first one. Did you mean to do that?
-
Not going to enter that Bible debate, although I have to say I'm delighted this thread has been mostly polite so far.
I just want to throw my own thoughts about Belief, Trust, Religion and Science, since I think that clearly we aren't using these concepts in the same manner around here. What I say might surprise some.
To me, belief in X is basically having a deep commitment and trust that a proposition X is true. So when people say "I believe in Science" some kittens die inside my heart. Science is not a "proposition", it's a project with a wide group of tools, methods and institutions. When people also say "Science doesn't deal with beliefs, exactly the opposite", it's like the other group of kittens dying inside my heart. Beliefs aren't these metaphysical ghosts that are to be shunned and destroyed until everyone becomes "Scientific" enough to not believe in anything, but rather have "heuristics" and "statistical confidence" or whatever in any and every proposition X, to which every scientific mind will always remain in a rigorous sense an Agnostic (this is what is usually meant when people say "there are no absolute truths").
However, "belief" is precisely this commitment and trust despite we having not an absolute confidence in it. I believe the sun will come out tomorrow. Scientific reasonings and findings about this particular proposition adds certainty to my belief. Scientific-minded people have lots and lots of beliefs and dogmas. "Dogma" is not an "Absolute truth" (Yes, I know, trust me on this one. A Dogma is a Truth that is held by every believer which is found to be true by the commitee of the Vatican, etc. Dogmas are written and overthrown all the time). So for instance, General Relativity is a huge dogma within the Scientific Institutions. What this means is not that it is absolute true, but that it is really difficult for anyone to disprove it, and every time someone claims to have done it everyone in the field will just go "uh uh" and demand extraordinary evidence. Dogma there isn't a bad word, once you understand that it just means a really strong truth that has been declared or found by an institution (in this case, Science).
In this sense, when I hear this kind of Dawkinsian-like fans pretending they don't believe in anything, they adhere to the scientific method and so on, I just picture a lot of kids trying to be adults and uttering the same words with the same fervor they see their parents doing in real situations, but without even imagining what is really behind those words and what they really mean. I just think it false. People believe period. If we let our beliefs be informed by certain heuristics, the best we can do is to try to make these heuristics the most accurate as we can. These heuristics can span between believing in institutions that seem to behave in strict accordance with the scientific method and so on, or believing everything your local priest says is true, or what a certain holy book tells you, or you just go to the deep end with lots of distrust on anyone on the matter and you do the research for yourself.
All these have problems. Some worse than others, some are more useful in certain moments than others. I don't read Nature to understand how I should deal with my wife and kids, and I certainly avoid most psychosocial studies on that front (my heuristics). But all of them involve beliefs.
-
Let me get this straight. A professor uses modern science to finally figure out that a highly-controversial passage of the Bible agrees with science, and it's retrofitting? Why are liberals/atheists/whatever-the-term-you-prefer-is so resistant to the idea that the Bible might contains some truth, that they make up reasons why the Bible agreeing with modern science is invalid and bogus? Seems to me like you're the ones who have your heads in the sand, adamantly refusing to consider anything beyond your own narrow worldviews even when it agrees with said worldview.
The problem is that we're not arguing beliefs here. We're arguing provable facts. Your statement is that the Bible's Genesis story matches the scientific one. This is provably false. It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of things being in the wrong order. They simply do not match. If you want to argue that the Bible is correct and science is wrong, go for it. But don't try telling me that they say the same thing cause it's blatantly obvious they do not.
It details science doing exactly what you accused people of doing with the Bible - changing our understanding based on new evidence.
What new evidence though? What new evidence has ever been used to alter the Bible in the last few hundred years? (With the exception of the Book of Mormon). Science always claims that its understanding of the universe is flawed and may be updated at a later point if new evidence appears. Christianity makes no such claims. The Bible is correct is the claim that is made. And if you want to claim that the Bible can be updated based on a scientific understanding of the universe, I want to know which parts of the bible can't be updated.
-
The problem is that we're not arguing beliefs here. We're arguing provable facts. Your statement is that the Bible's Genesis story matches the scientific one. This is provably false. It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of things being in the wrong order. They simply do not match. If you want to argue that the Bible is correct and science is wrong, go for it. But don't try telling me that they say the same thing cause it's blatantly obvious they do not.
You misunderstand then. My statement is that the Bible's account of creation - as described in an understandably limited fashion by being condensed down to a mere few dozen sentences without much in the way of scientific terms to lean on - is "becoming" more and more plausible according to evidence uncovered by science as time goes on. Your argument against the supposed inaccuracies of the Biblical account of creation sounds very plausible right now, and I'm sure scientists' argument of an eternal universe sounded equally as plausible 60 years ago.
Look, we both have been saying that science adapts its theories as new evidence gets uncovered. What I'm saying is that that new evidence is making scientific view of the beginning of the universe more in-line with the Biblical account - not the traditional "6 days of creation as we know days now", but instead an account that makes more sense by applying what we know about the universe today to what would have happened back then.
I'm not saying science is wrong by any means. I'm saying it's incomplete (we all know this), and the more complete it gets, the more it helps us understand how the universe began, the more in line both accounts of the beginning of it all become with each other.
What new evidence though? What new evidence has ever been used to alter the Bible in the last few hundred years? (With the exception of the Book of Mormon). Science always claims that its understanding of the universe is flawed and may be updated at a later point if new evidence appears. Christianity makes no such claims. The Bible is correct is the claim that is made. And if you want to claim that the Bible can be updated based on a scientific understanding of the universe, I want to know which parts of the bible can't be updated.
Not alter or update the Bible itself. That's sort of the equivalent of saying that new scientific discoveries alter the underlying laws of physics of the universe. All new discoveries do - in both Biblical and scientific realms - is alter (usually clarify or enhance) our comprehension of the subject matter.
EDIT: And since you asked which parts of the Bible can't be updated, I'll give it a shot, although likely it won't be of much interest to non-Christians:
I was studying the book of Revelation a while back, and I realized there were 2 primary types of prophetic accounts in that book (the book is John's account of the visions he had while on the isle of Patmos).
One type is a direct report of words heard in the vision, for example, in Revelation 9:14: "...one saying to the sixth angel who had the trumpet, 'Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates.'". IMO this kind of reporting on events can be taken as literally as an audio recording... in other words it's accurate as to what was said, although the speaker could have been speaking metaphorically.
The other type is the kind where John is trying to come up with his own words to explain what he's seeing. Presuming that he is seeing a vision of things far in his future, it's only natural that he would lack accurate words and be forced to describe the unfamiliar by comparing or equating it to the familiar. For example, in Revelation 9:7, he begins describing "locusts" that came up out of a great pit in the earth: "The appearance of the locusts was like horses prepared for battle; and on their heads appeared to be crowns like gold, and their faces were like the faces of men." He goes on for a few more verses, attempting to describe these... things, whatever they are. But note the wording he uses. Numerous uses of "appearance" and "like". This kind of account IMO is not to be taken literally, but with a grain of salt in that the report uses what we could call "poetic license". :)
I know that's not exactly what you were asking, but it's the closest I could get. :) Hope it makes sense, for what it is. :)
-
Can everyone stop referring to science as an entity? Please?
-
I'm not saying science is wrong by any means. I'm saying it's incomplete (we all know this), and the more complete it gets, the more it helps us understand how the universe began, the more in line both accounts of the beginning of it all become with each other.
But what is your backup plan in case scientific evidence flatly contradicts biblical accounts? There are already numerous conflicts between what we know, and what Genesis says (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/1.html), conflicts that cannot be explained by saying "Genesis had to be dumbed down". Your belief that scientific and religious accounts will eventually converge onto a common ground is ... questionable, to say the least, given that the biblical account is so malleable, so self-contradictory, so open for interpretation.
If we accept the theory that biblical evidence is just ciphered scientific truth, then we should be able to use it in the same way we can use a scientific hypothesis. That is, we should be able to make predictions based on what the bible says, and then arrive at statements we can test using the scientific method. I would refer you to the story of Noah for an easily testable hypothesis.
The problem for me is that your approach to finding the truth is diametrically opposed to the scientific method. You are assuming that you know the truth (or rather, that some people writing a short story collection a couple thousand years ago knew the truth), and that it can only be discovered and reaffirmed. To that end, you try to reinterpret what you know in the light of new discoveries, paving over any discrepancies by saying either "Well, obviously the biblical account had to be made understandable to the lay person" or by saying "Well, obviously there are still discoveries to be made that will prove the biblical account to be right".
For me, it is easier to start with a blank slate and fill it with the discoveries we make to arrive at a continually updated, continually improved picture of reality. What you are doing is starting with a complete picture, comparing it to mine, and then pointing towards rough similarities and saying that they're equivalent.
-
yeah if the bible is true why doesn't it say anything about evolution?
(http://images.wikia.com/halo/images/9/9f/Trollface_emoticon.png)
-
But what is your backup plan in case scientific evidence flatly contradicts biblical accounts? There are already numerous conflicts between what we know, and what Genesis says (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/1.html), conflicts that cannot be explained by saying "Genesis had to be dumbed down". Your belief that scientific and religious accounts will eventually converge onto a common ground is ... questionable, to say the least, given that the biblical account is so malleable, so self-contradictory, so open for interpretation.
Just by glancing over that first chapter in your link, I see around half of the points that are made there are explained or invalidated by that one article I linked to, which I'm beginning to suspect nobody but me read. If you wish to continue debating this with me (please do, as this is an enjoyable challenge), read that article first.
For me, it is easier to start with a blank slate and fill it with the discoveries we make to arrive at a continually updated, continually improved picture of reality. What you are doing is starting with a complete picture, comparing it to mine, and then pointing towards rough similarities and saying that they're equivalent.
I regard the Bible as a translated written description of reality, and science as an examination of a photograph of reality.
In the Bible's case, the ridiculously complex, incredible universe in which we live has been depicted by relatively rudimentary words, which themselves have been fallibly translated into languages most of us can understand (I think we can all agree that no matter how you regard the Bible, it's best to examine what it says in the original language rather than someone's translation of such).
In science's case (sorry, BloodEagle!), we get to study our ridiculously complex, incredible universe through the image of it that our relatively rudimentary instruments present us, and from our/their very restricted point of view in space-time.
In neither case do you get perfectly accurate knowledge about reality. The Bible states things as fact, and leaves it up to the reader to properly understand what was stated. Science observes, measures, and reaches a conclusion or, more often, multiple and sometimes contradictory conclusions, based on the available evidence. Both are equally "at the mercy" of our human understanding of what's presented, and that understanding has changed over time as new information comes in.
yeah if the bible is true why doesn't it say anything about evolution?
(http://images.wikia.com/halo/images/9/9f/Trollface_emoticon.png)
Not that you're going to read it, but the same author, Dr. Schroeder, has an article about that as well: http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=60
-
Sandwich, was Man created after or before the other animals? I.E. do you disagree with Genesis 1:25-27 or with Genesis 2:18-19?
Was earth created after or before the stars? I.E. do you disagree with Genesis 1:16-19 or with Job 38:4-7?
How can you posit that the Bible is correct when it contradicts itself?
-
If you wish to continue debating this with me (please do, as this is an enjoyable challenge), read that article first.
I tried. Its main hypothesis seems to be that, since spacetime was all bunched up after the big bang, time was passing more slowly, so that 6 days back then are equivalent to several billion years our time due to spacetime expansion.
There are several logic leaps in there (although that may just be due to me not being a bible/Torah scholar) from my perspective, and more importantly, nothing said in there is relevant to a scientific examination of the universe, since it does not present a testable hypothesis!
The main problem I have here is that in his explanation, time flows at arbitrary rates. One day is several billion years long, another just several million, then suddenly it accelerates until one day is only several thousand years long. If the original hypothesis were true, if this "God time" is governed by the expansion of the universe, then why isn't there a consistent formula for it? We know that universal expansion has been uniform over the timescale involved, so such a formula should be easy to derive, should it not?
Again, we have so far seen information flow one way, with scientific evidence being fit into the religious interpretation. Where are the instances of this going the other way?
-
Can everyone stop referring to science as an entity? Please?
So much this it's not even funny. My brain goes mental every time I read "I believe in SCIENCE!"
-
In the Bible's case, the ridiculously complex, incredible universe in which we live has been depicted by relatively rudimentary words, which themselves have been fallibly translated into languages most of us can understand (I think we can all agree that no matter how you regard the Bible, it's best to examine what it says in the original language rather than someone's translation of such).
In science's case (sorry, BloodEagle!), we get to study our ridiculously complex, incredible universe through the image of it that our relatively rudimentary instruments present us, and from our/their very restricted point of view in space-time.
In neither case do you get perfectly accurate knowledge about reality. The Bible states things as fact, and leaves it up to the reader to properly understand what was stated. Science observes, measures, and reaches a conclusion or, more often, multiple and sometimes contradictory conclusions, based on the available evidence. Both are equally "at the mercy" of our human understanding of what's presented, and that understanding has changed over time as new information comes in.
And the bible was written by whom? In the case of scientists, you know who said what, and they can be held accountable for their actions (in case fraud or misguidances took place). The source of the Bible, however, is unveriafable. This is an important point in why scientist's papers are much more legitimate on "The Truth" then the Bible is.
-
Sandwich,
(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/397/625/be7.jpg)
It really looks like you're trying very hard to make the Bible match up with current scientific models and theories, and you're going out and deliberately seeking information/statements that back up your beliefs.
This is called "confirmation bias." It is a well-documented and studied phenomenon in psychology.
I can understand your feelings, because I did this for the longest time. But things just didn't match up, and come of God's erm... 'policies' just didn't make sense.
-
I do agree with scientists' papers, if only they stay firm with their discipline. When politics come in, just like in the church, things get messed up.
-
Not that you're going to read it, but the same author, Dr. Schroeder, has an article about that as well: http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=60
did you just seriously respond to a post with a troll face in it as if it were a serious attempt at discussion?
I skimmed the article, it seems to be about explaining how god and evolution can coexist, when that wasn't the point being raised, the bible says nothing about common ancestry, or speciation, it says man was specially created, separate from everything else in god's image. while you might be able to think up ways in which a god could have used evolution as a tool of creation I don't see how it has any founding in the bible. not that I think that the bible should be used as the foundations of your beliefs. and if you want to be hyper-technical about it, if god was guiding it then it was not evolution, it would be more like domestication.
-
Sandwich, was Man created after or before the other animals? I.E. do you disagree with Genesis 1:25-27 or with Genesis 2:18-19?
The account of creation in Genesis 1 is generally viewed as the general overview account, presented in chronological order. Genesis 2, after the first couple of verses, focuses more on the details of the creation of Man. When it refers to God bringing forth trees and whatnot, it's referring to the Garden of Eden specifically, not the entire planet (which already had flora & fauna).
So Man was created after the other animals... being a higher form of life and all. ;)
Oh, and nice attempt at forcing my choice there... which account do I disagree with. Smoothly done.
Was earth created after or before the stars? I.E. do you disagree with Genesis 1:16-19 or with Job 38:4-7?
Tell me, where did you get this one from? You really should read up on the references yourself instead of taking them blindly; Job 38:4-7 has nothing to do with the creation of the stars (unless "sang together" is a Biblical euphemism for "got created" that I'm unaware of...):
4 “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding,
5 Who set its measurements? Since you know.
Or who stretched the line on it?
6 “On what were its bases sunk?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars sang together
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Job 38:4-7
Nice try tho. Including references really makes things seem authoritative - just make sure they're accurate next time. ;)
In all honesty though, if it was a simple typo and you meant to reference a different passage, then please forgive my thinly-veiled sarcasm.
How can you posit that the Bible is correct when it contradicts itself?
The flaw, my dear sir, is in us - our comprehension of the matter. Just ask an astronomer or cosmologist who was around in 1959-1965. We make mistakes. Acknowledging those mistakes when evidence to the contrary comes to light is not weakness, but maturity.
The main problem I have here is that in his explanation, time flows at arbitrary rates. One day is several billion years long, another just several million, then suddenly it accelerates until one day is only several thousand years long. If the original hypothesis were true, if this "God time" is governed by the expansion of the universe, then why isn't there a consistent formula for it? We know that universal expansion has been uniform over the timescale involved, so such a formula should be easy to derive, should it not?
Thank you for trying at least. I can imagine the article could be a bit difficult for, say, an atheist to put up with (not sure what you are - not that it matters TBH).
In any case, do read the update at the very very end of the article... it talks a bit about the calculations used and whatnot. I'm afraid, however, that for the full details, you'd have to check his book (The Science of God), as he states at the initial end of the article.
Again, we have so far seen information flow one way, with scientific evidence being fit into the religious interpretation. Where are the instances of this going the other way?
Why does it have to go the other way? Is it written anywhere that there has to be a balance?
Anyway, in this instance we have scientific evidence helping to clarify the Biblical narrative, so the other way would be Biblical accounts clarifying scientific observations...? Well, not that many in the scientific community were listening to what the Bible said about things, but I believe the example I've been giving this entire time counts - the Bible has stated for thousands of years that the universe had a beginning, whereas scientific opinion only recently arrived at the same conclusion. Aside from that one, there's also the Bible informing us about the existence of either Herod or Pontus Pilate (sorry, I can't remember which) almost 2000 years, yet archaeological evidence for his existence was not discovered until recently.
Is that what you were asking?
Can everyone stop referring to science as an entity? Please?
So much this it's not even funny. My brain goes mental every time I read "I believe in SCIENCE!"
Sorry... it's just a lot quicker to type. :p
And the bible was written by whom? In the case of scientists, you know who said what, and they can be held accountable for their actions (in case fraud or misguidances took place). The source of the Bible, however, is unveriafable. This is an important point in why scientist's papers are much more legitimate on "The Truth" then the Bible is.
Actually, the authors for many (I'd guess most, even) of the books of the Bible are quite known. Of course, we only know about most of these authors from the Bible itself, so that may not be good enough for you. But even presuming it is good enough, then what? How does knowing that King David wrote chapter XYZ of Psalms make a difference between it and a Psalm where the author is unknown?
No, seriously. I can understand how knowing the author's identity today makes a difference, but when we are talking about authors who lived and died many thousands of years ago, most of whom we only know about from the very stories in question, what actual difference does it make?
It really looks like you're trying very hard to make the Bible match up with current scientific models and theories, and you're going out and deliberately seeking information/statements that back up your beliefs.
This is called "confirmation bias." It is a well-documented and studied phenomenon in psychology.
I can understand your feelings, because I did this for the longest time. But things just didn't match up, and come of God's erm... 'policies' just didn't make sense.
I thought liberals were supposed to be, well... liberal in what they accepted. Yet mention the Bible agreeing with science (sorry again, BloodEagle) and y'all get all paranoid and crotchety (if you don't get the reference, drop out of this thread right now and go watch Firefly).
Not that you're going to read it, but the same author, Dr. Schroeder, has an article about that as well: http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=60
did you just seriously respond to a post with a troll face in it as if it were a serious attempt at discussion?
I skimmed the article, it seems to be about explaining how god and evolution can coexist, when that wasn't the point being raised, the bible says nothing about common ancestry, or speciation, it says man was specially created, separate from everything else in god's image. while you might be able to think up ways in which a god could have used evolution as a tool of creation I don't see how it has any founding in the bible. not that I think that the bible should be used as the foundations of your beliefs. and if you want to be hyper-technical about it, if god was guiding it then it was not evolution, it would be more like domestication.
Yes, yes I did. Try a rageface and see what happens. :D
You do realize that there are many different aspects that fit under the umbrella of the term "evolution", right? Some of them do not contradict the Bible, others do. That article was, among other things, differentiating between the two aspects.
Also, the "created in God's image" thing is widely regarded to refer to basically every aspect that makes us human except for the physical (since God is spirit, after all). Just saying...
...and going to bed. It's after 7am for Pete's sake.
-
Actually, the authors for many (I'd guess most, even) of the books of the Bible are quite known. Of course, we only know about most of these authors from the Bible itself, so that may not be good enough for you. But even presuming it is good enough, then what? How does knowing that King David wrote chapter XYZ of Psalms make a difference between it and a Psalm where the author is unknown?
No, seriously. I can understand how knowing the author's identity today makes a difference, but when we are talking about authors who lived and died many thousands of years ago, most of whom we only know about from the very stories in question, what actual difference does it make?
It makes all the difference in the world. There's a reason why roman history writers are not taken for granted in modern history.
Because the goal and intent of the authors is unknown. The thing with scientists is that I know the methods they used to reach their conclusions (as they have written it down, as part of the scientific process). The bible, on the other hand, just says "this is the truth" without any justification. How can one see the bible as "The truth" when you do not know the author's methods, goal and intention? For all you know, the book is one huge propaganda piece written to justify the Jewish' conquest of Israel.
-
The main problem I have here is that in his explanation, time flows at arbitrary rates. One day is several billion years long, another just several million, then suddenly it accelerates until one day is only several thousand years long. If the original hypothesis were true, if this "God time" is governed by the expansion of the universe, then why isn't there a consistent formula for it? We know that universal expansion has been uniform over the timescale involved, so such a formula should be easy to derive, should it not?
Thank you for trying at least. I can imagine the article could be a bit difficult for, say, an atheist to put up with (not sure what you are - not that it matters TBH).
In any case, do read the update at the very very end of the article... it talks a bit about the calculations used and whatnot. I'm afraid, however, that for the full details, you'd have to check his book (The Science of God), as he states at the initial end of the article.
You'll forgive me if I don't. If he can't be bothered to explain his math in a simple article about said math, or submit his hypothesis to peer review in a real journal, then I can't be bothered to take him seriously as a scientist.
Again, we have so far seen information flow one way, with scientific evidence being fit into the religious interpretation. Where are the instances of this going the other way?
Why does it have to go the other way? Is it written anywhere that there has to be a balance?
Anyway, in this instance we have scientific evidence helping to clarify the Biblical narrative, so the other way would be Biblical accounts clarifying scientific observations...? Well, not that many in the scientific community were listening to what the Bible said about things, but I believe the example I've been giving this entire time counts - the Bible has stated for thousands of years that the universe had a beginning, whereas scientific opinion only recently arrived at the same conclusion. Aside from that one, there's also the Bible informing us about the existence of either Herod or Pontus Pilate (sorry, I can't remember which) almost 2000 years, yet archaeological evidence for his existence was not discovered until recently.
Is that what you were asking?
Not entirely.
You see, here's the way I'm coming at this:
1. Your hypothesis is that the Bible contains an encoded version of real history, based on your observation that scientific evidence seems to kinda-sorta link up to biblical accounts.
2. If we take this hypothesis as true, then we should be able to make inferences about future discoveries by studying the bible, or find historical evidence for events mentioned there.
But what happens if we do try that? Suddenly, the bible doesn't actually seem to hold just the truths, but a collection of truths and allegories and metaphors in a wild jumble, without a clear and universally accepted guide on what is what.
Let's take the story of Noah and the Ark as an example. If it was true, if all of that really happened, we would need to see several things reflected in the historical and archaeological record. We would need to see signs of worldwide flooding. We would need to see signs of a massive die-off of animals and humans around the same time. We would also need to see a sudden burst in speciation shortly afterwards. We would also have to see a clear pattern of migration lines from the Ark's last resting place to the rest of the world.
However, none of these things can be found. So, what does that mean? Clearly, you would say, this means that this story is allegorical, but how would you know this from the text? And what is it an allegory for?
-
Was earth created after or before the stars? I.E. do you disagree with Genesis 1:16-19 or with Job 38:4-7?
Tell me, where did you get this one from? You really should read up on the references yourself instead of taking them blindly; Job 38:4-7 has nothing to do with the creation of the stars (unless "sang together" is a Biblical euphemism for "got created" that I'm unaware of...):
4 “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding,
5 Who set its measurements? Since you know.
Or who stretched the line on it?
6 “On what were its bases sunk?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars sang together
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Job 38:4-7
Nice try tho. Including references really makes things seem authoritative - just make sure they're accurate next time. ;)
You might want to reread that.
It's kinda hard for "the morning stars to sing together" when they didn't exist yet according to Genesis, hence the contradiction. But hey, let's ignore Job then and consider that Genesis, the supposed reference on creation, tells us that the Earth was created before the stars...
How can you posit that the Bible is correct when it contradicts itself?
The flaw, my dear sir, is in us - our comprehension of the matter. Just ask an astronomer or cosmologist who was around in 1959-1965. We make mistakes. Acknowledging those mistakes when evidence to the contrary comes to light is not weakness, but maturity.
Ah... so when the Bible is wrong, it's our comprehension that is lacking and somehow it is correct in a cryptic way, and when it's close enough for people to say "Well, if you squint your eyes enough it kinda looks close" it's correct.
-
We make mistakes.
like believing that a 5000 year old collection of fables cannot be anything other than inerrant about the truths of the mechanics of nature? this could possibly be a mistake?
-
This is actually an important question. Scientists always assume that anything in science including the entire methodology itself could be incorrect. Is there a similar assumption being made about the Bible? Could parts of it simply be wrong? Not allegorical, not symbolic, simply wrong. i.e stuff that got included by someone who didn't have divine inspiration for it.
-
This is actually an important question. Scientists always assume that anything in science including the entire methodology itself could be incorrect. Is there a similar assumption being made about the Bible? Could parts of it simply be wrong? Not allegorical, not symbolic, simply wrong. i.e stuff that got included by someone who didn't have divine inspiration for it.
Haven't you ever heard of Faith? If there was ever a halfass patch for "what if we got something wrong" it's faith.
-
I know, but given that Sandwich was making the claim that scientists should make allowances for the fact that the entire methodology of science is wrong, I was wondering if he'd agree that religion should also make the same allowance or if he'd simply hide behind the whole "The bible is true, we might be reading it wrong though" argument.
-
The flaw, my dear sir, is in us - our comprehension of the matter. Just ask an astronomer or cosmologist who was around in 1959-1965. We make mistakes.
Conveniently, I actually study astronomy and cosmology. Why don't you just ask me? :)
The theoretical framework to describe the evolution of the universe was worked out (by Einstein, Friedmann, Robertson, etc) as early as the 20s, and cosmologists recognized that an expanding universe was consistent with these models. Einstein himself saw that the field equations showed that a static universe would be unstable -- the universe operating under these equations should either be expanding or contracting. Without having observational evidence at the time to suggest one way or another, most people, including Einstein, held the philosophical view that the universe was static. Einstein introduced the cosmological constant to force the static solution out of the equations.
He later retracted that fudge factor when Hubble's observations of galactic redshift (1929) showed that the universe was indeed expanding. Many cosmologists adopted the expanding universe model around this time. The detection and characterization of the CMB in the 60s finally converted most of the rest. But yes, you are right, we did not always have the currently accepted model of cosmology, just like we didn't always have the currently accepted model of the atom.
Addendum, because it's too interesting to leave out: Einstein's cosmological constant turns out to be very useful in modelling the accelerating expansion of the universe. The joke is that apparently he was such a genius that even his mistakes end up being right. ;)
If we take time dilation into account, we end up with the 6 days of Genesis being equivalent to 7.1, 3.6, 1.8, 0.89, 0.45, and 0.23 billion years in length (respectively) - which adds up to 14.07 billion years as measured from our coordinates in space-time.
This is a very interesting claim; I've never heard it before. I would have supposed a claim like that should have come with something to support it... a link to the calculations, perhaps? I prefer rigor with my science.
So I did some google-fu, and stumbled across this (http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx) and subsequently read it.
Allow me to be extremely sincere with you: This guy is spewing bull****. Yes, I could go line by line and explain to you why the things that he is writing there are wrong. I won't, because I have far better things to do, but to show that I'm not kidding here's one good example:
"The rate of doubling, that is the fractional rate of change, is very rapid at the beginning and decreases with time simply because as the universe gets larger and larger, even though the actual expansion rate is approximately constant, it takes longer and longer for the overall size to double. Because of this, the earliest of the six days have most of the 15 billion years sequestered with them."
This statement is wrong, because
(a) the expansion rate is not nearly constant; it depends (and to varying orders of magnitude!) on the relative contributions of the mass density, radiation pressure, and dark energy, which themselves are functions of the scale of the universe. (Hence the terms 'matter dominated', 'radiation dominated', and 'Λ-dominated' eras).
(b) The 'rate of doubling' literally means the time for the scale factor of the universe to double. This is the time it takes for the distance between comoving points to double, which is directly proportional to the expansion velocity (the latter is the time derivative of the former). So no, it does not take longer and longer for the universe to double in size, nor does his explanation for it make any physical sense.
That's all I feel like saying as someone who studies cosmology for right now. If anyone else wants to dive into this kind of silliness then this site (http://www.talkreason.org/articles/schroeder.cfm#zero) looks like it has some good funnies. But I just want to say that I honestly don't care what theological beliefs anybody holds; indeed I respect them. Just please don't expect me to take you seriously if you try to use scientific principles to support them unless you really do understand the science in question.
-
If we take time dilation into account, we end up with the 6 days of Genesis being equivalent to 7.1, 3.6, 1.8, 0.89, 0.45, and 0.23 billion years in length (respectively) - which adds up to 14.07 billion years as measured from our coordinates in space-time.
This is a very interesting claim; I've never heard it before. I would have supposed a claim like that should have come with something to support it... a link to the calculations, perhaps? I prefer rigor with my science.
my guess (and it is only a guess) is that the guy uses a real physical formula, and real physical numbers except for one where he goes "this is reasonable" that number happens to be a number that most people reading don't understand and therefore cannot judge it's reasonableness but everything else seems to check out so they go along with it, the number picked just happens to be the exact value needed for his calculation to work out the way he want's it to. all it works out to is this formula is not evidence against the idea, because there is at least one possible set of numbers that is consistent with it, which is hardly evidence for the idea.
I'm too lazy and time constrained at the moment to actually validate the guess.
-
Yes, I'm sure he is using a formula, but the problem is that his description of the expansion of the universe is wrong, and so his conclusions about the time dilation are also wrong. He making the common mistake of thinking of it as a sphere with constantly expanding radius, and labeling the scale factor as the ratio of radii at different times. If that were the case, then dR/dt = v = a constant, and R(t) = R0 + vt. The 'doubling time', then, is the time required for vt to equal R(t), so you get tdouble = (R0 + vt)/v = R/v + t. As you can see, the doubling time is proportional to the age, which is consistent with his description.
But this is not how the real universe works. The universe's expansion is a Metric Expansion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space), which means that the rate at which two points move away from one another is directly proportional to the distance between them. (From this comes Hubble's Law). If that rate is constant, then the scale factor, being the distance between two points now divided by the distance at some prior time, increases at a constant rate as well. Therefore his assertion that most of the 6 days gets compressed to the earlier times in the 15 (14!) billion year history does not work.
-
hmm, so the actual distance between two points increases exponentially with time? didn't know that
-
Yes, though it is a little more complicated than that since the expansion rate depends on the density of matter, radiation, and all that good stuff. To get the scale factor as a function of time you have to solve the Friedmann Equations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations) for a(t), and generally you get solutions that look like a ∝ t^(some power).
For a dark-energy dominated universe (which is what ours will be in the future) you get a(t) ∝ e^(Kt), which is truly exponential. :)
-
You'll forgive me if I don't. If he can't be bothered to explain his math in a simple article about said math, or submit his hypothesis to peer review in a real journal, then I can't be bothered to take him seriously as a scientist.
Good point. I don't know why he doesn't have links to published stuff, or why he doesn't provide formulas (I would guess it's because he wanted to leave the website articles accessible to the layman). Why don't you ask him yourself? His email is published at the bottom of the About page: [email protected]
Not entirely.
You see, here's the way I'm coming at this:
1. Your hypothesis is that the Bible contains an encoded version of real history, based on your observation that scientific evidence seems to kinda-sorta link up to biblical accounts.
2. If we take this hypothesis as true, then we should be able to make inferences about future discoveries by studying the bible, or find historical evidence for events mentioned there.
But what happens if we do try that? Suddenly, the bible doesn't actually seem to hold just the truths, but a collection of truths and allegories and metaphors in a wild jumble, without a clear and universally accepted guide on what is what.
Let's take the story of Noah and the Ark as an example. If it was true, if all of that really happened, we would need to see several things reflected in the historical and archaeological record. We would need to see signs of worldwide flooding. We would need to see signs of a massive die-off of animals and humans around the same time. We would also need to see a sudden burst in speciation shortly afterwards. We would also have to see a clear pattern of migration lines from the Ark's last resting place to the rest of the world.
However, none of these things can be found. So, what does that mean? Clearly, you would say, this means that this story is allegorical, but how would you know this from the text? And what is it an allegory for?
Couple of points here, in brief.
Regarding the inferences of future discoveries, place yourself 100 years ago, make that statement, and then live through finding out there was a beginning to the universe. Or, if you prefer, there's a series of fiction novels by one Joel Rosenberg that he has written over the last 15ish years or so. He based the fictional events depicted in his books on his understanding of Biblical prophecy. He made national headlines when real-world events occurred that were uncannily similar to the events depicted in his books.
Regarding Noah and the Ark... from what I understand, all or nearly all ancient cultures have an account of a great flood. Whether it was truly world-wide (the entire planet), "merely" known-world-wide, or regional (think something like the Mediterranean basin before the ocean broke through the Straits of Gibraltar) is hard to determine considering the Hebrew word used for describing the flood's AOE is ארץ (eretz), which can be translated as earth, land, country, etc (here's one (http://ecclesia.org/truth/flood.html) of many articles about this - didn't read it thoroughly though).
Personally I suspect it was a regional flood, not planet-wide, if for no other reason than the numbers of animals brought onto the ark would have been insufficient to repopulate the planet - 2 males & 2 females of the unclean animals, 7 males and 7 females of the clean ones.
You might want to reread that.
It's kinda hard for "the morning stars to sing together" when they didn't exist yet according to Genesis, hence the contradiction. But hey, let's ignore Job then and consider that Genesis, the supposed reference on creation, tells us that the Earth was created before the stars...
We covered this before. The Genesis 1 account is that light was created before the earth. Unless you presume - as some really weird Christians do - that the light in question came from God Himself, that light had to have come from stars, including Sol. The day it attributes to the placing of the sun, moon, and stars in the heavens was when the atmospheric haze thinned enough for said bodies to become visible.
Ah... so when the Bible is wrong, it's our comprehension that is lacking and somehow it is correct in a cryptic way, and when it's close enough for people to say "Well, if you squint your eyes enough it kinda looks close" it's correct.
If you take out the mocking and inherent sarcasm in that statement, then yes, that's my belief.
I know, but given that Sandwich was making the claim that scientists should make allowances for the fact that the entire methodology of science is wrong, I was wondering if he'd agree that religion should also make the same allowance or if he'd simply hide behind the whole "The bible is true, we might be reading it wrong though" argument.
Not the methodology - the interpretation of the results. The allowance that perhaps the instruments used to obtain those results were flawed. Scientists understand that this is a possibility, which is why things are checked and verified repeatedly.
Now whether you believe the Bible is truth or not, it is what it is. Opening the book at a different angle isn't going to give you different text. What is written (in the original languages) is written and unchangeable. So the earliest possible place to account for a "flawed instrument" in the process is in our understanding of what was written.
Perhaps I'm not being clear somehow, but in my mind I'm trying to get across the point that I'm applying to the Bible what I see scientists applying to the universe - the acknowledgement that we might be introducing an error somewhere.
Conveniently, I actually study astronomy and cosmology. Why don't you just ask me? :)
Ah, good! :)
He later retracted that fudge factor when Hubble's observations of galactic redshift (1929) showed that the universe was indeed expanding. Many cosmologists adopted the expanding universe model around this time. The detection and characterization of the CMB in the 60s finally converted most of the rest. But yes, you are right, we did not always have the currently accepted model of cosmology, just like we didn't always have the currently accepted model of the atom.
Thought you meant the Hubble space telescope for a while here and had done a major typo... :p
This is a very interesting claim; I've never heard it before. I would have supposed a claim like that should have come with something to support it... a link to the calculations, perhaps? I prefer rigor with my science.
His articles state multiple times that the details are in his books.
(b) The 'rate of doubling' literally means the time for the scale factor of the universe to double. This is the time it takes for the distance between comoving points to double, which is directly proportional to the expansion velocity (the latter is the time derivative of the former). So no, it does not take longer and longer for the universe to double in size, nor does his explanation for it make any physical sense.
If the rate of expansion (how fast the outer boundaries are travelling outwards from the center) is, say, 100mph, then it would take 1 hour for a 200 mile diameter sphere to double in size to 400 miles. It would then take 2 hours to double in size again, to 800 miles. Next doubling in size would take 4 hours, etc. That's the size increase I thought he was talking about.. is there something wrong with that?
That's all I feel like saying as someone who studies cosmology for right now. If anyone else wants to dive into this kind of silliness then this site (http://www.talkreason.org/articles/schroeder.cfm#zero) looks like it has some good funnies. But I just want to say that I honestly don't care what theological beliefs anybody holds; indeed I respect them. Just please don't expect me to take you seriously if you try to use scientific principles to support them unless you really do understand the science in question.
At some point we all have to stand on the shoulders of those who came before us, presuming that what they discovered was accurate. If not, we'd be reinventing the wheel with each generation.
Anyway, the TalkReason.org article argues against Schroeder's theories based on the presumption that because we can't (yet) measure something to be true or not, it can't exist:
"Therefore, what lasted six days 15 billions years ago, lasts exactly six days now. If there were available some other observable universe, which could be utilized as an independent frame of reference, then it could be possible to find out if one day in our century is different from one day 15 billion years ago. As it is, the length of a day in our century is to all intents and purposes exactly the same as it was 15 billion years ago."
Uhm... I kinda sorta disagree. Perhaps we can't (yet) base scientific calculations based on something we can't (yet)measure, but that does not equate to that something not existing. Wasn't one of our own solar system's planets (Pluto?)discovered by observing the orbits of nearby planets and figuring out that they didn't make sense unless there was something else out there gravitationally affecting it? How about all those galaxies revealed by the Hubble Deep Field? Did they not exist before we observed them? If Newton followed the above logic, he would never have figured out gravity... postulating that something we can't directly measure might exist? Heck, to the best of my knowledge, we still can't measure gravity itself, can we? We measure the effects it has on objects, but have we been able to observe "gravitons" or whatever the "gravity particle/field/wave/whatever" is called?
Yes, I'm sure he is using a formula, but the problem is that his description of the expansion of the universe is wrong, and so his conclusions about the time dilation are also wrong. He making the common mistake of thinking of it as a sphere with constantly expanding radius, and labeling the scale factor as the ratio of radii at different times. If that were the case, then dR/dt = v = a constant, and R(t) = R0 + vt. The 'doubling time', then, is the time required for vt to equal R(t), so you get tdouble = (R0 + vt)/v = R/v + t. As you can see, the doubling time is proportional to the age, which is consistent with his description.
But this is not how the real universe works. The universe's expansion is a Metric Expansion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space), which means that the rate at which two points move away from one another is directly proportional to the distance between them. (From this comes Hubble's Law). If that rate is constant, then the scale factor, being the distance between two points now divided by the distance at some prior time, increases at a constant rate as well. Therefore his assertion that most of the 6 days gets compressed to the earlier times in the 15 (14!) billion year history does not work.
Sorry, but most of that is above my head. :( I read the Wikipedia article's intro, and understood it from the 3rd paragraph onwards. :p I'm a very visual learner, so examples I can envision help. :)
Anyway, why don't you write him to ask how he takes what you're saying into account? [email protected]
-
You might want to reread that.
It's kinda hard for "the morning stars to sing together" when they didn't exist yet according to Genesis, hence the contradiction. But hey, let's ignore Job then and consider that Genesis, the supposed reference on creation, tells us that the Earth was created before the stars...
We covered this before. The Genesis 1 account is that light was created before the earth. Unless you presume - as some really weird Christians do - that the light in question came from God Himself, that light had to have come from stars, including Sol. The day it attributes to the placing of the sun, moon, and stars in the heavens was when the atmospheric haze thinned enough for said bodies to become visible.
You are specifically trying to interpret Genesis in a way to make it similar to your understanding of reality. However, that is not what Genesis says.
Genesis 1:16
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
It specifically says made, not became visible or whatever.
Ah... so when the Bible is wrong, it's our comprehension that is lacking and somehow it is correct in a cryptic way, and when it's close enough for people to say "Well, if you squint your eyes enough it kinda looks close" it's correct.
If you take out the mocking and inherent sarcasm in that statement, then yes, that's my belief.
Which is one of the problems. You don't look at the Bible's account of creation and say "Well, it says this thing and that's how it is regardless of what is our modern understanding." You look at modern understanding and try to interpret the Bible in a way to make it similar to it as we see above.
-
I think that's a pretty fair thing to do when you really believe the Bible is the Absolute Truth that came from God himself.
-
I think that's a pretty fair thing to do when you really believe the Bible is the Absolute Truth that came from God himself.
That's a pretty silly position to take though, considering all the parts that don't jive with reality, like pi and the shape of the earth and the origins of life and whatnot.
-
Almost as silly as making it one's goal to stamp out another's belief when it affects you in exactly zero ways except as a snippet of text you can easily choose not to read.
It's fine to disagree. Sandwich hasn't said anything yet, but simply from reading the topic, it sounds like this is less friendly debate and more trying to stamp out something one perceives as wrong on the internet (http://xkcd.com/386/).
Again, it hasn't crossed lines yet, but in the past couple pages the tone has noticeably changed in a negative direction.
-
it is a better position to take than one who simply says "that is what the bible said so thats what happened." at least there is some recognition of and attempt at reconciliation with reality.
-
I’d just like to reiterate that when people talk about Genesis or if they believe it's a real depiction of events, then that’s cool, it doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me is the misuse of scientific principles to try to validate it.
Thought you meant the Hubble space telescope for a while here and had done a major typo...
There's a reason the Hubble telescope is named after Edwin Hubble. One of the primary objectives of the telescope was to gather new and improved data on the expansion of the universe, which Edwin is credited with discovering. :)
His articles state multiple times that the details are in his books.
Yes, I was just saying I thought a source would have been nice when you referred to it. But that's okay, it wasn't difficult to find.
If the rate of expansion (how fast the outer boundaries are travelling outwards from the center) is, say, 100mph, then it would take 1 hour for a 200 mile diameter sphere to double in size to 400 miles. It would then take 2 hours to double in size again, to 800 miles. Next doubling in size would take 4 hours, etc. That's the size increase I thought he was talking about.. is there something wrong with that?
Nope, those conclusions are sound, as I described earlier, but it is not the correct way to model the time dilation from universal expansion (the correct way is to examine the FLRW equations). I also imagine you meant to say 2 hours for the first doubling and 4 hours for the second doubling, and so forth. Right? If the initial radius is 200 miles, then to double the radius to 400 miles a time t=d/v = 200miles/100mph = 2 hours is required. You can check by plugging those values into the formula I derived.
It occurs to me there may be an easier way, without getting overly involved in the math, to explain why I don’t find his suggestion to be particularly compelling. The factor by which events appear time dilated is equal to the redshift z+1. I.e. if an event has a redshift z=2, then it appears slowed down by a factor of 3. We can test this through observations of distant supernovae explosions and GRB’s, though it is very difficult in practice (even moderate values of z correspond to extremely large distances). The redshift z goes to infinity as the lookback time goes to the age of the universe. For typical cosmologies you can model it as
(http://i.imgur.com/RYY8OHA.gif)
which grows very rapidly with z (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=y%3D1-1%2F%281%2Bx%29^%283%2F2%29%2C+x+from+0+to+10%2C+y+from+0+to+1). (Note this is normalized so that y=0 represents now and y=1 represents the age of the universe.) Look at it another way, z grows very slowly with lookback time, until you get very far out where it then grows extremely rapidly. Consider the CMB (cosmic microwave background), emitted ~300,000 years after the Big Bang, which has z~1000. The CNB (cosmic neutrino background) was produced only ~2 seconds after the Big Bang and its redshift is many orders of magnitude larger. What you can conclude from this is that it is possible to find any value of z that you want, and therefore any time dilation factor that you want, at some moment in the universe’s history. And because of this relation of z and lookback time, it’s a completely uninteresting result that a factor of 10^12 (the dilation required to expand a 6 day signal to 14 billion years) occurs very shortly after the Big Bang. You could make the exact same argument if the biblical story was said to have unfolded in 5 days, or 100 years, or 2 seconds. And since a lot of very interesting stuff happened very early on in the universe, you could attach that moment to something which sounds meaningful.
"Therefore, what lasted six days 15 billions years ago, lasts exactly six days now. If there were available some other observable universe, which could be utilized as an independent frame of reference, then it could be possible to find out if one day in our century is different from one day 15 billion years ago. As it is, the length of a day in our century is to all intents and purposes exactly the same as it was 15 billion years ago."
Uhm... I kinda sorta disagree.
I'm not fond of that person's argumentation, but his assertion is absolutely correct. 6 days then = 6 days now. The reason is because they are co-moving reference frames. The time dilation effect is only a result of the signal from then being redshifted by the expansion of space during its transit.
Perhaps we can't (yet) base scientific calculations based on something we can't (yet)measure, but that does not equate to that something not existing. Wasn't one of our own solar system's planets (Pluto?)discovered by observing the orbits of nearby planets and figuring out that they didn't make sense unless there was something else out there gravitationally affecting it?
Pluto was discovered purely by coincidence. Neptune was discovered because its gravity perturbs Uranus' orbit, which led people to figuring out where Neptune must be. A similar thing was then put forward when Neptune's orbit was said to be perturbed by something else (Planet X!) farther out, but that was in error. Pluto just happened to be in the search area when they were looking, along with all those other Kuiper Belt Objects, but it is way too small to be having the required effect on Neptune. (This is how I understand the history, anyway, I might not be remembering it correctly). At any rate this has nothing to do with time dilation or reference frames...
How about all those galaxies revealed by the Hubble Deep Field? Did they not exist before we observed them? If Newton followed the above logic, he would never have figured out gravity... postulating that something we can't directly measure might exist? Heck, to the best of my knowledge, we still can't measure gravity itself, can we? We measure the effects it has on objects, but have we been able to observe "gravitons" or whatever the "gravity particle/field/wave/whatever" is called?
You're talking about several totally different things here and I honestly don't understand what any of it has to do with what we were talking about earlier. But to answer your questions:
-Of course those galaxies existed before we observed them; they existed at least the amount of time it took for their photons to reach us. Put another way, we see them exactly the way they were when that light was emitted.
-Gravity is detectable because it causes objects to accelerate in a predictable way, with the force causing the acceleration being proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance separating them. That's Newton's view, anyway. Einstein's view is that gravity is the curvature of spacetime caused by the presence of mass. This curvature causes objects to accelerate in a predictable way, but is slightly different than what you predict from Newton's view, particularly for very large masses (very large curvature).
-Gravitons, the theorized particles that carry the gravitational force, or gravity waves (basically the same thing from another perspective -- these are literally ripples in spacetime caused by the motion of mass), have not been detected yet. The reason is because they are very weak, and the effects they have upon the matter they pass through are at or below the limits of current detection capability.
However, we have extremely powerful indirect evidence for the existence of gravity waves. If you consider two very massive objects, like neutron stars orbiting each other, then general relativity predicts they should gradually spiral inward due to the emission of gravitational waves, which carry away some of their orbital energy. So their orbits should change in a predictable way, and this has been observed and seen to be perfectly consistent with the predictions.
If two neutron stars (or better yet, two supermassive black holes!) merge together, the gravitational wave produced then should be strong enough to detect on Earth, but these of course would be very rare events. Hopefully we'll catch one!
edit: Sorry, had to fix some things.
-
I’d just like to reiterate that when people talk about Genesis or if they believe it's a real depiction of events, then that’s cool, it doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me is the misuse of scientific principles to try to validate it.
Yep, this is what I have to say to Scotty. I don't give a damn what Sandwich believes in. But when he misrepresents the scientific view of the universe in order to make it fit his beliefs, then yes, it needs to be stomped on from a great height. Same as anyone claiming there is a scientific basis for homoeopathy, healing crystals or any other psuedo-scientific bull**** trying to pass itself off as real science. Not stamping that bull**** out allows it to propagate.
To put the argument the other way, how many religious people would stand by meekly if I were to claim that the bible flat out states that Jesus didn't exist and was actually made up by the Disciples in order to make some point? I wouldn't blame anyone for coming down hard on me for stating that cause it's flat out wrong.
-
BTW I would like to point out that it is well within the realm of possibility that we may yet discover that the universe did NOT have a beginning after all, we may come across some sort of evidence that forces us to conclude that in fact the big bang was just part of a cycle that the universe goes through and that time is cyclical with no beginning or no end. the big bang is not set in stone, it is just what the preponderance of evidence leads us to believe at the moment. should we find such evidence that changes the view of science, will we then have to change our interpretation of the bible? maybe when it said beginning it meant of this iteration? if that is the case, then does that mean we can contort our understanding of the bible to mean anything? if so then what is the point of doing so?
-
That's a good point. I quite like the theory that this universe can seed other ones via black holes. No idea how likely it is but it has the nice property of beating the anthropomorphic principle. The universe isn't suited for life simply because if it wasn't, we wouldn't be here to ponder it. Instead universes which are suited to life are more likely to have "children" which follow their rules.
If that theory is correct, then the universe may have had a start, but there were other universes before it.
-
That is very true, Bobboau.
An all too common misrepresentation of the Big Bang theory is that 'it all came from nothing', or 'first there was nothing, and then it exploded', which is just so much BS (even some scientists who should really know better say this, and it drives me nuts). The Big Bang theory, or the standard model of cosmology as is sometimes preferred, doesn't say anything regarding what if anything happened before that event. It doesn't even deal with the first instant of expansion. Rather, the singularity at t=0 is just an extrapolation of the standard model to the moment that radius goes to zero; so it's an artifact of the physics that we have applied to conditions that it is not meant for, just like singularities inside black holes. We know we understand the universe pretty well from the present all the way back to within tiny fractions of a second after the Big Bang, but anything before that is still pretty much a mystery.
There are many theories (or should we really say hypotheses?) that try to deal with this. Some involve string theory, cyclic universes, multiverses, and there's even that crazy but strangely alluring example of 'universes out of black holes' that was posted here some time ago. Maybe someday one of them will find itself being validated by observational evidence, and if so that will be quite something. :)
-
BTW I would like to point out that it is well within the realm of possibility that we may yet discover that the universe did NOT have a beginning after all, we may come across some sort of evidence that forces us to conclude that in fact the big bang was just part of a cycle that the universe goes through and that time is cyclical with no beginning or no end. the big bang is not set in stone, it is just what the preponderance of evidence leads us to believe at the moment.
Like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2%80%93Hawking_state), you might say.
-
Not stamping that bull**** out allows it to propagate.
This is what I disagree with. In the case of things that are actively harmful to other people, like those faith healing incidents with that kid, there's a reasonable justification to "stamping that bull**** out." That's perfectly alright.
Where I personally draw the line is where anyone else takes it upon him or herself to decide what another person is allowed to believe, and that's where it looks like this thread is going.
-
Not stamping that bull**** out allows it to propagate.
This is what I disagree with. In the case of things that are actively harmful to other people, like those faith healing incidents with that kid, there's a reasonable justification to "stamping that bull**** out." That's perfectly alright.
Where I personally draw the line is where anyone else takes it upon him or herself to decide what another person is allowed to believe, and that's where it looks like this thread is going.
Hmm. I think the crux here is that sandwich beliefs are based party on a misunderstanding of certain scientific theories. Sandwhich is free to have his beliefs if they are partly based on a correct understanding of certain scientific theories. It's just that misunderstandings of scientific theories is an eyesore for everyone who works in any scientistic field.
-
This is what I disagree with. In the case of things that are actively harmful to other people, like those faith healing incidents with that kid, there's a reasonable justification to "stamping that bull**** out." That's perfectly alright.
The undermining of science is actively harmful. But more importantly, as I keep saying, Sandwich can believe whatever he wants. What he can't do is misrepresent what other people "believe" and then say it agrees with him. If you feel it is wrong to try to tell Sandwich what he should believe (and I agree it's wrong) isn't it also wrong for him to claim other people believe what he does when they don't?
-
You are specifically trying to interpret Genesis in a way to make it similar to your understanding of reality. However, that is not what Genesis says.
Genesis 1:16
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
It specifically says made, not became visible or whatever.
Don't rely on translations of the original to pick out the meanings of individual words.
The root word in Hebrew for "create" is "ברא" (barah). That is the word used when God creates the "heavens and the earth" (v1), the various advanced forms of life (sea creatures, creepy-crawlies, and flying creatures) in v21, and when creating Man in His (God's) image in v27.
The root word you are referring to is עשה (asah), which means "made" or perhaps more accurately, "bring forth". While very similar to the word for "create", the meaning is different. This word is used as you pointed out, in the apparent "creation" of things like the sun, moon, and stars in v16, but also in v11-12 when talking about fruit trees. The Hebrew term for fruit trees can be translated as "fruit-making trees" (עץ עשה-פרי). Trees do not "create" fruit - they produce it as a natural process that began as a seed.
In the same way, God's "making" or "production" of the sun, moon, and stars was the natural result of a process began far earlier, when, in v3, He created light (the Big Bang).
Which is one of the problems. You don't look at the Bible's account of creation and say "Well, it says this thing and that's how it is regardless of what is our modern understanding." You look at modern understanding and try to interpret the Bible in a way to make it similar to it as we see above.
You've got to be kidding me. If I was one of those Christians who look at the words of the Bible and take them literally, at face value, then I would be derided as closed-minded to the evidences presented by science (fossil records, astronomical observations, etc).
Instead, I read the Bible with the context in mind - it being written from a non-scientific point of view, thousands of years ago. I take into account that languages didn't have the proper terms for the things they were being used to describe, and therefore that we cannot take every part of the Bible literally.
Parts of the Bible make sense and don't demand an explanation beyond the surface account of events - David, before he was king, fighting and killing a lion and a bear as a shepherd boy. Somewhat unlikely, fine, but nothing "miraculous" or supernatural. I don't feel any sort of need to consult scientific theories on how David could have done so. That account makes sense.
Other accounts do not make sense. If God created Adam and Eve as the first and only humans at the time, then who did their children reproduce with? Better yet, when their son Cain killed his brother Abel, God placed a mark on him to protect him from being killed by the inhabitants of the cities. Wait, cities? What cities? The population of the planet was like 4 people at that time?
I cannot take such accounts at face value. I personally believe that the Bible is "truth" and "nothing but the truth", but unlike the testimony of witnesses in a court of law, I do not presume that it provides us with "the whole truth". So when the Biblical account of creation can make a whole lot more sense through scientific examination and postulation of what happened 14 billion years ago, I like that.
it is a better position to take than one who simply says "that is what the bible said so thats what happened." at least there is some recognition of and attempt at reconciliation with reality.
Thank you.
If the rate of expansion (how fast the outer boundaries are travelling outwards from the center) is, say, 100mph, then it would take 1 hour for a 200 mile diameter sphere to double in size to 400 miles. It would then take 2 hours to double in size again, to 800 miles. Next doubling in size would take 4 hours, etc. That's the size increase I thought he was talking about.. is there something wrong with that?
Nope, those conclusions are sound, as I described earlier, but it is not the correct way to model the time dilation from universal expansion (the correct way is to examine the FLRW equations). I also imagine you meant to say 2 hours for the first doubling and 4 hours for the second doubling, and so forth. Right? If the initial radius is 200 miles, then to double the radius to 400 miles a time t=d/v = 200miles/100mph = 2 hours is required. You can check by plugging those values into the formula I derived.
Nope - I said diameter, not radius. However, I guess it depends which measurement you're looking to see being doubled... radius? Diameter? Surface area? Volume? I was looking at diameter, but I guess perhaps volume would be the best to look at? This is where my non-scientific background doesn't help. We're looking for time dilation, and the changes that would affect that. We know that time dilation occurs due to differences in both velocity and gravity, so... which dimension of measurement would be ebst to use in measuring the changing time dilation after the Big Bang?
It occurs to me there may be an easier way, without getting overly involved in the math, to explain why I don’t find his suggestion to be particularly compelling.
*involved math stuff*
What you can conclude from this is that it is possible to find any value of z that you want, and therefore any time dilation factor that you want, at some moment in the universe’s history. And because of this relation of z and lookback time, it’s a completely uninteresting result that a factor of 10^12 (the dilation required to expand a 6 day signal to 14 billion years) occurs very shortly after the Big Bang. You could make the exact same argument if the biblical story was said to have unfolded in 5 days, or 100 years, or 2 seconds. And since a lot of very interesting stuff happened very early on in the universe, you could attach that moment to something which sounds meaningful.
I removed anything that went over my head. Sorry. :p
Perhaps you missed the part in the article where Schroeder talks about the 6 days of Genesis being considered "days" as measured according to the "Biblical clock", or 1/100,000 seconds after the Big Bang, when the universe was "about the size of the Solar System". It's from about half-way down, to the end of the article (http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=53). I think that might have relevance to your point, but I'm not sure. Again - formulas are above my head.
In any case, the point you bring up is extremely interesting, about the 14 billion years able to be equivalent to 5 days or 2 seconds, etc. True, it could. It also doesn't invalidate the Biblical account. It takes it from a impossibility to a possibility, and to me, that's pretty nifty as it is.
I'm not fond of that person's argumentation, but his assertion is absolutely correct. 6 days then = 6 days now. The reason is because they are co-moving reference frames. The time dilation effect is only a result of the signal from then being redshifted by the expansion of space during its transit.
Doesn't this contradict what you just wrote above?
Yep, this is what I have to say to Scotty. I don't give a damn what Sandwich believes in. But when he misrepresents the scientific view of the universe in order to make it fit his beliefs, then yes, it needs to be stomped on from a great height. Same as anyone claiming there is a scientific basis for homoeopathy, healing crystals or any other psuedo-scientific bull**** trying to pass itself off as real science. Not stamping that bull**** out allows it to propagate.
Again, scientific theory has "mis-represented" reality innumerable times in the past, and will continue to do so as our instrumentation improves and our understanding grows. So what you consider to be mis-representation now (which was never my intent - IANAS) could end up being proved true tomorrow - we just don't know.
Now obviously we can't proceed on the assumption that everything we think we know about the universe is wrong and will be disproved tomorrow, nor should we. All I'm saying is that this theory of 6 days of creation equalling 14 billion years is a darn sight closer to agreeing with scientific theory's 14 billion years since the Big Bang than "6 days of creation ~6000 years ago" is.
Should we find such evidence that changes the view of science, will we then have to change our interpretation of the bible?
Sure, I don't see why not. After all, the current theory of Schroeder came about because he wanted to see if the Biblical account could be reconciled with modern scientific theories. If those theories change, and yet the written Biblical account can still be reconciled with them, I don't see the problem... scientific theories will have to adapt to the new discoveries... why shouldn't our understanding of the Bible? The Bible itself isn't changing (neither is the "truth" about the universe), only our understanding thereof.
An all too common misrepresentation of the Big Bang theory is that 'it all came from nothing', or 'first there was nothing, and then it exploded', which is just so much BS (even some scientists who should really know better say this, and it drives me nuts). The Big Bang theory, or the standard model of cosmology as is sometimes preferred, doesn't say anything regarding what if anything happened before that event.
That's fine - I have no problem with that. The Bible doesn't even say there was "nothing" in the beginning - it's called "formless and void" (which IMO are questionable translations of the Hebrew). I honestly have no clue what the origins are of the Hebrew words used to describe what things were like at the beginning, so I have to rely on the translations of others.
However, I just want to highlight something Schroeder pointed out, that the Biblical account of creation is condensed into 31 sentences. 14 billion years in 31 sentences. There are going to be simplifications and omissions no matter how you look at it, but just keep in mind that it's the equivalent of XKCD's "Up-Goer Five" (http://xkcd.com/1133/) - simplified language used to describe a very complex event.
Hmm. I think the crux here is that sandwich beliefs are based party on a misunderstanding of certain scientific theories. Sandwhich is free to have his beliefs if they are partly based on a correct understanding of certain scientific theories. It's just that misunderstandings of scientific theories is an eyesore for everyone who works in any scientistic field.
Nope, my beliefs are based on the Bible. I just find it immensely neat when there's a correlation between modern science and the Bible. In this case, a handful of forumites have apparently found holes in a professor of 30+ years' lifetime work - fine. I suspect someone somewhere might be wrong, but it's all over my head anyway. The science is neat.
This is what I disagree with. In the case of things that are actively harmful to other people, like those faith healing incidents with that kid, there's a reasonable justification to "stamping that bull**** out." That's perfectly alright.
The undermining of science is actively harmful. But more importantly, as I keep saying, Sandwich can believe whatever he wants. What he can't do is misrepresent what other people "believe" and then say it agrees with him. If you feel it is wrong to try to tell Sandwich what he should believe (and I agree it's wrong) isn't it also wrong for him to claim other people believe what he does when they don't?
Were all those pesky "universe ain't infinite, it had a beginning" guys actively harming science? No. Science can stand on its own, based on evidence around us. Scientific theories are merely that - theories. They can be proven if evidence is found that supports them, or disproven if evidence is found that contradicts them. Of course, some are far more likely than others, but they're still as-yet-unproven theories.
So with that in mind... when exactly did I claim that other people believe what I do??
-
Sure, I don't see why not. After all, the current theory of Schroeder came about because he wanted to see if the Biblical account could be reconciled with modern scientific theories. If those theories change, and yet the written Biblical account can still be reconciled with them, I don't see the problem... scientific theories will have to adapt to the new discoveries... why shouldn't our understanding of the Bible? The Bible itself isn't changing (neither is the "truth" about the universe), only our understanding thereof.
it seems pointless to me. and counterproductive. if you try hard enough you can find an interpretation of anything to mean anything, doing so does not prove the source material right, only that you are good at lawyering it to mean whatever it is you want it to mean. by doing this I would say you are destroying what ever value could possibly exist in a hypothetically divinely inspired document. if a document says fact A, but you interpret it to say fact 4 are you not missing out on that valuable fact A? conversely if a document is completely divorced from reality is it not true that preserving an unshakable faith in it by convincing yourself that any obvious flaws in it are in fact not flaws, will permit you to have a seriously flawed model of reality that might lead you to make bad choices that cause mass suffering of people in the world? should you not be concerned with finding out if your belief that this document is in fact accurate, rather than simply trying to find ways to make yourself believe it is?
let me put it a slightly different way, you believe that the Bible is inerrant, it cannot be wrong, and so if it ever conflicts with reality you have to find some interpretation of it that allows what you see in reality. what if the erroneous interpretation you have of the Bible is it's inerrancy?
-
Scientific theories are merely that - theories. They can be proven if evidence is found that supports them, or disproven if evidence is found that contradicts them. Of course, some are far more likely than others, but they're still as-yet-unproven theories.
*wince*
That word does not mean what you think it means.
-
Scientific theories are merely that - theories. They can be proven if evidence is found that supports them, or disproven if evidence is found that contradicts them. Of course, some are far more likely than others, but they're still as-yet-unproven theories.
*wince*
That word does not mean what you think it means.
Let me clear up the vocabulary here that scientists use and that gets misunderstood all the time:
In scientific parlance, "Theory" is the highest possible form of truth there is. A scientific theory is one that has graduated from being a mere hypothesis by being proven and challenged experimentally. Now, saying that something is "merely" a theory is a sign of severely misunderstanding what the scientific method is and does. It's a cheap rhetoric device most often employed by those who would sweep scientific evidence under the rug if it is inconvenient for their beliefs.
Theories are not unassailable, of course (a famous example would be Newton's theory of gravity, which has been superceded by Relativity), but any hypothesis that runs counter to an established theory has to incorporate the old theory as a subset, or else explain how the observations that led to the old theory were possible.
The word for an unproven theory, by the way, is hypothesis. Sandwich, your assumption that the Bible holds the truth about the universe is a hypothesis until such time as an experiment can be devised that proves it repeatably.
-
Yeah, I fell into this little trap as well some months ago, and I'm like 95% sure it was on here and got cleared up here.
The bit about hypothesis though is new to me.
-
Sandwich shouldn't be falling for that trap either, it's been explained to him on multiple occasions.
Were all those pesky "universe ain't infinite, it had a beginning" guys actively harming science? No. Science can stand on its own, based on evidence around us. Scientific theories are merely that - theories. They can be proven if evidence is found that supports them, or disproven if evidence is found that contradicts them. Of course, some are far more likely than others, but they're still as-yet-unproven theories.
So with that in mind... when exactly did I claim that other people believe what I do??
You claimed that the bible's events fit with scientific thinking, which they don't. Doing that you make the claim that things in the Bible (like birds appearing before land animals, etc) are actually supported by current scientific thinking, which they aren't. They might fit better than Young Earth Creationism but that's not really a badge of honour since Young Earth Creationists are by and large completely idiotic when it comes to science. But here's the problem, the argument you're making can also be made by them. They simply have to say "Oh the big bang was actually 6000 years ago. Scientists just haven't found the evidence to prove that yet." Basically there is nothing you have said that can't also be said by a YEC. They're just (quite) a few steps further back from science than you are.
Hell, this whole thing about deliberately misunderstanding what a theory is, is yet another example.
The scientists who believed in the steady state when there was no contradictory evidence didn't hurt science, but that's not what you're doing. You're closer to Fred Hoyle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_the_Big_Bang), someone who so believes in his theory so strongly that he doesn't want to accept anything contrary to it. Instead coming up with their own explanation.
-
*uproar from AdmiralRalwood, The E, Lorric, and karajorma about scientific theories being called theories*
And yet there are numerous contradictory scientific theories out there. You just pointed out one of them - Fred Hoyle's steady state theory. The E mentions another theory, that of gravity, that was superseded by more up-to-date knowledge. And you've all been going on for pages and pages about how science adapts to new knowledge that proves previous conclusions incorrect.
Now I'll grant that the scientific theory is the highest form of truth that science can discover, but that does not equate to scientific theories being absolute truths. The scientific community is well aware that their conclusions are not and cannot be proven absolute truth. If/when something newly-revealed comes along, everything is candidate for re-examination and re-evaluation - hypotheses and theories alike.
The word for an unproven theory, by the way, is hypothesis. Sandwich, your assumption that the Bible holds the truth about the universe is a hypothesis until such time as an experiment can be devised that proves it repeatably.
Indeed it is.
You claimed that the bible's events fit with scientific thinking, which they don't. Doing that you make the claim that things in the Bible (like birds appearing before land animals, etc) are actually supported by current scientific thinking, which they aren't.
No. I made a claim that Biblical events can be explained better than they could have previously by using scientific methodology (calculations, formulae, and time distortion stuff). I didn't say it fit 100%. I didn't say it explained everything. And I didn't say that my belief about something means other people believe that too.
-
The word for an unproven theory, by the way, is hypothesis. Sandwich, your assumption that the Bible holds the truth about the universe is a hypothesis until such time as an experiment can be devised that proves it repeatably.
Indeed it is.
But here's the problem: Your hypothesis cannot be proven, ever. There is no experiment that can be conceived, no query that can be formulated based on it, since doing so would have to take the form (in a roundabout way) of trying to prove that God exists, which is something the scientific method cannot do.
As such, it is not a scientific hypothesis, but rather an expression of your personal belief. You trying to argue as though it was a scientific hypothesis, by trying to find corroborating evidence and quoting people who seem to have beliefs that run parallel to yours is the problem.
I have no problem with you believing that there is a god and that he/she/it is responsible for our existence.
What I do have a problem with is you trying to prove that your belief is actually, literally true by selective reading of scientific evidence (Selective reading in this instance meaning taking everything that agrees with you for truth, and shrugging off stuff that doesn't fit into your worldview by proclaiming that our knowledge is incomplete).
And yet there are numerous contradictory scientific theories out there. You just pointed out one of them - Fred Hoyle's steady state theory. The E mentions another theory, that of gravity, that was superseded by more up-to-date knowledge. And you've all been going on for pages and pages about how science adapts to new knowledge that proves previous conclusions incorrect.
Again with the misunderstandings! There are no contradictory theories. A theory, by definition, is a hypothesis that has been put to the test experimentally. If two competing theories exist that arrive at the same conclusions (That is, explain the same phenomena and can be used to make equivalent predictions), then those theories are equivalent until such time as more information is available that can be used to decide which is true.
This is pretty much what happens with Newton's Laws and Relativity; At speeds vastly below the speed of light (speeds we experience everyday), both arrive at the same conclusions, so we continue to use Newton's Laws because the math is vastly easier to solve. That does not mean, however, that Newton's Laws are a complete model of gravity.
-
*uproar from AdmiralRalwood, The E, Lorric, and karajorma about scientific theories being called theories*
And yet there are numerous contradictory scientific theories out there. You just pointed out one of them - Fred Hoyle's steady state theory. The E mentions another theory, that of gravity, that was superseded by more up-to-date knowledge. And you've all been going on for pages and pages about how science adapts to new knowledge that proves previous conclusions incorrect.
Now I'll grant that the scientific theory is the highest form of truth that science can discover, but that does not equate to scientific theories being absolute truths. The scientific community is well aware that their conclusions are not and cannot be proven absolute truth. If/when something newly-revealed comes along, everything is candidate for re-examination and re-evaluation - hypotheses and theories alike.
No no no no no.
A theory is an attempt to explain observed phenomena, which then provides additional predictions. You go out and test these predictions. If observations don't match the predictions, the theory must be wrong; go back to the drawing board and try again. If observations do match the predictions, it doesn't mean the theory is true; it just means it hasn't yet been disproved.
"Gravity" is not a theory; gravity is an observed phenomenon. There are theories of gravity, which attempt to explain the phenomenon we call "gravity", but "gravity" is not a theory.
Ditto evolution and the expansion of the universe. The "Big Bang theory" is an attempt to explain the observed phenomenon that the universe is expanding; it has made predictions, and observations have so far matched those predictions.
-
Let me clear up the vocabulary here that scientists use and that gets misunderstood all the time:
In scientific parlance, "Theory" is the highest possible form of truth there is. A scientific theory is one that has graduated from being a mere hypothesis by being proven and challenged experimentally. Now, saying that something is "merely" a theory is a sign of severely misunderstanding what the scientific method is and does. It's a cheap rhetoric device most often employed by those who would sweep scientific evidence under the rug if it is inconvenient for their beliefs.
Theories are not unassailable, of course (a famous example would be Newton's theory of gravity, which has been superceded by Relativity), but any hypothesis that runs counter to an established theory has to incorporate the old theory as a subset, or else explain how the observations that led to the old theory were possible.
The word for an unproven theory, by the way, is hypothesis. Sandwich, your assumption that the Bible holds the truth about the universe is a hypothesis until such time as an experiment can be devised that proves it repeatably.
That is more like a rule of thumb, tough. In practice, theory is generally used to refer to a comprehensive scientific explanation, or a class of explanations. Even "unproven" ones, contradictory ones, or proposed ones. An example would be string theory. Scientists dont care that much about precise terminology in this regard, and many will happily use the word theory where hypothesis may be more accurate.
But you are certainly correct that just because something is called scientific theory does not imply any uncertainty. Germ theory of disease is an obvious one, it is certainly correct beyond any doubt yet it is a theory, and will remain so forever.
-
And you've all been going on for pages and pages about how science adapts to new knowledge that proves previous conclusions incorrect.
It is important to realise that most scientific advances are either an extension of the old theory, its generalisation or clarification. It is not often that an accepted scientific theory (if there is one) is proven outright wrong by new knowledge. So if there will be some better and ultimate scientific explanation of the origins in the future, it is very likely that big bang theory and evolution will remain a part of it.
-
Now I'll grant that the scientific theory is the highest form of truth that science can discover, but that does not equate to scientific theories being absolute truths. The scientific community is well aware that their conclusions are not and cannot be proven absolute truth.
I'm sorry, did someone make some claim about science and absolute truth that I missed?
-
Nope - I said diameter, not radius.
I was wondering if that might have been the source of your confusion...
It works out the same way regardless if you use radius or diameter. A sphere of radius 200km has a diameter of 400km. Double the size of that sphere, and the radius is now 400km, and the diameter is 800km. It's the same thing; they both increase by a factor of 2. If you instead look at a doubling for volume then you would indeed get a different answer. However, you should not use volume because that is not how the scale factor of the universe is defined.
We know that time dilation occurs due to differences in both velocity and gravity, so... which dimension of measurement would be ebst to use in measuring the changing time dilation after the Big Bang?
Since Schroeder is looking at cosmological time dilation (the effect of the photons being stretched out by the expansion of space during transit), you look at linear distances as a function of time. This is simple enough to understand, but what is not simple is how to actually figure out how the distance changes. You have to use the FLRW metric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann%E2%80%93Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Robertson%E2%80%93Walker_metric) for an expanding spacetime to get the scale factor as a function of time, from which you can arrive at the redshift as a function of distance. Then, the time dilation that we are discussing here is related to redshift in the manner I described (1+z). You can figure out the factor by which events appear time dilated for any moment in the universe's history through the formula I provided.
I understand that this math goes way beyond your understanding, and I'm sorry for that. But the fact is you simply cannot examine these sorts of things without a rigorous use of physics, and there is high-level math involved in doing that. This is astrophysics, afterall. :p
Perhaps you missed the part in the article where Schroeder talks about the 6 days of Genesis being considered "days" as measured according to the "Biblical clock", or 1/100,000 seconds after the Big Bang, when the universe was "about the size of the Solar System".
Okay, let's consider a clock at 1/100,000th of a second after the Big Bang. Now let's determine the time dilation factor of a signal from that time period. That is, how far apart will the photons be stretched by the expansion of space during the time it takes for them to reach us? How do we figure this out? I'm afraid we have to use math. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gENVB6tjq_M) Sorry again. But here we go.
We'll start with the expression of look-back time as a function of z that I posted on the last page. What this expression tells you is what time, going back from the present, a signal was emitted to have an observed redshift of z. z in turn is related to the time dilation factor that we're interested in.
Let's rearrange this to solve for z as a function of tLB. I'll omit the algebra (it's not very difficult), and we find
(http://i.imgur.com/K81cuao.gif)
We can replace 1-tLB with "time since the Big Bang" to make life a little easier.
If we plot this (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=y%3D%281%2Fx%29^%282%2F3%29-1%2C+x+from+0+to+1%2C+y+from+0+to+10) we see z is infinite at the Big Bang and drops exponentially to zero for today. Now we need to convert the time 1/100,000th of a second to the fractional age of the universe:
(http://i.imgur.com/52PezIa.gif)
Let's not care about the exact number; we're only interested in orders of magnitude. It's about 10-23. For that value we find z~1015, so the signal is time dilated by a factor of a million billion. That's too long to stretch 6 days to 14 billion years (you need z~1012, as Schroeder says. That doesn't matter, you just get a larger value for the age of the universe at that moment. I estimated it to be about 0.2 seconds.
N.B. This goes back to the point I made earlier -- you can always find a moment in the history of the universe where a hypothetical signal would be time dilated by any factor you want. So 6 days being stretched to 14 billion years is not at all interesting.
But hold on, because here's where both you and him are getting confused. What is the physical significance of this time dilation factor that we found? There really isn't any -- all it's saying is how much the signal got redshifted. This is not the same as saying that an event at that moment actually lasted a million billion times longer. If that were true, then we would not be here! The whole universe would still be in the era of nucleosynthesis. Remember, we're looking at co-moving reference frames, so a time interval then equals a time interval now.
Furthermore, if we suppose an event lasts 6 days, starting from 0.2 seconds after the Big Bang, then this does not correspond to a single value of z, and thus not a single value of time dilation. Go again at that plot, and look how rapidly z is changing with t. If you start at 0.2 seconds with z~1012, then 6 days later you are at z~108 That's a ratio of 6 days to about 1 million years. So to say that a 6 day signal starting after the Big Bang is time dilated to 14 billion years makes no sense; the dilation factor is only true for an instantaneous signal.
"I'm not fond of that person's argumentation, but his assertion is absolutely correct. 6 days then = 6 days now. The reason is because they are co-moving reference frames. The time dilation effect is only a result of the signal from then being redshifted by the expansion of space during its transit."
Doesn't this contradict what you just wrote above?
No. Where exactly do you think I am contradicting myself?
Final note:
The Steady State Model was the theory that the universe was static and possibly eternal, so it looks much the same now as it did in any other point in time. As I described earlier this view was popular, until we obtained evidence that the universe was expanding, at which the Big Bang model became popular. Some cosmologists tried to adopt the Steady State model to an expanding universe, claiming that there might be new matter being produced to keep the overall density of matter constant. The rate at which new matter must be produced to maintain constant density could be sufficiently low as to be beyond our ability to detect.
The model finally became incompatible with observations when the CMB was discovered-- it is nearly impossible to explain the existence and properties of the CMB in the context of the universe being steady state, but it is a very natural result of the Hot Big Bang model. Combined with other evidence of the universe's evolution through time, (evolution of structure, galaxies, Quasars, stellar metallicities, etc), and it becomes plainly obvious that the Steady State model just doesn't work.
The current model is best labelled as the Lambda-CDM model, which means a universe that began with a Big Bang and contains cold dark matter (CDM) and a cosmological constant (Lambda).
-
But here's the problem: Your hypothesis cannot be proven, ever. There is no experiment that can be conceived, no query that can be formulated based on it, since doing so would have to take the form (in a roundabout way) of trying to prove that God exists, which is something the scientific method cannot do.
As such, it is not a scientific hypothesis, but rather an expression of your personal belief. You trying to argue as though it was a scientific hypothesis, by trying to find corroborating evidence and quoting people who seem to have beliefs that run parallel to yours is the problem.
Hey, I'm not the one who said my beliefs were hypotheses - you did:
Sandwich, your assumption that the Bible holds the truth about the universe is a hypothesis until such time as an experiment can be devised that proves it repeatably.
I said, way back in the first post of mine that began this tangent: "...it's stuff like that that I love learning". A curiosity. One more obstacle potentially explained. A roadblock in my understanding the Bible gone from "completely crazy-sounding" to "hey, that might fit!"
I have no problem with you believing that there is a god and that he/she/it is responsible for our existence.
What I do have a problem with is you trying to prove that your belief is actually, literally true by selective reading of scientific evidence (Selective reading in this instance meaning taking everything that agrees with you for truth, and shrugging off stuff that doesn't fit into your worldview by proclaiming that our knowledge is incomplete).
You find issue with certain aspects of this 6 days/14 billion years correlation - that's fine. With a mere 31 lines of primitive vocabulary to work with, I'm not expecting a complete correlation with current scientific theory. There are issues - fine. But it's a darn sight closer than "Oh, scientists are wrong because the Bible says the universe was created in 6 days and that it all happened 6000 years ago and oh look a rainbow."
Again with the misunderstandings! There are no contradictory theories. A theory, by definition, is a hypothesis that has been put to the test experimentally. If two competing theories exist that arrive at the same conclusions (That is, explain the same phenomena and can be used to make equivalent predictions), then those theories are equivalent until such time as more information is available that can be used to decide which is true.
This is pretty much what happens with Newton's Laws and Relativity; At speeds vastly below the speed of light (speeds we experience everyday), both arrive at the same conclusions, so we continue to use Newton's Laws because the math is vastly easier to solve. That does not mean, however, that Newton's Laws are a complete model of gravity.
:wtf: The Big Bang theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang) and the "now-obsolete" and "rejected" Steady State theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory) conflict with each other - indeed that conflict, brought about by new observations that supported the Big Bang theory, is what led to the rejection of Steady State. From the Wikipedia article on Steady State theory:
While the steady state model enjoyed some popularity in the first half of the 20th Century, it is now rejected by the vast majority of professional cosmologists and other scientists, as the observational evidence points to a Big Bang-type cosmology and a finite age of the universe.
...
Problems with the steady-state theory began to emerge in the late 1960s, when observations apparently supported the idea that the universe was in fact changing: quasars and radio galaxies were found only at large distances (therefore existing only in the distant past), not in closer galaxies. Whereas the Big Bang theory predicted as much, the Steady State theory predicted that such objects would be found everywhere, including close to our own galaxy.
For most cosmologists, the refutation of the steady-state theory came with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965, which was predicted by the Big Bang theory. Stephen Hawking said that the fact that microwave radiation had been found, and that it was thought to be left over from the Big Bang, was "the final nail in the coffin of the steady-state theory".
...
Since [1972], the Big Bang theory has been considered to be the best description of the origin of the universe. In most astrophysical publications, the Big Bang is implicitly accepted and is used as the basis of more complete theories.
Scientific opinion switched from one theory to another theory due to new information. What was it you said earlier? Oh right:
In scientific parlance, "Theory" is the highest possible form of truth there is. A scientific theory is one that has graduated from being a mere hypothesis by being proven and challenged experimentally. [...]
Theories are not unassailable, of course [...] but any hypothesis that runs counter to an established theory has to incorporate the old theory as a subset, or else explain how the observations that led to the old theory were possible.
Now I'll grant that the scientific theory is the highest form of truth that science can discover, but that does not equate to scientific theories being absolute truths. The scientific community is well aware that their conclusions are not and cannot be proven absolute truth.
I'm sorry, did someone make some claim about science and absolute truth that I missed?
The statements were along the lines of scientific theories not being made of the same weaksauce as the "normal" theories people have because scientific theories have been proven. That's a category reserved for absolute truth. Scientific theories are "merely" the best we can do (which isn't bad for what it is!) with the available information.
Nope - I said diameter, not radius.
I was wondering if that might have been the source of your confusion...
It works out the same way regardless if you use radius or diameter. A sphere of radius 200km has a diameter of 400km. Double the size of that sphere, and the radius is now 400km, and the diameter is 800km. It's the same thing; they both increase by a factor of 2. If you instead look at a doubling for volume then you would indeed get a different answer. However, you should not use volume because that is not how the scale factor of the universe is defined.
Sure they increase by a factor of 2 - that's what doubling means. What we got confused on was the time it took for that to happen at a certain rate. :p
We know that time dilation occurs due to differences in both velocity and gravity, so... which dimension of measurement would be ebst to use in measuring the changing time dilation after the Big Bang?
Since Schroeder is looking at cosmological time dilation (the effect of the photons being stretched out by the expansion of space during transit), you look at linear distances as a function of time. This is simple enough to understand, but what is not simple is how to actually figure out how the distance changes. You have to use the FLRW metric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann%E2%80%93Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Robertson%E2%80%93Walker_metric) for an expanding spacetime to get the scale factor as a function of time, from which you can arrive at the redshift as a function of distance. Then, the time dilation that we are discussing here is related to redshift in the manner I described (1+z). You can figure out the factor by which events appear time dilated for any moment in the universe's history through the formula I provided.
I understand that this math goes way beyond your understanding, and I'm sorry for that. But the fact is you simply cannot examine these sorts of things without a rigorous use of physics, and there is high-level math involved in doing that. This is astrophysics, afterall. :p
I feel like O'Neill in SG-1 when Carter would start in with the technobabble. :p Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying you're babbling... just that I feel the same way. :p
Perhaps you missed the part in the article where Schroeder talks about the 6 days of Genesis being considered "days" as measured according to the "Biblical clock", or 1/100,000 seconds after the Big Bang, when the universe was "about the size of the Solar System".
Okay, let's consider a clock at 1/100,000th of a second after the Big Bang. Now let's determine the time dilation factor of a signal from that time period. That is, how far apart will the photons be stretched by the expansion of space during the time it takes for them to reach us? How do we figure this out? I'm afraid we have to use math. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gENVB6tjq_M) Sorry again. But here we go.
We'll start with the expression of look-back time as a function of z that I posted on the last page. What this expression tells you is what time, going back from the present, a signal was emitted to have an observed redshift of z. z in turn is related to the time dilation factor that we're interested in.
Let's rearrange this to solve for z as a function of tLB. I'll omit the algebra (it's not very difficult), and we find
(http://i.imgur.com/K81cuao.gif)
We can replace 1-tLB with "time since the Big Bang" to make life a little easier.
If we plot this (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=y%3D%281%2Fx%29^%282%2F3%29-1%2C+x+from+0+to+1%2C+y+from+0+to+10) we see z is infinite at the Big Bang and drops exponentially to zero for today. Now we need to convert the time 1/100,000th of a second to the fractional age of the universe:
(http://i.imgur.com/52PezIa.gif)
Let's not care about the exact number; we're only interested in orders of magnitude. It's about 10-23. For that value we find z~1015, so the signal is time dilated by a factor of a million billion. That's too long to stretch 6 days to 14 billion years (you need z~1012, as Schroeder says. That doesn't matter, you just get a larger value for the age of the universe at that moment. I estimated it to be about 0.2 seconds.
N.B. This goes back to the point I made earlier -- you can always find a moment in the history of the universe where a hypothetical signal would be time dilated by any factor you want. So 6 days being stretched to 14 billion years is not at all interesting.
But hold on, because here's where both you and him are getting confused. What is the physical significance of this time dilation factor that we found? There really isn't any -- all it's saying is how much the signal got redshifted. This is not the same as saying that an event at that moment actually lasted a million billion times longer. If that were true, then we would not be here! The whole universe would still be in the era of nucleosynthesis. Remember, we're looking at co-moving reference frames, so a time interval then equals a time interval now.
I'm taking your word for it regarding the accuracy of the formulae you're presenting - actually, I'm just ignoring them to be perfectly honest. Rorry.
How does your understanding of this situation change if the reference frame is outside of (unaffected by) time, and merely using the beginning of time (1/100,000 seconds / 0.2 seconds - it makes no difference for this purpose) to have common ground on which to communicate concepts to time-bound creatures such as ourselves?
Furthermore, if we suppose an event lasts 6 days, starting from 0.2 seconds after the Big Bang, then this does not correspond to a single value of z, and thus not a single value of time dilation. Go again at that plot, and look how rapidly z is changing with t. If you start at 0.2 seconds with z~1012, then 6 days later you are at z~108 That's a ratio of 6 days to about 1 million years. So to say that a 6 day signal starting after the Big Bang is time dilated to 14 billion years makes no sense; the dilation factor is only true for an instantaneous signal.
Isn't this covered already by the whole "Day one = ~7 billion years, second day = ~3.5 billion, etc" thing, where the time each day lasts is (very) approximately half of the previous day?
"I'm not fond of that person's argumentation, but his assertion is absolutely correct. 6 days then = 6 days now. The reason is because they are co-moving reference frames. The time dilation effect is only a result of the signal from then being redshifted by the expansion of space during its transit."
Doesn't this contradict what you just wrote above?
No. Where exactly do you think I am contradicting myself?
In one place you said that we could find any time dilation factor we wanted, meaning that the time dilation aspect is plausible, but then you went and said that 6 days then = 6 days now, which to me sounds like you're saying that there is no time dilation.
Actually, in re-reading what you wrote, it seems like you're bringing in redshifting to this time dilation idea. That may compensate or make up or whatever any time dilation due to increasing relative distances between two points in space, but can redshifting also explain the time dilation due to the lowering of gravitational intensity from the moment of the Big Bang onwards?
Final note:
The Steady State Model was the theory that the universe was static and possibly eternal, so it looks much the same now as it did in any other point in time. As I described earlier this view was popular, until we obtained evidence that the universe was expanding, at which the Big Bang model became popular. Some cosmologists tried to adopt the Steady State model to an expanding universe, claiming that there might be new matter being produced to keep the overall density of matter constant. The rate at which new matter must be produced to maintain constant density could be sufficiently low as to be beyond our ability to detect.
The model finally became incompatible with observations when the CMB was discovered-- it is nearly impossible to explain the existence and properties of the CMB in the context of the universe being steady state, but it is a very natural result of the Hot Big Bang model. Combined with other evidence of the universe's evolution through time, (evolution of structure, galaxies, Quasars, stellar metallicities, etc), and it becomes plainly obvious that the Steady State model just doesn't work.
The current model is best labelled as the Lambda-CDM model, which means a universe that began with a Big Bang and contains cold dark matter (CDM) and a cosmological constant (Lambda).
So one established theory gave way to another in the face of new evidence, right? Are you and I the only ones acknowledging this in this thread?
-
:wtf: The Big Bang theory and the "now-obsolete" and "rejected" Steady State theory conflict with each other - indeed that conflict, brought about by new observations that supported the Big Bang theory, is what led to the rejection of Steady State. From the Wikipedia article on Steady State theory:
He is saying that the Steady State theory is not a competitor to the Big Bang theory now. We know that the Big Bang theory is the one that agrees with observations.
Sure they increase by a factor of 2 - that's what doubling means. What we got confused on was the time it took for that to happen at a certain rate. :p
facepalm.jpg.
No offense, but you are the only person who is confused here. It makes absolutely no difference if you look at this from a perspective of radius or diameter. I'll go over this one more time with you:
Let's imagine a sphere with radius = 100. Units don't matter. Let's say the radius is increasing at a constant rate of 10 units per second. How long does it take for the sphere to double in size (that is, for the radius to increase to 200)? That is (200-100)/10 = 10 seconds.
Let's look at the same sphere but from the perspective of diameter. The diameter is twice the radius, or 200. How big is the sphere when it has doubled in size? That's 2*200=400. How fast is the diameter increasing? That's twice the rate that the radius is increasing, so 20 per second. How long does it take for the sphere to double in size? (400-200)/20 = 10 seconds.
I'll answer the rest of your questions a little later.
-
You know what, scratch that last sentence.
I'm taking your word for it regarding the accuracy of the formulae you're presenting - actually, I'm just ignoring them to be perfectly honest. Rorry.
If this is true then I know of absolutely no reason to continue with any of this discussion. You have been presented with thorough, mathematically rigorous explanations for why your (Schroeder's) claim that time dilation means the 6 days of genesis fits with the 14 billion year history of the universe is nothing more than a severe misunderstanding of cosmology and physics. But if you're not even going to look at them then what's the point?
-
They're absolutely Greek to me... I'm not ignoring them in the sense of discarding them because I disagree with them. I'm ignoring them in the sense of not trying to figure them out because I can't comprehend them. Thus the part about taking your word for it - which, looking at how that part was written, could have been worded better. My apologies.
As for the sphere thing, you misunderstood my original point, which I'll clarify when I get to my desktop computer (on my phone ATM).
EDIT: Back at computer. Ok, so the initial confusion was over the starting size of the sphere. I began it at a diameter of 100, but it looks like you missed the diameter part and thought I meant radius. In any case, the point of the whole thing to begin with was that the time it took for the sphere to double in size - regardless of which linear measure we use - would double itself each time the sphere reached twice its previous size. So, 1hr, 2, 4, 8, etc. I posted about that in response to your statement:
So no, it does not take longer and longer for the universe to double in size...
Does that clarify things any?
-
They're absolutely Greek to me... I'm not ignoring them in the sense of discarding them because I disagree with them. I'm ignoring them in the sense of not trying to figure them out because I can't comprehend them. Thus the part about taking your word for it - which, looking at how that part was written, could have been worded better. My apologies.
I get that, and I'm sorry for my getting frustrated. I understand the math and the physics is beyond your understanding, but again the fact is that they are necessary when analyzing these sorts of ideas. You said earlier that you are a visual learner, and that's perfectly fine. I believe that's probably true for all of us -- it is generally easier to grasp something if you can visualize it. However, we don't always have that luxury in science. Consider trying to figure out the details of quantum mechanics by thinking visually. It cannot be done.
It’s the same idea here. You've presented a mathematical claim which was developed using cosmology, and to examine the validity of this claim requires the use of high level math and physics. It's fine that you don't understand those details, I don't really expect you to. But it does frustrate me that without understanding them, you seem to be okay with accepting what Schroeder presented and at the same time be skeptical of what I have presented, especially as I'm the one who is actually providing the details, while Schroeder is not. It seems like you chose to believe his claim because you want to, not because you checked and confirmed that it was valid.
For example, w.r.t. this:
I'm taking your word for it regarding the accuracy of the formulae you're presenting
I'm glad you're taking my word for it, though I wish it wasn’t necessary. If it wasn’t good enough, then what could I do for you? You told me I could buy Schroeder's books to check the validity and details of his arguments. Should I reciprocate by suggesting you buy a cosmology textbook? Rather than doing that, I'll point out that you can find the derivations online, even through wikipedia, and some of the links I have already provided. Also note that the redshift as a function of lookback time formula I provided is itself a simplification of reality, because the correct formula is a very complicated integral equation (http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Carroll/Carroll3_2.html) which depends on the parameters of the universe, and it in general cannot be solved analytically (particularly for the real cosmological parameters -- you can find those out of the Planck Telescope results). However, the formula I gave is still a very good approximation for the universe as it is with matter and dark energy, and it is good enough for our purposes here. You can compare the curve that is plotted through this formula with the more detailed plots (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&hs=2ap&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=proper+distance+as+a+function+of+redshift&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.51773540,d.dmg,pv.xjs.s.en_US.jkEW54nYU50.O&biw=1280&bih=794&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=9QMtUtrnMbGz4AOR1YHYDQ#hl=en&q=look+back+time+as+a+function+of+redshift&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&tbm=isch&um=1) of z versus look-back time in the literature. Another good check, and I did this myself before presenting it, is to use it estimate the value of z for the time the CMB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation) was emitted, or vice versa. Plug in 379,000 years (divided by the age of the universe =~13.8 billion years), and you get z~1100 as expected.
I began it at a diameter of 100, but it looks like you missed the diameter part and thought I meant radius.
Gah... yes, you are right. The problem was I misinterpreted the expansion rate you were giving -- you used diameter for the size of the sphere, but the rate of increase in radius ("how fast the outer boundaries are travelling outwards from the center") as the expansion rate. I'm very sorry for the confusion there, that was my fault after all.
We're straight then on the 'rate of doubling' of the size of a uniformly expanding sphere, and as I've shown that is the correct way to think about an expanding sphere, but it is not the right way to be thinking about the expanding universe for the purposes of figuring out time dilation. The correct way is through all that techno-babble I've been linking to. ;)
How does your understanding of this situation change if the reference frame is outside of (unaffected by) time, and merely using the beginning of time (1/100,000 seconds / 0.2 seconds - it makes no difference for this purpose) to have common ground on which to communicate concepts to time-bound creatures such as ourselves?
Considering that such a reference frame makes no physical sense, (space and time are inseparable), I would say my understanding of the situation in that case is precisely zero, as it would be for anybody else. Unless you can develop a metric (a way to measure space-time intervals) in a space 'outside of time', publish it, and have it validated experimentally, then I'm afraid the idea is completely useless here.
Isn't this covered already by the whole "Day one = ~7 billion years, second day = ~3.5 billion, etc" thing, where the time each day lasts is (very) approximately half of the previous day?
I’d really like to know the details by which these numbers were arrived at, (without having to buy his books…). But no, it does not work that way.
Remember, the redshift, and thus time dilation factor, is only true for an instantaneous signal, because at very high look-back times (low ages of the universe) it changes extremely rapidly. That means a signal is dilated by a factor of 1012, which would be the same ratio as 6 days to 14 billion years, only for an instant.
To see how much a signal which spans a whole day, or the whole of the first 6 days, is dilated, then there is no other way to figure it out without more math. I’ll leave out the details, unless you want them, but what you have to do is integrate the formula of the time dilation factor as a function of the age of the universe between the times you’re interested in. You’ll get the first 6 days dilated to about 4 million years. That’s a very far cry from 13.8 billion.
Since the explanation for why that works mathematically requires an understanding of calculus, perhaps the best way I can explain why it works out that way, is because that extremely high dilation factor of 1012 that is needed to dilate 6 days to 14 billion years only lasts for a fraction of a second, and within the first second after the Big Bang. And it decreases extremely rapidly from there.
In one place you said that we could find any time dilation factor we wanted, meaning that the time dilation aspect is plausible, but then you went and said that 6 days then = 6 days now, which to me sounds like you're saying that there is no time dilation.
Yes, light from distant events is time dilated. It’s not only plausible, but a necessary result of the expansion of space, exactly as Schroeder was describing it (though his conclusions based upon it are incorrect). The redshift, and therefore time dilation as a function of look-back time, spans the interval from zero (present) to infinity (the age of the universe). So yes, we can find any time dilation factor that we want just by looking at different time periods in the universe.
The 6 days then = 6 days now was meant to tell you that the time dilation is a consequence of the physics going on between the time that the event happened, and the present day (that physics being the expansion). It is not a consequence of the physics going on then. So, for example, it means we don't have to factor in time dilation when we talk about how long certain eras in the early universe lasted.
Actually, in re-reading what you wrote, it seems like you're bringing in redshifting to this time dilation idea. That may compensate or make up or whatever any time dilation due to increasing relative distances between two points in space…
I’m not just ‘bringing it in’. They are literally just different aspects of the same phenomenon. :) Both the time dilation of the signal and the redshift of the signal occur because the photons are being stretched out by the expansion of the universe during their transit. So it doesn’t make sense to ask if redshifting ‘compensates’ time dilation. They’re the same thing.
…can redshifting also explain the time dilation due to the lowering of gravitational intensity from the moment of the Big Bang onwards?
This also turns out to be pretty much the same thing, but it’s not quite as easy to see why. There’s no gravitational time dilation in the universe due to the density of matter, in the sense that clocks at earlier times run more slowly, as like clocks at sea level on the Earth run more slowly than clocks at high altitude. Instead, the combined gravitational field of everything in the universe affects the spatial curvature (do parallel lines remain parallel forever, or do they converge, or diverge?), as well as the rate of change in its expansion, as seen in Einstein’s general relativistic field equations. That expansion in turn is what redshifts and time dilates signals from the earlier universe.
So one established theory gave way to another in the face of new evidence, right? Are you and I the only ones acknowledging this in this thread?
It seemed as if you were saying that the Steady State model was an alternative to BB cosmology now. Sorry if I misunderstood you there.
Let me know if you have further questions or if any of the above is still unclear, but I hope that helped at least somewhat.
-
I think it's admirable when someone won't let pesky stuff like math and numbers get in the way of what they know is right. I mean what do those scientists know anyways, right? They're always changing their minds on stuff. Ha!
-
It turns out (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.3595v1.pdf) that the quality of data on cosmological time dilation is better than I was previously aware, fitting very well with the expected (1+z) relation. This also provides an observational contradiction to that tiresome 'tired light' explanation of the origin of cosmic redshift that still floats around. Nice. :)
-
I think it's admirable when someone won't let pesky stuff like math and numbers get in the way of what they know is right. I mean what do those scientists know anyways, right? They're always changing their minds on stuff. Ha!
redsniper, it might not be clear here whether your post is intended as sarcasm or not.
-
How is it not clear? It's definitely sarcasm. Look at how it's worded. If he was stupid enough to actually believe that (he isn't, and he's been around long enough for it to be obvious), he'd have worded it differently. And don't get me started on Poe's law, it doesn't apply here.
-
How is it not clear? It's definitely sarcasm. Look at how it's worded. If he was stupid enough to actually believe that (he isn't, and he's been around long enough for it to be obvious), he'd have worded it differently. And don't get me started on Poe's law, it doesn't apply here.
I got a moderator report regarding the post. My apologies for belaboring the point. In the future I will send a PM.
-
To be fair, I've seen more sarcastic-looking comments that were supposedly actually serious. The internets can be tricky sometimes.
-
To be fair, I've seen more sarcastic-looking comments that were supposedly actually serious. The internets can be tricky sometimes.
Indeed. I actually took Unknown Target's post as sarcasm due to Redsniper's post being so obviously sarcastic to me! :lol:
-
*round of applause*
Sandwich, I admire your ability and enthusiasm (for lack of a better word) to discuss the bible and science with some rather intelligent people. I am however, biased, and much of that admiration comes from seeing a number of similarities between your viewpoint and mine (I find your points similar to my views, you might not feel the same).
Just something I'd like to say about myself: One thing I try to avoid is arguing above my knowledge level: I could say that "Because quantum mechanics change when observed, then humans are fundamentally different from the rest of the universe". I would, however, be wrong (according to my understanding). I don't know why I'm wrong though, so such an argument only serves to bewilder a less knowledgable person I'm having a discussion with, or indeed myself. Hence, I'm not really going to go into Schroeder's articles and my points might not be as relevant as I hope.
Karajoma makes a good point on: "Making the scriptures fit the facts". This is something I always have to contend with, and a problem I have yet to resolve. In the case of the 6 creation days fitting the 14 or so billion year age of the universe, I'm going to have to agree. But the idea is extremely important (for me) to attempt to "resolve" these issues. I might cop some flak for this, but I am not capable of "disproving" (whatever that means) all evolutionary, aetheistic or other-than-my-religion arguments and so I am stuck resolving them (or in more exciting cases, incorporating them).
For example: Some time ago someone brought up the point that the volume of water required for the flood all falling at the same time would create a huge amount of air resistance which would do something bad to the Earth. I don't know how to possibly attack that statement, so all I'm stuck with is "The water was cold" or "It didn't fall far" or similar. Such a resolution does not satisfy a debate, but it leaves the possibility that either could be correct, and I can continue believing what I do with some manner of security.
So here's me resolving some of the points in this thread:
My translation may be different, but the main ideas should be maintained across translations (of course it is always better to go back to the original language, but a. I don't know ancient Hebrew or Greek, 2. I can't be bothered unless translation actually becomes an issue, and c. I don't think is important yet):
1 In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Full stop. Period. This is the basis of my interpretation of the Genesis account: that the first verse is separate and precedes the rest of the chapter, rather than the following verses being a clarification on that. This means that the Bible doesn't necessarily conflict with the current understanding of the universe being 14 billion years old (or so). It doesn't say how old the universe is, and I don't believe you can work that out from the bible.
2 Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.
This is where I have to disagree from my understanding of Schroeder's point. Why should we use an abstract, theological reference point? What would make the most sense to an audience of farmers and labourers? I would say a reference point on the surface of the Earth. Other one's are possible, but this one makes the most sense to me. This view is supported by the focus on the surface of the Earth in the quoted verse, rather than an external, relativistic or omniscient frame of reference which might describe the Earth with volcanic splotches or with violent storms.
3 And God proceeded to say: “Let light come to be.” Then there came to be light. 4 After that God saw that the light was good, and God brought about a division between the light and the darkness. 5 And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day.
This could be interpreted as god creating the sun, moon and stars. Or even the physical quality of light, such as photons. This of course doesn't mesh with current scientific theories. My interpretation is the same as Sandwich, though using a persistant reference frame, that the sky would have been darkened by volcanic ash or some other translucent atmospheric matter until this point. The "coming to be light" and coming to be day and night, was the visibility of night and day from the Earth's surface and not that light being created then. (if you were on the surface of the Earth, you wouldn't see the difference). There is a caveat however.
14 And God went on to say: “Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. 15 And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.” And it came to be so. 16 And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. 17 Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth, 18 and to dominate by day and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness. Then God saw that [it was] good. 19 And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a fourth day.
Now the translation becomes important. The Genesis 1:3, 4 account uses the word 'ohr, meaning light in a general sense. While Genesis 1:14-19 uses the word ma·ʼohr′, which refers to a source of light. Evidently the first creative day allowed filtered light to be apparent from the surface of the Earth, while the sun, moon and stars were made visible on the fourth creative day. Note that the word translated as "made" (a·sah) as in "God proceeded to make the two great luminaries" is different from the word translated as create (ba·raʼ) throughout the chapter.
20 And God went on to say: “Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.” 21 And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good. 22 With that God blessed them, saying: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the waters in the sea basins, and let the flying creatures become many in the earth.” 23 And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a fifth day.
I haven't actually done the research on this account I really should. The apparent discrepancy between our understanding of the order of animals appearing could be resolved in a number of ways: A) Flying creatures refers to insects, which were around before land animals (I don't know if paleontology backs this up, it is possible that these fossils simply haven't been discovered if not). B) The account simply lists animals and is not chronological.
Another thing to note: This account refers to animals being created according to their KINDS. What is a kind? That is completely open to interpretation, it importantly doesn't necessarily refer to species, opening up limited degrees of evolution. I personally don't believe it refers to species (Noah would have a heck of a lot of work if it did), but it is utterly open to interpretation. However, it does limit something. I'd put the limit at one taxanomical class being unable to evolve into another according to this scripture, but someone else may be more open minded than me.
31 After that God saw everything he had made and, look! [it was] very good. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day.
2 Thus the heavens and the earth and all their army came to their completion. 2 And by the seventh day God came to the completion of his work that he had made, and he proceeded to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had made. 3 And God proceeded to bless the seventh day and make it sacred, because on it he has been resting from all his work that God has created for the purpose of making.
4 This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.
My translation uses the name of god everywhere, yours' (you referring to an abstract reader, not anyone in particular) may not. I've left this a little later than maybe I should have but it suits the verses. Every other creative day has a beginning and an end. The seventh day starts, but does not end! This indicates that it is possible that the seventh day is still ongoing. The idea that god did cause all these creational events to occur in a single day is preposterous. My interpretation is that these are metaphorical days, which relate to an ambiguously long "time period" and not a literal day, or a thousand years or such. Prophetic "days", on the other hand, are another matter entirely.
With the exception of flying creature ordering, and evolution I see no contradiction. Current scientific theories either agree with my interpretation of the bible, or can be otherwise resolved as possible. The only thing which requires further discussion is evolution, but this post is wall enough as it is.
-
The thing is, why interpret the Genesis story as anything other than symbolic? Trying to fit it to science is just going to drop you in a big pile of poo.
-
The evolution bit is the one who drives intelligent and thoughtful christians into a maelstrom of intellectual problems. I follow really bright christians in youtube for their particular upsides (I recall one of them for their thoughtful analysis of certain movies and books, etc.), and I do see them struggling with this profound question a lot, or just absolutely ignoring the problem whatsoever....
I guess the other biggie is Free Will, and arguably it's more of an atheistic problem than theistic (I think theism does not solve the Free Will problem, but try to convince them otherwise!).
-
Because the rest of the bible begins to lose meaning. If Eve didn't eat the fruit then why did Jesus have to die? If people did not start out as perfect then how did methuselah live to a thousand years old? If Adam and Eve didn't sin and sentence us all to grow old and die, then why is Jesus our saviour? What is he saving us from? If satan did not claim that humanity could rule itself, then why do we suffer? What is our purpose in life?
I, like my understanding of Sandwich, follow the bible. There is no "This doesn't match up with what I want therefore it can't be true and is only symbolic", there is no "Our lord works in mysterious ways". There is only logic. I logically read the bible, compare it with itself, and our understanding of the universe and derive the closest interpretation I can out of it (or at least, that's what my religion is about. I on the other hand click cookies and procrastinate Electrical Systems Lab reports rather than confirming everything myself because I'm bad)
10 Now there was a river issuing out of E′den to water the garden, and from there it began to be parted and it became, as it were, four heads. 11 The first one’s name is Pi′shon; it is the one encircling the entire land of Hav′i·lah, where there is gold. 12 And the gold of that land is good. There also are the bdellium gum and the onyx stone. 13 And the name of the second river is Gi′hon; it is the one encircling the entire land of Cush. 14 And the name of the third river is Hid′de·kel; it is the one going to the east of As·syr′i·a. And the fourth river is the Eu·phra′tes.
Two of these rivers, the Tigris (Hiddekel) and Euphrates flow today. Fairytales tend to begin with "once upon a time in a far away land", Jesus' illustrations only gave detail which was relevant to the message he was giving across, but the biblical account of eden gives us details, gives us names and locations, as it would for a real place. (No you can't work out where Eden was, but you can make an educated guess on the region)
-
If Eve didn't eat the fruit then why did Jesus have to die? If people did not start out as perfect then how did methuselah live to a thousand years old? If Adam and Eve didn't sin and sentence us all to grow old and die, then why is Jesus our saviour? What is he saving us from?
Eternal damnation because we are all sinfull bastards? Ourselves? I reject the notion that the invalidity of the first parts of the bible rejects the rest of the message (or the other way around, actually. There's some parts in the Old Testament i'd rather not see validified) - The message I got from it is that an Christian's ultimate goal is not reaching heaven - it's creating heaven on earth by following Jesus's teachings.
-
I, like my understanding of Sandwich, follow the bible. There is no "This doesn't match up with what I want therefore it can't be true and is only symbolic"
Then you're going to have some really enormous problems matching up Noah's Flood with reality. For a start any study of genetic diversity proves both that and Adam and Eve to be factually impossible.
-
Well, Noah's flood seems to have a basis in reality. It's not exclusive to the Bible, most cultures have a "great flood" story in their mythos. Also, I recall there was actual geological evidence that a massive flood indeed occurred in the ancient times. I wish I could quote the newspaper article I once read about it, but it's old and in Polish.
-
Yes, there are some hypothesis circulating that either the black sea or even the whole mediterranean sea got "opened up" to the atlantic and a lot of oceanic water entered and flooded a lot of ****. Atlantis and all that are also part of the deep end speculations... it's not an impossible kind of event.
It's also not a global one!
-
Well, Noah's flood seems to have a basis in reality. It's not exclusive to the Bible, most cultures have a "great flood" story in their mythos. Also, I recall there was actual geological evidence that a massive flood indeed occurred in the ancient times. I wish I could quote the newspaper article I once read about it, but it's old and in Polish.
Gilgamesh.
ANd yeah, what Luis siad. Although it was not a global event or anything, it's certain that they got their inspiration from somewhere.
Speaking of which - those 10 plagues in Egypt? They all happened too (independent (egyptian) accounts seem to confirm this). Discovery channel had a nice one on this, where basically one event caused the other, ultimaly leading up to the majestic food shortages which forced the egyptians to crack open their food storages.
And it's the oldest son's duty to open up the food storages as per tradition.
And the food storages where contaminated with lots of fungus (or whatever the word is for the stuff that starts growing on rotten food) which got into your lungs - due to various side effects caused by the previous 9 plagues.
Thus all the egyptians first sons all died of lung-fungus-infection. And there's psalms thanking God for that particular tidbit (which was sung the last time I was in the catholic church - when that line came up, the song basically paused for a few seconds untill the priest picked it up (whilst it was the audiences turn to sing)).
-
Discovery Channel is right up there with History Channel as hilariously amazing sources to avoid...
-
Way to go on ignoring the big problem I actually stated and running off on how the smaller one might be solved guys. :yes:
:p
-
Nah, we are just trying to figure out how they occured ;)
-
Then you're going to have some really enormous problems matching up Noah's Flood with reality. For a start any study of genetic diversity proves both that and Adam and Eve to be factually impossible.
Genetic diversity? Haven't studied it I'm afraid. However, there is this: Adam and Eve were created perfect, hence they could have within them a huge level of diversity, the potential for every human in their DNA (okay, maybe not every human. But I mean genes, they could have had an array of genes as diverse as the current human gene pool). I don't believe it impossible that an incredibly diverse set of genes could be present in two people who were specifically designed for the purpose of populating the earth, or in their 9th and 10th descendants. Source needed, but is interesting to note that after the flood human life expectancy dropped very rapidly [wild speculation]perhaps this was due to a sudden drop in the gene pool, or perhaps the flood waters (described in Gen 1:6-8) had originally served as a buffer to harmful cosmic radiation (along with C-14 ratios)[/wild speculation]
Also: I take issue with you using the word "proof" outside of mathematics. :p
-
So I can't waste this opportunity to ask the question that has been bothering me forever, giving me panic attacks and destroying my whole career, you know the usual thing. The question is, if Cain and Abel were the first sons of the first humans ever to exist on Earth, how the hell is Cain gonna flee from his own family and be welcomed by foreigners and cities (protected by a sign of God so he isn't murdered, etc.)?
I'm DYING here folks. I need the answer to that question!
-
So I can't waste this opportunity to ask the question that has been bothering me forever, giving me panic attacks and destroying my whole career, you know the usual thing. The question is, if Cain and Abel were the first sons of the first humans ever to exist on Earth, how the hell is Cain gonna flee from his own family and be welcomed by foreigners and cities (protected by a sign of God so he isn't murdered, etc.)?
I'm DYING here folks. I need the answer to that question!
And if Adam and Eve only had Cain and Abel, how did they reproduce?? Did they not have daughters and if they did, would that not be incest?
-
And the days of Adam after his fathering Seth came to be eight hundred years. Meanwhile he became father to sons and daughters.
Evidently, although Cain and Abel were the first sons of Adam and Eve, Adam and Eve had many children over their lifespan, Adam living to 930 years of age. Thus, there is plenty of time for the human race to have expanded by the time of the events of Cain and Abel so that Cain could have found a wife who may have been his sister, or even one of Adam and Eve's granddaughters. Of course this is rather taboo to our thinking, but the main problem with these close couplings is the propensity towards genetic defects and spreading of mutations, something which would have been negligible when people were so close to perfection they lived for over half a millennia. It was not until 1513 BCE that intercourse between close relatives was expressly forbidden by god.
Edit: According to my interpretation of course.
-
Ahh. phewww. That clears it up then! Thanks! :yes:
-
There's also a whole lotta stuff that didn't quite "make the cut" to the Bible that generally plugs gaps. Stuff like God creating more people than just Adam and Eve (Lilith, for one).
I'm not particularly interested in embroiling myself in this particular quagmire of a conversation, but I felt it amiss to not remind everyone that the Bible is not the only source for Christian mythology.
-
Of course not, those mythologies are an amazing puzzle to begin with, multiple myths forging other multiple myths, remixes over remixes, in a rich environment of religious creativity.
That people take it literally I find it amusing. But then again, I do think that this "literalism" is somewhat recent. I think I should blame science on this aspect of belief. Science has taught us that we can and probably should think about knowledge in "literal" terms, like saying that the Earth goes round the Sun is the literal truth, and not just "the truth" that we more or less in a "metaphorical" way believe. I think that in ancient times people just weren't so literalists. They told each other these stories as "fictions more truthful than reality", true living mythologies that informed their civilizations.
And so they basically wrote them because they felt they pointed to a higher truth and were the basis for morally bringing together a tribe into forming a civilization. Had zero to do with "Literal Truth".
However we now have a really different relationship with things like "History". Either it happened as factual or it's "myth" and we take the latter pejoratively. We now do care if something is really really true or not. And the whole of culture kinda adapted to this way of thinking. This was good for a while, but to the religious people it was hell! For all I see, these people really take these texts to be as factual and informative as any historic documents and try to reason with them for a literal historical truth of the world!
And so we have Sandwich's incredible reasonings which are a sight to behold. I think those exercises are silly and a waste of anyone's time, but I do respect the sheer effort that people undertake to make these things "fit together". Although I also do think that every single writer of the bible would look at these efforts and mutter something akin to "You really missed the point, didn't you?"
-
Lilith: Visible at at Genesis 34:11
Going through Bible Gateway, the word is translated as: Screech owl, night-monster, Lilith, demon, creature of the night, laima (? Why would you translate a word into something even less useful), night animal, night bird, night demon, nocturnal animal, night creature, lilit, night hag, night owl.
Some relate li·lith′ with the name of the Sumerian and Akkadian demon of the air, Lilitu. The first Jewish inscriptions referring to Lilith as a demon appear from the 6th Century CE onwards.
Other's argue it derives from a root word denoting "every type of twisting motion or twisted object" similar to how night (la′yil or lai′lah) suggests a "wrapping around or enfolding the earth" Such an interpretation may point to a nightjar, a nocturnal bird characterised by its rapid turning and twisting flight as it pursues airborne insects. Such a view is supported by the presence of a couple of birds which suit the described habitat: Caprimulgus aegyptius and Caprimulgus nubicus.
Whatever the case, it looks to me that the context surrounding the verse is all talking about animals which inhabit the wasteland. My translation simply translates the word as nightjar.
As I said: I follow the bible. Sure there is a large amount of Jewish and Christian mythology written around the bible, but due to its ambiguous, non-scriptural and fictional nature, I don't spend effort on it. Although it does remind me of the other day when I mentioned Lucifer in a conversation about my religion and was corrected by an aetheist saying that "Lucifer" had no basis in the bible. Fast forward a few hours and doing the research and boy was I embarrassed, infinitely better to be corrected rather than being in ignorance, but embarrassed nonetheless.
-
Yes, there are some hypothesis circulating that either the black sea or even the whole mediterranean sea got "opened up" to the atlantic and a lot of oceanic water entered and flooded a lot of ****. Atlantis and all that are also part of the deep end speculations... it's not an impossible kind of event.
It's also not a global one!
To clarify this a bit, the Mediterranean event almost certainly happened - we have evaporite beds and various other pieces of evidence supporting a flood/desiccationcycle in the med - but the last big flood happened five million plus years ago, before there were any humans to have a cultural memory of the event.
The Black Sea event was hypothesized to have happened much more recently, but it only became famous because people made the biblical connection. There was very strong evidence at the time that it was inaccurate, and the vast majority of data since, including some very good recent palaeontology work, suggest a gradual sea level rise over long periods of time - not a catastrophic event at all.
-
Strangely enough, I recall a Native American myth that also involved a Great Flood, along similar lines as Noah's and Greek/Roman Floods. It's possible that there wasn't a global, catastrophic flood at all. Just a flood of huge, but local proportions that destroyed a few villages and forced a lot of people to spend a lot of time on rafts and mountains. Floods are not uncommon events afteall. About 15 years are, there was a huge "Flood of the Millennium" in Poland, half the Krakow was underwater. Flash forward 10 years... another Great Flood, you could sail across the main square again. New millennium, new flood, I suppose. :) If this happened in medieval times, the city would've been fully submerged (and Krakow was already very big back then). Events of this kind draw people into confessionals even today.
It's plausible that such a big flood got exaggerated into global proportions by the story. Remember that to those people "The World" equaled 2-3 villages and the surrounding lands, an area which can get completely flooded once in a while.
-
When I stopped skimming and started reading the thread around page 4/5, I would not have guessed that it would have morphed into this. Sandwich and Killer Whale (much respect from me, guys) coming at it from one direction, some others from another way, and everybody staying remarkably cool and flame-free. This is the best forum :)
The Bible was written for a specific purpose, that purpose was not as a scientific textbook. The few times it speaks on scientific matters, it is surprisingly accurate.
e.g. Job 26:7 "He is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing;", At a time when other cultures were talking about turtles or elephants or floating in a river or sea.
The Bible rarely touches on those matters. It's primarily a book about how to live, the reasons why things are the way they are, and the way things will change (whether you believe it or not is beside the point of this tangent). Naturally, it focuses on these things, and others that will be important or related to those.
The precise, detailed description of the origin of life, the universe, and everything is not required for those purposes. A brief overview is sufficient for the vast majority of readers, apologies that it is less clear than we are able to understand. Where would the fun be in learning if absolutely everything were just given us?
So I've forgotten where I was going with this, hopefully that was what I wanted to. It's late.
-
There's also a whole lotta stuff that didn't quite "make the cut" to the Bible that generally plugs gaps. Stuff like God creating more people than just Adam and Eve (Lilith, for one).
I'm not particularly interested in embroiling myself in this particular quagmire of a conversation, but I felt it amiss to not remind everyone that the Bible is not the only source for Christian mythology.
See: Neon Genesis Evangelion for a totally badass and bat**** insane primer on Judeo-Christian mythology. :V
-
lulz
-
Sorry I've been away from things for a while, y'all - I got a sudden influx of content for some projects with tight deadlines this month (and there's no way they're gonna meet said deadlines, either).
Rather than go back through everything I missed, I'll pick up things more recently. watsisname, I apologize for not replying to your comprehensive post. I did read it, and I guess I just have to concede that my understanding of this stuff is not anywhere near the same level as yours or Schroeder's. I get lost anytime someone talks about something being a function of something else. :p
Strangely enough, I recall a Native American myth that also involved a Great Flood, along similar lines as Noah's and Greek/Roman Floods. It's possible that there wasn't a global, catastrophic flood at all. Just a flood of huge, but local proportions that destroyed a few villages and forced a lot of people to spend a lot of time on rafts and mountains. Floods are not uncommon events afteall. About 15 years are, there was a huge "Flood of the Millennium" in Poland, half the Krakow was underwater. Flash forward 10 years... another Great Flood, you could sail across the main square again. New millennium, new flood, I suppose. :) If this happened in medieval times, the city would've been fully submerged (and Krakow was already very big back then). Events of this kind draw people into confessionals even today.
It's plausible that such a big flood got exaggerated into global proportions by the story. Remember that to those people "The World" equaled 2-3 villages and the surrounding lands, an area which can get completely flooded once in a while.
This brings to mind another possibility. According to Genesis the flood was not just caused by rainfall ("windows of heaven"), but by subterranean sources of water ("springs of the deep"). Now, presumably most of humanity settled near fresh water sources (rivers & lakes) and farmable land (plains and valleys). These areas are of course naturally susceptible to flooding. What if the great flood was not a "cover the entire planet" event, nor a localized "Mediterranean basin / Black Sea" event, but a geologic phase or change that flooded most or all inhabited regions simultaneously, around the globe?
This would explain the widespread flood mythos in nearly every ancient culture.
Of course, so would all those cultures descending from the same lineage, but I don't want to go there. :p
-
Except there's not a shred of evidence to support such a theory.
-
See: Neon Genesis Evangelion for a totally badass and bat**** insane primer on Judeo-Christian mythology. :V
Get in the ****ing robot, Jesus.
-
Rather than go back through everything I missed, I'll pick up things more recently. watsisname, I apologize for not replying to your comprehensive post. I did read it, and I guess I just have to concede that my understanding of this stuff is not anywhere near the same level as yours or Schroeder's. I get lost anytime someone talks about something being a function of something else. :p
That's perfectly alright, Sandwich. I'm sorry for the difficulty and that I could not do a better job of explaining things for you. It's been a kind of learning experience for me as well, since this was the first time I'd actually gone through the work of figuring out the details, and then having to explain it to someone not familiar with the subject. I suppose what I should have done is summarize the main points in a non-technical way, and if anyone wanted to check the numbers they may feel free to ask me for the calculations.
-
most of humanity settled near fresh water sources (rivers & lakes) and farmable land (plains and valleys). These areas are of course naturally susceptible to flooding.
This would explain the widespread flood mythos in nearly every ancient culture.
FTFY: removed irrelevant and unnecessary detail.
there would be no need for flooding to be simultaneous around the globe in order for a mythos like this to be common. try to examine your thinking right now and see if you are trying to force some details so that they will fit the way you want, rather than examining the evidence to see what it says.
-
Found an interesting www (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/flood-waters.asp) (before reading this I subscribed to canopy theory, hence the end of this (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=85407.msg1710435#msg1710435) post)
Which points towards this paywall (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15520974.900-deep-waters.html) among other things in its reference section.
Not saying any of that is the case, but it all provides "possibilities", making these discussion incredibly slippery to get a hold of because there's always another theory.
-
I've never understood why other cultures having a great flood story is supposedly supporting evidence for a great flood. Yes, other cultures have these stories but they are all local stories, not about far flung lands. But these people can't possibly be descendants of anyone local who survived the Great Flood as no one but Noah and his family survived according to the myth. Anyone who believes that these stories are related to the flood needs to also explain why these cultures don't also have any stories about the journey from Israel to wherever they are now. It seems a little odd they'd have one but not the other.
-
Kara does have a point here. If, for example, the recent floods and freezing in the UK over the last couple of years had taken place in a prehistoric society, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they would assume the whole world flooded or froze. Even as a child I used to struggle with the idea that when it was snowing in the UK, Australia was in the middle of its summertime.
-
"a point" is euphemistic lol
-
there would be no need for flooding to be simultaneous around the globe in order for a mythos like this to be common. try to examine your thinking right now and see if you are trying to force some details so that they will fit the way you want, rather than examining the evidence to see what it says.
My use of the word 'simultaneous' was more in a geological event scale than a "to the second" one. We are talking about events that at the very least occurred many thousands of years ago, after all.
Basically, I was speaking of a global climate change or a stage in the development of the planet that caused a period of widespread regional floods all around the globe - not completely enveloping the globe, as the traditional Christian understanding of the Genesis flood has it.
I've never understood why other cultures having a great flood story is supposedly supporting evidence for a great flood. Yes, other cultures have these stories but they are all local stories, not about far flung lands. But these people can't possibly be descendants of anyone local who survived the Great Flood as no one but Noah and his family survived according to the myth. Anyone who believes that these stories are related to the flood needs to also explain why these cultures don't also have any stories about the journey from Israel to wherever they are now. It seems a little odd they'd have one but not the other.
The concept of a global "Great flood" comes from a possible mis-reading/mistranslation of the word "earth". Typically we hear "earth" and we think "planet Earth", whereas even today "earth" can mean "terrain", "land", "soil", etc - and that's just the multiple meanings of the English word that is perhaps not the best suited to translate the original Hebrew. Anyway, that's my take - not one great flood, but a widespread period of flooding in populated places around the globe.
As for cultural stories, I'm not sure I understood you correctly. Some basic clarifications though... the Genesis story of the flood is completely separate from any journeying stories - not to mention that the Bible primarily has journeys to Israel (Cannan), not from (until you get to the Babylonian exile a few thousand years later). Just because many cultures around the world have records of large-scale floods that might correspond to the flood event in Genesis, does not mean that they should also have accounts of ISrael-related travels. Flood = Noah; Israel travels = Abraham and later, Moses. Reminds me of the old joke, "How many of each animal did Moses take onto the ark?" :p
-
No it certainly does not come from a mistranslation. It is sufficiently clear that the Bible describes a global flood where all animals on earth are doomed to extinction if Noah doesn't build the Ark. If it was only about a "region" such convoluted solutions would be absolutely unnecessary.
-
Could the story of the Great flood come about due to early geology that was never written down and since lost to antiquity? You know, some explanation of why pebbles are found in the desert and an explanation of fossils finds, (these would be the animals that didn't survive the flood and were not saved by Noah) that had been retold and garbled by the constant retelling into the mythos of Noah's Ark.
Just a random thought?
-
Many strange finds like Sealife fossils in land-locked countries are actually definitely identified as from when that particular piece of land was underwater millions of years previously, that's why you can find fossils that are 400 million years old at the tops of cliffs in Southern England :)
-
Yeah, but this happened waaay before even apes appeared, nevermind humans.
No it certainly does not come from a mistranslation. It is sufficiently clear that the Bible describes a global flood where all animals on earth are doomed to extinction if Noah doesn't build the Ark. If it was only about a "region" such convoluted solutions would be absolutely unnecessary.
Keep in mind, the writers of the Bible probably had no idea there's a difference. A large enough flood that covered everything those people knew could've made them jump to conclusions that the entire world was flooded. Primitive cultures are prone to that sort of thinking.
-
Of course Dragon. They did not know the Earth was 12k Km in diameter. Of course they thought their own land was the "entirety of things". But that's precisely my point: the flood story is "global", is total. There was no escape to the flood. To say now that they knew it all along and that the flood was only local is misunderstanding the context and the intent of the story, to misread any exegetic analysis of the myth, etc.,etc.
-
12k Km
eh, thats... :wtf: oh, yeah, right, just odd units/numbers combo
-
12 Mm?
-
They did not know the Earth was 12k Km in diameter.
I think it's hilarious that the Greeks figured out the size of the Earth by the second century BCE and apparently everyone ignored them.
Go go gadget Eratosthenes!
-
Nobody 'ignored' them. It was/is easier to make maps if you see/saw the Earth as flat.
And few had the luxury of 'formal' education back then.
-
They did not know the Earth was 12k Km in diameter.
I think it's hilarious that the Greeks figured out the size of the Earth by the second century BCE and apparently everyone ignored them.
Go go gadget Eratosthenes!
I think you know it and this comment is just a slight deviation from the discussion, but in case it isn't, you do realise that the relevant chapters in the Bible discussing the Flood are much older than Eratosthenes, right?
-
Yeah. The Bible was pretty much done by the time Greeks came around. It was oral tradition at this point, so it was probably changed a bit, but important points were probably more or less consistent with what we have now.
-
I think you know it and this comment is just a slight deviation from the discussion, but in case it isn't, you do realise that the relevant chapters in the Bible discussing the Flood are much older than Eratosthenes, right?
Yes; it was an aside speaking to how long it took for the true size of Earth to become common knowledge.
-
I think that this is pretty much established now, though. It's well documented that religiosity is decreasing all over the Western world. Even in America, which is almost certainly the most religious western country (possibly excluding Italy and Ireland), atheism and irreligiousness is growing. In more... shall we say moderate countries, the decline has been steady and is well established.
Personally, I don't see how it's news any more. Demographics shift, better educated younger people are beginning to outnumber people who grew up in an age where belief was simply taken as a given, in large part because they probably weren't taught any sensible alternatives - The big bang (and cosmology as a science even) was contentious well into the middle of the twentieth century - evolution too, to a lesser extent. The coherent alternative narrative we all take for granted today has only existed in a sensible, defensible form for a relatively short period, and things take time to filter from acadaemia into the school system and broad public understanding.
That's probably why the church is still doing so well in poorer countries (see the comparison in this very article between French catholocism and African). As the internet allows greater education in poorer parts of the world, religion should start to follow a similar (if slower) path worldwide.
Good news for everyone. :)
Depressingly, this seems to be incorrect in America. The apparent rise in 'religious nones' is not, as far as we can tell, a rise in the areligious, especially not one driven by increased understanding of cosmology and evolution.
Rather, it's simply a political change in survey response patterns. Individuals who previously responded to survey as 'not very religious' have been systematically changing their response to 'no religious identification'. Yet their other religious responses - belief in God, churchgoing behavior, etcetera - haven't changed, nor has the percentage of people who believe religion is very important. Belief, in other words, hasn't changed at all - only the survey box these people are checking. (Some think this may be a response to the change in the political overtones of 'being Christian' post-Reagan Revolution.)
Atheism and irreligiousness may not be growing at all in America.
-
It does seem like the best first steps towards arreligiosity though: the self-inflicted apostasy from any official social religious groups. The path towards atheism will come decades, if ever, afterwards. And it's not even a requirement. I think that an america where most people are "believers" in the most unofficial sense should be a friendly place to secularism.
This mirrors the path towards arreligiosity in Portugal. Back in the 70s, most people were really dissatisfied with the catholic church, for they saw it as aligned with the previous dictatorship. Yet, they remained religious. Their children however, lacking the social environment where belief is bred (the constant forceful goings to the sunday mass, catholic teachings ("catequese"), etc.) were much more agnostics and deists. My generation is mostly atheist (apatheist, in general).
-
The data doesn't seem to suggest that's what's happening here, though. People's attitudes and behaviors about religion aren't changing at all. Rather, their beliefs about which box they should check to describe those attitudes and behaviors is changing.
-
God is Dead
-
The data doesn't seem to suggest that's what's happening here, though. People's attitudes and behaviors about religion aren't changing at all. Rather, their beliefs about which box they should check to describe those attitudes and behaviors is changing.
The point you were making earlier was that the effect was mostly coming from people changing their self-description from 'mildly religious' to 'not religious', right?
-
Yes, in the same way that you could change your self description from 'mildly fat' to 'not fat' by changing the pound range that defines 'fat' rather than your actual weight.
-
so in other words people are beginning to assume that their religiosity is non-religious? to not recognize that they are religious when they are? that is a disturbing trend.
-
No, that's not what he's saying.
He's saying that people have been relatively as nonreligious now as for the last decade, or two decades, or three decades, or <insert rational amount of time here>, and that the stigma against choosing "nonreligious" on the census checkbox is lessening.
-
I still disagree. The simple fact that they now actively choose to label themselves non religious rather than mildly religious is a milestone towards arreligiosity in general. Dropping the semantical connections with the institutions is a good trend.
-
Thing is, how many non-religious people still celebrate Christmas and Easter or even Halloween (All Hallows Eve)? They state that they don't have any religion but still recognise these christian festivals.
-
That's a different discussion. I do celebrate most of the christian festivities gladly. Especially christmas, I find it very meaningful.
-
Meanwhile, I don't celebrate them because of my being a christian.
-
I mostly celebrate those holidays because of tradition, not any sort of religious belief. Also, I get Xmas presents out of the deal. :) Easter is mostly fun for my younger brothers (they love painting eggs and eating sugar lambs :) ), as is Halloween. But in fact, the most important thing about those is meeting with the family.
-
Absolutely, and I think there's still a lot more to be said regarding the theological aspects of it. They are still meaningful even if you are an atheist. This is something very difficult to grasp to a hardcore theist sometimes.
-
most of them used to be pagan festivities. the christians took them over once those pagan religions were
replaced violently stomped out. they were simply given new meanings. they are more a matter of cultural significance rather than religious significance, and thats why they are still practiced by those of european ancestry (or any christians that buy the propaganda).
-
The meanings were added, not exactly entirely substituted. The pagan version constituted something on the lines of "rebirth", "regeneration" of Nature's cycle. A sense of renewal of hope, which aligned itself with the solstice, the moment the sun began to have a bigger presence than the day before (at least in the northern hemisphere). Christendom interpreted this moment as the moment when Jesus was born, which then symbolizes every child born within the families, which again is a symbol of renewal of generations and of hope of a better future, etc., etc.
I do prefer christian's version. It's more anthropogenic.
-
that is the exact reason i hate it. the tendency for religions to anthropomorphize the universe disgusts me. most religious scholars pretty much agree that jesus was not born anywhere near december. whatever the equinoxes/solstices meant for the ancient pagans is pretty much lost to history, erased by this little thing called the inquisition. we only have the bastardized christian version of things, and a few ideas from neo-pagans which may or may not be in parallel with ancient pagan teachings. frankly i look forward to the day where atheists do the same to christians. merry darwinmas to you.
-
Merry Atheistmas? :lol:
-
that is the exact reason i hate it. the tendency for religions to anthropomorphize the universe disgusts me. most religious scholars pretty much agree that jesus was not born anywhere near december. whatever the equinoxes/solstices meant for the ancient pagans is pretty much lost to history, erased by this little thing called the inquisition. we only have the bastardized christian version of things, and a few ideas from neo-pagans which may or may not be in parallel with ancient pagan teachings. frankly i look forward to the day where atheists do the same to christians. merry darwinmas to you.
so like do you actually draw all your historical religious narratives from /r/atheism or is that just another classic nuke 'troll'
-
well i just use that as an example. i dont really give a **** what the atheists rename all the holidays to. i will still identify as something obscure so as to differentiate myself from the sheep. if its any consolation i read 5 wikipedia articles about the christianization of europe, but i didnt find anything to backup my statements, so i just said **** it and posted what was in my head anyway.
-
that is the exact reason i hate it. the tendency for religions to anthropomorphize the universe disgusts me.
It's not about anthropomorphizing the universe. It's about anthropomorphizing *our* world. It's about celebrating our lifes instead of random meaningless neutral cycles that have no concern for us.
-
Christianity, no matter what you believe it to be, has always been about giving a sense of command and purpose to the universe. Command and purpose are human things.
-
Yeap it's pretty stereotypical human tendency to make the entire universe about them.
There's an all powerful, omniscient being that created the entirety of time and space all so you could be born and they could watch over your life and reward you at the end of it.
EVEN IF there's a "God" in any sense of the word, there were far too many "<you/r>" in that sentence, hubris isn't a science thing, not in the slightest compared to making your world view that the universe was created for you. So Nuke's comment wasn't really that much of a troll but a fairly legitimate gripe.
-
Something of note is that even the language is skewed towards man. Words like World come from things like Man's age, for example. It's all loaded with self importance.