Hitchslap on the Big Bang

I’m sure you’ve all heard that the “Big Bang” was proposed by a Roman Catholic priest. Besides that not meaning anything, it really distorts the truth.
Christopher Hitchens provided some insight, and I did a little research on just how that all came down.
The Pope and the Big Bang]

I'm sure you've all heard that the "Big Bang" was proposed by a Roman Catholic priest. Besides that not meaning anything, it really distorts the truth. Christopher Hitchens provided some insight, and I did a little research on just how that all came down. The Pope and the Big Bang]
Of couse, the Big Bang occurred about 6000 years ago and took six days. It was a drawn-out bang. Lois
I'm sure you've all heard that the "Big Bang" was proposed by a Roman Catholic priest. Besides that not meaning anything, it really distorts the truth. Christopher Hitchens provided some insight, and I did a little research on just how that all came down. The Pope and the Big Bang]
Of couse, the Big Bang occurred about 6000 years ago and took six days. It was a drawn-out bang. Lois Right, once you take something like a quantum singularity or a black hole and start trying to translate it into a "beginning" or a "creation", you can say just about anything like, "time before time", or "prime mover", and it will make just as much sense. I kinda wish they had made this dogma. It would have been interesting to watch them try to keep up with Feynman, Krauss and Hawking.
I'm sure you've all heard that the "Big Bang" was proposed by a Roman Catholic priest. Besides that not meaning anything, it really distorts the truth. Christopher Hitchens provided some insight, and I did a little research on just how that all came down. The Pope and the Big Bang]
Of couse, the Big Bang occurred about 6000 years ago and took six days. It was a drawn-out bang. Lois Right, once you take something like a quantum singularity or a black hole and start trying to translate it into a "beginning" or a "creation", you can say just about anything like, "time before time", or "prime mover", and it will make just as much sense. I kinda wish they had made this dogma. It would have been interesting to watch them try to keep up with Feynman, Krauss and Hawking. When they can't keep up they dismiss them as godless. Lois
I'm sure you've all heard that the "Big Bang" was proposed by a Roman Catholic priest. Besides that not meaning anything, it really distorts the truth.
If you mean that the name 'big bang' was not proposed by Lemaitre, then you are right. But if you refer to the contents of the theory, then you are wrong. Lemaitre was the first to propose that the universe in a finite past must have been concentrated in a 'primeval atom'. So in fact I do not see what point you are making; or maybe I just don't see what its importance is.
I'm sure you've all heard that the "Big Bang" was proposed by a Roman Catholic priest. Besides that not meaning anything, it really distorts the truth.
If you mean that the name 'big bang' was not proposed by Lemaitre, then you are right. But if you refer to the contents of the theory, then you are wrong. Lemaitre was the first to propose that the universe in a finite past must have been concentrated in a 'primeval atom'. So in fact I do not see what point you are making; or maybe I just don't see what its importance is. I put "Big Bang" in quotes to refer to it as "the theory known as". The details of the theory are not for me to dispute, but I'm aware that those details have changed since they were originally proposed. The point is, some importance is attached to the fact that the theory was proposed by a devout Catholic. I see no logical reason for that to be important, and when you look into the details of what the man himself said about it, it becomes even less important. Lemaitre never claimed to be inspired by or to have received any inspiration from his religion that led to his theory. In fact, he said it indicates a "hidden god". This may be something that Isaiah said, but it's not something that is taught in Sunday School. Divine hiddenness is a reason for non-belief according to Schellenberg.
The point is, some importance is attached to the fact that the theory was proposed by a devout Catholic.
By whom?
I see no logical reason for that to be important, and when you look into the details of what the man himself said about it, it becomes even less important.
Me neither. But it shows that there was at last one person who could be a Catholic priest and a first class physicist at the same time. So I do not see a 'distortion of truth'. I see that some people might give wrong interpretations of that fact, if they do not look into the details, but I never met such people until now. What I do find interesting is that Lemaitre told the pope not to make a Catholic dogma of the big bang. Lemaitre was too aware of the fact that science's views may change. He seems to be an example of NOMA 'avant la lettre'.

Funny that you should ask who attached meaning an ex-priest proposing the Big Bang theory, then you go on to explain the meaning of that attachment. And you mention NOMA which is the idea that science and religion are not just compatible but that they each have something to offer. The idea that religion in general and Christianity specifically aided progress toward civil society is pretty well ingrained in the culture. I don’t think it’s a commonly held belief due to it being true, rather it’s due to the question remaining unexamined.
That people like Lemaitre exist only confuses this issue, they don’t lend credence to it or help sort out just where the boundaries of NOMA should be. In fact, the more detail you uncover, the worse it gets. Quotes that get mined when a scientist mentions God can be shown to be unsupportive of the “religion as a positive force" thesis. In this case, we see the Pope saying something that only the fundamentalists say today. I think any time you scratch the surface of someone who claims NOMA is true, you’ll find the same tired arguments of “prime mover" and “religion teaches ethics" and “fine tuning"
I agree that what Lemaitre did was right, but I don’t see it as supportive of NOMA. It’s a scientist telling a theist to evolve or die. Religion has constantly adjusted to the advance of knowledge. Science doesn’t have to adjust to religion as long the science is a legitimate quest for truth.

The idea that religion in general and Christianity specifically aided progress toward civil society is pretty well ingrained in the culture. I don’t think it’s a commonly held belief due to it being true, rather it’s due to the question remaining unexamined.
You think that question remains unexamined? Wow!!
The idea that religion in general and Christianity specifically aided progress toward civil society is pretty well ingrained in the culture. I don’t think it’s a commonly held belief due to it being true, rather it’s due to the question remaining unexamined.
Also, just to clarify...it's not a question. There is no question that religion and/or christianity aided in progress toward civil society. Absolutely no question! You didn't want to mess around with hypothetical alternatives did you? In some sort of convoluted comparative sense? If that could be done-which it can't(there was only one timeline-religion and society evolved together in the past out of naturalistic necessity.), but if it could be done, then I'm sure you would come to the same observations.
The idea that religion in general and Christianity specifically aided progress toward civil society is pretty well ingrained in the culture. I don’t think it’s a commonly held belief due to it being true, rather it’s due to the question remaining unexamined.
Also, just to clarify...it's not a question. There is no question that religion and/or christianity aided in progress toward civil society. Absolutely no question! You didn't want to mess around with hypothetical alternatives did you? In some sort of convoluted comparative sense? If that could be done-which it can't(there was only one timeline-religion and society evolved together in the past out of naturalistic necessity.), but if it could be done, then I'm sure you would come to the same observations. Again, good humor. You scoff at the idea of the question being unexamined, then you categorically state that there is nothing to examine. To the first part, I assume you are looking at all the science/religion debates as well as forums like this. To that, I'd say most people ignore those things. If they weren't ignoring them, young earth creationists wouldn't be able to quietly get elected to school boards and manipulate text books. What you are looking at is the struggle to undo their work once they accomplished it. To the second, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you mean the question has been examined and answered. So, name a book, or anything in support of that. Despite there being only one history, you can still look at what people said, how culture was influenced, what was taught to each generation, and determine how we got to where we are.
Again, good humor. You scoff at the idea of the question being unexamined
Yes. In as much as history is an examination, a running empirical examination with record, the idea of religion being a prime mover of society and civility and progress has been examined and dictated for the record.
then you categorically state that there is nothing to examine.
No I never said that. How could you use the phrase "categorically state". I said there is no question. There is no question. That's as far as I got with your post. I won't even read further.

Quoting Lausten referring to Vyzma’s post:

You scoff at the idea of the question being unexamined, then you categorically state that there is nothing to examine.
But if you read his post he says:
There is no question that religion and/or christianity aided in progress toward civil society. Absolutely no question!
I realize English may not be your first language, Lausten, however, by Vyazma using the negative, he’s really saying by “no question” about the same as “it is certain”. To clarify for you, I’ll substitute that in his statement to see if it then makes sense.
It is certain; that religion and/or christianity aided in progress toward civil society. Absolutely certain.

Hope I translated what you were saying correctly, Vy.
Occam

Hope I translated what you were saying correctly, Vy. Occam
Yes that's it Occam. I used the term "question"(or specifically "no question") because Lausten stated: The idea that religion in general and Christianity specifically aided progress toward civil society is pretty well ingrained in the culture. I don’t think it’s a commonly held belief due to it being true, rather it’s due to the question remaining unexamined. Obviously that "question" has been examined quite thoroughly by what we can safely say as countless historians, scholars, anthropologists, etc... To say that question remains unexamined is ridiculous. Thus I posited that it is not a question-or No Question. Plus in the context of his sentence the words "question" and "examine" are almost redundancies. The subject is religious influence on society and progress. To examine that subject or question that subject is ultimately the same thing.
The idea that religion in general and Christianity specifically aided progress toward civil society is pretty well ingrained in the culture. I don’t think it’s a commonly held belief due to it being true, rather it’s due to the question remaining unexamined.
Also, just to clarify...it's not a question. There is no question that religion and/or christianity aided in progress toward civil society. Absolutely no question! You didn't want to mess around with hypothetical alternatives did you? In some sort of convoluted comparative sense? If that could be done-which it can't(there was only one timeline-religion and society evolved together in the past out of naturalistic necessity.), but if it could be done, then I'm sure you would come to the same observations. I, for one, don't think religion and/or Christianity aided the progress toward civil society. Religion takes that position, but, in fact, the progress of society was caused by many factors that had nothing to do with religion of any kind. In fact, there are good arguments that civil society pregressed in spite of the interference of religion, especially Christianity. Christianity and the progress of society simply coincided. That doesn't mean religion caused the progress of society. But it is given credit for it because it was on the scene at the same time. To say it caused the progress of civil society is a perfect example of a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. Lois
The idea that religion in general and Christianity specifically aided progress toward civil society is pretty well ingrained in the culture. I don’t think it’s a commonly held belief due to it being true, rather it’s due to the question remaining unexamined.
Also, just to clarify...it's not a question. There is no question that religion and/or christianity aided in progress toward civil society. Absolutely no question! You didn't want to mess around with hypothetical alternatives did you? In some sort of convoluted comparative sense? If that could be done-which it can't(there was only one timeline-religion and society evolved together in the past out of naturalistic necessity.), but if it could be done, then I'm sure you would come to the same observations. I, for one, don't think religion and/or Christianity aided the progress toward civil society. Religion takes that position, but, in fact, the progress of society was caused by many factors that had nothing to do with religion of any kind. In fact, there are good arguments that civil society pregressed in spite of the interference of religion, especially Christianity. Christianity and the progress of society simply coincided. That doesn't mean religion caused the progress of society. But it is given credit for it because it was on the scene at the same time. To say it caused the progress of civil society is a perfect example of a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. Lois Christianity and the progress of society simply coincided then? Good. Then we can assume the impetus for societal progress was outside of the scope of religion. So then, while these two co-incidents were occurring what was the impetus for religion?
The idea that religion in general and Christianity specifically aided progress toward civil society is pretty well ingrained in the culture. I don’t think it’s a commonly held belief due to it being true, rather it’s due to the question remaining unexamined.
Also, just to clarify...it's not a question. There is no question that religion and/or christianity aided in progress toward civil society. Absolutely no question! You didn't want to mess around with hypothetical alternatives did you? In some sort of convoluted comparative sense? If that could be done-which it can't(there was only one timeline-religion and society evolved together in the past out of naturalistic necessity.), but if it could be done, then I'm sure you would come to the same observations. I, for one, don't think religion and/or Christianity aided the progress toward civil society. Religion takes that position, but, in fact, the progress of society was caused by many factors that had nothing to do with religion of any kind. In fact, there are good arguments that civil society pregressed in spite of the interference of religion, especially Christianity. Christianity and the progress of society simply coincided. That doesn't mean religion caused the progress of society. But it is given credit for it because it was on the scene at the same time. To say it caused the progress of civil society is a perfect example of a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. Lois Christianity and the progress of society simply coincided then? Good. Then we can assume the impetus for societal progress was outside of the scope of religion. So then, while these two co-incidents were occurring what was the impetus for religion? Fear, fantasy and a lack of knowledge. Lois
Fear and fantasy. Lois
Partly. Power being key. Sometimes through fear. And power is the only way society progresses. Power being money, leadership, counsel, academia, courts, etc. And fantasy as well I guess. Those pyramids were progress on so many levels. And it was based in part on fantasy. We can approach Lausten's(and your's) refusal to see the impact of religion on civilization both good and bad in 2 different ways. The empirical, historical record. Which indubitably points towards a connection. Or the more societal-evolutionary way.(which I briefly hinted at in my initial post in this thread.) In this way we can see that religion and progress were inextricably entwined as almost one. This can be traced back to the very origins of history, and beyond I'm sure. In fact there are many I'm sure who wouldn't bother differentiating between the two. Myself included. I would view the origins and subsequent development of religion as progress. A natural progression.(see progress is right in the word there.) In this view it is redundant or useless to think of any other possible timeline. That's the way it happened. And it falls back on the historical reference for good measure.
Christianity and the progress of society simply coincided then? Good. Then we can assume the impetus for societal progress was outside of the scope of religion. So then, while these two co-incidents were occurring what was the impetus for religion?
Apparently you are using some definition of "progress" that I am no familiar with. Christianity was a minor cult until the 4th century, then it increased significantly. At that time, schools were being closed, scientific progress that was occurring in Greece halted, Greek literacy went nearly to zero, smelting of iron was nearly non-existent for centuries. Please explain. I realize the cause of the so-called Dark Ages is debatable and I would not put forth any simplistic explanation. However, explanations are still required for what I just listed.
Apparently you are using some definition of "progress" that I am no familiar with. Christianity was a minor cult until the 4th century, then it increased significantly. At that time, schools were being closed, scientific progress that was occurring in Greece halted, Greek literacy went nearly to zero, smelting of iron was nearly non-existent for centuries. Please explain. I realize the cause of the so-called Dark Ages is debatable and I would not put forth any simplistic explanation. However, explanations are still required for what I just listed.
Uh uh uh...I'm using your qualifiers. "Religion in general, and christianity in particular". However if you want to stick with christianity I suppose I can cite the discovery of the Americas. That happened because of two papal monarchs, catholic monarchs(who instigated the Crusades), who funded Columbus' Exploration. Let me guess, now you move to disassociate the religious connection there right? You can't do it. But of more relevance is the "religion in general" category you brought up.