CHICAGO (Reuters) – Astronomers using a radio telescope at the South Pole reported they had recorded a flicker of light from nearly 14 billion years ago that verifies most modern theories about the cosmos.
Had the verification not been made, it would have tossed much current thinking into doubt, according to John Carlstrom of the University of Chicago.
[…]
So? Discuss.
Edited down due to copyright concerns. Please post a link and/or a SHORT excerpt only. --Gaudere
Don’t put too much work into your OP. Why only reprint one entire article, when you can reprint 3 or 4, and add your ever so artfull ‘So? Discuss’ at the end.
All that is invalidated is inerrantism. However, inerrantists will simply ignore the evidence, say that the test is flawed, or chalk it up to another test of faith.
Does this discovery regarding the Big Bang invalidate Christianity**
The only way this theory would “invalidate” Christianity would be if the majority of Christians believed in a literal interpretation of their Scripture. Most do not. In fact, I don’t think even one major denomination requires literal belief in Scripture.
One second though, I’m not sure of the Southern Baptists. Do they require literal interpretation of Scripture?
So, no, this discovery, like most other scientific discoveries, doesn’t “invalidate” Christianity. The only way it comes into conflict is thru a literal interpretation of Christian Scripture, which the majority Christians and Christian theologians don’t hold to.
I like what a friend of mine says about the “big bang” theory. God said it and "bang it happened! No, it doesn’t invalidate Christianity as far as I’m concerned and I interpret Scriptures literally unless the context reveals it’s to be interpreted another way. Of course, I can’t “prove” to anyone that it doesn’t invalidate Christianity, this is just my belief.
H4E, hold on to your garters, but I agree with you. There’s no way that evidence for the Big Bang can invalidate Christianity because religion and science work different sides of the street. Science teaches how the universe works, while religion gives us morals and spiritual purpose. Christianity’s validity does not rest on a literal interpretation of Genesis, but on one’s faith in the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Not that I think the Big Bang Theory “invalidates Christianity”, but…isn’t one of the things science teaches us about the Universe is that people don’t come back to life after being stone dead for three days? However impractical it may be at this point, in principle the claim that a particular human being* died and then was resurrected is as much on science’s turf as it is theology’s. If I were to make such a claim about someone who died last week, instead of 2,000 or so years ago, a lot of people on this board would surely want to see evidence to support this rather remarkable claim, putting us, broadly speaking, in the scientific realm (in which I am including history and anything involving documented or corroborated factual records of events). If I said this event happened last year, or ten years ago, or a century ago, it would still be in the realm of fact and evidence, wouldn’t it? (“After he was shot by the John Wilkes Booth, Abraham Lincoln lay dead in the tomb for three days and three nights, after which time he was resurrected and appeared to his wife, to various members of his Cabinet, and to crowds of people in Washington, D.C., by all appearences a solid, physical person, in some cases sharing meals with witnesses, although he could also walk through walls.” “Cite?”) At what point does something happen so long ago that we say “Well, that’s just a matter of Faith”? Especially given that science routinely attempts to reconstruct events that took place millions and even billions of years ago.
*The claim that a particular individual is God Incarnate is probably not amenable to scientific proof or disproof, although the possession of specific miraculous or inexplicable powers would be–if Jesus were on Earth now, in the flesh, and could turn water into wine, he would be able to get a nice chunk of change from James Randi if he felt like it.
In logic, if one part of the statement is false then the entire statement is invalidated. How is it that Christians get away with picking and choosing what parts of the Bible they want to believe? Saying that one part of the book is truer than other is a fallacy. If you prove the fallacy of a part of the Bible, which I believe this discovery (on its face) does, then the veracity of the rest of it is naturally called into question. How can you consider yourself a rational being otherwise?
Isn’t it obvious? All the Christians on Earth are going to read that article and cry, “Heavens to Betsy, they’ve detected a slight polarization in the microwave background radiation! This obviously means that Jesus didn’t die for our sins,” and throw themselves off the nearest tall building or convert to Islam or something. :rolleyes:
romanticide, did you actually read some of the responses to your “So? Discuss” statement? I’m not being flippant, I want to know.
Because I figured that “The only way this theory would “invalidate” Christianity would be if the majority of Christians believed in a literal interpretation of their Scripture. Most do not” was pretty straightforward.
If the purpose of Christianity is to love our neighbors as we would want to be loved, this discovery doesn’t invalidate anything.
If the purpose of Christianity is to accept Jesus Christ as the messiah and our savior, this discovery doesn’t invalidate anything.
If the purpose of Christianity is to accept every single thing written in the Bible as the exact and unquestionable truth, then you may have a point. Otherwise, I’m just not following you.
How is it that Christians get away with picking and choosing what parts of the Bible they want to believe?**
You need to talk to some Xian theologians about this. Or ask any of the well-educated Xians here. They’ll be happy to answer, I’m sure.
Saying that one part of the book is truer than other is a fallacy.
Only if one requires that the ENTIRE book be taken as literal truth. As stated before, the majority of Xians don’t. They accept their Scripture as part mythology, part poetry, part history and part divine inspiration. You seem to be insisting that what one small group of people hold to be true, be applied to the whole of Xianity.
If you prove the fallacy of a part of the Bible, which I believe this discovery (on its face) does, then the veracity of the rest of it is naturally called into question.
Could you please explain how this discovery invalidates Xianity? I honestly see no connection between this discovery and Xian theology.
That would be so if we had hard evidence, but all we have is the Gospels. There’s no tissue samples, no EEG readings, no hard data at all. Now you can cast doubts on the Resurrection because the Gospel accounts contradict each other, but we can’t really say we know for sure what happened. Was it a fraud perpetrated by the apostles? Did Jesus merely faint, then revive later to live anonymously? Did he die and rise again, like Dracula? We don’t know.
Without evidence, some things will have to remain impervious to scientific evaluation. We know that Julius Caesar was murdered in 44 BC, but do we know what he had for breakfast that day? No, because that morning’s menu was never written down, and thus is lost to us.
Well, assuming that you mean first order logic, a proposition, which is a statement that is either true or false, but not both true and false, nor neither true nor false, has no parts. A statement, as opposed to a proposition, is neither true nor false — e.g. “The earth is a moon of Jupiter” is a proposition (a false one); “The earth is beautiful” is a statement, but not a proposition.
We don’t worship the book; we just read it. Some parts of it are wrong. Some parts are contradictory. Some parts are true. It has many statements (some of which are propostitions).
No, it isn’t.
Now, that’s a logical fallacy! A dicto simpliciter, to be exact.
Otherwise? You mean, how can we be rational if we don’t agree with you?
Well, yeah, if there were a religion whose God was the Bible, then that would be true. Unfortunately, what you are operating on here is the assumption that Christians worship the Bible, and in point of fact we worship the God Who had something to do with the writing of the Bible – “inspired it” in our jargon. What exactly the connection between Him and it is, is hotly debated even today, and even among fundamentalist scholars. But we’re committed to Jesus of Nazareth, who Himself picked and chose what Scriptures to follow – and left guidelines for the rest of us to do likewise (not that we always do).
Old Universe Creationists of course have no problem with a multi-billion year age of the Universe. Even Young Earthers need not have a problem. Only Young Universers would have such a problem & they will say “Even as God created Adam & Eve as adults, trees as full grown, etc- God can also construct the Earth & the Universe itself at a level of growth. That does not mean any of it had to start from infancy & gradually mature.”
I don’t buy Young Universe/Earth teaching but there is a logical consistency within its own system.
Tracer, you rock! G “Heavens to Betsy!” Yep! We Christians talk that way!
