The Faith & Religion mega Thread

You cannot say that the Big Bang "definitely happened". Between the astronomical observations and the theory of the event there's a chain of reasoning which makes use of three principles.

1. Spatial uniformity. The laws of physics learned in the solar system are applicable, all other things being equal, in other galaxies.
2. Temporal uniformity. The laws of physics learned in our time are applicable, all other things being equal, throughout history.
3. Physical causation. Every physical event is explicable in terms of a preceding physical event.

(1) and (2) are assumptions which cannot be tested. They are not even necessary. Without them, most of physics and all of chemistry would remain, only cosmology and a few other disciplines falling victim. (3) is obviously false to anyone other than a radical materialist, but it is vital as a working principle: you cannot do the physical sciences at all if you are having to look over you shoulder for possible non-physical causes all the time.

Also, as has been observed, the Big Bang is not an explanation for the existence of the universe. As a physical event, it must be assumed to be explicable in terms of a previous one, and so on. Physics doesn't do that sort of explanation.

Actually, creation myths are not religious. They are human attempts to explain the universe. One could describe them as "folk science" or "folk philosophy" but they aren't religious. The commonest explanation is divine creation, but not all cultures have that myth; for a few the gods are part of the universe, and so cannot have created it.

Originally Posted by DavidMcCann 1. Spatial uniformity. The laws of physics learned in the solar system are applicable, all other things being equal, in other galaxies. 2. Temporal uniformity. The laws of physics learned in our time are applicable, all other things being equal, throughout history. 3. Physical causation. Every physical event is explicable in terms of a preceding physical event. (1) and (2) are assumptions which cannot be tested. They are not even necessary. Without them, most of physics and all of chemistry would remain, only cosmology and a few other disciplines falling victim.

I won't claim to understand all the math, but I'm under the impression that Noether's theorem tells us that (1) and (2) imply conservation of mass/energy and vice versa. Which is to say that all of physics and chemistry would be very different without these assumptions.

Originally Posted by Fixit7 Sad that just a few unhappy individuals dictate policy.

I'm getting really tired of this "you don't matter because the silent majority agrees with me" dismissal. (Yes, "dismissal". Not "argument").

If the silent majority doesn't care to the point where they're staying silent, then you don't need to factor them into your decision-making (they don't care), and the ones who do speak up are the ones that are important to listen to.

BTW... I personally had no problem with your post expression frustration with unsolicited calls. I think that the posters who did object were objecting not to the post, but to the trend that they saw it as the latest in.

Originally Posted by DavidMcCann You cannot say that the Big Bang "definitely happened". Between the astronomical observations and the theory of the event there's a chain of reasoning which makes use of three principles. 1. Spatial uniformity. The laws of physics learned in the solar system are applicable, all other things being equal, in other galaxies. 2. Temporal uniformity. The laws of physics learned in our time are applicable, all other things being equal, throughout history. 3. Physical causation. Every physical event is explicable in terms of a preceding physical event. (1) and (2) are assumptions which cannot be tested. They are not even necessary. Without them, most of physics and all of chemistry would remain, only cosmology and a few other disciplines falling victim. (3) is obviously false to anyone other than a radical materialist, but it is vital as a working principle: you cannot do the physical sciences at all if you are having to look over you shoulder for possible non-physical causes all the time. Also, as has been observed, the Big Bang is not an explanation for the existence of the universe. As a physical event, it must be assumed to be explicable in terms of a previous one, and so on. Physics doesn't do that sort of explanation. Actually, creation myths are not religious. They are human attempts to explain the universe. One could describe them as "folk science" or "folk philosophy" but they aren't religious. The commonest explanation is divine creation, but not all cultures have that myth; for a few the gods are part of the universe, and so cannot have created it.

I'd like to first point out that Science doesn't say "the Big Bang definitely happened", only that it is the best explanation consistent with virtually all the observations and testing.

I disagree that 1) Spatial Uniformity and 2) Temporal Uniformity cannot be tested. At the very least our observations are by no means limited to "our solar system"... actually not even our galaxy, thus the term Observable Universe which is a "spherical ball" roughly 90,000,000,000 Light years in diameter. We can only "see" (as in detect light) a much smaller distance because at one time (prior to the recombination epoch) photons could not travel very far due to the dense nature of the Universe during that stage of it's evolution. However we can and do detect other forms of radiation such as CMB (now microwaves due to red shift) in the Universe as well as in particle accelerators here on Earth. Also due to red shift looking out in Space is also looking back in Time. The evolutionary path of our Universe is consistent and clear at the very least on the astronomical scale and little by little also at the Quantum Level. Gravity is a "sticky wicket" but the detection of Gravity Waves recently holds promise of a whole new level of observation that will undoubtedly alter The Standard Model and further clarify it but not dispute the fundamentals we have observed.

As for 3) Physical Causation, while some axiomatic assumptions exist, they continue to weather new information, such as General Relativity and Special Relativity and even Chaos Theory, which only clarify and further define Causality, not destroy it. I don't find that more radical than unobservable, untestable spiritual causation.

As for Religion and Creation Myths, and since I recently brought up the term, let me point out that I stated that "Every religion to my knowledge has a Creation Myth" not that "All Creation Myths are Religious". It can be argued that what we refer to as Creation Myth often came from interpretation of observed phenomena that were simply not as well understood as they are today, whereas a few are merely "fever dreams" or poetry. Some, like Christianity's Creation Myth, went through considerable evolution, such as the odd marriage of the pagan Aristotle's concept of The Universe and The Eternal and The Unmovable with Christian dogma, making it even more irresistibly powerful, at least until evidence began to eat away at Aristotle.

Pope Pious XII tried "put Humpty Dumpty back together again" by attempting to co-opt Georges LeMaitre's "Primeval Atom" into a scientific proof of the Christian concept of Creation but Georges, a Catholic priest, astronomer and physics professor for the Vatican, admonished him to keep Science and Religion separate and Pious ultimately complied. Apparently he was brave as well as brilliant. I am personally pleased that he didn't die before the discovery of The Cosmic Background Radiation. He deserved validation.

Click on the below attached graphic to see a simplified view of what we can observe of The Universe today. The video --- Powers of Ten --- though dated (1977) is a more expansive view of the same thing but includes the Micro Scale.

@enorbert People are not Bi-Polar because truth is one-way-street. Since we do not know truth yet our opionions vary and creates illusion of Bi-Polarity because they are just guesses.

unobservable, untestable spiritual causation.

Definitely an overshot assertion.

Just because spiritual dimension cannot be ascertained by quantum physics or calculus it doesn't mean it is unobservable or untestable.

Have you not observed that the whole of your being is greater than the sum of its parts? Or you are not convinced that separation of invisible soul or spirit causes the whole biochemical composition of human body to decay?

DavidMcCann's post is respectable as far as he is talking about Theories and we all understand that a theory is just a theory.

--

Not quite! You're confusing theories with hypotheses, which is a common error. I don't usually blow my own trumpet here, but I did explain the difference between the two in one of my ramblings.

Originally Posted by malekmustaq we all understand that a theory is just a theory.

"just a theory" seems to imply there is some level above theory, what do you think that is?

Originally Posted by Arcane @enorbert People are not Bi-Polar because truth is one-way-street. Since we do not know truth yet our opionions vary and creates illusion of Bi-Polarity because they are just guesses.

I'm assuming you actually meant Binary (yes or no, right or wrong) rather than BiPolar a ping-pong chemical condition of extremes and widely considered a personality disorder.

As for "truth" do you contend that no truths are known? that no progress has been made? or since you use the singular are you referring only to Creation? FWIW Science doesn't "guess". It may briefly speculate but quickly proceeds to gathering observation in a manner that constitutes verifiable and falsifiable evidence. Otherwise it remains mere speculation.... possibly of some value at some time but equally possible to count for little of any substance

There's the fact that if you follow many "religions" to the tee, you'll hate we... so-many of you are doing great at it, give yourselves a round of (applause) enabling clause!

Originally Posted by malekmustaq Definitely an overshot assertion. Just because spiritual dimension cannot be ascertained by quantum physics or calculus it doesn't mean it is unobservable or untestable. Have you not observed that the whole of your being is greater than the sum of its parts? Or you are not convinced that separation of invisible soul or spirit causes the whole biochemical composition of human body to decay? DavidMcCann's post is respectable as far as he is talking about Theories and we all understand that a theory is just a theory. --

I have not observed any larger self. I am singularly unconvinced of "invisible soul or spirit". All things decay. Most importantly I can see no means whatsoever of objective observation or testing of such concepts, although I respect your right to believe based on Faith. I just find it subjective and illusory.

Others have pointed out your use of the erroneous common usage of "theory" which is akin to any old opinion or pipe dream. In that sense it is a non descriptive, nebulous term. In Science, Theory requires extensive attempts to falsify any notion or even studied Hypothesis, raising the confidence level to what most would consider unimaginably extreme levels (look up "5 Sigma"). Few people will bank on opinion but billions are invested in Theory because not only do they have great odds of actually bearing out, but will improve those odds over time by virtue of deep scrutiny and collective, continual testing.

Originally Posted by enorbet I disagree that 1) Spatial Uniformity and 2) Temporal Uniformity cannot be tested. At the very least our observations are by no means limited to "our solar system"... actually not even our galaxy, thus the term Observable Universe which is a "spherical ball" roughly 90,000,000,000 Light years in diameter.

We observe the universe and draw conclusions from our observations on the assumption of spacial uniformity. In other words, the conclusions incorporate the assumption, and so will not falsify it. If the word "assumption" troubles you, use "axiom". The point is that no science is axiom-free and no data comes without theoretical baggage.

As for Physical Causation, while some axiomatic assumptions exist, they continue to weather new information, such as General Relativity and Special Relativity and even Chaos Theory, which only clarify and further define Causality, not destroy it. I don't find that more radical than unobservable, untestable spiritual causation.

Obviously there's nothing wrong with a belief in causation, in the sense of the Principle of Sufficient Reason. It's hardwired into us: no-one really believes that things can happen for no reason at all. The point I was making is that the natural sciences have to assume that all causation is physical for purely pragmatic reasons. Take an earthquake. The scientific explanation is that the stresses in the rock have built up to exceed the resistance to movement. But in a particular case this may be false: the resistance was lowered by fracking, so the ultimate cause was a human decision.

"Spiritual causation" is not "unobservable": I'm demonstrating it right now as this text takes shape as a result of my thoughts. As I said, the only way to reject it is to be a materialist (specifically, what Marx called a naive materialist) but that's metaphysics, not natural science.

look up "5 Sigma")

OK. The rest of this sentence is to fill the forum post site requirements.

5 sigma is a measure of how confident scientists feel their results are. If experiments show results to a 5 sigma confidence level, that means if the results were due to chance and the experiment was repeated 3.5 million times then it would be expected to see the strength of conclusion in the result no more than once.

Originally Posted by rokytnji OK. The rest of this sentence is to fill the forum post site requirements.

Thanks rokytnji. Since I had posted an explanation of 5 Sigma here before I didn't want to indulge in dogmatic repetition. I would only add or modify thusly ...

5 sigma is a measure of how confident scientists feel their results are. If experiments show results to a 5 sigma confidence level, that means IF the results were ONLY due to chance and the experiment was repeated 3.5 million times then it would be expected to see the strength of conclusion in the result no more than once

The reverse is the likelihood that the conclusion is correct - basically 3,500,000 to 1 odds, taking "betting with the House" to unimaginable levels .

Originally Posted by DavidMcCann We observe the universe and draw conclusions from our observations on the assumption of spacial uniformity. In other words, the conclusions incorporate the assumption, and so will not falsify it. If the word "assumption" troubles you, use "axiom". The point is that no science is axiom-free and no data comes without theoretical baggage.

Although I find the term "axiomatic" more specific than mere "assumption" ("1 = 1" is an axiom but anything can be an assumption) I am well aware of and do accept "theoretical baggage" but given the continuous feedback loop that is involved in Science and the most basic fundamentals of Logic, such as the above mentioned "Identity", there is a discernible and substantial difference in confidence levels.

Originally Posted by DavidMcCann Obviously there's nothing wrong with a belief in causation, in the sense of the Principle of Sufficient Reason. It's hardwired into us: no-one really believes that things can happen for no reason at all. The point I was making is that the natural sciences have to assume that all causation is physical for purely pragmatic reasons. Take an earthquake. The scientific explanation is that the stresses in the rock have built up to exceed the resistance to movement. But in a particular case this may be false: the resistance was lowered by fracking, so the ultimate cause was a human decision.

That the cause was physical seems not in question but rather which physical was the Prime Mover or essential element.

Originally Posted by DavidMcCann "Spiritual causation" is not "unobservable": I'm demonstrating it right now as this text takes shape as a result of my thoughts. As I said, the only way to reject it is to be a materialist (specifically, what Marx called a naive materialist) but that's metaphysics, not natural science.

Since consciousness is not well understood, nor also the nature of thought, it is just as "false" to assume spiritual causation as it was in your above example of an earthquake and the question of the essential ingredient. Since we are on the verge of actually having a machine pass the Turing Test, and --- Vitalism --- has been entirely discredited there is no evidence supporting that there is anything spiritual about Life, let alone consciousness and thought. Spirituality is an assumption, not an axiom (ie lacks corroborative evidence and objective testing).