Cosmology vs. Religion

[pantheory]

Now that the Jaime Webb space telescope is up and sending back pictures, many contradictions of the Big Bang theory are appearing, most all of which have been  predicted long ago  in detail by a small percentage of alternative theorists.

 

https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215?_auid=2020

 

The problem for people trying to break away from religion and replace it with science is this:

In time it could become apparent that the Big Bang model is entirely wrong IMHO. In just a few years challenges of mainstream theory could become well known. If this happens there could be a small resurgence of religion. And if so, this could be a problem for us here at Ex-Christian because those on the fence and lurkers could start bending back toward Christianity (religion).

 

Since more than 40% of US and European scientists claim to be Christian, some scientists would join the fight and be more vocal and advocate more strongly for religion if  “incorrect” theory is in jeopardy.  Here is an example:

 

https://www.icr.org/article/does-cosmic-microwave-background-confirm-big-bang/

 

A previous member here at Ex-Christ (BAA) warned me of this years ago. His opinion as he explained it, was that here at Ex-Christ we should not denigrate science theory because it could hurt some members as well as lurkers. My opinion was (and is) that whenever news comes out contradicting science theory, that we can post it here if it would be interesting to some, and let the cards fall as they may. This would give members advanced notice IMO and not be a total shock later if new theories were being considered to replace the old one. My emphasis is on the fact that science theory, for the most part, is not science fact, even if there are a few indisputable science theories such as Natural Selection.  The basis for science is the scientific method, not the majority opinion about something which we call science theory.

What do you think?

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I tend to agree.  We need not fear hypotheses being proven incorrect, nor should we try to hide from the facts or "spin" the story.  At most, an incorrect hypothesis will simply give theists an extra "gap" for their god to temporarily fill.  If a lurker or two falls back into religion as a result, that would be unfortunate; but if an unexpected god of the gaps argument is enough to persuade them, then likely they were not really ready for deconversion in the first place. 

[walterpthefirst]

49 minutes ago, pantheory said:

Now that the Jaime Webb space telescope is up and sending back pictures, many contradictions of the Big Bang theory are appearing, most all of which have been  predicted long ago  in detail by a small percentage of alternative theorists.

 

https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215?_auid=2020

 

The problem for people trying to break away from religion and replace it with science is this:

In time it could become apparent that the Big Bang model is entirely wrong IMHO. In just a few years challenges of mainstream theory could become well known. If this happens there could be a small resurgence of religion. And if so, this could be a problem for us here at Ex-Christian because those on the fence and lurkers could start bending back toward Christianity (religion).

 

Since more than 40% of US and European scientists claim to be Christian, some scientists would join the fight and be more vocal and advocate more strongly for religion if  “incorrect” theory is in jeopardy.  Here is an example:

 

https://www.icr.org/article/does-cosmic-microwave-background-confirm-big-bang/

 

A previous member here at Ex-Christ (BAA) warned me of this years ago. His opinion as he explained it, was that here at Ex-Christ we should not denigrate science theory because it could hurt some members as well as lurkers. My opinion was (and is) that whenever news comes out contradicting science theory that we can post it here if it would be interesting to some, and let the cards fall as they may. This would give members advanced notice IMO and not be a total shock later if new theories were being considered to replace the old one. My emphasis is on the fact that science theory, for the most part, is not science fact, even if there are a few indisputable science theories such as Natural Selection.  The basis for science is the scientific method, not the majority opinion about something which we call science theory.

What do you think?

 

 

I'm sorry Pantheory, but I fail to see how the demise of the Big Bang theory could lead to a small resurgence of religion.

 

If anything, the opposite would be true.  The Big Bang gives Christian apologists like William Lane Craig, Francis Collins and Hugh Ross exactly what they need to claim that god created the universe, just as is written in Genesis 1.  Ok, you and I and other members of this forum know that their claims are false.  But the vast majority of their followers don't know this and eagerly eat up these bankrupt apologetic arguments.

 

If the Big Bang is discarded, what could possibly replace it that would appeal to and satisfy the emotional needs of these people?  They need science to confirm that there was a beginning, so any new models that take this away from them will be unwelcome at best or utterly rejected at worse.

 

Secondly, your use of that Institute of Creation Research link is off target.  The ICR are Young Earth Creationists.  They reject the Big Bang theory because they are biblical literalists, believing that god spoke the universe into existence exactly as is written in scripture.  They couldn't care less which scientific theory is accepted or discarded.  They utterly reject any and all scientific explanations of the universe's origins.  They also reject evolution and natural selection.  For them, scripture is all they need.

 

So, the people who might try to break away from religion (as you put it) are not the Young Earth Creationists but the Old Earth Creationists, like Craig, Collins and Ross, who try to reconcile science with scripture.  Therefore, the 'problem' for Ex-Christian.net that you speak of doesn't really exist, in my opinion. 

 

It would be a problem for this forum if the Big Bang were replaced with a scientific model that is even more attractive to OEC's.  But Steady State models, Cyclic models or Eternal models are less attractive to the OEC's than the Big Bang, not more attractive.  These models do not provide that absolute beginning which can seem like a confirmation of Genesis 1.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter. 

 

 

[pantheory]

18 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I'm sorry Pantheory, but I fail to see how the demise of the Big Bang theory could lead to a small resurgence of religion.

 

If anything, the opposite would be true.  The Big Bang gives Christian apologists like William Lane Craig, Francis Collins and Hugh Ross exactly what they need to claim that god created the universe, just as is written in Genesis 1.  Ok, you and I and other members of this forum know that their claims are false.  But the vast majority of their followers don't know this and eagerly eat up these bankrupt apologetic arguments.

 

If the Big Bang is discarded, what could possibly replace it that would appeal to and satisfy the emotional needs of these people?  They need science to confirm that there was a beginning, so any new models that take this away from them will be unwelcome at best or utterly rejected at worse.

 

Secondly, your use of that Institute of Creation Research link is off target.  The ICR are Young Earth Creationists.  They reject the Big Bang theory because they are biblical literalists, believing that god spoke the universe into existence exactly as is written in scripture.  They couldn't care less which scientific theory is accepted or discarded.  They utterly reject any and all scientific explanations of the universe's origins.  They also reject evolution and natural selection.  For them, scripture is all they need.

 

So, the people who might try to break away from religion (as you put it) are not the Young Earth Creationists but the Old Earth Creationists, like Craig, Collins and Ross, who try to reconcile science with scripture.  Therefore, the 'problem' for Ex-Christian.net that you speak of doesn't really exist, in my opinion. 

 

It would be a problem for this forum if the Big Bang were replaced with a scientific model that is even more attractive to OEC's.  But Steady State models, Cyclic models or Eternal models are less attractive to the OEC's than the Big Bang, not more attractive.  These models do not provide that absolute beginning which can seem like a confirmation of Genesis 1.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter. 

 

 

 

True, but we'll see in time. Many who once trusted in religion now trust in science. But for many, science is not a method, it is a collection of theories. Concerning how the universe was created and works, many now trust in the Big Bang model to explain the answers, not the logic of science IMO. If the BB model falls, then I think that some will again revisit religion IMO.

[walterpthefirst]

4 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

True, but we'll see in time. Many who once trusted in religion now trust in science. But for many science is not a method, it is a collection of theories. Concerning how the universe was created and works, many now trust in the Big Bang model to explain the answers, not the logic of science IMO. If the BB model falls, then I think that some will again revisit religion IMO.

 

Well, I'm sorry again Pantheory but I just don't see it.

 

As I've already outlined, the YEC's want nothing to do with the Big Bang and the OEC's will only accept something better than the Big Bang.

 

Here the word 'better' means a scientific model that agrees even more closely with scripture than the Big Bang seems to.

 

Do you have any idea what model that might be?

 

 

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Well, I'm sorry again Pantheory but I just don't see it.

 

As I've already outlined, the YEC's want nothing to do with the Big Bang and the OEC's will only accept something better than the Big Bang.

 

Here the word 'better' means a scientific model that agrees even more closely with scripture than the Big Bang seems to.

 

Do you have any idea what model that might be?

 

 

 

I think it will have to be a SS model of some kind. I don't think they will reconsider Hoyle's version again for several reasons, but my own version will stand upon its own unique mathematics which explains away both dark matter and dark energy, and alters the effect of gravitational influences. We'll see.

[walterpthefirst]

6 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

I think it will have to be a SS model of some kind. I don't think they will reconsider Hoyle's version again for several reasons, but my own version will stand upon its own unique mathematics which explains away both dark matter and dark energy, and alters the effect of gravitational influences. We'll see.

 

Ok, so how does a Steady State model appeal to the YEC's who already reject all science in favour of scripture?  The simple answer is that it doesn't.

 

And how does a Steady State model appeal to the OEC's who want to see science and scripture in agreement?  In the SS model where is the sudden appearance of a fully-formed universe springing into existence at god's command?  The simple answer is that the SS doesn't give the OEC apologists anything they can use to reconcile the science with scripture.

 

And its for these two reasons I seriously doubt that a discarding of the Big Bang model will cause any resurgence of religion or any problems for this forum.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Joshpantera]

I wouldn't be too worried about it....

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Pantheory,

 

Thinking a little more about this, I'm in general agreement with you and the Prof about 'letting the cards fall where they will'.  So, I can't really share in BAA's concerns about this forum.  As you know, I'm strongly of the opinion that all empirical science is tentative and provisional.  Therefore, the discarding of disproven theories and models is a necessary function of science and not something to be feared, guarded against or 'spun' in the least damaging way.

 

If the religious don't get why science doesn't deliver absolute truth, then that's their problem.  But if lurkers and seekers come here confused about how science works and what it's remit is, then I'm sure that we can set them straight. 

 

So, even if you and I disagree about the resurgence, let's not fall out over this, ok?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

On 8/31/2022 at 5:54 AM, walterpthefirst said:

Pantheory,

 

Thinking a little more about this, I'm in general agreement with you and the Prof about 'letting the cards fall where they will'.  So, I can't really share in BAA's concerns about this forum.  As you know, I'm strongly of the opinion that all empirical science is tentative and provisional.  Therefore, the discarding of disproven theories and models is a necessary function of science and not something to be feared, guarded against or 'spun' in the least damaging way.

 

If the religious don't get why science doesn't deliver absolute truth, then that's their problem.  But if lurkers and seekers come here confused about how science works and what it's remit is, then I'm sure that we can set them straight. 

 

So, even if you and I disagree about the resurgence, let's not fall out over this, ok?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

I think we are in general agreement. Science pays little or no attention concerning if a theory will be acceptable or popular to the general pubic. Any theory of cosmology will rise or fall based upon its own merit, and little will have to do with its promotion by any scientist or group IMHO.

 

your quote:

"So, even if you and I disagree about the resurgence, let's not fall out over this, ok?"

 

I'm an easy going guy and like everybody. I'm quite talkative and likeable IMO, and no one dislikes me in a bar setting excepting for the few young women who slap my face once in a great awhile.