A Reminder To The Willfully Ignorant
Posted in Astronomy, Bible, Books, Faith, Quickies on | 1 minute | 16 Comments →
If you haven’t read it already, I highly suggest Neil Postman’s The End of Education. It isn’t about (a)theism per se—it’s actually about how the transcendent, unifying narratives of previous generations have been replaced by “gods” of consumerism, technology and economic utility—but Postman raises many points with direct import to (a)theist debate. For example,
…the Big Bang theory of modern astronomers is not so far from the story of the Beginning as found Genesis. The thought that a group of camel-riding Bedouins huddling around a fire in the desert night four thousand years ago might ponder the question of how the universe began and come up with a narrative that is similar to one accepted by MIT professors in the late twentieth century speaks of a continuity of human imagination that cannot fail to inspire. (p.112-113)
But of course, as most of the enlightened, rational atheists already know, there is no evidence for God. They may as well discard Postman’s candor entirely.
dale
says...The Nag Hammadi Library text describes God as
1) unknowable
2) unseeable (among other things, yet…)
3) ineffable
That type of stuff exists outside the realm of science, thus off topic for scientific atheists.
Unfortunately, scientific atheists refuse to admit lack of ability (in scientific terms) when it comes to the explaining the existence or lack of existence of a supreme being. Just because pontiffs within the historical church made mistakes in their lack of ability to discuss things of a highly scientific matter, which the Bible does not clearly state opinions of (such as the layout of our solar system) doesn’t mean that scientific atheists should be willing to make the same mistakes. Unless, this is not about scientific facts, but personal feelings, both positive and negative.
Can science use facts, as we know them now, to prove or disprove truth? Isn’t the furthest scientific facts can go is to a law? haven’t scientific facts become obsolete as time has progressed?
Religiously speaking, God is not bound by laws. Law comes from God, and God is truth. Sophia comes from God, not the other way around.
Andres
says...Actually, Genesis and Big Bang Cosmology look nothing alike. They do share one core: the universe had a beginning.
But, the chances of their getting it right were 50%.
Why is that impressive?
Bret
says...I think it’s entirely possible that cosmologists may be entirely wrong in regards to the Big Bang. It seems like any claim on the frontiers of knowledge, could in the future, be regarded as dead wrong. Actually it probably will be. To say that today’s cosmologists have arrived at their cosmological narrative through the same type of “imagination” as the campfire stories of yesteryear though, seems disanalogous.
The same type of comparison could be made with the Gods of yesteryear and the God of Christianity.
Dominic Saltarelli
says...Reminds me of the first few chapters of “The Big Bang Never Happened” by Eric Lerner. Good book, wish I knew what I did with it.
Peter Hurford
says...Similar to the one accepted by MIT professors? How similar is “similar”? For example, I doubt MIT scientists endorse a theory where the Earth came into existence at the same time as the entire universe, that the Earth came into existence before the Sun, that plants came into existence before the Sun, that day and night on Earth came into existence before the Sun, that our solar system came into existence before all other stars, that birds came before land creatures, and that no sea creatures came after land creatures.
Nevermind the whole “how long is a day, really” thing, as I doubt the camel-riding Bedouins endorsed the requisite billions of years now specific to all Big Bang Cosmology. But I guess I’m just willfully ignorant, so that settles it.
jason
says...peter,
i think you’re intentionally misrepresenting mr. postman’s point. the point is that the Bible (written thousands of years ago by people the modern science community would view as the intellectual equivalent of barbarians) teaches the doctrine of creation ex nihilo which lines up exactly with the most probable scientific explanation that modern cosmology has thus far presented for the existence of the universe.
the details described in the bible regarding the order of the sun, plants, etc… has no bearing on the origin of the universe. moreover, these objections to the creation narrative in the Bible have been addressed ad nauseam by Christian apologists. you may disagree with such apologetics but that’s on you.
Thinking Emotions
says...I’m not quite sure the most probable scientific theories are promoting creation ex nihilo. A physicist and philosopher have very different conceptions of “nothing,” and the nothing physicists are talking about is actually some sort of “something.” Regardless, I can see the central point in the Postman quote and I kind of get where you’re coming from.
Passing reference to Lawrence Krauss: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/story/2012-02-04/lawrence-krauss-universe/52951768/1
Peter Hurford
says...Aww shucks, you caught me. I often love *intentionally* misrepresenting points because I hate dialogue and argument!
~
It’s very easy to talk about how amazingly accurate the Bible is if you point only to the hits and discard the misses. It also doesn’t help that guessing creation ex nihilo doesn’t seem particularly hard…
Besides, I’m not even sure how certain modern cosmology is over creation ex nihilo. See “Does Big Bang Cosmology Prove the Universe Had a Beginning?”.
~
It’s very difficult to respond to these answers if you don’t tell me where they are or attempt to summarize them, because if they’re making demonstrable errors of fact or reasoning, it really is on them and not me.
joseph
says...I don’t think it’s explicitly teaching creation ex nihilo, I think theologians disagree over this, perhaps you could say creation ex nihilo is the mainstream interpretation.
jason
says...peter,
sorry, peter, i call them like i see them. that’s not to say that i never call them wrong but the the point seemed too obvious to just, as it seems to me you did, gloss over and then take a shot at the narrative of Genesis to make a point of your own. i do sincerely apologize, though. it was uncharitable of me to not give you the benefit of the doubt.
i haven’t conceded that there are any misses.
really? perhaps in hindsight it doesn’t sound so extraordinary but as an original, first time hypothesis, it would seem to me that creation ex nihilo would be extremely counter intuitive and not easily concluded since its never been observed to happen.
I think most cosmologists are very certain. They almost always go in the direction the evidence points and in 2003 Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin evidenced that any universe which on average is in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning.
Vilenkin states:
“It is said that that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”
Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One, 176.
Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin, “Inflation is not Past Eternal,” 4.
Alexander Vilenkin, “Quantum Cosmology and Eternal Inflation,”11
i don’t see how referencing anything post-universe is germane to mr. postman’s discussion on the beginning of the universe but if you’re truly interested here’s one source:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=1131
cl
says...Atheists can hem and haw and quip ill-thought-out retorts like, “they had a 50/50 chance duh,” but that just shows what short thrift they’re actually paying the issue. First off—and Postman already clarified this in the OP so there’s really no excuse to have missed it—we’re considering the similarities between the beginning of the universe as described by contemporary physics and Genesis. I realize some of you are really touchy about evolution vs. creationism, but we’re not talking about evolution, or whether grass came before fish, or what type of leaf Adam covered his weenie with. Questions about the order of things that occurred after the beginning of the universe are out-of-place here. Peter, as one who often champions staying on topic, I’m surprised to see you digress there. At any rate, now I digress.
The first verse of Genesis says that the “heavens” (cosmos) and “earth” had a “beginning,” and that is the resounding conclusion of modern science. jason already provided one pertinent citation. Here’s another, and I could provide literally hundreds more:
Now, if it were only a choice between beginning and no beginning then this “50/50” retort might be a little more respectable. We could even make a prediction that roughly 50% of creation stories would get it correct, and roughly 50% would get it incorrect. However, looking at this list, nearly every creation story (approx. 18 out of 20) described a “beginning.” How does the “50/50” theory explain that?
But that’s beside the point. It isn’t just that the Genesis says there was a beginning. Going further, the third verse describes the first act, “let there be light,” and NASA tells us vis-a-vis WMAP that the universe began in a flash of light so bright we can still see the afterglow. Return to the aforementioned list of creation stories, and answer: approximately how many of them describe a beginning of the universe, with light?
Now, even if you come to your senses and properly admit that the Bible’s description of the beginning of the universe comports quite nicely with that of contemporary physics, you *CAN* still say, “Okay cl, but what about the misses?” I’ve never denied that there are apparent discrepancies between some of Genesis 1/2 and modern science. We can have a discussion about them. That’s beside the point.
What you *CAN’T* say—and what you must retract if you’re a person who values intellectual honesty—is that there’s “no evidence” for the God of the Bible.
Claims that there is “no evidence” for the God of the Bible can only result from dishonesty or ignorance.
joseph
says...Also look at the Shinto creation story, for example:
Creation of Heaven and Earth
The Shinto creation story begins by describing the means by which Heaven and Earth were separated. Initially, both were combined into a substance analogous to an egg. This mass contained germs within indefinite borders. As this composition separated, the purer, clear element rose out, forming Heaven. The denser, impure substance sank to become Earth. Heaven formed easily, thus was completed first. Earth, however, evolved with more trouble, and therefore developed later.
The cosmic egg idea parallels the idea of a singularity, the heavens forming first followed by denser substances forming earth, and earth takimg time to become inhabitable are all present in this account.
joseph
says...Or Hindu’s Maha Yugas, which at 4,320,000 years, seem to have a better idea of the scales of time involved.
joseph
says...Not to leave the Norse out here’s a website by a nice guy who assures us they were bang on:
http://www.native-science.net/Creation.Myth.Norse.htm
dale
says...RE: Also look at the Shinto creation story, for example:
Creation of Heaven and Earth
The Shinto creation story begins by describing the means by which Heaven and Earth were separated. Initially, both were combined into a substance analogous to an egg. This mass contained germs within indefinite borders. As this composition separated, the purer, clear element rose out, forming Heaven. The denser, impure substance sank to become Earth. Heaven formed easily, thus was completed first. Earth, however, evolved with more trouble, and therefore developed later.
The cosmic egg idea parallels the idea of a singularity, the heavens forming first followed by denser substances forming earth, and earth takimg time to become inhabitable are all present in this account.
If anyone is willing to consider Gnostic Christian cosmology stories as being worth the consideration of the average Christian’s perspective on the creation of the heavens and earth, and as not being completely blasphemous, it and this Shinto version of universal origin have striking similarities.
joseph
says...Dale,
Is there any way you could include a link please? When I search myself I find a story of Sophia giving birth to the demiurge…which does not seem to be what you’re getting at.