Do evolution and bigbang always have to be in conflict with religion/spirituality/Philosophies?

[HonestJoe]

In my opinion, there are some beliefs, cultural beliefs and practices that are in tune with science.

Religion always isn't anti science.

I think the phrase “in tune with science” is a misnomer. It’s say that some cultural beliefs and practices are in tune with reality. Science is a formal process for determining the truth of things but it’s only really a more structured and controlled form of what people do naturally. We observe things, spot patterns, repeat observations and reach conclusions. The casual version is still going to reach some valid conclusions but it’s more open to the kind of bias and errors the formally structured version is designed to minimise.

Many long established cultural beliefs and practices will be based on some of those informal observations and thus will have some relation to the truth. The errors and bias remain though and as the practices become more matters of tradition or habit, they can become distanced from the real reasons they started.

Religion isn’t fundamentally anti-science but where the traditional beliefs and practices, with all the scope for ever increasing inaccuracy I’ve described, are favoured as unquestionable statements of fact over the view of reality based on the contemporary formal scientific practice, it presents an inevitable conflict.

 

[Thief]

Very much self-starting and self-sustaining. Read my post here: http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...s-future-of-the-universe.187181/#post-4744158

I took a quick look.....

and you would than argue against science?
an object at rest will remain at rest.

it won't move without a 'push'.

 

[Aupmanyav]

an object at rest will remain at rest. .. it won't move without a 'push'.

You know the (calculated) temperatures at the time of Big Bang, enough to change earth into a swift flowing river. Was it a push? It was a bang.

"Time ~ 1/100 Second: At this stage the temperature is about 100 billion Kelvin and the density is more than a billion times that of water. The Universe is expanding rapidly and is very hot; it consists of an undifferentiated soup of matter and radiation in thermal equilibrium. This temperature corresponds to an average energy of the particles of about 8.6 MeV (million electron-Volts)." http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/hotbb.html

 

[Quintessence]

I think you have a different take on "meaningful" than I do. How does a story that says, effectively, "Athena didn't actually breath life into you, but here's a story that pretends you did" express human wisdom?

I spoke to what was relevant in your post and ignored your attempt to lead the discussion down a rabbit hole.

You keep on over-reaching. I'm not talking about "the arts" in general; I'm talking about creation myths. Please stick to the topic at hand. And one specific example is not "everything".

I don't even know how to proceed here - I'm completely befuddled by your interpretation of things here. I'm apparently speaking a foreign language to you; responses like this tell me there are irreconcilable obstacles to overcome with respect to your understanding arts like mythos and storytelling. I don't think there is going to be any value to attempting to continue this dialogue with the language barriers present.

 

[Thief]

You know the (calculated) temperatures at the time of Big Bang, enough to change earth into a swift flowing river. Was it a push? It was a bang.

"Time ~ 1/100 Second: At this stage the temperature is about 100 billion Kelvin and the density is more than a billion times that of water. The Universe is expanding rapidly and is very hot; it consists of an undifferentiated soup of matter and radiation in thermal equilibrium. This temperature corresponds to an average energy of the particles of about 8.6 MeV (million electron-Volts)." http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/hotbb.html

still need the snap of God's fingers to account for the rotation

otherwise ....it was a simple bang and all we would see (if we could then exist)
would be a simple pulse of an energy wave
a hollow sphere expanding equally in all directions.

but that's not what we see when we look up

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't even know how to proceed here - I'm completely befuddled by your interpretation of things here. I'm apparently speaking a foreign language to you; responses like this tell me there are irreconcilable obstacles to overcome with respect to your understanding arts like mythos and storytelling. I don't think there is going to be any value to attempting to continue this dialogue with the language barriers present.

Frankly, I think it's your understanding that's the problem here. You seem unable or unwilling to accept that many, many people take the beliefs of their religions literally.

Maybe this quote from the Wikipedia article on origin myths - of which creation myths are one example - will help you understand where I'm coming from:

When the missionary and ethnologist C. Strehlow asked the Australian Arunta why they performed certain ceremonies, the answer was always: "Because the ancestors so commanded it." The Kai of New Guinea refused to change their way of living and working, and they explained: "It was thus that the Nemu (the Mythical Ancestors) did, and we do likewise." Asked the reason for a particular detail in a ceremony, a Navaho chanter answered: "Because the Holy People did it that way in the first place." We find exactly the same justification in the prayer that accompanies a primitive Tibetan ritual: "As it has been handed down from the beginning of the earth’s creation, so must we sacrifice. … As our ancestors in ancient times did—so do we now."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_myth

Notice that all of these statements are phrased as *literal* claims: "this practice was established at the beginning of things or by a supernatural god or ancestor, and our literal performance of it is part of an unbroken chain of tradition."

Edit: I get the impression that you assume that religious people engage with religious mythology and practice as some sort of theatre. I can still appreciate the value of actual theatre when I say "no, that's not what they're doing." Not generally, anyhow.

 

[Aupmanyav]

still need the snap of God's fingers to account for the rotation

And the same very God whose snap of fingers created the universe, failed the first time in creating the world that he wanted, and had to send a flood. And the very same God in his second attempt also failed and had to come to the world as Jesus to take on the sins of (his own created) humans. And even that has not succeeded, even now the earth is dominated by evil and Satan. Why does not he snap his fingers when evil takes over the world instead of sending most of humans to eternal hell. A monumental failure.

 

[Thief]

describing the event does not account for the Cause.....

 

[metis]

still need the snap of God's fingers to account for the rotation

otherwise ....it was a simple bang and all we would see (if we could then exist)
would be a simple pulse of an energy wave
a hollow sphere expanding equally in all directions.

but that's not what we see when we look up

Our universe supposedly "rotates" in reference to what?

Secondly, one simply should never assume uniformity, and such uniformity doesn't exist anywhere as far as we can tell. If I post a O, this seems uniform, but on closer examination you will see that it's really not.

 

[metis]

describing the event does not account for the Cause.....

At this point, there's simply no way to determine what "the Cause" may be, and "belief" is not the same as "evidence".

 

[Quintessence]

Frankly, I think it's your understanding that's the problem here. You seem unable or unwilling to accept that many, many people take the beliefs of their religions literally.

Alternatively, it's your understanding of my understanding which is wrong: I'm not sure where you got the above impression, but this isn't what I've said nor how I feel. I'm well aware that mythological literalism is the fad amongst some. I'm also well aware that it isn't among others, and that the manner in which peoples approach mythos is complex and often poorly-represented by (false) dichotomies like "literal vs. symbolic" or limiting the conversation to those issues.

 

[Thief]

Our universe supposedly "rotates" in reference to what?

Secondly, one simply should never assume uniformity, and such uniformity doesn't exist anywhere as far as we can tell. If I post a O, this seems uniform, but on closer examination you will see that it's really not.

so you don't see orbits....spirals.....rotations.....?

really?

 

[Thief]

At this point, there's simply no way to determine what "the Cause" may be, and "belief" is not the same as "evidence".

at this 'point'.....getting you to fess up.....might be the actual problem at hand.

substance is not 'self' starting.....

get the 'point'?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Alternatively, it's your understanding of my understanding which is wrong: I'm not sure where you got the above impression, but this isn't what I've said nor how I feel. I'm well aware that mythological literalism is the fad amongst some. I'm also well aware that it isn't among others, and that the manner in which peoples approach mythos is complex and often poorly-represented by (false) dichotomies like "literal vs. symbolic" or limiting the conversation to those issues.

The only dichotomy I presented was literal vs. non-literal, which isn't false at all. I mentioned a few examples of non-literal approaches, but never suggested they were the only game in town.

 

[metis]

so you don't see orbits....spirals.....rotations.....?

really?

I was referring to the universe as a whole, not its component parts?

Secondly, since nothing appears to be entirely uniform, if there weren't rotations and other movement, that would be the big surprise.

 

[metis]

at this 'point'.....getting you to fess up.....might be the actual problem at hand.

substance is not 'self' starting.....

get the 'point'?

Ya, the point is that you really don't have a clue what you're talking about, and any serious book on cosmology would likely tell you that. Ever hear of a concept called "infinity"? We don;t know if such exists, but it has to be considered in the running even if it doesn't coincide with your beliefs that you continually misrepresent as facts.

Since cosmologists have the highest rate of atheists and agnostics (overwhelmingly the latter, btw) of any of the sciences, that should tell you something-- "get the point"?

You have not one shred of evidence to support your claims, and yet you ask me if I "get the point"? Get real because you're not even operating out of even the most basic logic.

 

[Riverwolf]

You are somewhat unique. If I was in need of a belief system I suspect that I'd join you.

D'aww, shucks.

Though it also turns out that "belief" isn't even all that important in my religion. Tell me, if you were ever in Japan, would you pray at a Shinto Shrine, following the proper etiquette, even if you didn't literally believe in the enshrined Kami?

I'm not as unique as it might appear. I only look unique in the context of America's Christocentric culture.

 

[Riverwolf]

Maybe this quote from the Wikipedia article on origin myths - of which creation myths are one example - will help you understand where I'm coming from:

The quote is citing a missionary, whom I assume is a Christian missionary. Not the most reliable sort of person to be relaying accurate or complete information on non-Christian religions.

 

[Quintessence]

D'aww, shucks.

Though it also turns out that "belief" isn't even all that important in my religion. Tell me, if you were ever in Japan, would you pray at a Shinto Shrine, following the proper etiquette, even if you didn't literally believe in the enshrined Kami?

I'm not as unique as it might appear. I only look unique in the context of America's Christocentric culture.

My aim in referencing other arts was to try and help people understand how mythos is approached by... well... not the segment of Christocentric culture that happens to hinge on things like Biblical literalism and/or inerrancy. It can be approached in a similar fashion to what every child learns in literature courses in public education, where the interpretation and meaningfulness of various tales does not hinge upon the story "really happening" in the apparent world. I'd hazard to say that all humans are capable of appreciating a good story and deriving meaning from it, regardless of it's supposed literal truth (and frequently, the literal truth isn't the point).

As far as I'm aware, hinging meaning on historicity is a quirk of Abrahamic religions, specifically - and is characteristic of a few denominations/traditions within those demographics. That said, as a non-Abrahamic, I don't exactly go out of my way to read up on the history of Christianity, so I'm far from well-read in that area. I recall seeing things here and there that suggested that the contemporary caricature of Christianity (which includes things like literalism) is recent - I think connected to the rise of Evangelism in the 20s that wanted to combat other Protestant groups embracing Enlightenment values? Maybe I came across it when I had the patience to slog through Armstrong's "History of God" several years back... can't remember anymore.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I recall seeing things here and there that suggested that the contemporary caricature of Christianity (which includes things like literalism) is recent - I think connected to the rise of Evangelism in the 20s that wanted to combat other Protestant groups embracing Enlightenment values?

There has been literalism in Christianity as long as there has been Christianity. One example:

Socrates Scholasticus (born c. 380), in his Ecclesiastical History, gives a full description of the discovery[9] that was repeated later bySozomen and by Theodoret. In it he describes how Saint Helena, Constantine's aged mother, had the pagan temple destroyed and the Sepulchre uncovered, whereupon three crosses and the titulus from Jesus's crucifixion were uncovered as well. In Socrates's version of the story, Macarius had the three crosses placed in turn on a deathly ill woman. This woman recovered at the touch of the third cross, which was taken as a sign that this was the cross of Christ, the new Christian symbol. Socrates also reports that, having also found the nails with which Christ had been fastened to the cross, Helena sent these to Constantinople, where they were incorporated into the emperor's helmet and the bridle of his horse.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Cross