The Problem with Religious Moderation

[PassedOut]

The Big Bang theory was originally proposed by a Catholic priest as a method to validate religion via a scientific explanation - showing that there was a start to the universe instead of the universe being eternal. This idea was furthered by the explanation behind the redshift. If redshift does not mean expansion, there is no reason to accept a starting point to the universe - no start, no need for a starting god figure.

But we both doubt that the believers are going to become atheists because of a new scientific idea...

:unsure:

[Vampyr]

Because many people think that disproving the big bang (or evolution, modern geology, etc) is the same as proving biblical creationism.

 

Quite, and adding another entity goes nowhere toward solving the problem of existence.

[Vampyr]

duplicate post

[billw55]

The Big Bang theory was originally proposed by a Catholic priest as a method to validate religion via a scientific explanation - showing that there was a start to the universe instead of the universe being eternal. This idea was furthered by the explanation behind the redshift. If redshift does not mean expansion, there is no reason to accept a starting point to the universe - no start, no need for a starting god figure.

You mean Lemaitre. Yes he was the first to publish these ideas, but I have not read that he did it for theological reasons. Citation? I know you have one.

[jdeegan]

:P The dude is totally bogus. I AM JESUS CHRIST. What a pitiful poseur you present! Please, in the future, do not trouble us with your sorry examples.

[kenberg]

About Lemaitre: Looking up Hubble's Law on the Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law:

 

Although widely attributed to Edwin Hubble, the law was first derived from the General Relativity equations by Georges Lemaître in a 1927 article where he proposed that the Universe is expanding and suggested an estimated value of the rate of expansion, now called the Hubble constant.^{[3][4][5][6][7]} Two years later Edwin Hubble confirmed the existence of that law and determined a more accurate value for the constant that now bears his name.^[8] The recession velocity of the objects was inferred from their redshifts, many measured earlier by Vesto Slipher (1917) and related to velocity by him.

 

 

Now the Wik is not unchallengeable of course, but it's probably a place to start. Consider "first derived from the General Relativity equations by Georges Lemaître in a 1927 article". This suggests that whatever religious significance he might or might not have seen in Hubble's Law, the paper is based on scientific analysis, not on dictates from faith. Also "The recession velocity of the objects was inferred from their redshifts, many measured earlier by Vesto Slipher (1917) and related to velocity by him." is of interest. Comparing tis with the statement about Lemaitre, I gather that the movement of the galaxies away from each other was observed prior to Lemaitre, and Lemaitre's contribution was to show how tihs motion could be described, or perhaps explained, within the context of General Relativity. A very substantial; contribution.

 

While this refers to Hubble's Law rather than the Big Bang, obviously they are related.

 

I grew up at a time when Fred Hoyle and the Steady State Theory still had a substantial, although I think minority, following. To the best of my knowledge, no one I ever knew, theist, agnostic, or atheist, was holding his breath and planning on changing his religious views when the issue was settled. PassedOut made a similar observation above, as did brothgar.

 

 

 

[gwnn]

Why would you disbelieve what Alan John Miller says seeing as he is still alive, there are photographs and videos taken of him, but believe sayings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth decades or centuries after his death (/ascension)?

[Vampyr]

Why would you disbelieve what Alan John Miller says seeing as he is still alive, there are photographs and videos taken of him, but believe sayings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth decades or centuries after his death (/ascension)?

 

Probably most participants in this thread, with the exception of the OP, believe neither.

 

In any case, newer religions' claims are no more outlandish than those of religions that have been around awhile; but the latter acquire a certain patina over the years, and in some ways it is easier to believe claims of miracles and the like if they occurred long before living memory. We can see it happening today -- Mormonism is just on the edge of becoming mainstream.

[nige1]

I grew up at a time when Fred Hoyle and the Steady State Theory still had a substantial, although I think minority, following. To the best of my knowledge, no one I ever knew, theist, agnostic, or atheist, was holding his breath and planning on changing his religious views when the issue was settled. PassedOut made a similar observation above, as did brothgar.

IMO Ken is right. Belief in the flying spaghetti monster, God, religion, human rights, or indeed moral and ethical principles isn't scientific. Can you imagine experiments and observations to decide their veracity? If you value any of these as part of your philosophy, then Occam's razor is a constant castration threat.

[mike777]

IMO Ken is right. Belief in the flying spaghetti monster, God, religion, human rights, or indeed moral and ethical principles isn't scientific. Can you imagine experiments and observations to decide their veracity? If you value any of these as part of your philosophy, then Occam's razor is a constant castration threat.

 

Nige I hope you are not saying you cannot both live your life in the scientific method as a very important part of your philosophy and a belief in a higher supernatural power.

[nige1]

Nige I hope you are not saying you cannot both live your life in the scientific method as a very important part of your philosophy and a belief in a higher supernatural power.

Moral/ethical/religious beliefs are hard to explore scientifically. With appropriate hypotheses, however, you can argue deontologically. Paradoxically, William of Ockham would approve! :)

[Vampyr]

:P The dude is totally bogus. I AM JESUS CHRIST. What a pitiful poseur you present! Please, in the future, do not trouble us with your sorry examples.

 

Relax! The man says he is Jesus Christ and you don't agree -- there is no need to get upset about it.

[gwnn]

Probably most participants in this thread, with the exception of the OP, believe neither.

 

In any case, newer religions' claims are no more outlandish than those of religions that have been around awhile; but the latter acquire a certain patina over the years, and in some ways it is easier to believe claims of miracles and the like if they occurred long before living memory. We can see it happening today -- Mormonism is just on the edge of becoming mainstream.

That much is quite clear but allowing for this patina seems quite irrational. I was hoping 32519 would give other, better reasons for this distinction. Indeed, he even labelled everyone who believes this Australian couple to be (very) gullible.

 

I've been listening to some Youtube videos about apologetics these days and in one of them there is a whole chapter devoted to the question 'Did Jesus of Nazareth really declare himself to be the son of God?' and using a mix of circumstatial evidence and abstract reasoning eventually arriving to an affirmative conclusion. Well, at least for Alan John Miller we know this for a fact. Sure, Jesus is said to have performed miracles but the main argument for these accounts is something like 'but the Gospels don't read as embellished stories since they refer to real historical cities, rivers and Luke even recorded wind directions!' Not very convincing. For people who think otherwise I can offer: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1611224/

[Vampyr]

That much is quite clear but allowing for this patina seems quite irrational.

 

Yes, it is for sure. But the practice is very prevalent. For example, American presidents have always been, or professed to be, Christians, and they are not generally considered loony (at least not for that reason). Now if a Scientologist ran, well...

[blackshoe]

Many Presidents had no formal religious affiliation. Jefferson, who is widely regarded as having been a Deist (a popular view in his time) said "To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other."

[billw55]

I think it has always been assumed that a presidential candidate who openly professed to be non-christian would have no chance of getting elected, due to loss of christian votes. I certainly believe this was the case in the past; I wonder if it is really still true today.

[gwnn]

This might be on topic on whether they would vote for an atheist president (I had a video before but my poitn was this part of it):

 

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/Atheists-Trusted-Less-Than-Rapists.htm

Edited August 26, 2013 by gwnn

[kenberg]

I think it has always been assumed that a presidential candidate who openly professed to be non-christian would have no chance of getting elected, due to loss of christian votes. I certainly believe this was the case in the past; I wonder if it is really still true today.

 

 

Guessing: I think being Jewish would cost some votes, but not so many that it would prevent someone of the Jewish faith from becoming president. I expect s/he would have to be prepared to deal with more questions about the link between his/her religion and his/her politics than a Christian would, but religion is part of who a person is and I think it is reasonable to ask about how religious beliefs, or other fundamental attitudes toward life, would affect his/her conduct of the presidency. Supposedly Nancy Reagan consulted an astrologer from time to time. I imagine that most of us hope that astrological views played no role in her husband's decisions as president. I don't mean to be equating astrology with religion, I am only saying a worldview is important, and voters quite properly are interested in the basis on which a person acts.

 

 

These things are tricky. When I was young I had many jobs. Often they asked on the application form about my relgion and I put down Presbyterian. This was not a return to the faith of my upbringing, it was that I wanted the job. When I was finishing graduate school I figured it was time that I play it straight. I interviewed at a college that had a historically religious background but was not thought of as religions. It was clear that my lack of religious affiliation/commitment was a problem. A Jewish friend interviewed at a similar, but not the same, college. He reported that the only item of faith that was brought up was whether he would have objections to teaching on Saturdays. I get the idea that' in many cases, to get the job you need to believe in some God. It didn't matter much which one. Perhaps not Allah though, but this was not an issue I heard much about in my youth.

[mycroft]

Well, I just was involved in the process of getting a Saudi Arabian Visa. I'm told Jewish < Atheist < "non-Muslim" < various forms of Christianity < what's Right on the forms, for having the visa accepted.

[mike777]

Well, I just was involved in the process of getting a Saudi Arabian Visa. I'm told Jewish < Atheist < "non-Muslim" < various forms of Christianity < what's Right on the forms, for having the visa accepted.

 

 

Yet you still want one and do not refuse it even if perhaps at a great cost to you. :)

[mycroft]

That supposition is not necessarily supported by the evidence :-)

 

I *have* one. That doesn't mean I *want* it, or what the cost is. It's what the cost could have been if I didn't get it.

[32519]

A question to my Jewish brethren:

 

I cannot find the word "Satan" in the original Hebrew. If it does appear there, then where (what passages)?

 

I am not interested in the Westernised transliteration of the Greek word Satanas which became the word Satan simply by dropping the "as." The Hebrew has "Adversary" which became "Satan."

 

Can someone help? Billow55 or Art maybe?

[32519]

A question to my Jewish brethren:

 

I cannot find the word "Satan" in the original Hebrew. If it does appear there, then where (what passages)?

 

I am not interested in the Westernised transliteration of the Greek word Satanas which became the word Satan simply by dropping the "as." The Hebrew has "Adversary" which became "Satan."

 

Can someone help? Billow55 or Art maybe?

Is there anyone else who can help here? Your local Rabbi maybe?

 

The question is of paramount importance. The Hebrew Old Testament MUST confirm the New Testament. Any character or concept appearing in the New Testament which does not appear (or cannot be found, and thus confirmed by) in the Hebrew Old Testament, either, a) needs to be rejected as false/wrong, or b) the more likely reason, it is nothing more than a translation error which needs to be corrected.

 

For 2000 years now, non-Jews have been blaming everything that goes wrong (personal or otherwise), on this character (whom they gave the name Satan), supposedly a fallen angel and the source of all evil.

 

If this character cannot be found in the Hebrew Old Testament, it does not belong in the Westernised Bible either, both the Old and the New Testament.

[Vampyr]

The question is of paramount importance. The Hebrew Old Testament MUST confirm the New Testament. Any character or concept appearing in the New Testament which does not appear (or cannot be found, and thus confirmed by) in the Hebrew Old Testament, either, a) needs to be rejected as false/wrong, or b) the more likely reason, it is nothing more than a translation error which needs to be corrected.

 

So the Old Testament is immutable, while the New Testament is not? Why can it not be the other way round?

[Winstonm]

So the Old Testament is immutable, while the New Testament is not? Why can it not be the other way round?

 

What is the point in believing any claim of the supernatural that cannot be objectively verified, regardless of source?