This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Is there any difference between belief in the Big Bang and religion?
According to religion, God gave us the universe; according to science, Chance gave us the "Big Bang". In society today we can choose between a modified Intelligent Design (Deism) where the odds are so stacked against a physical cause of the universe being “coincidental i.e. Chance” as to border on fantasy.
Instead the BB, a pseudo-religion, wants society to pay homage to astrophysicists and mathematicians who bring us the “God” of Chance.
“Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances…”*.
There is very little difference between religion and mainstream belief in the BB.
Even when we see old galaxies literally a few hundred million years after the BB "which shouldn't be there"---oh wait---we can appeal to another "adjustable parameter", if we are to believe in the sanctity of the BB at 13.7 billion years ago..
Astrophysicists try to determine the nature and purpose of the universe and they rely on the supernatural agency of Chance. They also engage in devotional and ritual observances. These are conferences and articles where the assembled are required to profess their faith in the BB
“He (Dr. Tom van Flandern) opened his abstract with the words, ‘The Big Bang has never achieved a true prediction success where the theory was placed at risk of falsification before the results were known.’”.
I was wondering if others would find the devotion to Chance as the causal mechanism of the universe any different from Deism as the cause of the universe.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Steven Puplett
Letitia Falk 10+
Steven Puplett
Also it was discovered that the atom is 99.999999999% empty of matter. This is important in the paranormal because it shows that what we think of as solid is really an illusion (just as all the great religions taught) and that it would be perfectly possible for other solid worlds operating at different frequencies to exist in the same space as ours (just like different radio or television signals co-exist)
and since subatomic particles or energy packets have been found to be blinking on and off -in and out of our reality- the question arises where do they go when they are not here? Quantum physics suggests that when they are not existing in our reality they are existing in other parallel universes that we are unable to sense and measure. This is important for the afterlife because it opens the possibility of worlds which are just as solid as our own.
I believe that this corresponds alot with buddhist teaching thou i know only the basics but also Quantum physics suggests that at the deepest level there is no matter, only consciousness. This is a theoretical basis for the existence of God
Letitia Falk 10+
My point was just that as human beings we draw conclusions about scientific data, turning facts into philosophies and I think that's how we get closer to ideas that some people consider spiritual in nature. This tends to lead to the criticism that Science itself is a sort of religion. My argument is that the Science is still Science but people's conclusions are naturally drawn to finding meaning, and may be 'spiritual'.
For example: It is a fact that all life shares a high percentage of DNA means that we descended from common ancestors (Scientific fact, not religion)
That fact makes me feel very connected to other species on this planet (Meaningful conclusion and arguably a spiritual philosophy)
I think your point may have been the opposite actually: that the data itself may be getting closer to touching on religious topics? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Orlando Hawkins 20+
I'm actually studying the correlation between quantum mechanics and its relationship with consciousness/brain (because I believe that all mental and conscious activity is reducible to the brain although I am well aware that consciousness itself has not be reducible to the brain). There is a book called the "Quantum Enigma" that talks about everything you mentioned if of course you have not heard about that.
I will admit that I am quite perplexed by the observer effect. I mean it implies that we in a way already know what we are trying to observe and that the questions that we have and the intentions that we have is what allows us to see things the way they are. I'm not so sure about this being that. On a sub-atomic level I understand how the observer effect my work but I still do not understand how this applies on a macro-level? perhaps you may no more about it than I would
James van der Walt
Here's some interesting reading about how the quantum level effect real life. Basically if shows that birds actually find their way by quantum entanglement. Now if birds access the quantum level then surely our brains uses it too.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927963.000-quantum-states-last-longer-in-birds-eyes.html
richard moody jr 10+
Your observations have real practical significance when it comes to research. If we assume that communication with extraterrestrial life is through radio waves then SETI makes sense. If communication in the quantum world is what's really happening instantaneously involving thought wouldn't that suggest we should spend at least as much money on psychology experiments as SETI? In other words wouldn't our limited resources be better spent on targeted psychology experiments than on SETI?
Steven Puplett
Orlando I am Glad your studying the correlation between quantum mechanics and consciousness/brain it is such an interesting topic, i know i enjoy a sch a fascinating subject, unfortunately i was not aware of the book "Quantum Enigma" I will have to read it now. as for the observer effect, it really posses far more questions then answers in fact it just gives questions? i know there a few theories such as i have mention earlier but let me know if come to any conclusions.
Letitia Falk 10+
I feel like Scientists don't do enough research about why we ARE spiritual. I think that understanding consciousness whether through neurobiology or quantum physics will shed more light on this topic, as could more evolutionary studies about WHY humans are religious.
richard moody jr 10+
Wouldn't that observation result in the physical world being able to support life, hence the foundation for the spiritual world in this universe?
Steven Puplett
Letitia Falk 10+
The psychological explanations are of the 'we are social and get lonely, we miss the guidance of our parents once they pass on, we're afraid of dying, we have lots of unanswered questions' kind
whereas the evolutionary explanations are interested in the actual evolution (survival benefit?) of religious belief. It seems that rather than be advantageous on its own, religion probably evolved as a bi-product of some other advantageous human trait like altruism, or creativity. These are the questions I have been most interested in.
But it is interesting to think about the way that religious ideas and symbolism could actually be tied into our consciousness as it may be structured according to the laws of quantum physics. Food for thought...
Julian Blanco 30+
On the evolutionary camp, if you understand religion as a Meme, it by definition does not need to give it’s host any evolutionary advantage (as long as it does not kill it’s hosts faster that it can find a new one/s to replicate).
Also there is the discussion about the usefulness of religion as a population control mechanism, that could explain why elites have tried to impose it or force it to their inhabitants as well as others as a means to expand their power.
Regards!
JB