The “science” from these people is often more amusing than informative, but I know jack about astrophysics so I thought i’d toss this one out there.
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/8/afa/222003b.asp
My impression had always been that the big bang theory didn’t make any real attempt to explain what the causual agent was.
This guy know what he’s talking about?
I haven’t read the linked article, and am responding only to the OP’s visible content, so perhaps other support data might alter my basic reaction.
If one accepts that “theism” is only stating that “some higher power” or “a prime mover” or “a Supreme Being” or something beyond reality as we see and live it, is behind the origin of the Universe and Life within it, then I think the notion that the Big Bang theory is a “theistic model” is self-evident.
Once the additional trappings of what that Supreme Being is like, or what it intends or demands, or any of the religion-derived attributes that are supposed to be believed in about that Entity, start diluting the issue, it gets to be harder to see the simplicity in the quoted statement.
I see no real issue here.
I disagree. The Big Bang theory is completely atheistic. Although it does not attempt to address the cause of the Bang, this is merely due to a limitation of our own understanding of the underlying physics, not a concession that some “higher power” must be at work. To suggest otherwise is to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the way science works.
The Big Bang Model does not, and cannot, address the cause of the Big Bang. In fact, some theorists (such as Stephen Hawking, I believe) maintain that, because the instant of the Big Bang is the beginning of time itself, the Big Bang cannot have a cause. Time must pass in order for something to happen to cause the Big Bang. Heck, time must exist in order for anything to exist. There was, in a sense, nothing before the Big Bang–and of course, here we have problems with language–the words “was” and “before” in this sentence make no actual sense.
I maintain a mealy-mouthed scientific-materialist agnosticism on the whole subject. There isn’t a satisfying answer. The Universe is everything we can ever observe; by definition, there is no data in the Universe that can address anything “before” the Big Bang that created the Universe, any more than there is data that can address what is “outside” the Universe. To inquire into either is impossible from a scientific point of view, so it is as nonsensical to even ask the question–which is not to say, of course, that the fact that we are maddening compelled to keep asking it reflects poorly upon us. 
No, it’s a naturalistic model, there’s no need a higher entity to explain anything in it (just because we don’t know much about the inital singularity doesn’t mean we need to invoke God, this is the classic ‘God of gaps’ argument). By the same token it doesn’t preculde God.
From where I sit, the use of the term “God” (or its substitutes) almost automatically inflames an argument/debate of this sort. Those who feel that even uttering that descriptor automatically reduces the issue to a religious one are taking a position that (IMO) isn’t required here.
Let me try my statement again without the mention of those God-like terms: “Something” (that we do not understand) “caused” (made happen) “the Universe” (the stuff we observe and relate to as “Reality”). This, as I interpret it, is all the Big Bang theory really gets down to. First it wasn’t here, then it was.
Using scientific approaches to figure out what that “Something” is/was is the approach that will satisfy the science-oriented mind. At some point, I contend, that scientific approach will begin to include methods, concepts, and ideas that are as of today relegated to the “religious” sphere of understanding.
Much as the Tao of Physics and other books/writings of that type have tried to bring Eastern Mysticism into the understanding of Quantum Physics, at some point the methods of Science will need to broaden the base from which Science operates.
To attempt to dismiss human curiosity by saying that nothing existed before the Big Bang or that nothing exists outside the Universe is an attempt to blame Language for the failings of Science to bridge the gap between current methodology and what (I assume) will eventually become stock in trade of the Scientific community. As Science learns how to ask the questions of the areas beyond current methods we will find the tools and language of Science expanding into previously held “off limits” zones. This just has to happen. It has been in the history of Science to step into the unknown and ask those questions that the earlier paradigms said were not askable.
Our knowledge at any time is limited by our ability to ask the right questions.
Zeldar:
If you cannot accept the notion of nothing causing the universe to come into existance how can you accept the notion that some supreme being (or mystical force or whatever) managed it? You can always play the “what came before” game. If God exists what created God? Some may answer that God is eternal but I can equally say the Universe is eternal.
It is wrong to suppose that science says there was nothing ‘before’ the Big Bang. What our science tells us today is that we cannot know what was ‘before’ the Big Bang. The nature of the Universe precludes us from ever having any knowledge of what was around pre-Big Bang. The same can be said of other Universes…they might be out there but they are so wholly separated from us that exist or not we can take the stance that they aren’t there (as they can have no effect on us whatsoever).
Whack-a-Mole, would you please quote what I said that gave this impression? I’d like a chance to clear up something I didn’t intend to say.
This is the part I have an issue with. What on Earth does this mean?
Highlighting mine:
From this I gathered you were saying that theology/mysticism is dealing with issues that science should but hasn’t pulled into its repertoire yet.
I am saying science doesn’t need to. Scientists will certainly look into the past and try to discern closer and closer to the Big Bang and maybe they will even be able to look farther back. As it stands that seems impossible by the very nature of the Universe but who knows? I do not believe science stands to gain anything by incorporating mysticism or theology into itself to gain access to these answers.
Q.E.D., basically it means that I predict that before the explanations are finalized on some of the more arcane aspects of Physics (especially Quantum Physics), Cosmology, phenomena that are currently outside the purview of “orthodox” Science (such as those lumped into the catch-all category of “the occult” or “pseudoscience”), that there will be some branching out into fields that are (as of today) regarded as “religious” domain topics or methods.
Obviously, I can’t point to the yet-to-be-used methods. I’m just saying that as much as we 21st Century dwellers can look back on Medieval practitioners of alchemy and other “occult” practices and pooh-pooh their levels of understanding, those who follow us by a century or two will be seeing our methods and premises as just as foolish.
You have no further to look back than Einstein to see how things can be shaken up in Science by some “new fangled” approach. I am simply predicting that the “off limits” areas of current Science will eventually make it into the mainstream.
The fun thing to watch for will be how cleverly the acceptance of these previously taboo methods will be phrased to disguise that they were once just shy of witchcraft.
Is that any clearer, or have I simply muddied the water further?
Whack-a-Mole, I feel that my reply to Q.E.D. just above covers the issues in your follow-up post that quoted what I had said earlier.
The part of what I said that led you to conclude
====================================
Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole
Zeldar:
If you cannot accept the notion of nothing causing the universe to come into existance how can you accept the notion that some supreme being (or mystical force or whatever) managed it? You can always play the “what came before” game. If God exists what created God? Some may answer that God is eternal but I can equally say the Universe is eternal.
===================================
is what I’m still unable to see.
What I thought I was saying was that the Big Bang theory, by predicating the existence of the Universe on the event of a “from nothing to something” phenomenon, was appealing to a theistic model. I didn’t say “God did it” or that “The Supreme Being did it” or anything like that. I’m just saying that the “from nothing to something” implies a cause. If you prefer to think this cause has no form, no identifying attributes, no other features, that is fine by me. But I see the nature of the event (as defined in the Big Bang model) as something that didn’t “just happen.”
If it did “just happen” why aren’t we blessed with a new one every so often? Maybe we are, you say? Just have to wait a few billion years for the next one? Okay, but that sounds about as iffy as the cyclical universe concepts in Hinduism (I think it is).
All I’m really saying is that the myths of creation aren’t total hogwash, and that as we add to our understanding of the Ultimate Cause, we’re going to find that there’s more to some of those myths than just stuff to tell the kids around the campfire.
Man made god in his image. This happened consistently in the past and, as can be seen in Zeldar’s posts, continues to happen today.
The big bang is of itself neither theistic nor atheistic. People will apply their belief sets to it and interpret it in their own ways.
Remember that when it comes to theistic and atheistic interpretations, the big bang is not unique, even if it did create the universe. Once you posit a theistic explanation for anything, it can be extended to everything.
Exapno Mapcase, I follow your logic, and am not uncomfortable with where your logic has placed my belief system, since that is approximately where my belief system is located.
I do consider the appeal to the Big Bang theory, as opposed to other theories (Steady State, for example) and while supported by the evidence collected so far, to be moving away from the Creationist view as provided in The Bible and other religious myths.
That said, I find it amusing that except for the language of the theory as compared to the language of the myths, they say pretty much the same basic thing: something made the Universe as we know it to happen.
Now, is it your position that “something” is completely free from theistic overtones?
Just curious.
The reverse of what I said is also true. If one posits an atheistic explanation for anything, it can be extended to everything.
The big bang does not imply a creator.
It does have a religious-style aspect: faith in perfection.
Bible-thumpers like to find that the world is perfect, exept for man.
The “single point” idea is also an unrealistic call for perfection.
Why a single point? Why not a line of stuff about 1 inch long with a lump at one end?
An odd shape would immediately solve the “problem” of missing dark matter. The problem is caused by a uniform point somehow creating a non-uniform explosion. Why not accept the non-uniform aftermath we know and postulate a non-perfect beginning?
The “single point” is not based on science, but a love of perfection.
I see waht you are saying, however, just because something is currently unkown to science doesn’t necessarily make it supernatural or spiritual or whatever you care to term it. It merely means science does not yet have the tools to understand it. This was as true in Archimedes’ and Gallileo’s respective times as it is today. Since then, science has acquired the necessary tools and understanding to explain phenomena which back then were not understood at all. And in fact, once these phenomena were understood, the scientific explanation proved to be almost universally at odds with theistic explanations for them. For example, prior to Keppler and his ilk, it was believed that the Earth was the center of the Univers, and that this was the way “God” had created it. It was subsequently demostrated that not only wasn’t the Earth the center of the Universe, but there was no center and the Earth was a completely insignificant little planet in the grand scheme of things.
I agree that the theory isn’t inherently theistic or atheistic. On a side note, the Pope once told Hawking that everything after the Big Bang was fair game for science but that anything before the Big Bang was “God’s country.”
What you’re saying here reminds me of something I came across (can’t remember if I read it or somebody told me – label it hearsay in any case) that suggests that at the time of Descartes and his struggles with the mind-body connection that there was a big squabble with The Church and that the implication of the mind/soul being somehow knowable to Science and Logic was a definite no-no. Descartes was allowed to pursue his dream of applying logic to Science as long as he didn’t interfere with the mind/soul domain of The Church.
For this reason (and others) Western Science cannot explore the same regions that Eastern Science (India, China, Japan, etc.) does with impunity and without scorn from their “scientific community.” Whether there’s anything real to this rumor or not, the fact that the stigma attached to the Eastern methods in Western Science keeps Western Science from delving deeper into such things while basically labeling them hogwash, mumbo jumbo, and worse.
The scorn Science heaps on Religion is counter-productive to locating the middle ground where both areas of thought will one day find the real truths. (This last comment is more a personal belief than anything I can back up with facts).
When you say “Eastern Science” what do you mean exactly? Quantum metaphysics? The “repeatable” experiential truths of kensho as validating those metaphysics? While I don’t think eastern science can really “help” western science with “western science” I appreciate your frustration with curiously martinetish materialists.