The Cosmology Thread

Where Fellowship and Camaraderie lives: that place where the CPS membership values fun and good fellowship as the cement of the community
User avatar
Ethell
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: South-Central, PA
Contact:

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by Ethell » Sat May 16, 2015 5:30 am

No, I'm not really coming back to the Cosmology thread for a discussion, in fact, as is obvious, my life has taken me on a trajectory that doesn't really involve CPS anymore (though I have wonderful memories and blessings from my time here), but I ran across this article and thought it would be great food for thought about a Creationist approach to cosmology:

http://johnhartnett.org/2015/01/15/a-bi ... cosmogony/

Dr. Hartnett is at the top of his game and is probably one of the most articulate creationists on the subject of cosmology. So, Rusty, while I wouldn't say I "conceded" the discussion here, I certainly dropped out. Hopefully this gem from Dr. Hartnett can provide some points to ponder.

All the best,
Ethell

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 12022
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by tuttle » Mon May 18, 2015 7:34 am

I miss Ethell
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32413
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by UncleBob » Mon May 18, 2015 8:13 am

"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 25026
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by Rusty » Mon May 18, 2015 10:16 am

tuttle wrote:I miss Ethell
Wow, so typical of YEC's. Love'em and leave'em. Promiscuous devils. I'll bet he's not smokin' anymore either.

Score:
Rational Science: 1
YECs: 0

We can't be out of creationists already. Anybody else wanna play?
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 20858
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Ad Orientem

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by Thunktank » Mon May 18, 2015 10:39 am

Rusty wrote:
tuttle wrote:I miss Ethell
Wow, so typical of YEC's. Love'em and leave'em. Promiscuous devils. I'll bet he's not smokin' anymore either.

Score:
Rational Science: 1
YECs: 0

We can't be out of creationists already. Anybody else wanna play?
It's all rather weird to me actually. Cosmology really should make room for multiple models. Unfortunately, the Christians and rationalists have tried to solidify one united perspective respective of their own preferred view. This leads to a closed and very limited cosmology and world view. Rationalists are strong on the rational while weak on the metaphysical. The Yec are strong on the metaphysical while weak on the rational. I also find YEC theology very unatractive, but that's another topic. But both perspectives are dogmatic in their way. A dogma I dont appreciate.

Anyway, our culture has become very weak and narrow minded in our views of cosmology and myth. I teach my children the rational sciency version of cosmology along with the metaphysical, mythic and cultural cosmologies of their western heritage to include Christianity, and ancient Greek and Norse for now, if for no other reason then to expand their view and increase their ability of inspiration. But I teach them to be flexible, not to hold anything too tightly or dogmatically. To leave open the ability to learn and adapt and be inspired by even more goodness of this great and wonderful universe.

User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 25026
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by Rusty » Mon May 18, 2015 11:04 am

Thunktank wrote:
Rusty wrote:
tuttle wrote:I miss Ethell
Wow, so typical of YEC's. Love'em and leave'em. Promiscuous devils. I'll bet he's not smokin' anymore either.

Score:
Rational Science: 1
YECs: 0

We can't be out of creationists already. Anybody else wanna play?
It's all rather weird to me actually. Cosmology really should make room for multiple models. Unfortunately, the Christians and rationalists have tried to solidify one united perspective respective of their own preferred view. This leads to a closed and very limited cosmology and world view. Rationalists are strong on the rational while weak on the metaphysical. The Yec are strong on the metaphysical while weak on the rational. I also find YEC theology very unatractive, but that's another topic. But both perspectives are dogmatic in their way. A dogma I dont appreciate.

Anyway, our culture has become very weak and narrow minded in our views of cosmology and myth. I teach my children the rational sciency version of cosmology along with the metaphysical, mythic and cultural cosmologies of their western heritage to include Christianity, and ancient Greek and Norse for now, if for no other reason than to expand their view and increase their ability of inspiration. But I teach them to be flexible, not to hold anything too tightly or dogmatically. To leave open the ability to learn and adapt and be inspired by even more goodness of this great and wonderful universe.
If you check science in the news I recently posted a ref. to a nice historical summary & critique of cosmology, ancient to modern, and why they are where they are. They're in need of some creative ideas according to the article. There are lots of critics of the standard cosmology model that doubt the inflationary scheme but alternatives have to also solve the same problems. Inflation was hypothesized to solve a problem - the incredible uniformity of the temp. cbr. No space anywhere in our direct experience ever gets anywhere near the uniformity of the cbr. And there are other problems that it also solves too. Ultimately science solves technical problems ie why does phenomena 'x' seem to occur? The paper that was ref'd in the thread that was taken as questioning the big bang articulates the problems and I pasted the problems in the thread, I think.

That's the technical view that to date has resulted in extremely fine fidelity in the models. But it also depends what you think a cosmology is for. What does a cosmology serve? There is room for other models. Who polices the number of models? Nobody. There are and always have been multiple models. So that's not the problem. You want equal attention given to all the models.
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 20858
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Ad Orientem

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by Thunktank » Mon May 18, 2015 12:04 pm

Rusty wrote:
Thunktank wrote:
Rusty wrote:
tuttle wrote:I miss Ethell
Wow, so typical of YEC's. Love'em and leave'em. Promiscuous devils. I'll bet he's not smokin' anymore either.

Score:
Rational Science: 1
YECs: 0

We can't be out of creationists already. Anybody else wanna play?
It's all rather weird to me actually. Cosmology really should make room for multiple models. Unfortunately, the Christians and rationalists have tried to solidify one united perspective respective of their own preferred view. This leads to a closed and very limited cosmology and world view. Rationalists are strong on the rational while weak on the metaphysical. The Yec are strong on the metaphysical while weak on the rational. I also find YEC theology very unatractive, but that's another topic. But both perspectives are dogmatic in their way. A dogma I dont appreciate.

Anyway, our culture has become very weak and narrow minded in our views of cosmology and myth. I teach my children the rational sciency version of cosmology along with the metaphysical, mythic and cultural cosmologies of their western heritage to include Christianity, and ancient Greek and Norse for now, if for no other reason than to expand their view and increase their ability of inspiration. But I teach them to be flexible, not to hold anything too tightly or dogmatically. To leave open the ability to learn and adapt and be inspired by even more goodness of this great and wonderful universe.
If you check science in the news I recently posted a ref. to a nice historical summary & critique of cosmology, ancient to modern, and why they are where they are. They're in need of some creative ideas according to the article. There are lots of critics of the standard cosmology model that doubt the inflationary scheme but alternatives have to also solve the same problems. Inflation was hypothesized to solve a problem - the incredible uniformity of the temp. cbr. No space anywhere in our direct experience ever gets anywhere near the uniformity of the cbr. And there are other problems that it also solves too. Ultimately science solves technical problems ie why does phenomena 'x' seem to occur? The paper that was ref'd in the thread that was taken as questioning the big bang articulates the problems and I pasted the problems in the thread, I think.

That's the technical view that to date has resulted in extremely fine fidelity in the models. But it also depends what you think a cosmology is for. What does a cosmology serve? There is room for other models. Who polices the number of models? Nobody. There are and always have been multiple models. So that's not the problem. You want equal attention given to all the models.
Yes, multiple cosmologies for the modern man. That's the only way to cover all the important perspectives. More tommorow, I'm traveling cross country the rest of the day.

User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 25026
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by Rusty » Mon May 18, 2015 12:22 pm

Thunktank wrote:
Rusty wrote:
Thunktank wrote:
Rusty wrote:
tuttle wrote:I miss Ethell
Wow, so typical of YEC's. Love'em and leave'em. Promiscuous devils. I'll bet he's not smokin' anymore either.

Score:
Rational Science: 1
YECs: 0

We can't be out of creationists already. Anybody else wanna play?
It's all rather weird to me actually. Cosmology really should make room for multiple models. Unfortunately, the Christians and rationalists have tried to solidify one united perspective respective of their own preferred view. This leads to a closed and very limited cosmology and world view. Rationalists are strong on the rational while weak on the metaphysical. The Yec are strong on the metaphysical while weak on the rational. I also find YEC theology very unatractive, but that's another topic. But both perspectives are dogmatic in their way. A dogma I dont appreciate.

Anyway, our culture has become very weak and narrow minded in our views of cosmology and myth. I teach my children the rational sciency version of cosmology along with the metaphysical, mythic and cultural cosmologies of their western heritage to include Christianity, and ancient Greek and Norse for now, if for no other reason than to expand their view and increase their ability of inspiration. But I teach them to be flexible, not to hold anything too tightly or dogmatically. To leave open the ability to learn and adapt and be inspired by even more goodness of this great and wonderful universe.
If you check science in the news I recently posted a ref. to a nice historical summary & critique of cosmology, ancient to modern, and why they are where they are. They're in need of some creative ideas according to the article. There are lots of critics of the standard cosmology model that doubt the inflationary scheme but alternatives have to also solve the same problems. Inflation was hypothesized to solve a problem - the incredible uniformity of the temp. cbr. No space anywhere in our direct experience ever gets anywhere near the uniformity of the cbr. And there are other problems that it also solves too. Ultimately science solves technical problems ie why does phenomena 'x' seem to occur? The paper that was ref'd in the thread that was taken as questioning the big bang articulates the problems and I pasted the problems in the thread, I think.

That's the technical view that to date has resulted in extremely fine fidelity in the models. But it also depends what you think a cosmology is for. What does a cosmology serve? There is room for other models. Who polices the number of models? Nobody. There are and always have been multiple models. So that's not the problem. You want equal attention given to all the models.
Yes, multiple cosmologies for the modern man. That's the only way to cover all the important perspectives. More tommorow, I'm traveling cross country the rest of the day.
OK. I'll leave questions for you. What are all the important perspectives? Could we list them? And what might constitute answers to them (ie can we suggest which questions are pressing & for whom that might lead to distinct cosmologies)? And who is the the modern man and why does he need another idea of cosmology or even a menu of alternative cosmologies? The answers to these probably relate to "what does a cosmology serve?" so address that question, pls.

Nice reference opening up the notion of cosmology - Guy Consolmagno's: Cosmology Making Sense of the Universe. Excellent stuff. Very accessible & understandable for everyone here.

[BBvideo 560,340]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3GcdqKab9Y[/BBvideo]
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32413
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by UncleBob » Mon May 18, 2015 12:40 pm

Rusty wrote: OK. I'll leave questions for you. What are all the important perspectives? Could we list them? And what might constitute answers to them (ie can we suggest which questions are pressing & for whom that might lead to distinct cosmologies)? And who is the the modern man and why does he need another idea of cosmology or even a menu of alternative cosmologies? The answers to these probably relate to "what does a cosmology serve?" so address that question, pls.

Nice reference opening up the notion of cosmology - Guy Consolmagno's: Cosmology Making Sense of the Universe. Excellent stuff. Very accessible & understandable for everyone here.

[BBvideo 560,340]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3GcdqKab9Y[/BBvideo]
IMO, cosmology serves as (1) context for whatever worldview it serves and (2) explanation of or rationale for a specific theodicy. Why does God allow evil? Well, look to the creation story for your answer. How did we get here if there is no God? Well, look at the CMB. Why do bad things happen to good people? Well, start looking at the origin stores (etc.).

Of course, they all are attempts to answer the biggie: Why are we here?
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 25026
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by Rusty » Mon May 18, 2015 2:27 pm

UncleBob wrote:
Rusty wrote: OK. I'll leave questions for you. What are all the important perspectives? Could we list them? And what might constitute answers to them (ie can we suggest which questions are pressing & for whom that might lead to distinct cosmologies)? And who is the the modern man and why does he need another idea of cosmology or even a menu of alternative cosmologies? The answers to these probably relate to "what does a cosmology serve?" so address that question, pls.

Nice reference opening up the notion of cosmology - Guy Consolmagno's: Cosmology Making Sense of the Universe. Excellent stuff. Very accessible & understandable for everyone here.

[BBvideo 560,340]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3GcdqKab9Y[/BBvideo]
IMO, cosmology serves as (1) context for whatever worldview it serves and (2) explanation of or rationale for a specific theodicy. Why does God allow evil? Well, look to the creation story for your answer. How did we get here if there is no God? Well, look at the CMB. Why do bad things happen to good people? Well, start looking at the origin stores (etc.).

Of course, they all are attempts to answer the biggie: Why are we here?
I think cosmology at its most general is the set of working assumptions that provide a framework for trying to understand everything and the articulation of everything in terms of those assumptions. It's your item 1) but not item 2). Item 2) is already a specific worldview that doesn't exist in every cosmology. Item 1) is true of your cosmology as well as scientific cosmology. But scientific cosmology doesn't deal in gods, evil, good, etc. Nature appears to be completely absent of any concept of good and evil. And we've discussed this before.

But I do understand that 2) relates to the ultimate problem for Bob. Have you ever thought that you're using the wrong telescopes for the job?

Nature for me includes mankind. So evil & good are value judgements of events or conceptions in a given standard for ethical human behaviour. You can't expect nature beyond humans to behave consistent with that idea. Humans have trouble living up to every ethical standard.
Last edited by Rusty on Mon May 18, 2015 2:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32413
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by UncleBob » Mon May 18, 2015 2:39 pm

Rusty wrote:
UncleBob wrote:
Rusty wrote: OK. I'll leave questions for you. What are all the important perspectives? Could we list them? And what might constitute answers to them (ie can we suggest which questions are pressing & for whom that might lead to distinct cosmologies)? And who is the the modern man and why does he need another idea of cosmology or even a menu of alternative cosmologies? The answers to these probably relate to "what does a cosmology serve?" so address that question, pls.

Nice reference opening up the notion of cosmology - Guy Consolmagno's: Cosmology Making Sense of the Universe. Excellent stuff. Very accessible & understandable for everyone here.

[BBvideo 560,340]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3GcdqKab9Y[/BBvideo]
IMO, cosmology serves as (1) context for whatever worldview it serves and (2) explanation of or rationale for a specific theodicy. Why does God allow evil? Well, look to the creation story for your answer. How did we get here if there is no God? Well, look at the CMB. Why do bad things happen to good people? Well, start looking at the origin stores (etc.).

Of course, they all are attempts to answer the biggie: Why are we here?
I think cosmology at its most general is the set of working assumptions that provide a framework for trying to understand everything and the articulation of everything in terms of those assumptions. It's your item 1) but not item 2). Item 2) is already a specific worldview that doesn't exist in every cosmology. Item 1) is true of your cosmology as well as scientific cosmology. But scientific cosmology doesn't deal in gods, evil, good, etc. Nature appears to be completely absent of any concept of good and evil. And we've discussed this before.

But I do understand that 2) relates to the ultimate problem for Bob. Have you ever thought that you're using the wrong telescopes for the job?
I am using "cosmology" in a broader sense. For instance, here is a cosmogram for Jainism:

Image

So scientific cosmology is but one of several. However, scientific cosmology would answer the 2nd question in ways that are different than most religions, but it still answers it. For instance: Why do bad things happen? That's nature and our perspective of it.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 25026
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by Rusty » Mon May 18, 2015 2:45 pm

UncleBob wrote:
Rusty wrote:
UncleBob wrote:
Rusty wrote: OK. I'll leave questions for you. What are all the important perspectives? Could we list them? And what might constitute answers to them (ie can we suggest which questions are pressing & for whom that might lead to distinct cosmologies)? And who is the the modern man and why does he need another idea of cosmology or even a menu of alternative cosmologies? The answers to these probably relate to "what does a cosmology serve?" so address that question, pls.

Nice reference opening up the notion of cosmology - Guy Consolmagno's: Cosmology Making Sense of the Universe. Excellent stuff. Very accessible & understandable for everyone here.

[BBvideo 560,340]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3GcdqKab9Y[/BBvideo]
IMO, cosmology serves as (1) context for whatever worldview it serves and (2) explanation of or rationale for a specific theodicy. Why does God allow evil? Well, look to the creation story for your answer. How did we get here if there is no God? Well, look at the CMB. Why do bad things happen to good people? Well, start looking at the origin stores (etc.).

Of course, they all are attempts to answer the biggie: Why are we here?
I think cosmology at its most general is the set of working assumptions that provide a framework for trying to understand everything and the articulation of everything in terms of those assumptions. It's your item 1) but not item 2). Item 2) is already a specific worldview that doesn't exist in every cosmology. Item 1) is true of your cosmology as well as scientific cosmology. But scientific cosmology doesn't deal in gods, evil, good, etc. Nature appears to be completely absent of any concept of good and evil. And we've discussed this before.

But I do understand that 2) relates to the ultimate problem for Bob. Have you ever thought that you're using the wrong telescopes for the job?
I am using "cosmology" in a broader sense. For instance, here is a cosmogram for Jainism:

Image

So scientific cosmology is but one of several.
Must all cosmologies feature gods, good, evil? If not then your 2) is pertinent to a specific worldview only.

We're not understanding each other. You gave two conditions for a cosmology. And I agreed with the first and tossed the second. So you need to work on an explanation for why 2) must be in every cosmology. A second example will not do unless you then plan to prove the hypothesis by induction.
Last edited by Rusty on Mon May 18, 2015 2:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32413
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by UncleBob » Mon May 18, 2015 2:46 pm

Rusty wrote:
UncleBob wrote:
Rusty wrote:
UncleBob wrote:
Rusty wrote: OK. I'll leave questions for you. What are all the important perspectives? Could we list them? And what might constitute answers to them (ie can we suggest which questions are pressing & for whom that might lead to distinct cosmologies)? And who is the the modern man and why does he need another idea of cosmology or even a menu of alternative cosmologies? The answers to these probably relate to "what does a cosmology serve?" so address that question, pls.

Nice reference opening up the notion of cosmology - Guy Consolmagno's: Cosmology Making Sense of the Universe. Excellent stuff. Very accessible & understandable for everyone here.

[BBvideo 560,340]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3GcdqKab9Y[/BBvideo]
IMO, cosmology serves as (1) context for whatever worldview it serves and (2) explanation of or rationale for a specific theodicy. Why does God allow evil? Well, look to the creation story for your answer. How did we get here if there is no God? Well, look at the CMB. Why do bad things happen to good people? Well, start looking at the origin stores (etc.).

Of course, they all are attempts to answer the biggie: Why are we here?
I think cosmology at its most general is the set of working assumptions that provide a framework for trying to understand everything and the articulation of everything in terms of those assumptions. It's your item 1) but not item 2). Item 2) is already a specific worldview that doesn't exist in every cosmology. Item 1) is true of your cosmology as well as scientific cosmology. But scientific cosmology doesn't deal in gods, evil, good, etc. Nature appears to be completely absent of any concept of good and evil. And we've discussed this before.

But I do understand that 2) relates to the ultimate problem for Bob. Have you ever thought that you're using the wrong telescopes for the job?
I am using "cosmology" in a broader sense. For instance, here is a cosmogram for Jainism:

Image

So scientific cosmology is but one of several.
Must all cosmologies feature gods, good, evil? If not then your 2) is pertinent to a specific worldview only.
Sorry. I added the answer above.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32413
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by UncleBob » Mon May 18, 2015 2:52 pm

Rusty wrote: Must all cosmologies feature gods, good, evil? If not then your 2) is pertinent to a specific worldview only.

We're not understanding each other. You gave two conditions for a cosmology. And I agreed with the first and tossed the second. So you need to work on an explanation for why 2) must be in every cosmology. A second example will not do unless you then plan to prove the hypothesis by induction.
There is no universal worldview. Would you agree? If so, then even a scientific worldview will need to deal with gods, good/evil, and so even if it is explaining why these things do not exist. Ultimately, when comparing worldviews, questions such as "Why do bad things happen to good people?" will need to be addressed if for no other reason than other worldviews will answer them.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 25026
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by Rusty » Mon May 18, 2015 3:03 pm

UncleBob wrote:
Rusty wrote: Must all cosmologies feature gods, good, evil? If not then your 2) is pertinent to a specific worldview only.

We're not understanding each other. You gave two conditions for a cosmology. And I agreed with the first and tossed the second. So you need to work on an explanation for why 2) must be in every cosmology. A second example will not do unless you then plan to prove the hypothesis by induction.
There is no universal worldview. Would you agree? If so, then even a scientific worldview will need to deal with gods, good/evil, and so even if it is explaining why these things do not exist. Ultimately, when comparing worldviews, questions such as "Why do bad things happen to good people?" will need to be addressed if for no other reason than other worldviews will answer them.
Not happening. You don't really believe that do you? Worldviews, cosmologies may or may not have overlapping assumptions /elements. Science can never address anything about gods, good, evil. They are not addressable within the methodology used in science.... unless you've got some evidence that you're been hiding from me. You already know this too. So what are you doing?

Religion doesn't incorporate scientific knowledge either, as is evident on CPS. And the view of the physical world espoused by the bible is false in many cases. It has been corrected only in excusing it from any responsibility to explain the world. The Catholics did this.

So another characteristic of a cosmology is that it need not acknowledge other worldviews. In the hands of people this results in confusion and a difficulty bridging between them when one is new to them. At best they are completely independent and people select the appropriate worldview for their activity eg physicists never do vector calculus in church services and nobody designs bridges with religion.

All cosmologies/worldviews are incomplete. This is a corollary of your "there is no universal worldview". So this is another characteristic that we agree upon. It's just your #2 that is NOT a characteristic of a cosmology/worldview. Gods, good, evil, etc are inventions of a religious worldview. So I interpret your theodicy question as evidence that the inventions are inadequate to explain events in the world that should be explainable in religion. You need to toss god, and realize that good & evil are just value judgements against a given human ethical system. :D
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32413
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by UncleBob » Mon May 18, 2015 6:56 pm

Rusty wrote: Not happening. You don't really believe that do you? Worldviews, cosmologies may or may not have overlapping assumptions /elements. Science can never address anything about gods, good, evil. They are not addressable within the methodology used in science.... unless you've got some evidence that you're been hiding from me. You already know this too. So what are you doing?
I do believe that. Some areas of science do study morality within an evolutionary context and other effects of religion. There has been several studies on the effect of prayer, with mixed but mostly null results. Physicists don't study these effects, as far as I know, but other disciplines that use the scientific method do. Still, scientific cosmology is but one of the cosmologies studied by humans and, as the compare each other, those questions are in some ways addressed.
Rusty wrote: Religion doesn't incorporate scientific knowledge either, as is evident on CPS. And the view of the physical world espoused by the bible is false in many cases. It has been corrected only in excusing it from any responsibility to explain the world. The Catholics did this.
If your experience with this is just CPS then it is limited. Yes, the few times scripture addresses descriptions of the physical world it is expressed in "unscientific" terms and not consistent with scientific evidence. However, many religious studies scholars look at areas of science and studies the effects of religion itself. These are seldom addressed here. Archaeology is addressed, from time to time, but that is about it. Often, we encounter an anti-science bias here that many Christians do not duplicate.
Rusty wrote: So another characteristic of a cosmology is that it need not acknowledge other worldviews. In the hands of people this results in confusion and a difficulty bridging between them when one is new to them. At best they are completely independent and people select the appropriate worldview for their activity eg physicists never do vector calculus in church services and nobody designs bridges with religion.
Scientists rarely compare worldviews but many others do. So no cosmological systems need to address other models but many scholars do.
Rusty wrote: All cosmologies/worldviews are incomplete. This is a corollary of your "there is no universal worldview". So this is another characteristic that we agree upon. It's just your #2 that is NOT a characteristic of a cosmology/worldview. Gods, good, evil, etc are inventions of a religious worldview. So I interpret your theodicy question as evidence that the inventions are inadequate to explain events in the world that should be explainable in religion. You need to toss god, and realize that good & evil are just value judgements against a given human ethical system. :D
#2 is not a characteristic of scientific cosmology but every other cosmological model does, in fact, address it. However, scientists do venture into that area even if it is to say that it is moot. This is because it is a prevailing question for most all models.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
Onyx
Darth Onyx, Bringer of Unity
Darth Onyx, Bringer of Unity
Posts: 10802
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Skeptopolis

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by Onyx » Mon May 18, 2015 7:25 pm

UncleBob wrote: Image
The print is quite small. Is Cleveland Ohio on there?
4. No more signatures that quote other CPS members.
-- Thunktank

User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 25026
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by Rusty » Mon May 18, 2015 8:01 pm

UncleBob wrote:
Rusty wrote: Not happening. You don't really believe that do you? Worldviews, cosmologies may or may not have overlapping assumptions /elements. Science can never address anything about gods, good, evil. They are not addressable within the methodology used in science.... unless you've got some evidence that you're been hiding from me. You already know this too. So what are you doing?
I do believe that. Some areas of science do study morality within an evolutionary context and other effects of religion. There has been several studies on the effect of prayer, with mixed but mostly null results. Physicists don't study these effects, as far as I know, but other disciplines that use the scientific method do. Still, scientific cosmology is but one of the cosmologies studied by humans and, as the compare each other, those questions are in some ways addressed.
Yes but they're studying its role in people's attitudes the phenomena that is subject to belief. It's the behaviour of belief in individuals and maybe groups and adherence with all of its effects.

I think it's important to remember that it is mankind creating all of these rich and complex evolving ideas to try to understand our circumstances. It's the same species creating religion as created the Standard Cosmology model. Keep a bungee cord in mind binding all of these ideas as originating from one species.
UncleBob wrote:
Rusty wrote: Religion doesn't incorporate scientific knowledge either, as is evident on CPS. And the view of the physical world espoused by the bible is false in many cases. It has been corrected only in excusing it from any responsibility to explain the world. The Catholics did this.
If your experience with this is just CPS then it is limited. Yes, the few times scripture addresses descriptions of the physical world it is expressed in "unscientific" terms and not consistent with scientific evidence. However, many religious studies scholars look at areas of science and studies the effects of religion itself. These are seldom addressed here. Archaeology is addressed, from time to time, but that is about it. Often, we encounter an anti-science bias here that many Christians do not duplicate.
Why do you think the descriptions of phenomena and the world in the bible isn't consistent with scientific evidence? Really.
One possible answer is that the bible reflects a typical understanding of the physical world consistent with the views of many cultures at that time and let's face it God wasn't trying to create scientists. Right Bob. That's nonsense. Remember the bungee cord. We're the same people and always have been. The reason the bible reflects the culture's ideas is because that culture is the author. It's another example of an amazing creative attempt to craft an understanding of the world. But it's wrong about the world and about the origins. And it affects the credibility of the story. But it's just as imaginative as the modern physics, and the physics is likely wrong too. The bungee cord principle. Keep it close. Otherwise there is a real challenge to explain why the bible is so wrong. You have to wonder about God's motivation. Take a crack at that challenge.
UncleBob wrote:
Rusty wrote: So another characteristic of a cosmology is that it need not acknowledge other worldviews. In the hands of people this results in confusion and a difficulty bridging between them when one is new to them. At best they are completely independent and people select the appropriate worldview for their activity eg physicists never do vector calculus in church services and nobody designs bridges with religion.
Scientists rarely compare worldviews but many others do. So no cosmological systems need to address other models but many scholars do.
I'm being mounted, I can feel it. Bring out what you have.
UncleBob wrote:
Rusty wrote: All cosmologies/worldviews are incomplete. This is a corollary of your "there is no universal worldview". So this is another characteristic that we agree upon. It's just your #2 that is NOT a characteristic of a cosmology/worldview. Gods, good, evil, etc are inventions of a religious worldview. So I interpret your theodicy question as evidence that the inventions are inadequate to explain events in the world that should be explainable in religion. You need to toss god, and realize that good & evil are just value judgements against a given human ethical system. :D
#2 is not a characteristic of scientific cosmology but every other cosmological model does, in fact, address it. However, scientists do venture into that area even if it is to say that it is moot. This is because it is a prevailing question for most all models.
This place is called ChristianPipeSmokers.net for a reason. If it was PhysicistPipesSmokers.net that would certainly have a different bias. I'm ok with that but when the framework for characteristics is defined be fair.
The scientific cosmology has taken ownership of the word cosmology so I'm content that it won't be forgotten.
Last edited by Rusty on Mon May 18, 2015 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32413
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by UncleBob » Mon May 18, 2015 8:12 pm

Onyx wrote:
UncleBob wrote: Image
The print is quite small. Is Cleveland Ohio on there?
Click on the image. Its there, down towards the bottom.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
Jocose
a large Chinese man named Wu
a large Chinese man named Wu
Posts: 19728
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Moonbase Alpha
Contact:

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by Jocose » Mon May 18, 2015 8:27 pm

UncleBob wrote:
Onyx wrote:
UncleBob wrote: Image
The print is quite small. Is Cleveland Ohio on there?
Click on the image. Its there, down towards the bottom.
<Chortle>
You guys are bad
"And for Freds sake, DO NOT point anyone towards CPS or you'll put them off of both Christianity and pipe smoking forever." ~ FredS

I've crossed the Bosphorus.

Post Reply