Is knowing the "Origin of the Universe" Important

[Zzyzx]

Is knowing the "Origin of the Universe" Important in Life?

In many of these threads there is hot debate about the origin of the universe. Here are a few comments regarding the topic:

1. No one involved in the debates here seems to possess knowledge of advanced physics, mathematics, chemistry, astronomy, etc. Many ardent debaters seem to be non-scientific or anti-scientific in orientation, yet seem to claim or imply understanding of the topic.

2. Knowledge of the origin of the universe may be “nice to know” but it is not important in living a successful, satisfying, productive life in modern society by one’s own standards. Knowledge of medicine, mechanics, electronics, meteorology, seismology, etc has application to real life. Origin of the universe does not.

3. The primary motivation do discuss the origin of the universe seems to be to defend the claim that gods, or one god in particular, created the universe. Otherwise discussion would likely involve primarily scientists exploring the limits of human knowledge and understanding – not laymen attempting to defend an emotional position.

4. Time spent pondering or arguing the origin of the universe might be more productively devoted to other topics – perhaps some with a possibility of positive outcome.

Excluding religious motivations, of what compelling interest is knowledge of the origin of the universe to you personally?

[Zzyzx]

However, the main purpose of the forum is not to discuss how to apply knowledge in a practical way, but simply to debate all things related to Christianity and religion.

The reason “origin of the universe” is discussed in these threads is to support or dispute religionists’ claim that their god(s) created the universe. There is no evidence to suggest that the claim is valid; however, the claim is central to a belief system, so it must be defended along with the other claims of supernaturalism.

Debating validity of the claim of creation of the universe takes discussion into areas of knowledge that are speculative by virtue of being at or beyond present limits of human knowledge and understanding.

Branches of knowledge that are far less complex and easier to comprehend than origin of the universe, say aeronautical engineering for example, are clearly recognized as being well beyond the understanding of people who have not studied the subject extensively and who have not built the support of other sciences upon which such understanding depends.

Imagine the silliness of a group of people discussing air flow across specific aircraft wing profiles – without understanding the basics of physics (and the supporting mathematics) – without having actually observed wind tunnel tests or results. Few people who have not been involved in aeronautical research would attempt to discuss or dispute theories of laminar vs. turbulent airflow.

However, “everyone” seems to think they are qualified to discuss “origin of the universe” if they have read ONE book that makes unsupported claims to represent the creator of the universe. Many feel compelled to defend the claim of creation using whatever means is available. Without advanced study in science as a background, their primary options are pseudo-science and parroting of dogma.

The pseudo-science and “pick and choose” science utilized by religionists in defense of their supernatural claims is counter-productive. It actually works against advancement of knowledge and understanding by incorrectly applying bits of science without understanding the basic issues that apply. Perversion of knowledge to support invalid religious claims stands in the way of real learning based upon solid, reproducible results of previous investigations.

Religionists’ objective in applying “science” to “explain” origin of the universe is NOT to learn about the origin – but to defend what they claim to KNOW about origin. Learning implies the ability to incorporate new information into one’s thinking and to modify one’s conclusions. Static belief is the antithesis of learning.

Religionists claims regarding the origin of the universe based in dogma and pseudo-science are presented to young people as truth. The audience is not encouraged to seek broad understanding and to reach their own conclusions. Early indoctrination does not encourage further learning or understanding that may dispute dogma.

Someone listening to a bunch of “old timers” sitting around a potbellied stove discussing theories of laminar airflow over a wing root, sounding very authoritative and using technical terms, might conclude that they were hearing authentic, dependable information. Nothing could be further from the truth, but the unwary could easily be misled into believing and depending upon what they hear – unless they verify truth for themselves.

Of course, the picture of old timers without specialized knowledge debating the merits of theories of laminar airflow is a silly example; enough to bring a chuckle at the level of their over-estimation of their abilities and knowledge. If they become adamant and emotional in their defense of specific theories, they are ludicrous. How is that any different from a bunch of “old timers” sitting around the stove discussing origin of the universe?

Ironically, people seem to think that knowledge is not required to discuss the FAR more complex subject of origin of the universe. Many feel qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject after reading ONE book and seeking NO supporting evidence. I disagree.

My position is to encourage that verification of truth and to dispute pseudo-authoritative claims. This position consistently encounters opposition from religionists because it casts doubt upon their unsupported claims – and rightfully so. Reading one book does not qualify one to understand the universe or to tell others how the universe originated.

Reading one book does not qualify anyone to teach others how to live or what to think.

[QED]

Well I for one would prefer to see theists picking up biology and cosmology books and trying to build their arguments for a divine intelligent creator on the framework of current scientific knowledge. Your objection seems to be that the data can be "mined" to emphasise a particular interpretation. But this is always the case. It is, I think, in the nature of the believer who will (if the science book is left on the shelf) look at the world as it presents itself to everyone at face value and draw much firmer conclusions about divine provenance.

It is, I think, only when we examine the counter-intuitive findings of some of the more subtle sciences of the last couple of centuries that we begin to get a flavour of the constraints that must be imposed on our thinking.

I also disagree with your analysis about unskilled participation. Many significant discoveries are made when modes of thinking from one sphere are brought to bear on another. Also I think there are many fundamental issues that can be addressed by all observers of the world: We see and understand the cumulative routes to complexity -- the gradual building of an Empire, the note-by-note assembly of a Symphony or the formation of a varied and (albeit subjectively) beautiful Solar System. Such familiar experience is in concordance with logic and the rules of physics -- and of the lessons that might be learnt it is not that it takes intelligence to design such things, but that complexity comes late in the cosmos. This latter understanding should be sufficient to remove doubt from the former.

[otseng]

The reason “origin of the universe” is discussed in these threads is to support or dispute religionists’ claim that their god(s) created the universe.

Of course. It is one argument presented for the existence of God.

There is no evidence to suggest that the claim is valid

No evidence? I would disagree with that.

Debating validity of the claim of creation of the universe takes discussion into areas of knowledge that are speculative by virtue of being at or beyond present limits of human knowledge and understanding.

Much of what we debate here is beyond the limits of human knowledge and understanding. Topics debated here have been debated for hundreds if not thousands of years. And we're not sure if we will ever have any resolution to them.

However, “everyone” seems to think they are qualified to discuss “origin of the universe” if they have read ONE book that makes unsupported claims to represent the creator of the universe.

How do you know that they have only read one book on it? If they have only read one book on the subject, I would agree that it's not a broad enough source of knowledge to meaningfully debate cosmology.

But I would also ask how many people have read many theology books, or even the Bible? If they have not read much, how can they adequately participate in debates on religion?

Many feel compelled to defend the claim of creation using whatever means is available. Without advanced study in science as a background, their primary options are pseudo-science and parroting of dogma.

I think if they are able to bring up valid evidence and arguments, it would not matter what level of education they have.

The pseudo-science and “pick and choose” science utilized by religionists in defense of their supernatural claims is counter-productive.

If they make errors in their reasoning, then all the opponents have to do is show the error. In other words, demonstrate why it is pseudo-science or a "pick and choose" science.

Perversion of knowledge to support invalid religious claims stands in the way of real learning based upon solid, reproducible results of previous investigations.

If the evidence happen to support a religious claim, it does not then invalidate the argument. What should be looked at is the evidence and the logic. The fact that it happens to support a religious claim does not affect the veracity of the argument.

Religionists’ objective in applying “science” to “explain” origin of the universe is NOT to learn about the origin – but to defend what they claim to KNOW about origin.

This is implying that there exists a scientifically accepted explanation for the origin of the universe. If such an explanation exists, then it would be true that they would be closed to learning about science. But, I am not aware of such an explanation.

Learning implies the ability to incorporate new information into one’s thinking and to modify one’s conclusions. Static belief is the antithesis of learning.

As of this moment, the Big Bang theory is the dominant explanation for the universe. And I believe the idea of a creator is compatible with the BB. Perhaps some other explanation in the future will replace the BB as the best explanation. When that time comes, then we will all have to reevaluate our positions.

Religionists claims regarding the origin of the universe based in dogma and pseudo-science are presented to young people as truth. The audience is not encouraged to seek broad understanding and to reach their own conclusions. Early indoctrination does not encourage further learning or understanding that may dispute dogma.

I don't think anyone here has told anyone else not to come to their own conclusions.

Someone listening to a bunch of “old timers” sitting around a potbellied stove discussing theories of laminar airflow over a wing root, sounding very authoritative and using technical terms, might conclude that they were hearing authentic, dependable information. Nothing could be further from the truth, but the unwary could easily be misled into believing and depending upon what they hear – unless they verify truth for themselves.

How is that any different from a bunch of “old timers” sitting around the stove discussing origin of the universe?

If the "old timers" have read books on airflow and researched the subject, then I don't see why they can't discuss it. (Coincidentally, there is actually an "old-timer" in my church that is knowledgeable about airflow. He has his own engineering company that specializes in air flow in buildings. And actually we have sat down to talk about it even though I know nothing about it.)

My position is to encourage that verification of truth and to dispute pseudo-authoritative claims.

Please do.

Reading one book does not qualify anyone to teach others how to live or what to think.

I would agree.

[McCulloch]

As of this moment, the Big Bang theory is the dominant explanation for the universe. And I believe the idea of a creator is compatible with the BB. Perhaps some other explanation in the future will replace the BB as the best explanation. When that time comes, then we will all have to reevaluate our positions.

I agree that the BB is compatible with a creator although a creator is not necessary for the BB theory. But is the BB compatible with the God who inspired Genesis 1?

[Zzyzx]

If the "old timers" have read books on airflow and researched the subject, then I don't see why they can't discuss it. (Coincidentally, there is actually an "old-timer" in my church that is knowledgeable about airflow. He has his own engineering company that specializes in air flow in buildings. And actually we have sat down to talk about it even though I know nothing about it.)

Osteng,

When you talked to your church friend who specializes in airflow –

Did you argue with him about thermodynamics?
Did you tell him how air moves in and around buildings?
Did you cite alternative theories about air flow and insist that they apply?
Did you try to act as though you knew as much as he does about his specialty?
Did you try to educate him about air flow?

Of course you did not. You respected his knowledge and you expected that he would know a great deal more about airflow than you know. You did not seek to teach him about his specialty, but you may have sought to learn from him. Correct?

A key phrase is “respected his knowledge”.

Why is it any different when a person with absolutely no training in science discusses advanced scientific theories with a person trained in science? That is the typical religionist vs. scientist discussion.

Instead of respecting the knowledge of people who have done the hard work of learning about the item under discussion, religionists often (typically?) feel qualified to argue about the science, say how and why complex things happen, cite alternative theories and demand that they be recognized, try to teach the scientist and act as though they know as much or more than experts in the field.

Religionists have ONE book. Theology is centered around a single source – the bible. Christian dogma traces back to that single source. Other religious writings simply extrapolate from the bible. There is no independent, impartial, verifiable evidence to support the single source, so the entire dogma is without foundation.

It is as though someone wrote a book about air flow two thousand years ago and no one has been allowed to contribute to the book since – because it was “The Word of Gods of Airflow”. When errors become obvious, they are simply “explained” or “excused”. New ideas are resisted if they conflict with established dogma.

If there had been a bible of airflow from two-thousand years ago, we would have very limited understanding of the topic now. The same is true for study of creation of the universe.

[otseng]

Religionists have ONE book. Theology is centered around a single source – the bible. Christian dogma traces back to that single source.

I will agree that if the only book used to argue for a creator is the Bible, then it's not a very persuasive argument.

However, if you have followed any of my posts in the Science subforum, you will notice that I have never used the Bible as a primary source. All of my evidence have been from other sources (and primarily secular sources at that).

[Confused]

Religionists have ONE book. Theology is centered around a single source – the bible. Christian dogma traces back to that single source.

I will agree that if the only book used to argue for a creator is the Bible, then it's not a very persuasive argument.

However, if you have followed any of my posts in the Science subforum, you will notice that I have never used the Bible as a primary source. All of my evidence have been from other sources (and primarily secular sources at that).

I think most can vouch for that. But just as some of us non-theists use poor sources, so do theists.

[Confused]

Is knowing the "Origin of the Universe" Important in Life?

I think it is very important to know the beginning. By knowing this, we can begin to really address the issue of our universe being unique as opposed to others existing.

In many of these threads there is hot debate about the origin of the universe. Here are a few comments regarding the topic:

1. No one involved in the debates here seems to possess knowledge of advanced physics, mathematics, chemistry, astronomy, etc. Many ardent debaters seem to be non-scientific or anti-scientific in orientation, yet seem to claim or imply understanding of the topic.

I may not be the smartest grape in the bunch, but I think we have a fairly large audience of individuals who work in the science field and do keep up to date on current research. QED, ST88, Cog, myself, etc.... We all work in fields that are scientific in nature. And what I don't understand, I research. I would be bold enough to say that those mentioned above do the same.

2. Knowledge of the origin of the universe may be “nice to know” but it is not important in living a successful, satisfying, productive life in modern society by one’s own standards. Knowledge of medicine, mechanics, electronics, meteorology, seismology, etc has application to real life. Origin of the universe does not.

You forget, many of the advancements in the fields you mentioned above gain advanced technology from those who do question the origin of the universe. From those who test the universe to determine how it works and how we can manipulate certain aspects for things such as MRI's, PET scans, space shuttles, etc... Knowledge of the origin of the universe may also help shed light on where the universe is headed. If one can identify the beginnings, one can theoretically narrow down the endings.

3. The primary motivation do discuss the origin of the universe seems to be to defend the claim that gods, or one god in particular, created the universe. Otherwise discussion would likely involve primarily scientists exploring the limits of human knowledge and understanding – not laymen attempting to defend an emotional position.

In this forum, you have a point. Hence, the Debating Christianity and Religion title and the forum "science and religion". In reality, I find few who are actually laymen trying to defend an emotional position. Most I have debated with have been fairly honest when their position is based on emotion rather than logic. However, few actually debate topics in which their emotions are their primary motivation. But there unfortunately exist the exceptions that screw it up for all.

4. Time spent pondering or arguing the origin of the universe might be more productively devoted to other topics – perhaps some with a possibility of positive outcome.

Obviously you don't ascribe to the old adage "question everything". By "arguing" I am learning. Despite what you may consider valuable information, that is your perception. Not everyones. Personally, I like most of the debates here. They get me as far away from my profession as possible (though at times I find they amplify it instead).

Excluding religious motivations, of what compelling interest is knowledge of the origin of the universe to you personally?

Because I can't stand the fact that with all the current technology, some of the most brilliant thinkers, scientists, etc... that we have today, we still can't account for that immediate second of the BB or what preceded it. I hate the unknown. Even if the known turns out to be the exact opposite as I think (such as if the known ends up proving the existence of God), I would rather know than not know. I don't see a problem with this.

[Zzyzx]

Is knowing the "Origin of the Universe" Important in Life?

I think it is very important to know the beginning. By knowing this, we can begin to really address the issue of our universe being unique as opposed to others existing.

Are you proposing that you KNOW the origin of the universe AND that there are other universes?

In many of these threads there is hot debate about the origin of the universe. Here are a few comments regarding the topic:

1. No one involved in the debates here seems to possess knowledge of advanced physics, mathematics, chemistry, astronomy, etc. Many ardent debaters seem to be non-scientific or anti-scientific in orientation, yet seem to claim or imply understanding of the topic.

I may not be the smartest grape in the bunch, but I think we have a fairly large audience of individuals who work in the science field and do keep up to date on current research. QED, ST88, Cog, myself, etc.... We all work in fields that are scientific in nature. And what I don't understand, I research. I would be bold enough to say that those mentioned above do the same.

As a demonstration of what I mean by evoking scientific information in a debate without understanding how the information relates to the real world, see misapplication of information about the hydrologic cycle in the thread entitled “What is a Non-Spiritualist” http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 7&start=10

2. Knowledge of the origin of the universe may be “nice to know” but it is not important in living a successful, satisfying, productive life in modern society by one’s own standards. Knowledge of medicine, mechanics, electronics, meteorology, seismology, etc has application to real life. Origin of the universe does not.

You forget, many of the advancements in the fields you mentioned above gain advanced technology from those who do question the origin of the universe. From those who test the universe to determine how it works and how we can manipulate certain aspects for things such as MRI's, PET scans, space shuttles, etc... Knowledge of the origin of the universe may also help shed light on where the universe is headed. If one can identify the beginnings, one can theoretically narrow down the endings.

I agree that there are spin-off benefits from advanced scientific study. I do not see “MRI's, PET scans, space shuttles” as related to “origin of the universe” study.

My point is that “Knowledge of medicine, mechanics, electronics, meteorology, seismology, etc has application to real life. Origin of the universe does not”

I do not advocate abandoning study of the origin of the universe, only putting it in perspective and NOT attempting to counter research with scripture and speculation.

[QED]

I agree that there are spin-off benefits from advanced scientific study. I do not see “MRI's, PET scans, space shuttles” as related to “origin of the universe” study.

Sorry, I couldn't resist posting a link to an article titled LHC R&D spin off into medical imaging to demonstrate the problem with your outlook. If Fusion reactors are ever going to be a practical proposition I don't mind betting the engineering breakthroughs will come out of the drive for more powerful and less elaborate particle accelerators.

My point is that “Knowledge of medicine, mechanics, electronics, meteorology, seismology, etc has application to real life. Origin of the universe does not”

I do not advocate abandoning study of the origin of the universe, only putting it in perspective and NOT attempting to counter research with scripture and speculation.

But what is the proper perspective? In so much as the Universe is understandable doesn't it make sense to try and understand as much as possible? I agree that there may be many unwarranted inferences about things like Teleology, but we have rigorous methods to show when such conclusions are unsound.