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 25 2011: Richard,
    This is response to your replies since I am unable to continue on the thread that we were discussing on so here we go:

    First things first, as Letitia Falk pointed out, we were both on the path (you actually did as a matter of fact) of condemning science so I'll back off a bit on all the scientific jargon (Thanks for pointing that out Letitia). Also as Letitia mentioned, you are using Hitler as an example of all scientist. Hitler was not a scientist. He was a politician and social leader. All accounts of Hitler talks about him being a politician. Did he hire scientist to carry out his diabolical plans or did they do it out of fear? Perhaps its a bit of both but this does not make "ALL" science or anything with a logical basis bad. More to the point, Hitlers scientific experiments has nothing to do with Newtons laws of gravitational attraction.

    Secondly his notions about Eugenics and Aryan Supremacy was not based off logic and scientific reasoning. It was racial as well as a method of control (the socioeconomic conditions that Germany was in, he had convince them that they were destined for greatness). It is purely a social construct.

    Now to the meat of my argument: Your are making the mistake of trying to apply intelligent design to physical cosmology as well as physics and astronomy. On one hand you are talking about universal expansion and the age of the universe and on the other hand you are talking about God and Satin, Good and Evil and Eternity. What is even more perplexing is your trying to merge the tenets of Buddhism to support your claims about the apocalyptic battle of good and evil. Physical cosmology and astronomy are not concerned about value questions such, as you put it, "testing good and evil".

    I really must ask: what does the death of Satan and a objectively good, spiritual universe have to do with the big bang? In other words what does any of this have to do with your original question about the correlation between religion and BB?
    • thumb
      Oct 25 2011: Oops, I actually meant that Richard was "both" condemning and also using science in his arguments which was confusing (also a bit hypocritical), not that "both" you and Richard were condemning science. But its true that we've been arguing over scientific facts when the question isn't whether the BBT is right or not, but whether it is similar to a religion. Thanks for getting things back on track.
      • thumb
        Oct 26 2011: That makes much more sense. I actually went over the it after reading your post and realized where you were coming from so my apologies and thanks for clarifying things.

        But your correct, we should be focusing on BBT and its relationship to religion. That is where I was attempting to come from at first and then I got perplexed when he was bringing up God, Hitler, Satin and the afterlife and was passing it off as absolute truth, which does not

        But your welcome no problem
      • thumb
        Oct 30 2011: hey Letitia this is a bit off topic but I am curious to your thoughts on neo evolution or homo evolutis whatever term yo prefer to use and also on the origins of humans i believe there's some strange gaps in or missing links in humans i am not against evolution i am all for it and love it in fact i believe me and you could have a great conversation about such things.
        • thumb
          Nov 18 2011: Well, I think we'll have nothing but gaps now because we are no longer subject to the pressures of natural selection. I think that we've experienced two major shifts in human evolution away from natural selection: The first was when we began to manipulate our environment rather than letting it manipulate us, and the second (which we are in the middle of) is directly interfering with our genes (on-purpose).

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.