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
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 8:30 pm

Found it.

Image
4. No more signatures that quote other CPS members.
-- Thunktank

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32447
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by UncleBob » Mon May 18, 2015 8:45 pm

Rusty wrote:
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.
Yes, these models are created by people trying to explain the universe--including scientific cosmology. Would these natural phenomena exist apart from an observer? We don't know. Why? Because we observe, interpret, and explain. That means it is processed by people and explained through that filter. Now don't get me wrong, here, I do believe that the scientific method is the best method we have to observe, interpret, and explain the natural world but we do have to go through that process which means, at some level, scientists are building a cosmological model that is subject to human interpretation.
Rusty wrote:
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.
This is actually simple and tied to above. Also, you may be making some false assumptions. Essentially, they used the tools they had to understand the world--just like we do today. Yes cultural values are reflected in the text, just like you are doing in reading it, and no, God was not trying to create scientists (at least as we understand them) at the time.

Now here is a false assumption I believe you are making: God did not dictate the text to the writer. Imagine you saw something. How would you convey that to someone else? Consider all the constraints of your knowledge of the world, language, vocabulary, and so on. Now imagine you are like Amos, an uneducated even in your time shepherd conveying some mystery to others. Heck, how difficult is it for you to convey precisely some ephemeral physics principle to someone who knows neither physics nor math? What about to someone who only knows a little Navajo?
Rusty wrote:
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.
Hmm.. Start with Patterns in Comparative Religion by Mircea Eliade. After you finish with that, we will go from there.
Rusty wrote:
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.
Your use of "cosmology" is contingent on scientific context. That is neither the first nor only context of that word.
"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: 25034
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 9:33 pm

UncleBob wrote:
Rusty wrote:
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.
Yes, these models are created by people trying to explain the universe--including scientific cosmology. Would these natural phenomena exist apart from an observer? We don't know. Why? Because we observe, interpret, and explain. That means it is processed by people and explained through that filter. Now don't get me wrong, here, I do believe that the scientific method is the best method we have to observe, interpret, and explain the natural world but we do have to go through that process which means, at some level, scientists are building a cosmological model that is subject to human interpretation.
Rusty wrote:
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.
This is actually simple and tied to above. Also, you may be making some false assumptions. Essentially, they used the tools they had to understand the world--just like we do today. Yes cultural values are reflected in the text, just like you are doing in reading it, and no, God was not trying to create scientists (at least as we understand them) at the time.

Now here is a false assumption I believe you are making: God did not dictate the text to the writer. Imagine you saw something. How would you convey that to someone else? Consider all the constraints of your knowledge of the world, language, vocabulary, and so on. Now imagine you are like Amos, an uneducated even in your time shepherd conveying some mystery to others. Heck, how difficult is it for you to convey precisely some ephemeral physics principle to someone who knows neither physics nor math? What about to someone who only knows a little Navajo?
Rusty wrote:
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.
Hmm.. Start with Patterns in Comparative Religion by Mircea Eliade. After you finish with that, we will go from there.
Rusty wrote:
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.
Your use of "cosmology" is contingent on scientific context. That is neither the first nor only context of that word.
I`m not sure why we`re debating. But we are.

I`m sure you;re quite right about my shortcomings in understanding the bible and importing my own culture. But we could clear that up by having a checklist of inconsistencies concerning the physical world in the bible vs. modern conception. We could do the same thing wrt mankind. That way you can ensure that I have`t misinterpreted the attributes of their world according to them. I think that`s fair.

I actually assume that God doesnt exist (default hypothesis) so he can hardly dictate the text to the writer. The people are the only author. I said that. I think the alternative is utterly fantastic. On this I think I think I`m pretty clear. But I`ve come a long way if you can even suspect that I harbour such fantastic ideas. 8)

The phenomena in the universe exists indep. of us, or do you think it only appears when we lookÉ Excuse the french characters; that`s a question mark. The keyboard is alive and reads my mind and I was cursing you in french. Actually I was cursing your foot.

Your use of cosmology is contingent upon religion. That is not the only use for cosmology. I understood from your prev. posts that you want the theodicy problem as a characterizing problem for any cosmology. If that`s the case we can exclude all sci. cosmology because it does not address that.

If you could be clear about whether we`re excluding sci cosmology because it doesnt conform Ì`d like that.
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: 32447
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by UncleBob » Mon May 18, 2015 9:53 pm

Rusty wrote: I`m not sure why we`re debating. But we are.

I`m sure you;re quite right about my shortcomings in understanding the bible and importing my own culture. But we could clear that up by having a checklist of inconsistencies concerning the physical world in the bible vs. modern conception. We could do the same thing wrt mankind. That way you can ensure that I have`t misinterpreted the attributes of their world according to them. I think that`s fair.

I actually assume that God doesnt exist so he can hardly dictate the text to the writer. The people are the only author. I said that. I think the alternative is utterly fantastic. On this I think I think I`m pretty clear.

The phenomena in the universe exists indep. of us, or do you think it only appears when we lookÉ Excuse the french characters; that`s a question mark. The keyboard is alive and reads my mind and I was cursing you in french.

Your use of cosmology is contingent upon religion. That is not the only use for cosmology. I understood from your prev. posts that you want the theodicy problem as a characterizing problem for any cosmology. If that`s the case we can exclude all sci. cosmology because it does not address that.

If you could be clear about whether we`re excluding sci cosmology because it doesnt conform Ì`d like that.
Hello? This is CPS. Debating over minutiae is what we do.

As for the false assumption, I mean arguing against a false assumption here:
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.
This is a common straw man in that the assumption is that they should have gotten all the scientific details correct (as we currently understand it) or it can't be true (or God-given).

Now, I believe that the natural phenomena exists apart from an observer but that is similar to saying God exists apart from an observer. We need an observer to verify.

Cosmology first existed in religion. Even the scientific use addresses #2 by saying it is moot. Why? Because there is an expectation of addressing this question by most people who approach cosmology. Also, I am not excluding scientific cosmology but, rather, including it into the genre of "cosmology". That is the point.
"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: 32447
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by UncleBob » Mon May 18, 2015 10:01 pm

Here is an example of scientists using cosmology to address those questions--including theodicy:

[BBvideo 560,340]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk[/BBvideo]
"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: 25034
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 10:12 pm

UncleBob wrote:
Rusty wrote: I`m not sure why we`re debating. But we are.

I`m sure you;re quite right about my shortcomings in understanding the bible and importing my own culture. But we could clear that up by having a checklist of inconsistencies concerning the physical world in the bible vs. modern conception. We could do the same thing wrt mankind. That way you can ensure that I have`t misinterpreted the attributes of their world according to them. I think that`s fair.

I actually assume that God doesnt exist so he can hardly dictate the text to the writer. The people are the only author. I said that. I think the alternative is utterly fantastic. On this I think I think I`m pretty clear.

The phenomena in the universe exists indep. of us, or do you think it only appears when we lookÉ Excuse the french characters; that`s a question mark. The keyboard is alive and reads my mind and I was cursing you in french.

Your use of cosmology is contingent upon religion. That is not the only use for cosmology. I understood from your prev. posts that you want the theodicy problem as a characterizing problem for any cosmology. If that`s the case we can exclude all sci. cosmology because it does not address that.

If you could be clear about whether we`re excluding sci cosmology because it doesnt conform Ì`d like that.
Hello? This is CPS. Debating over minutiae is what we do.

As for the false assumption, I mean arguing against a false assumption here:
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.
This is a common straw man in that the assumption is that they should have gotten all the scientific details correct (as we currently understand it) or it can't be true (or God-given).

Now, I believe that the natural phenomena exists apart from an observer but that is similar to saying God exists apart from an observer. We need an observer to verify.

Cosmology first existed in religion. Even the scientific use addresses #2 by saying it is moot. Why? Because there is an expectation of addressing this question by most people who approach cosmology. Also, I am not excluding scientific cosmology but, rather, including it into the genre of "cosmology". That is the point.
I agree that cosmology 1st existed with religion. Scientists may say 2 is moot but science cannot address it directly at all, except in behavioural science which is peripheral to god, good and evil. Science is mute on the topic. There is nothing amenable to direct treatment via the methodology of science. You know this.

I`m delighted that we`re explicitly including sci. cosmology. I can`t put in words how relived I am after all that. I could have shortened all this by just asking you to pls include sci cosmology even though it doesnt address theodicy. When are they amputating your footÉ
When is your foot being amputatedÉ
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
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 25034
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 10:21 pm

UncleBob wrote:Here is an example of scientists using cosmology to address those questions--including theodicy:

[BBvideo 560,340]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk[/BBvideo]
I like the emotional appeal but it`s not science nor cosmology. At best it`s emotional musings that motivate effort invested in understanding cosmology. That`s fine.

I suspect that theodicy or lack of theodicy as an active question is a byproduct of the attributes of a given cosmology itself. Science doesn't pronounce on good or evil. God is absent in modern sci cosmology altogether. Scientists bring up these question and talk about god too. But the science doesn't address it at all. And they're not doing science when they talk about this. Mathematics doesn't deal in theodicy either.
Last edited by Rusty on Mon May 18, 2015 10:40 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: 32447
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by UncleBob » Mon May 18, 2015 10:27 pm

Rusty wrote: I agree that cosmology 1st existed with religion. Scientists may say 2 is moot but science cannot address it directly at all, except in behavioural science which is peripheral to god, good and evil. Science is mute on the topic. There is nothing amenable to direct treatment via the methodology of science. You know this.
Oh Rusty. Of course various disciplines address the question of theodicy. For example, anyone who is diagnosed with cancer asks, "Why is this happening to me?" The answer may be, "Well, those 2 packs a day add up." or "Well, you worked somewhere you breathed in some asbestos." or "It is genetics." or any number of answers.
Rusty wrote: I`m delighted that we`re explicitly including sci. cosmology. I can`t put in words how relived I am after all that. I could have shortened all this by just asking you to pls include sci cosmology even though it doesnt address theodicy. When are they amputating your footÉ
When is your foot being amputatedÉ
Look 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: 32447
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by UncleBob » Mon May 18, 2015 10:35 pm

Rusty wrote:
UncleBob wrote:Here is an example of scientists using cosmology to address those questions--including theodicy:

[BBvideo 560,340]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk[/BBvideo]
I like the emotional appeal but it`s not science nor cosmology. At best it`s emotional musings that motivate effort invested in understanding cosmology. That`s fine.

I suspect that theodicy or lack of theodicy as a active question is a byproduct of attributes of a given cosmology itself. Science doesn`t pronounce on good or evil. God is absent in modern sci cosmology. Scientists bring up these question and talk about god too. But the science doesn`t address it.
It is using scientific understanding to build a cosmological model--a worldview. It is doing so in direct response to religious cosmologies. As I said, scientific cosmology responds to issues like good and evil and God by saying things like "There is no empirical evidence." or "There is no data." or whatnot. It still has to occasionally address these questions because people are interested in how these ideas exist in their worldviews. Here are examples: Click Here and Click 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: 25034
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 10:58 pm

UncleBob wrote:
Rusty wrote: I agree that cosmology 1st existed with religion. Scientists may say 2 is moot but science cannot address it directly at all, except in behavioural science which is peripheral to god, good and evil. Science is mute on the topic. There is nothing amenable to direct treatment via the methodology of science. You know this.
Oh Rusty. Of course various disciplines address the question of theodicy. For example, anyone who is diagnosed with cancer asks, "Why is this happening to me?" The answer may be, "Well, those 2 packs a day add up." or "Well, you worked somewhere you breathed in some asbestos." or "It is genetics." or any number of answers.
Rusty wrote: I`m delighted that we`re explicitly including sci. cosmology. I can`t put in words how relived I am after all that. I could have shortened all this by just asking you to pls include sci cosmology even though it doesnt address theodicy. When are they amputating your footÉ
When is your foot being amputatedÉ
Look above.
Your foot is hurting, isn't it? It must be.

There are distinct activities here. One is the science - The detection, diagnosis & treatment of a condition we call cancer. Where is the theodicy in any of that? It's only one of a long list of things that might kill. If it was a heart attack is the situation different? Does the theodicy point to something else? That death occurs is inevitable. Doctors work to delay it and can't eliminate it though they would rather that was true. Death is natural and whether it is evil or good is not obvious. The second is patient care. And it's invested in empathy. But even there where is the theodicy in 2 packs per day or asbestos? You brought it on yourself. Or shoveling snow. You were told not to shovel snow and now you've had a heart attack. That snow/asbestos/2 packs per day is evil. No it's not. But .... It's the cause of your unfortunate condition. These are just hypotheses about why you have cancer or the last straw for your poor heart. No not really. It is simply the last in a long chain of decisions, vulnerabilities, and consequences that began with your life. Some of the consequences are governed by statistics and probability. You can feel bad that this is happening to you. But life happened to you as well.

Where in any of this is theodicy?

Of all the possible individuals we are the really fortunate ones that experienced life. Think about the immense improbability of your existence as an individual. Go back as far as you want and think of the events that had to occur for you to be here alive. We are truly fortunate. And we got to enjoy our pipes too. Where is the downside on which good and evil spin? It is not in the situation as presented.
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: 32447
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by UncleBob » Tue May 19, 2015 7:04 am

Rusty wrote:
UncleBob wrote:
Rusty wrote: I agree that cosmology 1st existed with religion. Scientists may say 2 is moot but science cannot address it directly at all, except in behavioural science which is peripheral to god, good and evil. Science is mute on the topic. There is nothing amenable to direct treatment via the methodology of science. You know this.
Oh Rusty. Of course various disciplines address the question of theodicy. For example, anyone who is diagnosed with cancer asks, "Why is this happening to me?" The answer may be, "Well, those 2 packs a day add up." or "Well, you worked somewhere you breathed in some asbestos." or "It is genetics." or any number of answers.
Rusty wrote: I`m delighted that we`re explicitly including sci. cosmology. I can`t put in words how relived I am after all that. I could have shortened all this by just asking you to pls include sci cosmology even though it doesnt address theodicy. When are they amputating your footÉ
When is your foot being amputatedÉ
Look above.
Your foot is hurting, isn't it? It must be.

There are distinct activities here. One is the science - The detection, diagnosis & treatment of a condition we call cancer. Where is the theodicy in any of that? It's only one of a long list of things that might kill. If it was a heart attack is the situation different? Does the theodicy point to something else? That death occurs is inevitable. Doctors work to delay it and can't eliminate it though they would rather that was true. Death is natural and whether it is evil or good is not obvious. The second is patient care. And it's invested in empathy. But even there where is the theodicy in 2 packs per day or asbestos? You brought it on yourself. Or shoveling snow. You were told not to shovel snow and now you've had a heart attack. That snow/asbestos/2 packs per day is evil. No it's not. But .... It's the cause of your unfortunate condition. These are just hypotheses about why you have cancer or the last straw for your poor heart. No not really. It is simply the last in a long chain of decisions, vulnerabilities, and consequences that began with your life. Some of the consequences are governed by statistics and probability. You can feel bad that this is happening to you. But life happened to you as well.

Where in any of this is theodicy?

Of all the possible individuals we are the really fortunate ones that experienced life. Think about the immense improbability of your existence as an individual. Go back as far as you want and think of the events that had to occur for you to be here alive. We are truly fortunate. And we got to enjoy our pipes too. Where is the downside on which good and evil spin? It is not in the situation as presented.
Good God, man! I am starting to doubt that you understand what theodicy is. Theodicy tackles the question, "Why do bad things happen to good people?" Scientists investigate the world. People say, "Why do these bad things happen to me?" Scientists go, "Hey! I know why and it has nothing to do with genies or brownies or Jocose. It has to do with X." This is the same thing that religion does. Religion investigates the world. The faithful go, "Why do these bad things happen to me?" Religious leaders go, "Hey! I know why and it has nothing to do with nature or physics or Jocose. It has to do with X."
"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: 25034
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by Rusty » Tue May 19, 2015 8:47 am

UncleBob wrote:
Rusty wrote:
UncleBob wrote:
Rusty wrote: I agree that cosmology 1st existed with religion. Scientists may say 2 is moot but science cannot address it directly at all, except in behavioural science which is peripheral to god, good and evil. Science is mute on the topic. There is nothing amenable to direct treatment via the methodology of science. You know this.
Oh Rusty. Of course various disciplines address the question of theodicy. For example, anyone who is diagnosed with cancer asks, "Why is this happening to me?" The answer may be, "Well, those 2 packs a day add up." or "Well, you worked somewhere you breathed in some asbestos." or "It is genetics." or any number of answers.
Rusty wrote: I`m delighted that we`re explicitly including sci. cosmology. I can`t put in words how relived I am after all that. I could have shortened all this by just asking you to pls include sci cosmology even though it doesnt address theodicy. When are they amputating your footÉ
When is your foot being amputatedÉ
Look above.
Your foot is hurting, isn't it? It must be.

There are distinct activities here. One is the science - The detection, diagnosis & treatment of a condition we call cancer. Where is the theodicy in any of that? It's only one of a long list of things that might kill. If it was a heart attack is the situation different? Does the theodicy point to something else? That death occurs is inevitable. Doctors work to delay it and can't eliminate it though they would rather that was true. Death is natural and whether it is evil or good is not obvious. The second is patient care. And it's invested in empathy. But even there where is the theodicy in 2 packs per day or asbestos? You brought it on yourself. Or shoveling snow. You were told not to shovel snow and now you've had a heart attack. That snow/asbestos/2 packs per day is evil. No it's not. But .... It's the cause of your unfortunate condition. These are just hypotheses about why you have cancer or the last straw for your poor heart. No not really. It is simply the last in a long chain of decisions, vulnerabilities, and consequences that began with your life. Some of the consequences are governed by statistics and probability. You can feel bad that this is happening to you. But life happened to you as well.

Where in any of this is theodicy?

Of all the possible individuals we are the really fortunate ones that experienced life. Think about the immense improbability of your existence as an individual. Go back as far as you want and think of the events that had to occur for you to be here alive. We are truly fortunate. And we got to enjoy our pipes too. Where is the downside on which good and evil spin? It is not in the situation as presented.
Good God, man! I am starting to doubt that you understand what theodicy is. Theodicy tackles the question, "Why do bad things happen to good people?" Scientists investigate the world. People say, "Why do these bad things happen to me?" Scientists go, "Hey! I know why and it has nothing to do with genies or brownies or Jocose. It has to do with X." This is the same thing that religion does. Religion investigates the world. The faithful go, "Why do these bad things happen to me?" Religious leaders go, "Hey! I know why and it has nothing to do with nature or physics or Jocose. It has to do with X."
It's your religion not mine. I'm telling you how I see it. The balance sheet is never complete within theodicy. It ignores the incredibly unlikely gift of life to us as individuals. We who have lived are the incredibly fortunate ones.

What would the world look like if people never encountered any nasty events, never died, just great things every day forever. Their feet never hurt, never swell, etc. They never get sick. Never break a bone or have an accident. Rocks from space are careful not to drop on them. It never rains on their holidays. Do you think our distant ancestors assumed predators wouldn't eat them or eat their children? Is civilization just a corral to keep out the predators? The whole idea never existed. It's sort of a Willy Wonka chocolate factory existence.

Imagine what a lousy day the shop keeper in Nagasaki had when the fat boy bomb dropped on him. It should be that we inquire into why some people's ethics are odd and somehow allows them to kill off a race (Hitler and others) or field test an atomic weapon over a real city of people (Gen. Groves). Gen. Groves didn't care about the shop keeper. The US argues to this day that it was a benefit (benefit = good) to field test the fat boy bomb. And Hitler wanted the Jews & Slavic people gone. It's not accidents, or the course of chance events that results in 'bad' things, or disease, etc that is interesting. Right?

Since reading your threads about good-evil I've wondered why theodicy isn't a problem for me. It's a new issue that I discovered here. I think it's simply that God is missing in my world so there isn't any intervention and the world is consistent with that to my senses. There is no anomalous intervention that I can discern. And the theodicy problem is probably a mild symptom that there is actually no intervention. I think it should be possible to run a statistical experiment to detect whether there is intervention. This is building evidence.
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
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 25034
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by Rusty » Thu May 21, 2015 7:46 am

UncleBob wrote:
Rusty wrote:
UncleBob wrote:Here is an example of scientists using cosmology to address those questions--including theodicy:

[BBvideo 560,340]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk[/BBvideo]
I like the emotional appeal but it`s not science nor cosmology. At best it`s emotional musings that motivate effort invested in understanding cosmology. That`s fine.

I suspect that theodicy or lack of theodicy as a active question is a byproduct of attributes of a given cosmology itself. Science doesn`t pronounce on good or evil. God is absent in modern sci cosmology. Scientists bring up these question and talk about god too. But the science doesn`t address it.
It is using scientific understanding to build a cosmological model--a worldview. It is doing so in direct response to religious cosmologies. As I said, scientific cosmology responds to issues like good and evil and God by saying things like "There is no empirical evidence." or "There is no data." or whatnot. It still has to occasionally address these questions because people are interested in how these ideas exist in their worldviews. Here are examples: Click Here and Click Here.
Those are popular books. Anything can appear in popular books. And that is the appropriate place for thoughtful people to share their interesting ideas in fulfilling popular demand. They actually sell those books so it is commerce too. But that doesn't make it science and it certainly doesn't make it sci. cosmology. There is a demand for books on Astrology, that doesn't make it science and it certainly isn't sci. cosmology. The divide between science and astrology happened a long time ago. People trained as physicists engaging in speculative thought about how God is manifest in the universe isn't science either. Studying human behaviour can be done as a science and in that context what we believe and why we think we believe it is relevant. But none of that is sci. cosmology.

The common thread here is humans and we do a lot of things and we speculate on a lot of things including theodicy. We're not always doing science. Science is quite specialized and it's certainly the case that it doesn't cover all human activities or thoughts. Science also isn't responding to popular demand among people at large. I think the experiment I propose in the previous post would be interesting. It certainly needs a lot more work.
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: 32447
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by UncleBob » Thu May 21, 2015 7:58 am

Rusty wrote:
UncleBob wrote:
Rusty wrote:
UncleBob wrote:Here is an example of scientists using cosmology to address those questions--including theodicy:

[BBvideo 560,340]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk[/BBvideo]
I like the emotional appeal but it`s not science nor cosmology. At best it`s emotional musings that motivate effort invested in understanding cosmology. That`s fine.

I suspect that theodicy or lack of theodicy as a active question is a byproduct of attributes of a given cosmology itself. Science doesn`t pronounce on good or evil. God is absent in modern sci cosmology. Scientists bring up these question and talk about god too. But the science doesn`t address it.
It is using scientific understanding to build a cosmological model--a worldview. It is doing so in direct response to religious cosmologies. As I said, scientific cosmology responds to issues like good and evil and God by saying things like "There is no empirical evidence." or "There is no data." or whatnot. It still has to occasionally address these questions because people are interested in how these ideas exist in their worldviews. Here are examples: Click Here and Click Here.
Those are popular books. Anything can appear in popular books. And that is the appropriate place for thoughtful people to share their interesting ideas in fulfilling popular demand. They actually sell those books so it is commerce too. But that doesn't make it science and it certainly doesn't make it sci. cosmology. There is a demand for books on Astrology, that doesn't make it science and it certainly isn't sci. cosmology. The divide between science and astrology happened a long time ago. People trained as physicists engaging in speculative thought about how God is manifest in the universe isn't science either. Studying human behaviour can be done as a science and in that context what we believe and why we think we believe it is relevant. But none of that is sci. cosmology.

The common thread here is humans and we do a lot of things and we speculate on a lot of things including theodicy. We're not always doing science. Science is quite specialized and it's certainly the case that it doesn't cover all human activities or thoughts. I think the experiment I propose in the previous post would be interesting. It certainly needs a lot more work.
People are using the science of cosmology to create a scientific cosmology. That is not going to appear in a physics journal because it is philosophy. As scientists investigate the furthest reaches of space it will inevitably become a narrative (or added to the narrative) of creation.
"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
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18020
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by wosbald » Thu May 21, 2015 8:01 am

+JMJ+
Rusty wrote:
UncleBob wrote:It is using scientific understanding to build a cosmological model--a worldview. It is doing so in direct response to religious cosmologies. As I said, scientific cosmology responds to issues like good and evil and God by saying things like "There is no empirical evidence." or "There is no data." or whatnot. It still has to occasionally address these questions because people are interested in how these ideas exist in their worldviews. Here are examples: Click Here and Click Here.
Those are popular books. Anything can appear in popular books. And that is the appropriate place for thoughtful people to share their interesting ideas in fulfilling popular demand. They actually sell those books so it is commerce too. But that doesn't make it science and it certainly doesn't make it sci. cosmology. There is a demand for books on Astrology, that doesn't make it science and it certainly isn't sci. cosmology. The divide between science and astrology happened a long time ago. People trained as physicists engaging in speculative thought about how God is manifest in the universe isn't science either. Studying human behaviour can be done as a science and in that context what we believe and why we think we believe it is relevant. But none of that is sci. cosmology.
Kerdy?




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 25034
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by Rusty » Thu May 21, 2015 8:05 am

wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
Rusty wrote:
UncleBob wrote:It is using scientific understanding to build a cosmological model--a worldview. It is doing so in direct response to religious cosmologies. As I said, scientific cosmology responds to issues like good and evil and God by saying things like "There is no empirical evidence." or "There is no data." or whatnot. It still has to occasionally address these questions because people are interested in how these ideas exist in their worldviews. Here are examples: Click Here and Click Here.
Those are popular books. Anything can appear in popular books. And that is the appropriate place for thoughtful people to share their interesting ideas in fulfilling popular demand. They actually sell those books so it is commerce too. But that doesn't make it science and it certainly doesn't make it sci. cosmology. There is a demand for books on Astrology, that doesn't make it science and it certainly isn't sci. cosmology. The divide between science and astrology happened a long time ago. People trained as physicists engaging in speculative thought about how God is manifest in the universe isn't science either. Studying human behaviour can be done as a science and in that context what we believe and why we think we believe it is relevant. But none of that is sci. cosmology.
Kerdy?
Yeah, we switched minds. He's going to come in and post about differential theodicy and the role of the God Operator.
That may be part of challenge in theodicy as a subject, it defies modelling. It is its own conceptual model. And it doesn't appear to have any need to predict anything or be consistent with evidence as most sci. models must. So why do bad things happen to good people?

Here's a challenge for all of you. The std model in sci. cosmology today is called the Lambda CDM model. Does it address theodicy at all, even peripherally? Does it even have any implications for theodicy? In the thread that TNLP initiated "Perhaps there was no big bang?" the authors of the papers, that were the motivation for the story, are working within the lambda CDM model. They're addressing questions that are posed by that model. The following quote is from their paper and it's a good summary of the Lambda CDM model.

viewtopic.php?f=42&t=37397&p=949553#p949553
The generally accepted view of our universe (homogeneous, isotropic, spatially flat, obeying general relativity, and currently consisting of about 72% Dark Energy, likely in the form of a cosmological constant Λ, about 23% Dark Matter, and the rest observable matter), implies its small acceleration, as inferred from Type IA supernova observations, CMBR data and baryon acoustic oscillations [1–4]. However, quite a few things remain to be better understood, e.g.,
(i) the smallness of Λ, about 10^−123 in Planck units (‘the smallness problem’),
(ii) the approximate equality of vacuum and matter density in the current epoch (‘the coincidence problem’),
(ii) the apparent extreme fine-tuning required in the early universe, to have a spatially flat universe in the current epoch (‘the flatness problem’),
(iv) the true nature of dark matter, and
(v) the beginning of our universe, or the so-called big-bang.
Are there any implications for theodicy? I honestly think that whatever problem is presented one could always claim "God did it; it's evidence of God". That was always one of the features of religion generally. But generally speaking theodicy originates in a completely different worldview from science. I think sci cosmology & theodicy appear to be ships in the night.

Sci. cosmology is relevant to humans because it is part of the answer to the question "where do we come from?"
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: 32447
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by UncleBob » Thu Jul 02, 2015 2:35 pm

"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: 32447
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by UncleBob » Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:37 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
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32447
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by UncleBob » Tue May 10, 2016 1:19 pm

"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: 25034
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: The Cosmology Thread

Post by Rusty » Tue May 10, 2016 3:59 pm

"Sean Carroll is just another quantum state of Steven Weinberg" ~ God

This belongs in a Philosophy in the news thread.

Here is Sean blogging about his new book...

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/bl ... ne-cosmos/
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/bl ... rstanding/
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/bl ... e-essence/

It's priced to sell and it looks like an interesting book. I might buy this one.
http://www.amazon.com/Big-Picture-Origi ... carroll-20

Image
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

Post Reply