The Big Bang theory as a religious dogma

vidar · Mar 11, 2006

There are the three fundamental theories of the universe, how it started and how it ends. There are the Big Bang Theory, the Stady State Theory and the Cyclic Univers Theory. The Big Bang Theory has strong religious support from several sides. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Philosophical_and_religious_interpretations In this way, the Big Bang Theory supports the ‘Let there be light’ in Moses’ Genesis, 13.7 billion years ago, though. The question is, from a scientific point of view; isn’t the Big Bang Theory a religious dogma, based on non-scientific presumptions?

bonzelite · Mar 11, 2006

YES

aetherius · Mar 11, 2006

All theories of "creation" boil down to two positions. Either you believe (1) God always existed or (2) the ingredients that instigated the Big Bang, and any initial conditions that pre-date the Big Bang, always existed. You have to relax the assumption that everything has a beginning. ie from today, t0, the timeline goes to negative infinity. I think the concept is impossible for us to comprehend.

vidar · Mar 12, 2006

I do not think there is a contradiction in believing in God and not the Big Bang theory. However, I suspect that Moses did not get the secrets of Genesis quite right. He was human after all.

bonzelite · Mar 12, 2006

so far this thread is pretty quiet. no mission control team policing yet. how odd.

nova_explored · Mar 12, 2006

YES. And NO to being non scientific based theory. Big bang model constantly undergoes further adjustments, but remains contingent in scientific study. Background radiation supports it. Doesn't mean its right, but it does mean it is NOT a religious dogma putting it forward. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bonzelite · Mar 12, 2006

the scientific study subscribed to bb theory is preached as gospel by the clergy of science and is therefore a faith-based system of dogma as is the nation of islam.

CalliArcale · Mar 12, 2006

Ouch -- can we keep the gratuitous religious zingers out of this forum? They can get hot enough in Free Space, to say nothing of the science forums. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Saiph · Mar 12, 2006

The BB is presented to the public as a much more solid, done deal, than it really is. The BB is under constant scrutiny by the field, both for and against. People test it, and it's predictions frequently. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

phenobarbara · Mar 12, 2006

I don't think it's a religious dogma based on non-scientific principles. Read Simon Singh's wonderful book, "Big Bang: the Origin of the Universe" for more comprehensive information. For many years, the debate revolved around the big bang versus the steady-state theory. The evidence favored the big bang, however, many astronomers and astrophysicists might have felt uncomfortable supporting a theory that seemed to back the statement that opens the Bible: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Robert Jastrow's book "God and the Astronomers" (written in the mid-1970s) also touches on the subject.

commander_keen · Mar 12, 2006

I'm pretty sure that Einstein refused to believe in his initial equations that the Universe was expanding. It suggested that an expanding Universe had a point of origin, and therefore might not have needed a god. He even put in the cosmological constant to fudge up his equations.

bonzelite · Mar 12, 2006

bb is the invention of a priest, literally. http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html religion and science have always been bound at the hip by politics. the bb theory, as Saiph mentions, is actually not a done deal by any means. and that should never be underestimated as to just how undone a deal it is.

jatslo · Mar 12, 2006

I am not even sure if the BB is a theory or not; it is beginning to sound more and more like philosophy to me. For example, String Theory is Philosophy, yet, it is referred to as theory too. Saiph says that parts of BB are confirmed, but that is a far cry from fact.

drwayne · Mar 12, 2006

Actually, you won't find too much in the scientific method that is labeled fact. The best one can hope for is to make the evolution from an initial idea, and hypothesis to a theory. A theory is just that, an intellectual model that describes the things we observe. In many cases, there can be a chasm between a theory that explains the observations, and any fundamental description of the "way things work". Sometimes, such as in quantum mechanics, the distinction between the two is somewhat unclear. Models, and theories are always being examined, tested, refined and occasionally discarded. It is rare the theory that explains every observation. The scientific community is hardly monolithic, and given to believing anything resembling dogma. Having spent the majority of my life around physicists and astronomers, I will let you in on a little secret. They like nothing better than proving their colleagues wrong. Seriously. The term competitive doesn't even begin to cover it. Cut throat is closer. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

jatslo · Mar 12, 2006

A theory is more or less repeatable 90% of the time for example, or parts of it are. So we can argue presumably that if this is the case here, then this must be the case there, while listing alternatives. At the same time we argue that the evidence strongly support our ideas, as opposed to the alternative. Theory is [1] a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory" [2] hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices" [3] a belief that can guide behavior; "the architect has a theory that more is less"; "they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales" http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn I have heard of cut-throat politics, and/or competition for, I want to say funds, but I will say, prestige. "BB" is not theory because it cannot be rigorously tested, as is required by the scientific community, so it is just a crafty way of logical argument. I imagine that parts of it are theory, though.

bonzelite · Mar 12, 2006

Having spent the majority of my life around physicists and astronomers, I will let you in on a little secret. They like nothing better than proving their colleagues wrong. Seriously. The term competitive doesn't even begin to cover it. Cut throat is closer. coolness. that is a breath of fresh air to hear. yet i see in science, then, a great divide between what you have experienced on the inside, and what is generally presented as a public "interface." it is all day long big bang this, big bang that, we're just around the corner of dark matter, black holes are undeniable and not theoretical but real, comets are yes definitely dirty snowballs, etc. these ideas are gone about as if they are the foundation of fact and are treated as such.

jatslo · Mar 12, 2006

I second that nomination.

drwayne · Mar 12, 2006

"yet i see in science, then, a great divide between what you have experienced on the inside, and what is generally presented as a public "interface."" I concur. Now, the reasons for this can be complicated. The press, and arguably the "general public" would prefer that things be given in black and white, this is the way it works terms. We, as scientists do not always do ourselves a service, as we do not play well in the arena of the sound bite - for the logical reason that science is not that open and shut. Ever. We realize that, and as a result we come across as equivicating. The press doesn't like that, so they find someone who speaks in more definitive terms. It can be a real mess in the way that our work is presented to the public. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

drwayne · Mar 12, 2006

By the way, I don't get to deal with facts. That's God's department. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

bonzelite · Mar 12, 2006

i just had an a-ha moment of sorts as i read your reply. the media, which i do know a bit about as i come from a broadcasting/tv/film/advertising background, wants the encapsulated story regardless of whether or not it is particularly factual. the media spins it's profit from perpetuated myths and outright lies. look at broadcast "journalism" which is nothing of the sort. one must now go to niche blogs and alternative news sources to get any facts. often, what is portrayed in popular media is entirely spun for a political agenda. and this plays right into the wallets of gullible consumers who are barely aware of their own thoughts half the time. as well, it bodes well for religious dogma, of all sorts, scientific and political. to me, they have completely merged. and this is why i feel so many myths are allowed to perpetuate: it is profitable and allows for a packaged and well-presented sound bite that has become the new altar of consumer culture. and science is a commodity like any other. look at Discover magazine, for example. about half of it is sensationalist crap. but they need to sell science somehow. by the way, Dr.Wayne, i enjoy your moderating style. it stands out among others whose names i will not mention. you seem accessible as a human being.

nova_explored · Mar 13, 2006

hmmm. well, regardless of its USE, its continued study does not find influence in religious dogma, it finds support. it is a significant difference. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nova_explored · Mar 13, 2006

be that how we, as ordinary people, interpret things, or use them to some greater good in our lives, science, like law, tries to remain objective as best it can. Its not perfect, because its the human fallacy- there is no way to be completely objective (i.e. schroedinger's cat). Theory is a discovery built on scientific data. Just that. Pretty much everything in QM is theory. If religion started using twin particles and neutrino emmission as dogma it would probably sour your view of it, but it won't change its scientific course of study. To get to the facts it must be made in scientific fashion, nothing less will do. p.s. the atom was a philosophical notion put forth in the third century by a man named democritus (a philosopher who conjectured that there is a substance about which nothing else can be broken down beyond, he called it an atom.) he named it after a religious figure... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Saiph · Mar 13, 2006

So the first guy to propose/document the idea was a priest...okay...that's not news (to me at least). Doesn't mean it's dogma, as priests, especially a few hundred years ago, were some of the only educated individuals around. Here's a tidbit for you: The first person to fully resolve/answer Olber's paradox, in writing at least, was none other than Edgar Allan Poe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

CalliArcale · Mar 13, 2006

I didn't know that! And I'm a bit of a Poe scholar. You have educated me, Saiph. Thank you. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> EDIT: Okay, I need more coffee. I just read a bit about that, and in fact I did know. I just forgot. <img src="/images/icons/shocked.gif" /> It is definitely true that a great many of the major forces in scientific advancement have been priests, monks, or otherwise a part of the religious hierarchy. And you've hit on exactly why. There were very few educated people in Europe even during the Enlightenment who were not closely involved with the Church in one way or another. Religion gets a bad rap, especially the big ones like Christianity and Islam, but in amidst all the terrible wrong that they have caused, they have also done some really valuable things, most notably preserving the written word. Literacy for a long time was largely the domain of religious scholars. This gradually changed, however, and nowdays literacy and education are so widely available they are no longer considered a luxury but a right. And that is a wonderful thing as far as science is concerned. It is good that religion kept literacy alive, but it's better when it doesn't have to carry the whole burden. After all, religion does impart certain biases on a person's thinking, and that can be a problem. Interestingly, this fact (that religious scholars were the main force behind intellectual advancement for many centuries in Europe) is why the language of science was Latin until relatively recently. (Some very old universities still conduct graduation ceremonies in Latin for the sake of that tradition.) Latin was the language of scholars because it was the language of the Church. And it was the language of the Church because it was the language of Rome, but that's a story for another thread. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

vogon13 · Mar 13, 2006

Hubble Deep Field didn't show any turtles, by the way. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

The Big Bang theory as a religious dogma

vidar

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

aetherius

Guest

vidar

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

Saiph

Guest

phenobarbara

Guest

commander_keen

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

jatslo

Guest

drwayne

Guest

jatslo

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

jatslo

Guest

drwayne

Guest

drwayne

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

Saiph

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

vogon13

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page