Jump to content

Religions influence on Science


Recommended Posts

The flat earth societies of the world come up with elaborate mathematical models to prove the earth is flat for mischief, pseudoscience or religious reasons.

 

Is the Big Bang theory based on a mathematically gifted catholic priests desire to prove there is a beginning of time and everything.

 

Given a point of time in the here and now and some known facts, is it not possible to conjure up any number of curve fits that would come through the known facts, one of which could be a beginning of time.

 

Space is constantly expanding(being created) and contracting(going out of existence) between galaxies and into black holes,

 

Is the concept of a finite universe that comes from big bang theory, holding back the understanding of what space is.

 

Is general relativity also holding back an understanding of space requiring possible imagined things such as dark matter to explain anomalies in the theory.

 

Quantum foam theories do not require dark matter, and are mostly in agreement with both general relativity and special relativity, they also explain many other anomalies that relativity doesn't touch.

 

Is blind religious belief holding back Science?

 

My view of the Big Bang is that it is largely BS, very clever BS, but BS never the less. Maths is a language like any other. Words used by clever lawyers can prove anything to a dumb jury. But if it sounds like BS, smells like BS, tastes like BS, and feels like BS it is BS :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The flat earth societies of the world come up with elaborate mathematical models to prove the earth is flat for mischief, pseudoscience or religious reasons.   Is the Big Bang theory based on a math

A word isn't necessarily exactly the same as any of its synonyms: else why would the English language have such a diverse pool of words to choose from. I agree that faith and trust both require u

Anything that is expanding can be linearly regressed ( run the film backwards ) to an origin.

The problem is our physical laws fall apart before we get to that origin.

That doesn't negate any conclusions we may draw before getting to that point.

That is what the Big Bang does; and better than any other theory.

 

Or do you think continuous creation, going on even now, and which has no observational evidence, is preferable to one instance of ( possible ) creation, at time t=0, when physical laws did not apply ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is blind religious belief holding back Science?

 

My view of the Big Bang is that it is largely BS, very clever BS, but BS never the less. Maths is a language like any other. Words used by clever lawyers can prove anything to a dumb jury. But if it sounds like BS, smells like BS, tastes like BS, and feels like BS it is BS :)

 

It's always so hard to fathom how someone who doesn't know much science can make a sweeping negative judgement about one of its best supported theories. What flavor of ignorance is holding you back?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the Big Bang theory based on a mathematically gifted catholic priests desire to prove there is a beginning of time and everything.

 

 

He was an astrophysicist. He found a solution to the Einstein Field Equations, based on the the universe being (approximately) uniformly full of matter. This showed that space must either expand or contract. (Einstein had noted this himself, of course, but had no evidence to support expansion or contraction so naively assumed it must be precariously balanced in between.) He showed that the available data about red shifts (i.e. recessional velocity) matched an expanding universe described by these equations.

 

If that was all there was to it, you could call it "curve fitting". But the big bang model makes a number of other predictions that are also precisely matched by observation. At that point, it ceases to be a chance match and becomes a good theory.

 

 

 

Space is constantly expanding(being created)

 

With the exception of the rather meaningless "created" word (*) that sounds like a description of the basic idea behind the big bang. If you accept that space is "created" then you accept the big bang model.

 

(*) Is space created when a car moves away from where you are? No. The distance increases. That's all.

 

 

 

Is the concept of a finite universe that comes from big bang theory, holding back the understanding of what space is.

 

The big bang model doesn't say that the universe is finite. It works equally well for a finite or infinite universe.

 

 

 

Quantum foam theories do not require dark matter

 

 

This is getting off topic, but dark matter IS required (galaxy rotation curves don't match Keplerian/Newtonian predictions). But dark matter has little to do with the big bang medal. (Although, evidence from the early universe do confirm the existence of dark matter.)

 

Perhaps what you mean is that "quantum foam theories" can provide an explanation for dark matter. Do you have a reference for this? It is not something I am aware of.

 

 

 

 

Is blind religious belief holding back Science?

 

Given the next sentence, this is a monumentally ironic question. You might want to ask yourself if some sort of blind belief is holding you back from learning science?

 

 

 

My view of the Big Bang is that it is largely BS

 

You have no basis for that beyond, presumably, some bizarre and arbitrary dislike of the concept.

This appears to have nothing to do with religion, unless your objection is a religious one? It certainly isn't scientific.

Edited by Strange
Link to post
Share on other sites

The flat earth societies of the world come up with elaborate mathematical models to prove the earth is flat for mischief, pseudoscience or religious reasons.

 

Is the Big Bang theory based on a mathematically gifted catholic priests desire to prove there is a beginning of time and everything.

 

Given a point of time in the here and now and some known facts, is it not possible to conjure up any number of curve fits that would come through the known facts, one of which could be a beginning of time.

 

Space is constantly expanding(being created) and contracting(going out of existence) between galaxies and into black holes,

 

Is the concept of a finite universe that comes from big bang theory, holding back the understanding of what space is.

 

Is general relativity also holding back an understanding of space requiring possible imagined things such as dark matter to explain anomalies in the theory.

 

Quantum foam theories do not require dark matter, and are mostly in agreement with both general relativity and special relativity, they also explain many other anomalies that relativity doesn't touch.

 

Is blind religious belief holding back Science?

 

My view of the Big Bang is that it is largely BS, very clever BS, but BS never the less. Maths is a language like any other. Words used by clever lawyers can prove anything to a dumb jury. But if it sounds like BS, smells like BS, tastes like BS, and feels like BS it is BS :)

 

No, religion has no bearing on science although both may attempt to answer the same question/s. Science is based on observational and experimental evidence: Religion is based on myth and ignorance, stemming from the earliest evolutionary moments of humanity to try and explain the universe around him.

 

The BB theory is the overwhelming model accepted by most because it matches what we observe and goes hand in glove with GR which also continues to match observational data and make continued successful predictions.

In fact in my opinion, it is to the credit of science and scientists, that they still accept the BB, knowing that religious orginizations and people are going to hang their hat on it and claim that as the "beginning of the universe" it is the work of god and irrespective of the fact that it was first formulated by a Jesuit priest.

 

Your other many unsubstantiated ignorant claims have been answered previously.

Science in general is a discipline in continued progress, and is not held back by any mythical beliefs including your own.

Edited by beecee
Link to post
Share on other sites

Or do you think continuous creation, going on even now, and which has no observational evidence, is preferable to one instance of ( possible ) creation, at time t=0, when physical laws did not apply ?

 

Not only is there no evidence for it, but it is flat out falsified by the CMB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The flat earth societies of the world come up with elaborate mathematical models to prove the earth is flat for mischief, pseudoscience or religious reasons.

 

Is the Big Bang theory based on a mathematically gifted catholic priests desire to prove there is a beginning of time and everything.

 

My view of the Big Bang is that it is largely BS, very clever BS, but BS never the less. Maths is a language like any other. Words used by clever lawyers can prove anything to a dumb jury. But if it sounds like BS, smells like BS, tastes like BS, and feels like BS it is BS :)

 

The significant difference between Flat Earth and Big Bang.

 

About 2 millennium ago, there was little evidence the Earth was round, and many educated men believed in a flat Earth. As additional evidence became known, the consensus of scientists and others changed.

 

The Flat Earthers look around and say the Earth looks flat, let's prove it is flat. Then, they ignore evidence to "prove" their idea.

 

Scientists didn't decide there was a big bang and try to prove it. In fact, the scientist, Hoyle, who coined the term Big Bang, didn't believe in it.

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/aug/23/local/me-37483

 

Hoyle believed the universe came from a continuing pattern of development having no beginning and no end. But over the years this view was shared by fewer and fewer scientists as the Big Bang theory gained greater acceptance.

The reason Big Bang was accepted is it fits observations, and as more and more scientists tested big bang by observation, the more began to believe it. Now the evidence is compelling and few scientists believe otherwise.

 

That you mentioned both flat Earth and Big Bang as influenced by religion is IMO a fallacy, which might be influenced by religion. I suggest you clear your mind of bias and study the observational evidence; be a Sherlock Holmes.

Edited by EdEarl
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is blind religious belief holding back Science?

Those are not religious beliefs....but they can be blind.

For example the current quantum theory(with Bell's theorem) shows indeterministic/probabilistic properties of our observable reality...it gives info concerning the nature of the universe.

It's a blind belief that this shows the nature of the universe.

 

The world of Science is filled with beliefs based on an interpretation of data.

Future will tell which beliefs are correct and which are not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignorance is bliss :)

The big bang is only one explanation of the origins of all matter in the universe. Many scientists don't agree with the big bang, but it is taught as fact when it is only one possibility.

There are others theories more or less believable to some scientists, and religious folk :). Creationism is very popular in some of areas of America ROFL. No one wanted to discuss the Bang all the time thread I started so I guess devout belief in the Big Bang is controlling the majority of peoples thought especially some of the moderators.

The Rate of movement of the background radiation does not match the rate of movement of the galaxies. Just a small point, but looking at the arguments put forward to support the big bang and those put forward arguing against religion, there isn't much difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

The big bang is only one explanation of the origins of all matter in the universe. Many scientists don't agree with the big bang, but it is taught as fact when it is only one possibility.

What are these "other explanations"?

And who are these "many scientists"? Perhaps you could give some examples. 

It is not taught as "fact"; it is taught as the best theory we currently have.

Quote

There are others theories more or less believable to some scientists, and religious folk :).

Examples please. Otherwise I have to assume you are just making this up.

Quote

Creationism is very popular in some of areas of America ROFL.

So what. That has nothing to do with the big bang model (which is science).

Quote

No one wanted to discuss the Bang all the time thread I started so I guess devout belief in the Big Bang is controlling the majority of peoples thought especially some of the moderators.

I think what you mean is: people pointed out why that model can't work and you ignored them because of your devout beliefs.

Quote

The Rate of movement of the background radiation does not match the rate of movement of the galaxies.

What does that mean?

Quote

Just a small point, but looking at the arguments put forward to support the big bang and those put forward arguing against religion, there isn't much difference.

There is objective evidence that matches the quantitative predictions of the big bang model.

Creationism is based on the foolishly literal interpretation of some old metaphorical tales.

So I can't see any similarity at all. You faith has obviously blinded you to rational thought, which is a bit sad. Pathetic, even.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2017 at 2:19 PM, Handy andy said:

 Quantum foam theories do not require dark matter, and are mostly in agreement with both general relativity and special relativity, they also explain many other anomalies that relativity doesn't touch.
...
My view of the Big Bang is that it is largely BS, very clever BS, but BS never the less. Maths is a language like any other. Words used by clever lawyers can prove anything to a dumb jury. But if it sounds like BS, smells like BS, tastes like BS, and feels like BS it is BS :)

Yes, you've made your view abundantly clear. Stop bringing it up in new threads.

 

To everyone: the topic here is whether science is being held back by religious beliefs. It is not part of the topic to argue details of a particular theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/07/2017 at 7:19 PM, Handy andy said:

Is blind religious belief holding back Science?

To get back on track, do you have any evidence that it is?

Otherwise, the answer is, obviously, no.

If you have no evidence, then we can just ask that the thread be closed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Itoero said:

Those are not religious beliefs....but they can be blind.

For example the current quantum theory(with Bell's theorem) shows indeterministic/probabilistic properties of our observable reality...it gives info concerning the nature of the universe.

It's a blind belief that this shows the nature of the universe.

How is it a blind belief. It is supported by evidence. So it is a scientific "belief" (if you must use that word).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion can hold back science.

Kurt Wise was a promising geologist but he became a 'creationscientist'.

Something he said: "Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."

As a sophomore in high school, he took a newly purchased Bible and a pair of scissors and cut out every verse which could not be interpreted literally if scientific determinations on the age of the earth and evolution were true. He pursued this task with a flashlight under the covers of his bed for several months; at the end, he had removed so much material that "with the cover of the Bible taken off, I attempted to physically lift the Bible from the bed between two fingers. Yet, try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two."  Wise decided to reject evolution instead of Biblical literalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise#Biography

Link to post
Share on other sites

What effect did that have on science? None at all, I assume  

One person rejecting science (for whatever reason) is not going to have any effect on the progress of science. 

Edited by Strange
Link to post
Share on other sites

One person against science is like a coyote in a blizzard; unless you are standing nearby, you can't hear its howl. Yet, there is some probability that a nearby listener will join the first, and others will follow. However, it seems that the blizzard is taking followers faster than they join, at this point in time.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerning this topic i remember Ervin Panofsky, famous art critic, a humanist. A scientist who was a friend of Albert Einstein as they were both working for Institute of Advanced Study. I've read his book about perspective. Its a quite interesting one. But what is more interesting and am talking about is his son  Wolfgang Panofsky, director of SLAC, nuclear physicist who was participating in bomb creating (for Hirosima and Nagasaki). How come a son of humanist could do it? Did this family loose faith at all? All of them, or Wolfgang only? My point is, it would be much better if we do not let the atheists working in some branches of science. Such as nuclear power, genes and reconstruction or improvement of human race and,especially,age and immortality investigation. But the question is which religion should impact a science the most in this case? With this issue i expect a lot of problems...

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Evgenia said:

My point is, it would be much better if we do not let the atheists working in some branches of science. Such as nuclear power, genes and reconstruction or improvement of human race and,especially,age and immortality investigation.

Why? What is the relation between religion and morality?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Evgenia said:

My point is, it would be much better if we do not let the atheists working in some branches of science.

You do not have a point: Obviously you do though have a somewhat skewed opinion.

It was a Catholic Jesuit priest that first deduced the BB based on observational evidence. That immediatley showed the bible as a total book of fiction, myth and fairy tale stories. The Catholic church also now accept the BB and also the evolution of life due to the overwhelming evidence supporting both theories, but likewise they hang their hat on the fact that both theories do not say anything about the origin or the actual how and why, and strangely they use that limitation to invoke a deity.

Religion certainly at one time curtailed science, and not only science, it curtailed as a result, the advancement of humanity during what we call the dark ages.

Religion may also in isolated cases still curtail science to some small degree, but overall science continues to advance in all areas and pushes any need of any magical Spaghetti monster back into near oblivion.

4 hours ago, Evgenia said:

 But the question is which religion should impact a science the most in this case? With this issue i expect a lot of problems...

At the stages of science we are at today, no mythical religious matters will ever have any lasting impact on science...In isolated cases, to some small degree, for a limited time, maybe. But we have tasted the fruits of science now, and the incredible benefits it has showered upon us, and that will never be impacted or hindered again to any great degree.

As we explore our solar system, as we learn and improve technology, as in time [I believe] it will be shown that life does exist elsewhere in the universe beyond this fart arse little blue orb, religion and any ID concept will vanish into oblivion.

Science is a discipline in continued progress, as I have said before...religion is not.

 

Edited by beecee
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Evgenia said:

Concerning this topic i remember Ervin Panofsky, famous art critic, a humanist. A scientist who was a friend of Albert Einstein as they were both working for Institute of Advanced Study. I've read his book about perspective. Its a quite interesting one. But what is more interesting and am talking about is his son  Wolfgang Panofsky, director of SLAC, nuclear physicist who was participating in bomb creating (for Hirosima and Nagasaki). How come a son of humanist could do it? Did this family loose faith at all? All of them, or Wolfgang only? My point is, it would be much better if we do not let the atheists working in some branches of science. Such as nuclear power, genes and reconstruction or improvement of human race and,especially,age and immortality investigation. But the question is which religion should impact a science the most in this case? With this issue i expect a lot of problems...

As a Buddhist, who doesn't believe in your God, or any god, I try hard to be kind to Christians and others, even when a person insults me, such as you have done. I am neither devoid of empathy, ignorant of ethics, nor ignoring ethics. You have cast the first stone, but I shall not return one. However, I would appreciate your taking a long look at your own words above to understand where you crossed the line of good manners.

There have been some great Christian scientists, there may be again, and maybe there are a few now. Although, it is possible for anyone to do science, very few scientists make big discoveries. And, there is no way to know who will make a great discovery until it occurs; there is no test that can pick from a field of people who will do great work. Similarly, you cannot choose who among those in the field will become crooks or murderers. BTW crime rates among atheists are low.

I reject your idea, because it would slow the progression of science.

Edited by EdEarl
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear all,

because of current bags of site, which will be without a doubt improved soon with a help of moderators, i can't quote anyone. Sorry me for that. I do not actually ignore you and your questions. Just i am not able to answer for now.

So i will try to explain in one message my idea better.

A person who truly believe in God can be not religious. Faith and religion can be separated. The example of Panofsky i mentioned to demonstrate that the rules of morality and humanism can be changeable for some people. But when these restrictions disappeared, the religion rules can be an additional way to stop a person in his intentions to create a nuclear weapon. So yes, i believe, its better to have an additional tool to stop a person to press a red button then not to have it.

About religion itself- no, i don't think it is a stop on a way of science. People can be. Religion itself not.

And about me personally. Do you know if i am a religious one or not ? Am i a cristhian or not? The right answer is no, you don't. Its a science forum i am registered for the 2d day only. I like to read the comments of yours and different opinions as it stimulates my own mind. Thank you for these. You have a great community here. Just don't forget, some people prefer not to be a Justin Biber to be liked by everyone.

Sincerely yours,Evgenia

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Evgenia said:

You have a great community here. Just don't forget, some people prefer not to be a Justin Biber to be liked by everyone.

Sincerely yours,Evgenia

Science is a discipline in eternal progress. There are many many young and experienced scientists out there, that are testing Einstein's GR every day, as well as most other current accepted scientific data. That is the name of the game.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2017 at 7:19 PM, Handy andy said:

The flat earth societies of the world come up with elaborate mathematical models to prove the earth is flat for mischief, pseudoscience or religious reasons.

 

Is the Big Bang theory based on a mathematically gifted catholic priests desire to prove there is a beginning of time and everything.

 

Given a point of time in the here and now and some known facts, is it not possible to conjure up any number of curve fits that would come through the known facts, one of which could be a beginning of time.

Space is constantly expanding(being created) and contracting(going out of existence) between galaxies and into black holes,

Is the concept of a finite universe that comes from big bang theory, holding back the understanding of what space is.

Is general relativity also holding back an understanding of space requiring possible imagined things such as dark matter to explain anomalies in the theory.

Quantum foam theories do not require dark matter, and are mostly in agreement with both general relativity and special relativity, they also explain many other anomalies that relativity doesn't touch.

Is blind religious belief holding back Science?

My view of the Big Bang is that it is largely BS, very clever BS, but BS never the less. Maths is a language like any other. Words used by clever lawyers can prove anything to a dumb jury. But if it sounds like BS, smells like BS, tastes like BS, and feels like BS it is BS :)

 

OK, let's start with the fact that you don't know what "prove" means.

They might be able to mislead a jury, but you can't prove something that's not true.

You also seem to have missed the significance of the jury being, as you put it "dumb".

The people who work on, and experimentally justified, the big bang are not the ones who are dumb- they are generally quite clever.
If you don't agree with them, and they are clever, who is the "dumb" one here?
(You may find this helps)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

 

 

"Is the Big Bang theory based on a mathematically gifted catholic priests desire to prove there is a beginning of time and everything."

In a way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox

 

Even without any real science we already knew there was a "start", based simply on the fact that it gets dark at night.

The Big Bang is a considerable refinement- it sets a date, but the idea that there was a "creation date" was never seriously debated.

"Is general relativity also holding back an understanding of space requiring possible imagined things such as dark matter to explain anomalies in the theory."
No, the ideas are essentially independent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question before us is "Is blind religious belief holding back Science?"

Discussion of that question is the only acceptable subject matter. Further off-topic posts will be removed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.