+- Poetry Forum (https://www.pigpenpoetry.com)
+-- Forum: Discussion Boards (https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/forum-7.html)
+--- Forum: General Discussion and Polls (https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/forum-8.html)
+--- Thread: [split] a discussion on origins sparked by "The Order of Things" (/thread-24145.html)
[split] a discussion on origins sparked by "The Order of Things" - dukealien - 02-04-2022
(Original thread can be found here. -- Quix)
A darned good question (why does the scientific, evidence-based [really, not rhetorically] sequence match Genesis). The woke, put to it, might argue that the science is bent in some way to support the ancient tale, or that white privilege is involved - Jews are white when the narrative requires them to be. The woke need some argument here because, you know, religion (other than Wicca and Satanism, which are fine).
In a way, I suspect the truth is not too far from that. People long ago discerned (perceived) that some features of their experience are too far away to affect (stars, tides) and some are not conversable (rocks, trees) while others seem so (fish, for example, at least react to being hooked). Dogs are company. Logic requires that ocean preceded fish, rock preceded ocean (which wears it away rather than vice versa) and stars/sun/light preceded all. Time is an ever-flowing stream, but flows in only one direction because we can't perceive where it goes beyond the misty falls of Present.
So, our senses organize the world in exactly the order in which it came to be... because our senses came last. If there was a plan, it was (as Genesis plainly states) moving toward the conversable (even Woman, whom even G_d must sometimes wish would shut up but is, be it noted, the very last creation as man is not).
Which, in a sort of drunken excursion, leads to a further almost Rowenesque observation: Man was meant to be God's wife*, but it didn't work out. Hmm.
*It is not good that man should be alone. God, either, apparently. But, God, I do love the solitude sometimes! Maybe that's why He's been playing dead lately.
RE: The Order of Things - Mark A Becker - 02-04-2022
Hey Duke, you commented:
Logic requires that ocean preceded fish, rock preceded ocean ... and stars/sun/light preceded all.
So, our senses organize the world in exactly the order in which it came to be... because our senses came last.
I believe that humans 4,000 years ago were every bit as intelligent as humans today. They just didn't have the knowledge base that we have now.
The powers of logic and observation were most valuable 40 centuries ago, and humans most likely used those powers to describe the sequence written in Genesis. Still, correctly stating that dry land arose after Earth was purely a "water world", and that life appeared in the oceans first, and then appeared on land, is pretty remarkable.
Arguing that Genesis gets some things dead wrong does not invalidate the things it gets right. It is fascinating stuff.
As an aside, I'm very interested what our observations from the WEBB space telescope will reveal: how many new questions will be posed.
RE: The Order of Things - Torkelburger - 02-04-2022
Quote:First light, and above the formless Earth
Quote:The fact that light appears on the first "day" is not out of line with big bang theory: an "explosion" of particles (including photons).
First off, that is not what the writer of Genesis is saying. You are putting those words into his mouth by shoehorning your interpretation in order to make it look like they predicted it. Predictions (even if it is an actual prediction) must be SPECIFIC, not extremely vague to where any varying set of circumstances can satisfy it. An explosion of particles must be an explosion of particles. Or at least, something referring to an explosion would be much more accurate.
Secondly, it says the earth was in the beginning. It wasn’t. The earth was formed not even close to the beginning of the universe, not even remotely near the T=0, the time of the big bang. Big Bang over 13 ca. bya. Earth 4 ca. bya.
Thirdly, the earth was not even close to the center of where the big bang took place. It is so far from there that it would take millions of years for that light to reach the earth, not instantaneously.
Quote:below, a primordial water world.
The sun and moon then appeared through clouds,
There is a huge problem with this. We know that the earth did not have oceans for millions of years. Well AFTER the sun and moon appeared.
Quote:Regarding "day" 3, it is understood now that the sky was opaque before any type of observation from Earth would have revealed the sun, moon , and stars; the sky as we now see it (and well before any creature was alive and able to see it).
The problem with all of that is that all throughout the account, and most importantly in 1:3-5, 14-19 it is saying there was light with the particular “night and day” designation, so the opaque sky would make no sense. And in the verses stated above, this is BEFORE there was a sun! (light, night, day)
Another problem with the “order of things”, besides the ones you even mentioned but don’t seem to mind, is that according to Genesis 1:12, and 16, plants are beginning to grow BEFORE there was SUNLIGHT.
The bible is simply not a book of science. It even has gross historical errors. It can be poetic, or allegorical, or a book of faith, etc., but there are just too many silly things it says about science and history to not take it seriously in those matters.
Like another one would be saying that all plants and trees that yield seed are given by God for us to eat. (Genesis 1:29). But that includes hemlock, buckeye pod, nightshade, oleander. Those are poisonous.
And Daniel 4 verse 11 writes of a tree so large that “it was visible to the ends of the earth.” Clearly implies that the earth is flat.
Same thing in Matthew 4:8. He writes of a mountain so high, that all of the kingdoms of the world can be seen from the top of it. (That would mean that the earth is flat).
(02-04-2022, 10:53 PM)Mark A Becker Wrote: Hey Duke, you commented:Dry land did not arise from a water world. It is still up for debate as to where most of the water came from. Some likely came from the atmosphere, but much of it may have come from meteors, which would have been much more prevalent in the early stages of geological history when the atmosphere thinner.
Logic requires that ocean preceded fish, rock preceded ocean ... and stars/sun/light preceded all.
So, our senses organize the world in exactly the order in which it came to be... because our senses came last.
I believe that humans 4,000 years ago were every bit as intelligent as humans today. They just didn't have the knowledge base that we have now.
The powers of logic and observation were most valuable 40 centuries ago, and humans most likely used those powers to describe the sequence written in Genesis. Still, correctly stating that dry land arose after Earth was purely a "water world", and that life appeared in the oceans first, and then appeared on land, is pretty remarkable.
Arguing that Genesis gets some things dead wrong does not invalidate the things it gets right. It is fascinating stuff.
As an aside, I'm very interested what our observations from the WEBB space telescope will reveal: how many new questions will be posed.
Dry land was (obviously) here even before the atmosphere. The earth obtained its FIRST atmosphere (its changed many, many times over time) from the gases from the rocks. The very first atmosphere would have been poisonous and unsuitable for modern surface life today. It was mostly methane, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide. Very large and simple molecules on the surface of the dry land may have been able to have used the carbon dioxide and expel oxygen as waste, eventually over time changing the atmosphere.
RE: The Order of Things - Mark A Becker - 02-05-2022
Thanks Torkel-
I am well aware of the points you made. That said, I am fascinated that modern science does offer support that very early Earth may have initially been a "waterworld", and that DRY LAND appeared later. Of course, there most certainly was land/harder surfaces under the oceans.
Genesis states that DRY LAND appeared later. It also states that life in the oceans came before appearing on land, which is correct. It is the order of those two things that I find so interesting. In the absence of modern science, those were pretty remarkable leaps.
As regards big bang theory, science has very little idea of what preceded it: nothing or perhaps quantum flucuations. It's very hard to prove what was happening in the absence of space/time as we now understand it, and almost becomes a matter of "scientific faith". "Let there be light" does seem to be a simple, elegant way of putting it.
I posted this piece in hopes that it would spur precisely the kind of comments that you offered. I do like stirring up the bees.
ps. Night and day obviously occur for the blind, so they don't have to be seen to be understood. Since the Bible is wide open to interpretaion, I "see" night and day as a cycle of one event to the next, with each cycle representing eons. I take almost none of the Bible literally.
RE: The Order of Things - Torkelburger - 02-05-2022
Ok, yes. I read about the study just now on Astronomy.com I don't see the amazement. It seems a 50/50 proposition. Either water was first or not. Thinking water was first seems to fit more in line with the Hebrew belief that water was held behind the "firmament" (the "waters above") which was like a big glass dome that separated the heavenly realm from the (flat) earth, so naturally if there is water in the sky, then water below would be there also (always from the beginning).
There is the old saying that it is meaningless to ask what was before the big bang since time itself began at the big bang and so there is no such concept as "before" from that point. It's like asking what is north of the north pole.
There is no faith in science. Faith is believing something to be true without any evidence for it whatsoever. Science puts forth models of the universe that have been tested and peer-reviewed and unlike religious beliefs and faith, are open to modification and change (usually to become more precise) when new facts and discoveries emerge. When something is not known, we just say we don't know, we do not offer a guess as fact.
It doesn't matter that night and day occur for the blind. The point is, is that night and day wouldn't occur for ANYONE without: 1) the sun and 2) the rotation of the earth, both of which weren't mentioned (#1 wasn't even "created") when "night and day" were being spoken about.
And see, that's the thing. The bible is like a cherry-picking, pick-and-choose what you want to take literally or figuratively. People can therefore make it say whatever they want it to. It's like what you're doing. Whenever it's got the scientific facts right, it's literal. When it's got the scientific facts wrong, it's being poetic.
RE: The Order of Things - Mark A Becker - 02-05-2022
You are quite correct that Genesis states that the sun, and other lights, were made, not made visible. Of course I don’t agree with that literal statement. That said, I’m convinced that vision evolved well after there was a sun to see.
Even at 50/50, the order of the appearance of dry land is interesting.
It’s the order of marine life, before life on land, that I find most intriguing.
Still, I am under no illusion that most of these ancient texts bare any semblance to science.
To paraphrase Dawkins, I keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out.
And yes, I am cherry picking, and respectfully submit that most people do. It does spur discussion.
Which for some reason reminds me of another saying, “numbers don’t lie, but if you torture em enough they’ll say anything you want.”
ps. When you say "There is no faith in science", I reply that I guess it depends upon how one defines faith, because I definitely have faith in science. It's closer to say that there's no religion in science, yet some people claim science as their religion.
And for whatever reason that reminded me of a piece by Stephen Crane:
A man said to the universe:
“Sir, I exist!”
“However,” replied the universe,
“The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation.”
RE: The Order of Things - Torkelburger - 02-05-2022
Quote:ps. When you say "There is no faith in science", I reply that I guess it depends upon how one defines faith, because I definitely have faith in science.
That’s changing the subject. You’re equivocating. It’s like Ray Comfort defending the word “faith” when one is criticizing having faith in god he’ll come back with “I have faith in a lot of things, faith in my wife, faith in my children…” That’s equivocation and is a different debate.
I was referring to you saying the following: “It's very hard to prove what was happening in the absence of space/time as we now understand it, and almost becomes a matter of "scientific faith".”
That is alluding to incredulity. As in when scientists do not know something, you are saying that they resort to faith (belief without evidence) or stating something as fact or we know something when we don’t simply as a matter of faith. That’s the “god of the gaps” fallacy. The argument from incredulity. That’s what creationists do. Not scientists. As I initially replied, when scientists do not know something, they look for answers and just admit we do not know.
I don’t even have “faith” that we will someday know answers to these questions. We may never know.
Quote:It's closer to say that there's no religion in science, yet some people claim science as their religion.
I’ve never heard anyone do that. I’ve heard Christians and Creationists accuse skeptics, non-believers, atheists, metaphysical naturalists as belonging to a “religion” called “Scientism”, but that is a made-up label by Christians. It is not a religion people call themselves or is officially recognized or anything. It's a bargain-basement insult.
RE: The Order of Things - busker - 02-05-2022
(02-05-2022, 12:39 AM)Mark A Becker Wrote: Thanks Torkel-Actually, that is not true.
I am well aware of the points you made. That said, I am fascinated that modern science does offer support that very early Earth may have initially been a "waterworld", and that DRY LAND appeared later. Of course, there most certainly was land/harder surfaces under the oceans.
Genesis states that DRY LAND appeared later. It also states that life in the oceans came before appearing on land, which is correct. It is the order of those two things that I find so interesting. In the absence of modern science, those were pretty remarkable leaps.
As regards big bang theory, science has very little idea of what preceded it: nothing or perhaps quantum flucuations. It's very hard to prove what was happening in the absence of space/time as we now understand it, and almost becomes a matter of "scientific faith". "Let there be light" does seem to be a simple, elegant way of putting it.
I posted this piece in hopes that it would spur precisely the kind of comments that you offered. I do like stirring up the bees.
ps. Night and day obviously occur for the blind, so they don't have to be seen to be understood. Since the Bible is wide open to interpretaion, I "see" night and day as a cycle of one event to the next, with each cycle representing eons. I take almost none of the Bible literally.
The early earth had no surface water. There was only dry land and volcanoes. There was a lot more internal heat as there were more radioactive elements that have since decayed. The early solar system had a lot more asteroids and so there was steady bombardment.
Water came later, and may have resulted from bombardment by comets.
Water has always existed as a thin skin on top of the lithosphere, btw. That much is obvious.
Génesis says that fruits came before the waters teemed with living creatures. Since flowering plants only came about in the Mesozoic, this is obviously false.
In fact, even land plants appeared well after the Cambrian explosion.
I could go on, but pointing out that the fertile imagination of ancient barbarians in the Fertile Crescent - for much of the biblical fables draw upon Mesopotamian myths - who didn’t have flushing toilets nor cherry tomatoes, was not any miraculous prognostication of the miracles of science, seems a little odd in this era of solar panels and electric vehicles.
But it wasn’t only in the Middle East that this idea of water appearing first spring up. The Indians, Chinese (if I remember correctly), and various other assorted ancient civilisations had similar myths. It’s because water was always more mysterious than land. And life relies on water.
Also, on the "big bang" theory (a term coined by Fred Hoyle, who didn't like the idea):
> Time and space are properties of the universe, and didn't exist before the big bang by definition. It's not intuitive, it's just maths.
> The BBT is just a model that is currently accepted as the best possible explanation. It doesn't mean that it's right. The steady state theory still has its adherents. The possibility of this universe being just one of many also exists. As is the possibility that we live in a simulation, which would explain why nature seems to be governed by weird laws. Someone wrote the code for it to work in a higher order universe.
At the end of the day, any explanation for why we exist is as absurd as any other explanation. I personally think that it's all just a fevered dream inside the mind of the Red King.
I think the Book of Job sums it up nicely, that we will never understand everything about this universe, or even come close to understanding a small fraction of it (the fun is in the game, but each answer opens up more questions), and therefore jumping to a 'God' explanation is as absurd as not jumping to it:
Hast thou given the horse strength? hast thou clothed his neck with thunder?
...
He saith among the trumpets, Ha, ha; and he smelleth the battle afar off, the thunder of the captains, and the shouting.
Also, a sentiment nicely summarised in the Rig Veda (AL Basham's translation) - perhaps nothing indeed makes sense:
Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows - or maybe even he does not know.
the poem has sparked off a nice discussion, though
RE: The Order of Things - Mark A Becker - 02-05-2022
I definitely appreciate the discussion.
That was the whole point of the poem.
RE: The Order of Things - Mark A Becker - 02-06-2022
A PHd physicist friend of mine once told me, "Science is my religion, but my faith is in God".
"God of the gaps" is a lazy way of saying that if a thing can't be proven, then God did it. I do not subscribe to a "God of the Gaps" theory, and think it's erroneous to even call it a theory, since it claims absence of evidence is somehow evidence that proves that "God did it": clearly not science. In contrast, the big bang theory of Georges Lemaitre (a Belgian priest) is a theory supported by evidence. Or as busker points out, a model "accepted as the best possible explanantion."
Big bang theory spooks some scientists, since it indicates a beginning, and can therefore imply a creation event. Astrophysicist Lawrence Krauss wrote a book to counter this notion, "A Universe from Nothing". Yet, even the quantum fluctuations he descibes are a sub-atomic version of "something".
Many point to Newton as devoutly Christian, and indeed he produced many volumes of writing to bolster that claim. What they fail to point out is that his education at Cambridge in his day required certain religious beliefs. Newton did not believe in the Holy Trinity, which nearly cost him dearly. That said, he definitely believed in God, going so far as to say, "the more I study science, the more I believe in God."
To me, strident atheisim is as repugnant as strident evangelisim. Regarding God, I remain agnostic: "a-gnostic", as in not known (and probably not knowable).
All of that said, I remain fascinated by creation stories of the various faith traditions, and felt that is would be interesting to post a poem that would result in discussion. It did. And it has been interesting.
Intersting lists, that include many of the giants in science:
Christians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
Atheists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology
RE: The Order of Things - Mark A Becker - 02-07-2022
Cherry-picking from science:
Theoretical physicists have spent over 40 years chasing string theory, which, outside of very elegant mathematical constructs, has yet to be successfully tested.
How many careers have been devoted to chasing this "theory" in hopes of producing the elusive "Theory of Everything?" String theory remains something of a *best guess*. Many theoretical physicists stand behind it as if proof is right around the corner. To me, that is having *faith*; a belief in something that is not yet supported by evidence.
Unfortunately, misrepresentation of string theory as a valid scientific theory has been appropriated by some people as proof that God exists in dimensions beyond our direct observation, and that God continues to influence our existence while operating in these dimensions, or some other universe that exists outside the laws of ours. Conveniently unable to be proved/disproved.
That said, *real science* grinds on, either verifying or disproving hypothseses with the introduction of peer reviewed evidence produced by valid experimentation.
One day, *ideas* such as string theory and the multiverse will be proven- about the same time that Jesus returns on clouds of glory.
RE: The Order of Things - busker - 02-07-2022
(02-07-2022, 12:54 AM)Mark A Becker Wrote: Cherry-picking from science:“real science” is not just dull plodders grinding away. That is just a part of it, the same way that “real civil engineering” is not just designing sewage systems. An equally important, and far more challenging, part of science is the ability to theorise and express that theory mathematically. This is beyond the capability of 99.99% of the population, who never do any maths more abstract than differential equations at best.
Theoretical physicists have spent over 40 years chasing string theory, which, outside of very elegant mathematical constructs, has yet to be successfully tested.
How many careers have been devoted to chasing this "theory" in hopes of producing the elusive "Theory of Everything?" String theory remains something of a *best guess*. Many theoretical physicists stand behind it as if proof is right around the corner. To me, that is having *faith*; a belief in something that is not yet supported by evidence.
Unfortunately, misrepresentation of string theory as a valid scientific theory has been appropriated by some people as proof that God exists in dimensions beyond our direct observation, and that God continues to influence our existence while operating in these dimensions, or some other universe that exists outside the laws of ours. Conveniently unable to be proved/disproved.
That said, *real science* grinds on, either verifying or disproving hypothseses with the introduction of peer reviewed evidence produced by valid experimentation.
One day, *ideas* such as string theory and the multiverse will be proven- about the same time that Jesus returns on clouds of glory.
Theoretical physics is already so abstract that proof will take years if not decades. The first proof of gravitational waves, a fundamental prediction of General Relativity, came a hundred years after it was made. And GR is something that’s taught at a masters level these days.
The equivalence of having “faith” in string theory vs having “faith” in Jesus is that the former is subject to change. If ST is intellectually satisfying, a physicist may believe it, but if any evidence turns up to refute it or if a better theory emerges to explain nature, then it’s not the end of the world.
The existence of parallel universes is not a conjecture confined to string theory. It was first posited in the 50s by a British physicist named Everett to explain the collapse of the wave function.
Anyway, to compare all of the above with the collected mutterings of religion is to miss the point. To even understand what is being disputed in the case of physics takes years of actual study. To read the epistles of Paul doesn’t take more than a few months to a year of studying Koine Greek - and even that is not something that most people do.
It’s a false equivalence. A more fitting intellectual parallel for religion would be the belief in Maradona as the greatest football player of all time. About as intellectually rigorous.
String theory is more than an “idea”.
Anyone can have a bright idea.
String theory has a mathematical formulation that explains the rest of physics (though, I would assume, not completely).
Still doesn’t mean it’s right.
But a lot more work has gone into it than the idle speculation of the sparsely educated to illiterate outcasts of society preaching to its dregs (why didn’t Yehosua’s message catch on in Jerusalem? Because the educated Jews knew better than to fall for the rantings of a delusional tradesman).
But emotionally satisfying, no doubt.
RE: The Order of Things - Mark A Becker - 02-07-2022
Ok busker- I get it.
I still contend that if faith is belief without evidence, then string theory, and especially the multiverse conjecture have yet to provide evidence. Blaming the lack of evidence on a current inability to conduct experiments does not validate these *theories*.
I’m with degrasse Tyson on this one- show me the evidence, any evidence. There’s currently nothing concrete for science to uphold, or refute.
Other’s embraced by the media, like Michio Kaku and Brian Greene, continue to espouse these theories even when they know there is a lack of evidence.
This belief without evidence is tenuous, at best. Kaku, as a Nobel Prize winner in physics, should know better. Call it a hypothesis, but not a theory, until there is evidence to refute or uphold it. Otherwise it sounds more like faith, than science.
“Let there be light” Harsh light, too.
RE: The Order of Things - busker - 02-07-2022
Mark - there is a big difference between a hypothesis and a theory
A hypothesis does not have a rigorous mathematical construct to enable it to explain observations. It is little better than speculation.
Many examples are found in geology, where the origin of a particular type of mineralisation is explained by a hypothesis as to how it formed. A hypothesis does not explain quantities, only qualities.
A theory is something that explains measured phenomena. It also has the ability to make predictions, the test of which proves whether the theory is thus far reliable or not. As in the case of GR, everyone knew that gravitation waves, if they did not exist, would invalidate GR. It’s another matter that it took a century to develop equipment sophisticated enough to test the theory.
Note that a theory can ever only be proved to be provisionally correct.
Therefore, you can indeed choose to believe in a theory if it’s not been proven to be demonstrably false, as long as you are clear that it may be wrong. A counter proof is just one experiment away.
This is not the same as religious belief, which:
1) is founded on childish fables from primitive traditions that contradict one another
2) makes no predictions that can be tested
3) at least in the Judeo Christian tradition, is demonstrably made up (Paul’s concoction)
Kaku and Greene nowhere claim that string theory is proven.
But hopefully I have outlined the difference between a tested theory, an untested theory, and a hypothesis, and why string theory is not a hypothesis.
If you really want to understand why string theory is a big deal you have to go to the maths.
When Kaku and Greene explain it to the public, they are trying to dumb it down by 40 IQ points.
RE: The Order of Things - Mark A Becker - 02-07-2022
Hi busker-
I certainly appreciate your clarification, and I’m quite willing to be shown to be mistaken. That said, an accepted theory requires testing to back it up. String & M *theory* are brilliant examples of how mathematical constructs beg for a means of being tested. As you point out, it could be decades or centuries before those means are available. I maintain that an *un-tested theory* does not meet the criertia to be called an accepted theory, no matter how good the mathematical construct that predicts it. Hopefully, as much time, effort, and money have been poured into it, testing will bear it out.
I have little idea how the multiverse(s) can ever be detected/tested outside of the laws of physics. Perhaps that too is only a matter of time.
Will governments & taxpayers, or even billionaires, be convinced that technologies to conduct the experiments are worth the time and money. That alone could push the necessary discoveries well into the future.
Circling back to religion/science I am curious how some of the greatest minds in science- Newton, Bacon, Kepler, Maxwell, etc etc- reconciled their faith with their science. Probably the zeitgeist in which they worked. Beyond the many contradictions of the various religions, I contend that faith traditions have had, and still have, value within cultures. I disagree that some of the serious thought devoted to those traditions is wholly founded “on childish fables.” However, I whole heartedly agree that many of those traditions have been twisted from the beginning by people like Paul.
As I said before, I remain agnostic: I do not know if there is a God, and likewise, I do not know if there are multiple universes. It’s the not knowing that keeps me curious.
RE: The Order of Things - Torkelburger - 02-08-2022
Agnosticism is NOT a “safe” and “more intellectually-honest” middle-ground between the two positions as most agnostics claim (as you are doing).
Theism and atheism are statements about BELIEF. Agnosticism is a statement about KNOWLEDGE. Those are two different things.
One can describe themselves as an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist, and that is perfectly fine. Theism and atheism are statements of belief regarding the following assertion/proposition: “A god (or gods) exist(s).” Theists have the belief that the statement is true. Atheists do not have the belief that it is true. Neither one is claiming to KNOW whether the claim is true.
Note two things: 1) You do not need knowledge in order to have belief or not have belief. 2) The atheist position is NOT making the claim that “No gods exist”. The atheist position is that they *lack the belief* in god. There is a big difference.
Take Bigfoot for an example for all of this. If someone claims Bigfoot exists, people can either believe the claim or not, with or without direct knowledge of whether it is a fact or not. The burden of proof is on those who make the positive claim. In order to not believe the claim, I simply do not have to be convinced of the evidence or arguments presented by those who do.
If I don’t believe, it is not up to me to look behind every tree, look under every rock, search through every cave, in every forest and every mountain on earth so I can conclude that I have knowledge that Bigfoot does not exist (or make a positive claim that Bigfoot does not exist). Who knows, he could have been somewhere else while I was looking. I simply have to remain unconvinced by the arguments presented by those claiming he exists and withhold my belief in his existence. It does not make any difference that I do not have direct knowledge of his existence or non-existence. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.
Christians love to point out that Newton and other prominent scientists from a long time ago were either Christian or theists. But this is a very weak argument for theism. This does not make Christianity or theism the least bit true. It doesn’t even make it reasonable. It is a logical fallacy.
There are a few problems with this way of thinking. The main problem is that it refers to people from CENTURIES ago. Why is that a problem? Because scientists like Newton were not aware of scientific discoveries and breakthroughs that we have gained after his lifetime, and knowledge we have learned since then, namely: Evolution, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Dinosaurs, Edwin Hubble’s discoveries with the Hooker Telescope, spectrometry, the Hubble Telescope, Cosmic Background Radiation, etc., etc., etc.
We cannot jump to any conclusions to how the giants of the past would have reacted to this, but it is comparing apples to oranges to assert they were devout believers when they lived in a completely different time and not even close to having the same knowledge as we have today. It’s like assuming that I would be an atheist if I had lived centuries ago. Would I have been? Eh, probably not.
The second problem is that many of these giants had really silly beliefs back then. Like Newton believed in the powers of alchemy (turning lead into gold). He spent years trying to do it and even wrote about it.
In any event, according to this famous 2009 survey (13 years ago), only 33% of scientists believed in a personal god (additional 18% only believed in some sort of “higher power”), while 41% did not believe in any god of any kind (as compared to only 4% of the general population).
https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
RE: The Order of Things - busker - 02-08-2022
@Torkel - excellent distinction made b/w belief and knowledge. We may be agnostic theists, which is a good way of putting it.
In support of Mark's point, however, even Abdus Salam, who along with Weinberg and Glashow unified the electroweak force with the electromagnetic force in the 70s and won a Nobel in physics for doing it, was a devout Muslim (a majority of Pakistanis claim that he was Ahmadi, ergo not a true Muslim - but that's bollocks). Now did Salam believe that Mohammed went to heaven on a winged horse? Probably not. I'd wager that he interpreted the Night Journey in the Quran as a dream.
We all have our personal take on what parts of religious doctrine make sense and what parts don't. The belief that Jesus was the literal son of God may not be held by all 'Christians' - there's very little evidence it was held to be true by James himself, and so you can be non-Trinitarian (or even Jewish, believing that Yehoshua was a great religious teacher but not the Messiah, because the Messiah is a cock and bull fable dreamed up by ignorant goat herders) and still adhere to some 'Christian' beliefs.
Why do many smart people still think that there's a grand plan behind it all? Because the universe is infinite in its complexity, and we are but gibbering idiots, even the smartest of us. It is the argument from Job.
I like to think that there's a grand pattern, even if it doesn't include me or make my conscious existence anything other than an accidental and temporary byproduct of a cunning plan.
RE: The Order of Things - Tiger the Lion - 02-08-2022
It seems strange to me that a simple "lack of belief" would compel such passionate evangelism.
RE: The Order of Things - Mark A Becker - 02-08-2022
Hey all-
I've always been interested in the views that others express regarding science and religion, whether I agree with them or not. This thread has proven to be most interesting in that respect.
I'm happy to have posted a poem that encouraged such engagement.
Thanks!
ps. a definition-
ag·nos·tic /aɡˈnästik/ noun : a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena.
RE: The Order of Things - Torkelburger - 02-08-2022
P.s.
https://www.learnreligions.com/atheist-vs-agnostic-whats-the-difference-248040
(02-08-2022, 08:11 AM)Tiger the Lion Wrote: It seems strange to me that a simple "lack of belief" would compel such passionate evangelism.I don’t understand. Are you calling me a liar and suggesting I do not lack the belief in the existence of a god? Or that anyone who holds the weak atheist position has no right to reply to religious lecturing?
If it’s really all that strange to you and bothering you, don’t read it.