Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[malimbar04]

I normally wouldn't comment on something like this, but this is just something that helped me overcome my need to bash either side, "atheist" (which could technically still be Buddhist, Jain, Taoist, etc.) or any theistic philosophy or religion.
I'm sure at least some of you have heard of Joseph Campbell. If you haven't, I suggest you read or watch The Power of Myth with Bill Moyers. It's a great read/watch, and helps to "unliteralize" the word in the books; seeing the metaphors helped me deal with any uncertainties I had about myself and spirituality, and helped me develop into a more well-rounded person. If nothing else, give it a try. It might help you out as it helped me out to understand myself, and really made me feel better about the universe. I know it sounds Oprah-y, but don't be afraid, it's not some new-age thing. It's as old as the universe, you could say . And, if it doesn't, no worries-- there are many ways to understand what man's place in the universe is. I just found my way to do so, and I'm a happier person because of it.

Unfortunately, I'm not going to buy a book that's supposed to change my life off a recommendation. There is a little problem I have that there are an absurd amount of books that claim to do so, but few that actually do. Then, in the process of purchasing them, I support them financially. Then I feel dirty, while also being slightly more poor. Over new years my wife and I are going to Barnes and Noble though, so I'll see what it's like.

The idea of myths and metaphors helping people is something I'd like to know more about though. I personally love to use analogies when talking about something, and once in a while I'm even complemented on my analogies. However, we have to be careful because all analogies and metaphors fall apart at some point. Often, the failing isn't very easy to see, since we're flawed humans that like to fill in missing details.

[Andir]

Picking your quote because it partially made me get a better idea, but Bauglir did make me realize I was applying 2D coordinate space to 3D without considering arc... (edit: not sure what you said Bauglir but it triggered something ...)

Meh, what is happening is impossible to visualise. Thing don't move away at the same speed, they are moving away from each oher at a speed depending for the distance between them. If they are on light year away, they move at speed X from each other. If it's two ligh year, it's speed two x. Always radially.

It makes more sense than what I was being told before (and reading... stupid dough model...if I'm a raisin, I can see the other raisins moving away at different speeds when we get cooked!  The balloon model doesn't help either... in fact, I don't know if there is a good model for that explanation... a growing jellyfish?) but it still doesn't make me accept that all our mass and substance was once at a singular point in space and we will continue to expand until all the sky goes dark.  That's a bit too "creationist" for me and I still like the "always been there" models (and yes, I believe they are possible because there's much about light that we cannot know simply because of the scale of our testing... so don't even start with me on the "but the night sky is dark... der!" explanation.)

The fact of the matter is that there is still much that is debated on the subject and still some unknowns (dark matter/energy, etc.)  I guess my biggest complaint is the solid concrete barriers people put up and insist that the Big Bang is the only solution... that somehow they know the answer and it will never change and nobody shall speak of alternatives.  There are things like Gravity which make sense to hold slightly tight because it doesn't have much against it (even though we still don't know what it is... just that it happens) but the Big Bang is not one of those things, IMHO.  I think I'd accept it better if everyone called it "The Expansion" rather than the Big Bang.  We know it's expanding, but we can't know what happened 10 billion years ago and nobody has nailed precisely what's causing the expansion except that theory that we were once a finite point in space and now we are growing, unwavering.

Can we accept that?  Can I stop this topic?

[Andir]

However, we have to be careful because all analogies and metaphors fall apart at some point. Often, the failing isn't very easy to see, since we're flawed humans that like to fill in missing details.

Yes, not sure why, but all the analogies people made for the BB have failed me... as one example.   In fact, every single analogy that people use to try to explain astrophysics... fabric of space time, dough ball, balloons, silly drawings of growing pictures...

[Bauglir]

Yeah, that's fine. Also, I apologize for the people who insulted you for not agreeing with them. I doubt it helps you think of it as a reasonable position when people are shouting that you're stupid for not just accepting what they say at face value. "The Expansion" actually does make a bit more sense, especially since "Big Bang" gives the image of a giant explosion in space, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Just to be clear, don't keep arguing about this, people. Referring back to it to say something like, "Yeah, cool, glad we've moved past that", or something else is fine. Just don't keep bringing up arguments or counterpoints or whatever your preferred nomenclature is.

[Il Palazzo]

Gah, whatever. Anybody wants to comment on that:

I did not insult you, just pointed that you obviously misunderstand the underlying theory.
Yo can go on and on, but basically you don't understand the concept of expansion, and fail to visualize how it would apply to space.
Beside your proposition for an "experimental proof" are made without so much as an inch of research on actual astronomy.
I said that you should take a course on the matter if you are really interested and actually think yours ideas are worth two cent, and I rest my case.

But instead you choose to be offended, well go for it.

If you'd understand the theory, you would not search for a center of the expansion, which make no sense at all.

You know, this is a good point to get back on topic from.
Basically, this is the case with religion's appeal to the people who fail to understand the world as it's described by science. And it's getting harder and harder as the discoveries move into more esoteric fields. The good example is the case of the expansion of the universe we've got here. Can you expect your average human beings to waste time on rewiring their brains away from what the common sense dictates to them? They just don't have time, are not interested in that. They want easy answers that fit their existing perceptions of the world, and in this field science is just not able to compete with religion.
Now, there's a lot of atheists that are of the opinion that the continuing existence of religion is causing harm to the world. So I ask you this: what would you offer to the "masses" that would be consistent with the scientific outlook, and satisfying enough to make the religion obsolete?

Here is a somewhat relevant, and somewhat questionable, proposition:
http://fora.tv/2010/07/29/Nomad_From_Islam_to_America_with_Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali#Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali_on_Converting_Muslims_to_Christianity
It assumes that there are "better" and "worse" religious systems, and proposes to simply choose the most harmless as the officially sanctioned one.

[Andir]

Gah, whatever. Anybody wants to comment on that:

The good example is the case of the expansion of the universe we've got here. Can you expect your average human beings to waste time on rewiring their brains away from what the common sense dictates to them? They just don't have time, are not interested in that. They want easy answers that fit their existing perceptions of the world, and in this field science is just not able to compete with religion.

It wasn't religion (I do not believe in a creator, etc.) more than it was a really bad explanation... a really bad set of explanations actually.  Visual aids would help more than analogies that try to break from the 3D space of... well, space.  It's hard to put forth those concepts in text.  I'm actually interested in modelling it in a program to portray it better.   I'm a programmer and I loved geometry and I've done 3D programming... so the ability to understand was there, but the examples were terrible.  Not by your faults, but by the faults of everyone trying to "5th Grade" the material and I'm a detail oriented person.  The condescension, if you will, was making me bullheaded and something in my head closed off that experience I had and I got defensive.

Also, shows like "The Universe" on Discovery do this as well.  They try to create artificial explanations with improper visuals.

[Il Palazzo]

I wasn't thinking of you there. Rather about the general difficulty of grasping the ideas provided by the advancing science. Even when somebody, like yourself, feels the need to find out what it actually means, and what it says about the world, finds it difficult to grok.
The majority of the population doesn't even want to bother, but they do want to feel like they've got it all figured out. So they are going to turn to the most easily accessible product to satisfy their needs - religion.

[ECrownofFire]

I'd just like to point out (not directed at anyone in particular) religion and science are not mutually exclusive. My favorite quote relating the two is this (told to me by a Christian, of all people): "religion is the why, science is the how". It explains my relation between religion and science perfectly.

Religion does not have to exclude the big bang. Nor does it have to particularly include it either. Agnostic creationism (as I call it) is the way to go for me

[Phmcw]

I disagree with you Crown, religion has been relegated to the rank of "why" since we know that it screwed up on the "how".
So it may be their mutual place now, but it certainly not like that for all person (look at all these creationists), and I don't see wh we should let this "why" to religion.

In my life, religion have no place at all, nor for anyone in my family. We don't know the "why" and we know that nobody else does.
That is not a problem.

[Il Palazzo]

Crown, I'd also challenge that. Religion in it's most abstract form, like the Spinoza's god, or some other similar outlook, might be non-obstructive to science(but still, we had that "god does not play dice" sentiment arising from it), but the popular options available on the market(in general, those explaining the creation of the world), set a certain domain of sacred truths which is not to be challenged. This is a barrier for any further inquiry, which is the basis of scientific advancement.

[ECrownofFire]

I disagree with you Crown, religion has been relegated to the rank of "why" since we know that it screwed up on the "how".
So it may be their mutual place now, but it certainly not like that for all person (look at all these creationists), and I don't see wh we should let this "why" to religion.

In my life, religion have no place at all, nor for anyone in my family. We don't know the "why" and we know that nobody else does.
That is not a problem.

You can be perfectly happy with that too, if it's fine with you. I like to know why we're here. And religion was pretty much all we had back in the day before the big bang. You want to try convincing some ancient tribe that a giant explosion created the universe instead of some mystical force, you go ahead and get stoned to death for blasphemy

Many aspects of religion were a temporary placeholder for science (rain the tears of X god, for example). Nowadays, religion shouldn't try to explain that. That kind of thinking is unnecessary and just gets in the way now. They kept us from questioning it, sure, but what other explanation was there? Besides, that was all in the past, it doesn't matter now.

And sorry, Il Palazzo, I don't follow anything that explains the "creation" of the world (I believe in a sort of form of Spinoza's god, also known as pantheism). The Earth arose completely by chance, through SCIENCE!! The universe arose however it did, whether that was mystical or not, it doesn't affect me now, and it never did or will.

[Urist is dead tome]

You guys scared me away when it got to the space crap.

And is Shrugging Khan still around? Cause I haven't seem him.

[ECrownofFire]

You guys scared me away when it got to the space crap.

And is Shrugging Khan still around? Cause I haven't seem him.

Oh, he's probably still around here somewhere. We've just been talking about the big bang, so there's no religion for him to argue against

[Urist is dead tome]

Wait till someone swings it back around to say... Islam. Then there's nothing to do but sit back and watch the bloodbath.

[ECrownofFire]

Wait till someone swings it back around to say... Islam. Then there's nothing to do but sit back and watch the bloodbath.

But there are no Muslims on Bay 12 that I've seen... Shrugging Khan seems like the kind of person that needs an actual person to argue against, not just an idea. It's boring to try to argue about whether a religion is wrong or not if there's nobody here that believes in it, because everybody is going to agree it's wrong