TED Conversations


This conversation is closed.

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.

  • thumb
    Oct 28 2011: Ill just say that if anyone is claiming that "chance" gave us the big bang, they are not scientific.
    There is no way to know (so far) what spurned the big bang so anyone rational and scientific cannot claim it was "chance" - whatever that means.

    The best and most honest answer would we - we dont know what caused the big bang.
    • thumb
      Oct 28 2011: big bang is slightly incorrect anyone its all "effect" and no "cause" everything in the universe works i n cause and effect, in the inflation theory makes better suggestions of the birth of the universe better yet string theory and its ten dimensional collapse where our 4th dimensional universe broke of created the birth of universe we know, your right thou there all theories no one knows for sure
      • thumb
        Oct 28 2011: Im not talking about the big bang theory itself. Im talking about that absolutely wrong and baseless conclusion/idea that it was created by "accident".

        There is no way anyone can know that.
      • thumb
        Oct 28 2011: Science has a way to resist change just like all humans do. That is why even though Chaos and quantum theory is on the raise so many don't want to think that the universe is not cause and effect. The universe is more than a giant clock. The Newtonian way of thinking is wrong yet so many "religiously" defend it still because it raise the option that they don't understand the universe after all...

        So yes, science is very similar to religion in this sense. Scientific dogma does exist. For example many scientist will still say that consciousness is just a clever trick caused by a complex cause and effect bio computer. They will ague this point even when quantum research are showing how consciousness can effect the quantum level. There's even been research that shows that the brain can get information from the quantum level. This breaks the chemical brain model all together.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.