Lemaître, the BB, & theism vs atheism

[gnostic]

In several threads, Guy Threepwood would frequently make the argument of the Big Bang vs Steady State, Georges Lemaître vs Fred Hoyle, theism vs atheism.

For me, the Big Bang cosmology is just about science, especially on astrophysics, astronomy and physical cosmology. This cosmology (BB) has nothing to do with God, religion vs science, theism vs atheism, and all that junk.

To Threepwood, it is a big win for theism and Christians, because according to threepwood, the Big Bang is theism, because Georges Lemaître was a Christian - a Belgian Catholic priest - but also a theoretical physicist, and one of great scientist who wrote paper, on the inflationary universe or expanding universe, which was later to become known as the Big Bang theory.

And threepwood takes delight at pointing out that atheism loses because Fred Hoyle wrote a competing cosmological model, known as the Steady State (SS) model, because Hoyle was a known atheist.

To threepwood, the BB is not physics, but a battleground between theism and atheism.

Personally, I couldn't care less what religious background a scientist has, as long as it doesn't interfere with his study, research, discovery, etc, in the field he is in, and as long as his hypothesis and theory is testable or verifiable.

I do accept the Big Bang model because it's theory has a number evidences that verify it to be true, and not because of Lemaître being a theist.

What are your thoughts?

Do you think any cosmology be about the science?

Or do you think it should be about theism vs atheism?

 

[Revoltingest]

Cosmology & atheism have no connection to me whatsoever.
The same is true for other atheists I know, most of whom are
in non-science fields.
I suspect someone is looking for validation of a religion.

 

[Deathbydefault]

What are your thoughts?

Science is knowledge, something removed from the philosophy of theism and atheism.
I would say being an atheist makes it somewhat easier to accept science, but that's not really measurable.

There are plenty of religious people who make scientific breakthroughs (like the BB and the human genome).
There are plenty of religious people in general, so it's not that surprising.
But his point is void as Christians are not the only ones to improve science, science isn't geared towards religion.

 

[gnostic]

Science is knowledge, something removed from the philosophy of theism and atheism.

Agreed.

I would say being an atheist makes it somewhat easier to accept science, but that's not really measurable.

Again, agreed. It does matter what religious background a scientist may have, as long as any statement, hypothesis or theory he (or she) presented is testable or verifiable. Anyone can be scientist, as long as scientist have the education or experiences to do the research or discover evidences that support his or her statements.

I don't have any issue of Lemaître being a Catholic monk. My problem is with Guy Threepwood, with him attempting to turn into a contest between atheism and theism.

Science has nothing to do with either theism or atheism, or with any other religious groups.

 

[gnostic]

Cosmology & atheism have no connection to me whatsoever.
The same is true for other atheists I know, most of whom are
in non-science fields.

I feel the same way.

I have a number of atheists cousins, who most ventured into business, like accounting or marketing, and they don't understand the concept of Big Bang, so they are neither for nor against BB.

I suspect someone is looking for validation of a religion.

Yeah, he did again, in a different thread, very recent. In fact, in his replies to you, Revoltingest, in Settling the evolution/Genesis problem once and for all.

The funny thing is, he kept bringing up the Big Bang in a topic about evolution and creationism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Science has nothing to do with either theism or atheism, or with any other religious groups.

I do not think that is correct. Religions make claims on creation of the universe and evolution, science has its own theories about it. Same with karma/rebirth/soul/consciousness and so many other things. So the two intercept at many points.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Maybe you should tag a guy if you're gonna mention him in your post.

Anyway, science shouldn't be related to theism or atheism, absolutely agreed.

The example of LeMaitre is useful though for those who take the view that only atheists were scientists, especially in the 20th century. Not to validate religion, but to dispel the notion that scientists can't be religious, or that religion somehow hinders their scientific inquiry, or that all major scientists are atheists.

 

[gnostic]

I do not think that is correct. Religions make claims on creation of the universe and evolution, science has its own theories about it. Same with karma/rebirth/soul/consciousness and so many other things. So the two intercept at many points.

First, theism and atheism ONLY deal with the questions of God's existence, not the creation, and certainly nothing relating to science. One side believe in God's existence, the other side don't. That's not science, that just acceptance or rejection of the same question.

Second, Evolution is biology, relating to why life changes (hence biodiversity) over a number of generations (hence time); evolution has nothing to do with the origin of first life.

You want to study science that deal with the origin of first life, or how living matters were formed or developed from non-living matters, then this is abiogenesis, not evolution.

Third, this is not topic about evolution, but about the physical cosmologies - the Big Bang and Steady State models, about Lemaître vs Hoyle, and how Guy Threepwood tried to turn the Big Bang into atheism vs theism circus.

Threepwood is trying to claim that the Big Bang theory is a victory for theism and Christianity.

I am stating that science, including the Big Bang, is a religion-neutral knowledge gathering or fact finding, that has nothing to do with the fight between theism and atheism.

Science favor neither atheism, nor theism, because science is not a theological matter.

Do you understand now, the purposes of this thread?

Theists and atheists (as well as agnostics, deists, wiccans, etc) can be scientists, because science is not and should not be governed by what people believe in.

 

[gnostic]

Maybe you should tag a guy if you're gonna mention him in your post.

I have already let Guy know about the new thread.

I did so, so that he wouldn't hijacking other threads that have nothing to do with the Big Bang or any other physical cosmologies.

The example of LeMaitre is useful though for those who take the view that only atheists were scientists, especially in the 20th century. Not to validate religion, but to dispel the notion that scientists can't be religious, or that religion somehow hinders their scientific inquiry, or that all major scientists are atheists.

Agreed.

I have never claimed that science and atheism are synonymous with each other.

My point that Lemaître didn't introduce the expanding universe model because of Catholicism (or Christianity) or of theism, but because he shared his passion with other physicists of his time - a natural curiosity of how the world works through physics.

I get the impression that Guy is trying to bum every atheists into Hoyle's camp, simply because Hoyle is (or was, I don't know if remember if he is still alive or not) atheist, while Lemaître was a theist.

No atheists here (or agnostics, like me) accept Hoyle's long debunked theory, not because of theism vs atheism, but because all the evidences discovered, so far points to the Big Bang being true.

The question is why does Threepwood keep bringing up Hoyle, when no one follow Hoyle. I think Threepwood have agenda, of generalising what atheists accept, simply on the basis of Hoyle being "atheist".

 

[Laika]

In several threads, Guy Threepwood would frequently make the argument of the Big Bang vs Steady State, Georges Lemaître vs Fred Hoyle, theism vs atheism.

For me, the Big Bang cosmology is just about science, especially on astrophysics, astronomy and physical cosmology. This cosmology (BB) has nothing to do with God, religion vs science, theism vs atheism, and all that junk.

To Threepwood, it is a big win for theism and Christians, because according to threepwood, the Big Bang is theism, because Georges Lemaître was a Christian - a Belgian Catholic priest - but also a theoretical physicist, and one of great scientist who wrote paper, on the inflationary universe or expanding universe, which was later to become known as the Big Bang theory.

And threepwood takes delight at pointing out that atheism loses because Fred Hoyle wrote a competing cosmological model, known as the Steady State (SS) model, because Hoyle was a known atheist.

To threepwood, the BB is not physics, but a battleground between theism and atheism.

Personally, I couldn't care less what religious background a scientist has, as long as it doesn't interfere with his study, research, discovery, etc, in the field he is in, and as long as his hypothesis and theory is testable or verifiable.

I do accept the Big Bang model because it's theory has a number evidences that verify it to be true, and not because of Lemaître being a theist.

What are your thoughts?

Do you think any cosmology be about the science?

Or do you think it should be about theism vs atheism?

The issue is that "athiesm" is not a single set of beliefs but multiple ones. Some Atheists don't view the Big Bang as a problem because they view the problem of God's existence in isolation so the "lack of evidence" for god doesn't change their scepticism. Those atheists who would assert that "there is no god" as a knowledge cliam necessarily have to demonstrate it and the Big Bang is a problem. When someone asks "what caused the big bang" you start running off the list of things it cannot be without Time, Space or Matter inside the Universe it starts looking like god is a plausible answer. It also creates problems of what can and cannot be proven given that you can't really tell what is "beyond" the universe, so it's alot of philosophy involved. For the latter group (Including Soviet Science back in the 1950's) steady state was a much "safer" answer in terms of demonstrating atheism as true. It wasn't until the discovery of "cosmic microwave background radiation" that the issue started to settle in favour of the Big Bang in the 1970s.

 

[Aupmanyav]

evolution has nothing to do with the origin of first life. .. then this is abiogenesis, not evolution. I am stating that science, including the Big Bang, .. Science favor neither atheism, nor theism, because science is not a theological matter. .. Do you understand now, the purposes of this thread?

Abiogenesis according to science is formation of complex molecules, RNA, DNA. Then evolution, whether the unicellular cells evolved into monkeys and later to humans is evolution. Both intersect with religion. We do not know all about Big-Bang (if it happened), that again will conflict with the seven-day creation in Christianity and with creation stories in other religions too. It may not turn out to be religion-neutral, because Hinduism and Buddhism have theories which are close to 'ex-nihilo'. Science and religion are not two separate things, they are about searching for knowledge and rejection of false knowledge and hear-say. I do not know if after reading my post, you would say that I have understood the purposes of this thread or not. You are the judge.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Do you think any cosmology be about the science?

I think all cosmology should be about the science. Trying to make a religious argument about it is pretty lame.

 

[viole]

In several threads, Guy Threepwood would frequently make the argument of the Big Bang vs Steady State, Georges Lemaître vs Fred Hoyle, theism vs atheism.

For me, the Big Bang cosmology is just about science, especially on astrophysics, astronomy and physical cosmology. This cosmology (BB) has nothing to do with God, religion vs science, theism vs atheism, and all that junk.

To Threepwood, it is a big win for theism and Christians, because according to threepwood, the Big Bang is theism, because Georges Lemaître was a Christian - a Belgian Catholic priest - but also a theoretical physicist, and one of great scientist who wrote paper, on the inflationary universe or expanding universe, which was later to become known as the Big Bang theory.

And threepwood takes delight at pointing out that atheism loses because Fred Hoyle wrote a competing cosmological model, known as the Steady State (SS) model, because Hoyle was a known atheist.

To threepwood, the BB is not physics, but a battleground between theism and atheism.

Personally, I couldn't care less what religious background a scientist has, as long as it doesn't interfere with his study, research, discovery, etc, in the field he is in, and as long as his hypothesis and theory is testable or verifiable.

I do accept the Big Bang model because it's theory has a number evidences that verify it to be true, and not because of Lemaître being a theist.

What are your thoughts?

Do you think any cosmology be about the science?

Or do you think it should be about theism vs atheism?

If I am not mistaken Lemaitre himself advised the pope not to draw any theological significance from his discovery. So, this is a no issue. Maybe he should have advised WL Craig, too. Bummer.

The funny thing is that inflationary cosmology, at the heart of modern BB cosmology, entails also a virtual infinity of Universes with different physical properties. So, any deployment of confirmation bias for the BB comes at the steep price of annihilating fine tuning or teleological arguments, even if they had any value for single Universes.

And we should not forget that evolution by natural selection is still alive and kicking. There is no Lemaitre showing how it can be wrong, despite being around for a longer time than BB cosmology. For some mysterious reason the "atheistic conspiracy" has been "defeated" in cosmology but not in biology. If atheists were really so powerful, then we should still believe in a steady state. And if they are no so powerful to enforce negation of counter evidence, why do we still accept evolution as scientific othodoxy?

All this assuming that there is really an atheistic conspiracy in science. But that has the same evidence as the evidence some theists claim God has. They seem to believe in a whole lot of things, I expect.

Ciao

- viole

 

[gnostic]

If I am not mistaken Lemaitre himself advised the pope not to draw any theological significance from his discovery. So, this is a no issue. Maybe he should have advised WL Craig, too. Bummer.

Yes, that's right.

To Pius XII.

By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism. However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory.[18][19] When Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's science advisor, tried to persuade the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly anymore, the Pope agreed. He persuaded the Pope to stop making proclamations about cosmology.[20] While a devout Roman Catholic, he was against mixing science with religion,[21] though he also was of the opinion that these both fields of human experience were not in conflict.

Clearly, he didn't want his pope and his church of taking advantage of his work on astrophysics and cosmology, and using as a victory for Catholicism. He clearly wanted Catholic Church and his physics to be kept apart.

Something that Guy Threepwood can't do.

 

[gnostic]

It may not turn out to be religion-neutral, because Hinduism and Buddhism have theories which are close to 'ex-nihilo'. Science and religion are not two separate things, they are about searching for knowledge and rejection of false knowledge and hear-say. I do not know if after reading my post, you would say that I have understood the purposes of this thread or not.

Science follow the evidences, and only evidences can validate any theory or hypothesis being "true".

But evidences are not just used to prove one's theory (or hypothesis) of being true. Evidences can also debunk or refute any given hypothesis or theory.

Debunked or refuted theories(and hypotheses) are discarded and should be discarded, if they can't be verified or validated, through empirical evidences or through rigorous testings.

Showing a statement, hypothesis or theory to be false is just as important as showing them to be true.

That's why falsification (any statement has to be testable and refutable), scientific method (formulating hypothesis and method of testing the hypothesis or finding verifiable evidences) and peer review are so important, to weed out bad science, and to provide some mean of objectively gathering knowledge. Each one provide a mean of showing which are true and which are false, as well as correcting and updating past accepted theories. Each one provide a mean for science for self correcting.

That's what make science so much better than religion in finding knowledge and verifying it if they are true.

Religion relies on faith and belief, even Hinduism and Buddhism. It rely more on accepting mythology as being true, than on verification.

And religion doesn't have the mechanism of self-correcting wrong or faulty belief.

That's what make science and religion different.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Religion relies on faith and belief, even Hinduism and Buddhism. It rely more on accepting mythology as being true, than on verification. .. That's what make science and religion different.

In Hinduism (and Buddhism), it is a matter of a person's choice. One can believe on mythology or one can reject it. There are alternatives. I reject mythology and Gods (and Goddesses - not just that but many other things - creation, birth, death, heaven, hell, karma, rebirth), but I am still an orthodox Hindu following non-duality (advaita) and the scriptures. That is why I maintain that science and religion are not different. I do not have a problem with theist Hindus. They do their thing, I do mine. For Buddhism, Member Banjankri is an example.

Hinduism is a bit different. What goes for other religions cannot always be applied to Hinduism.