Do Most Atheists Know that science..... Part 2

[Mark Felt]

As far as I can recall, so was Jefferson.

That was sort of my point.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Er, Jefferson didn't have modern sensibilities about slavery but he did see it as an evil and tried to get legislation passed in his home state that would have allowed him to legally free his slaves when he was alive rather freeing them in his will...I'm not sure what the legal issues were, something to do with his debts and estate and having 'inherited' them. You can fault him for not being an abolitionist or otherwise doing more against slavery, but he was at least aware that slavery was wrong.

 

[articulett]

This is to all extent and purposes just a rehash of a previous thread, I will leave this one open and close the "original" however any further such breaches (which you have been previously warned about) will result in further action which may include suspension or banning.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

Actually modern science "theorizes" that the approximate 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the observable universe came from not only something smaller than a pea but something smaller than a single atom. I used a pea though because we can actually visualize its size.

By golly, I didn't know this, and I'm an atheist. I thought that matter, time, and space all arose from a singular event/point, but I guess you could say it your way. So, what are the competing theories and what is the evidence for them? How does the evidence compare with the scientific evidence? I don't think contradictory evidence will make me believe in any invisible men, but if there's enough evidence for an alternating theory, I'm willing to change my mind on the issue. So what have you got, Doc?

In my experience, when scientists don't have the answer, no magic man or guru does either--though lots insert their magic stories into the parts they don't understand or that science hasn't fully explained. Humans are funny that way--always making up tall tales to explain that which they can't make sense of... until we can make sense of it, of course.

Hey, what do Scientologists believe about the creation of the universe... and is there any more evidence for any of the religious stories than they have? 'Just curious. I bet they have a cool story. Have you checked it out, Doc? I'm looking forward to hearing the major hypothesis and the evidence behind them.

 

[Mark Felt]

Hey, what do Scientologists believe about the creation of the universe... and is there any more evidence for any of the religious stories than they have?

Something, something something... 76 trillion years ago... Something, something, something... DC 10's...

 

[arthwollipot]

Er, Jefferson didn't have modern sensibilities about slavery but he did see it as an evil and tried to get legislation passed in his home state that would have allowed him to legally free his slaves when he was alive rather freeing them in his will...I'm not sure what the legal issues were, something to do with his debts and estate and having 'inherited' them. You can fault him for not being an abolitionist or otherwise doing more against slavery, but he was at least aware that slavery was wrong.

Thanks for clarifying. There's always more to learn about the history of other countries. Remind me to tell you about Governor Philip and his Merinos some time

 

[articulett]

Something, something something... 76 trillion years ago... Something, something, something... DC 10's...

Thanks... almost as convincing as Kalem's cosmological argument from 1st cause and the turtles all the way down story. (BTW, interesting screen name, Deep Throat. )

 

[jj]

Well, well, ok, if we're going to posit some kind of supernatural beginning, which one will we posit?

It's not like we only have one or two to choose from. Coyote, dreamtime, Judeo-christian, Garuda Bird, ...

Even if we take the Judeo-Christian one, which of the stories in Genesis do we accept? Why is the other one there?

 

[arthwollipot]

Even if we take the Judeo-Christian one, which of the stories in Genesis do we accept? Why is the other one there?

Oooh, don't let drkitten hear you say that.

 

[Fredrik]

Oooh, don't let drkitten hear you say that.

Why? Does he have a good answer to that? If there is one, I'd like to hear it.

 

[drkitten]

Oooh, don't let drkitten hear you say that.

Too late.

My suggestion is that you take neither of them literally as truth. (Well, my actual suggestion is that the whole religion is a load of codswallop, but I have a lot more theological support from actual believers for the first suggestion.) There's a strong tradition of storytelling in both Judaic history and in Christian theology, and as we all know, two different versions of the same story will often differ in detail, if if the story actually describes historical events.

If you assume further that the story is at least partly (or even entirely) metaphor, then there's no reason that both metaphors can't be truly illustrative of the underlying reality.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Here's an extract from a critique of Jastrow's book God and the Astronomers. It comes from Denis Dutton, of Sky and Telescope magazine:

...snip...
God and the Astronomers offers a short and very elementary survey of twentieth-century discoveries in cosmology, to which the author has added some startling and remarkably unsupported observations about the bearing those discoveries have on religion. “The details differ,” he writes, “but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.” The details differ indeed: the author of Genesis speaks of the earth in the beginning as “being without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” He tells us that “the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” before God said at last, “Let there be light.” These are profoundly enigmatic words. To suppose that they must amount to a description of the Big Bang is a speculation which goes far beyond the reasonable limits of evidence.

If, of course, the essential elements Jastrow sees as shared by Genesis and Big Bang theory are merely that both talk about some sort of cosmic beginning, then his thesis is hardly notable, though he might have pointed out that the creation myths of virtually all religions share that element too. If the Big Bang cosmology supports the Bible of the Jews and the Christians (except for those “differing details”), then it just as well stands as evidence for the creation stories of the Nepalese, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Chinese, or the Hopi. The terms “beginning” and “creation,” applied to the context of cosmology, are notoriously tricky, and Professor Jastrow’s ambiguous use of them is indicative of a carelessness that prevails throughout his whole enterprise. The act of divine creation described in Genesis is a creation by God ex nihilo. The God of traditional theology did not rearrange or remake a previously existing world, he created one from nothing. Throughout most of God and the Astronomers, Jastrow talks about the Big Bang as though it constitutes this sort of unique and miraculous beginning.

But as things turn out, this is apparently not what he means, since toward the end of his book he speculates that the Big Bang may have been one of a series of cosmic explosions that alternate with cosmic collapses. We cannot have it both ways: if the Big Hang thus represents a moment in the history of an oscillating universe, it must not be the moment of absolute creation spoken of in Genesis.
...snip...

Needless to say, Jastrow's views were his own, and do not in any sense represent the consensus of the scientific community.

I'll add that the quotes used by DOC from Jastrow appear to date from the late '70's, and so would predate the bulk of modern superstring theory, among other strides forward.

 

[godless dave]

In my experience, when scientists don't have the answer, no magic man or guru does either

That's the heart of the matter.

 

[Hokulele]

Serious deja-vu

The only thing that is lacking so far is DOC finding some document on the net from a respectable scientist that appears to support his position...

Hmm.

Robert Jastrow, the man who has been director of the Mount Wilson Observatory (the place where Edwin Hubble worked) and the founder of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies would disagree with you.

Here is an excerpt from the book "I Don't Have enough Faith to be an Atheist" by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. (pg 84 - 85)

[In light of Jastrow's personal agnosticism, his theistic quotations are all the more provacative. After explaining some of the Big Bang evidence we've just reviewed, Jastrow writes, "Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world.. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy".

The overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang and it consistency with the biblical account in Genesis led Jastrow to observe in an interview, "Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet , every living thing in the cosmos and on the earth. And they found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover... That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."]

Aaaaaand check.

 

[DOC]

Serious deja-vu

The only thing that is lacking so far is DOC finding some document on the net from a respectable scientist that appears to support his position...

Well, I have some quotes from Robert Jastrow, an agnostic and the Founding director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1961 where he served until his retirement from NASA in 1981. He was also a former director of the Mount Wilson observatory.

From Wiki's article on Robert Jastrow:

Quotes by Jastrow:

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

"There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]. They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgements to come from the brain. Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science, it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the universe, and every effect must have its cause, there is no first cause...

This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control...

Consider the enormity of the problem. Science has proven that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks, what cause produced the effect? Who or what put the matter and energy in the universe? Was the universe created out of nothing, or was it gathered together out of pre existing materials? And science cannot answer these questions".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Jastrow

 

[wahrheit]

Well, I have some quotes from Robert Jastrow, an agnostic and the Founding director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1961 where he served until his retirement from NASA in 1981. He was also a former director of the Mount Wilson observatory.

Hokulele, Arthwollipot. Don't forget to check off "Appeal to Authority" on your Bingo Cards.

Oh, wait. Never mind. I just see it's already marked with a dozen crosses.

 

[joobz]

Hokulele, Arthwollipot. Don't forget to check off "Appeal to Authority" on your Bingo Cards.

Oh, wait. Never mind. I just see it's already marked with a dozen crosses.

Well if appeal to authority is good enough for one of the world's great apologists, it's good enough for DOC.

 

[DOC]

Well if appeal to authority is good enough for one of the world's great apologists, it's good enough for DOC.

When Robert Jastrow says this:

"That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."

he sounds like he's appealing to logic and science, not authority.

 

[Mashuna]

When Robert Jastrow says this:

"That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."

he sounds like he's appealing to logic and science, not authority.

And when you quote him, you're appealing to authority.

 

[joobz]

When Robert Jastrow says this:

"That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."

he sounds like he's appealing to logic and science, not authority.

When you and the "world's great apologist" quote Jastrow, that is an appeal to authority.


BTW, he isn't appealing to logic and science.

 

[articulett]

Too late.

My suggestion is that you take neither of them literally as truth. (Well, my actual suggestion is that the whole religion is a load of codswallop, but I have a lot more theological support from actual believers for the first suggestion.) There's a strong tradition of storytelling in both Judaic history and in Christian theology, and as we all know, two different versions of the same story will often differ in detail, if if the story actually describes historical events.

If you assume further that the story is at least partly (or even entirely) metaphor, then there's no reason that both metaphors can't be truly illustrative of the underlying reality.

But if it's a metaphor... then there is no "original sin"... and that means Jesus was killed for a metaphor-- so you see why DOC has to dance about don't you?