The Dangers of Nonobjective Science

Hey first topic launch here... I want to discuss this.

We have now seen that science cannot explain the creation of the universe or the creation of life.  (Multiverse as metaphysics; origin of DNA) This is evidence of a power working in the universe that is outside the limitations of physical matter.

This is one thing that Christians want to get across to the world, but Christians find that they are often thought to be unreasonable with a fanatical trust in the Bible.  What has caused this bias?  Often it is just a weapon used by critics to discredit faith - it is neither accurate or fair.  Unfortunately, Christians are also at fault.  Some Christians are not objective about science, that is, they do not treat all of the evidence fairly.

How does this happen?  The following pattern is common:

People (believers) believe/know that the Bible is true

They like to think that their interpretation of the Bible is true.

They trust their opinion about the Bible more than any scientific evidence to the contrary.

Therefore, they twist the science (or try to discredit it) until it fits their Bible interpretation.

The critical issue in Bible interpretation and science is treating all of the evidence fairly, that is, being objective.  It is normal to have preferences, but we lose access to truth when we favor evidence we like and discount evidence we don't like.

St. Augustine, who probably ws the greatest scholar in the early church, described the problem clearly in ~ 400 AD

"It is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for a nonbeliever to hear a Christian talking nonsense, while presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture.  We should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn ... If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well, and hear him maintain his foolish opinions about the Scritprues, how then are they going to believe those Scriptures in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven?"

The great protestant reformer, John Calvin, gave similar warnings in 1534 AD

"The whole point of scripture is to bring us to a knowledge of Jesus Christ -- and having come to know him (and all that this implies), we should come to a halt and not expect to learn more.  Scripture provides us with spectacles through which we may view the world as God's creation and self-expression; it does not, and was never intended, to provide us with an infallible repository of astronomical and medical information.  The natural sciences are thus effectively emancipated from theological restrictions."

Calvin says, use the Bible to learn about Jesus, and do not expect to learn more.  The Bible is not intended to restrict scientific investigations.

So with things like cavemen, dinosaurs, evolution... these are not specifically explained in the Bible, but these topics also do not disprove the Bible.

I love this topic.

Lets say a person knows that something is true. For the sake of argument, it could be something like "The Bible is the word of God and is literally true."

Now, lets say the person is exposed to a new idea - like evolution - which contradicts the first, previously known idea. The person has a choice. They can either:

A) Take a step back and weigh both ideas equally - using tools like the scientific method - to see which idea has the greatest body of supporting evidence - and go with that idea until a new idea makes them again reevaluate.

B) Refuse to alter their worldview, instead choosing to bend all new information around their previously held idea of what is true - even if it doesnt fit. This yields interesting hybrid ideas like "evolution applies to all creatures except humans" or "the dinosaurs were just big lizards who lived 5,000 years ago."

Its the inability to step back and reevaluate that has created the bias against Christians. Im willing to admit that I might be wrong about my beliefs. Many religious people are not - because it is forbidden.

Are you arguing that more Christians should educate themselves about science so they can better defend the Bible? Or that nonbelievers should lay off trying to disprove the Bible because it isnt meant to be provable? It sounds like the latter - which goes against your point of equal treatment.

Original Post by keenwheels:

We have now seen that science cannot explain the creation of the universe or the creation of life.  (Multiverse as metaphysics; origin of DNA) This is evidence of a power working in the universe that is outside the limitations of physical matter.

I think your statement is faulted ... just because science cannot explain these things now, does not mean that it can't be scientifically proven - just that we can't do it yet. Most of the most respected scientists generally state that the more they learn, the more they realize we don't know very much at all. Therefore concluding that our current lack of scientific explaination is evidence of a power that is beyond physical matter is a faulty conclusion.

(I do beleive in a universal power by the way, but do not subscribe to any specific religious doctrine)

In the beginning, there were Triscuits.   And cheese.

And on the seventh day, there were Rosemary and Olive Oil flavoured Triscuits.  And they were good.

Original Post by sybil878:

I think your statement is faulted ... just because science cannot explain these things now, does not mean that it can't be scientifically proven - just that we can't do it yet. Most of the most respected scientists generally state that the more they learn, the more they realize we don't know very much at all. Therefore concluding that our current lack of scientific explaination is evidence of a power that is beyond physical matter is a faulty conclusion.

(I do beleive in a universal power by the way, but do not subscribe to any specific religious doctrine)

I think that is entirely possible for science to eventually show how life developed on our planet; however, I don't think that anyone will ever be able to describe how our universe began. Everything came from the big bang: energy, mass, time, space. There is no real way to see how this all started because nothing existed before the big bang. In fact, "before" the big bang doesn't even exist.

Original Post by simwaves1:

Original Post by sybil878:

I think your statement is faulted ... just because science cannot explain these things now, does not mean that it can't be scientifically proven - just that we can't do it yet. Most of the most respected scientists generally state that the more they learn, the more they realize we don't know very much at all. Therefore concluding that our current lack of scientific explaination is evidence of a power that is beyond physical matter is a faulty conclusion.

(I do beleive in a universal power by the way, but do not subscribe to any specific religious doctrine)

I think that is entirely possible for science to eventually show how life developed on our planet; however, I don't think that anyone will ever be able to describe how our universe began. Everything came from the big bang: energy, mass, time, space. There is no real way to see how this all started because nothing existed before the big bang. In fact, "before" the big bang doesn't even exist.

A speck of dense material wouldnt just sit around forever and then spontaneously explode - there must have been some energy threshold that was reached when a certain amount of matter was sucked together prior to the big bang. The yo-yo theory says that matter will expand (as it is now) until momentum from the big bang runs out - then gravity will take over, pulling it together in a singularity until enough energy collects to make it explode again. Rinse and repeat. If the universe were a system of perpetual motion and molecular self-assembly, would there still need to be a creator? For example, look at precipitation. It rains -> water vapor rises -> it rains again.

You have to understand what the big bang was. It was not just a speck of incredibly dense matter and energy that exploded. Einstein showed that our universe is expanding, not only in the form of matter and energy expanding, but along with the space-time continuum as well. The singularity that this universe began with was not only the beginning of the mass-energy but the beginning of space-time as well. This means that "a speck of dense material wouldn't just sit around forever and then spontaneously explode," because time and space did not exist before the big bang. Nothing can change without time. No object can take up space if space itself doesn't exist. This is why I said, "'before' the big bang doesn't even exist."

Even if this were not true, the expansion of our universe in accelerating. There isn't enough mass to pull everything back into a singularity. The yo-yo theory isn't consistent with science.

god has been around a lot longer than science has.  if either one should have proved itself by now, it's god.

regardless, anyone who pretends to have all the answers is, by definition, lying.  keenwheels, you're trying way too hard.

Original Post by pgeorgian:

regardless, anyone who pretends to have all the answers is, by definition, lying. 

Or just mistaken, but I don't think keenwheels is pretending he has all the answers. Besides, ever since he started posting, these threads have become more interesting to me. Christianity and science are two of my favorite things to talk about. I say keep it up.

to the first point: "mistaken" about having all the answers = lying.  maybe that means lying to oneself, but it's lying, regardless.  to the second point: he seems pretty absolute to me.

I'm sorry I'm so pedantic, but that's just my nature. 

From the oxford english dictionary:

lie - a false statement made with intent to deceive.

mistaken - Of a person or persons: having a wrong opinion or judgement.

Intentions are everything. lying ≠ mistaken

Original Post by simwaves1:

Original Post by sybil878:

 

(I do beleive in a universal power by the way, but do not subscribe to any specific religious doctrine)

I think that is entirely possible for science to eventually show how life developed on our planet; however, I don't think that anyone will ever be able to describe how our universe began. Everything came from the big bang: energy, mass, time, space. There is no real way to see how this all started because nothing existed before the big bang. In fact, "before" the big bang doesn't even exist.

well there are some theories out there from scientist that there could've been existence outside of our universe before the big bang. it gets into multiple universes and such. so we may be able to explain the big bang (if we have enough time) but it would lead us down the rabbit hole further & further.

Original Post by simwaves1:

I'm sorry I'm so pedantic, but that's just my nature. 

From the oxford english dictionary:

lie - a false statement made with intent to deceive.

mistaken - Of a person or persons: having a wrong opinion or judgement.

Intentions are everything. lying ≠ mistaken

 

you can be as pedantic as you want but lying to oneself is not the same as being mistaken.  it's usually pretty deliberate, if not entirely conscious.

i love the OED, too, sim, but i don't live by it. and while intentions count for a lot, they are definitely not everything.

Original Post by simwaves1:

You have to understand what the big bang was. It was not just a speck of incredibly dense matter and energy that exploded. Einstein showed that our universe is expanding, not only in the form of matter and energy expanding, but along with the space-time continuum as well. The singularity that this universe began with was not only the beginning of the mass-energy but the beginning of space-time as well. This means that "a speck of dense material wouldn't just sit around forever and then spontaneously explode," because time and space did not exist before the big bang. Nothing can change without time. No object can take up space if space itself doesn't exist. This is why I said, "'before' the big bang doesn't even exist."

Even if this were not true, the expansion of our universe in accelerating. There isn't enough mass to pull everything back into a singularity. The yo-yo theory isn't consistent with science.

Einstein was a smart cookie, but he wasn't infalliable. Hawking promptly came along and proved that black holes weren't so black after all, for example.

The point of a singularity (heh) is that the normal rules and laws of the universe we're in don't apply... that doesn't mean that NO rules apply, nor does it mean that time doesn't exist, nor other natural forces, just that we on the outside of the event horizon cannot ever hope to measure them. Time on the OUTSIDE of that event horizon didn't exist, but within it, who's to say? There's plenty of thought experiments of people being on the surface of a planet undergoing gravitational collapse, or flying into a black hole of great enough mass that the tidal effects of gravity wouldn't pull apart the vessel before allowing a passenger to slip beyond the veil.

I'm pretty comfortable in saying we'll never know what happened before the current expansion, barring some huge shift in consciousness that somehow lets us see inside singularities (not impossible... if Zeeman has taught us anything, it's that no knot is imposible to untangle given sufficient dimensions), but I'm not at all comfortable saying that just because it doesn't follow the rules we do that it followed no rules at all.

And here's a thought experiment for you regarding the "acceleration of expansion". Let's say that the whole of spacetime can be simmered down and rendered onto the outside of a typical inflatable rubber balloon. As you blow air into that ballon, any one part of it is going to move away from every other part, and the larger the balloon gets the "faster" it appears to be moving away. Imagine as well that at some point, the balloon stops getting filled with air, and it starts leaking out.

Current expansion does not mean future expansion. The current rate of expansion need not have been what was in the past. Our time in the universe is too short to know with certainty. All our best guesses are made based on red shifted spectra from other galaxies... so who's to say that at some point the 'cosmic balloon' won't start to leak air? That's why the cosmologists are obsessively hunting for dark matter.

'moto, when's our first date?

Original Post by keenwheels:

So with things like cavemen, dinosaurs, evolution... these are not specifically explained in the Bible, but these topics also do not disprove the Bible.

Agreed. Trying to use science to disprove the Bible, and the Bible to disprove science, is misusing both.

Side comment:  I realize you're speaking from the perspective of your particular faith, but what holy books other than The Bible have such a contentious relationship with science that it inspires threads like this?   Something to think about...

Original Post by pgeorgian:

'moto, when's our first date?

ha ha!!! careful, he's a bit of a serial charmer. he'll know all the right buttons to push.

Original Post by octo-luv:

ha ha!!! careful, he's a bit of a serial charmer.

 Frosted Lucky Charmer?

Original Post by hatamoto:

Einstein was a smart cookie, but he wasn't infalliable. Hawking promptly came along and proved that black holes weren't so black after all, for example.

The point of a singularity (heh) is that the normal rules and laws of the universe we're in don't apply... that doesn't mean that NO rules apply, nor does it mean that time doesn't exist, nor other natural forces, just that we on the outside of the event horizon cannot ever hope to measure them. Time on the OUTSIDE of that event horizon didn't exist, but within it, who's to say? There's plenty of thought experiments of people being on the surface of a planet undergoing gravitational collapse, or flying into a black hole of great enough mass that the tidal effects of gravity wouldn't pull apart the vessel before allowing a passenger to slip beyond the veil.

I'm pretty comfortable in saying we'll never know what happened before the current expansion, barring some huge shift in consciousness that somehow lets us see inside singularities (not impossible... if Zeeman has taught us anything, it's that no knot is imposible to untangle given sufficient dimensions), but I'm not at all comfortable saying that just because it doesn't follow the rules we do that it followed no rules at all.

And here's a thought experiment for you regarding the "acceleration of expansion". Let's say that the whole of spacetime can be simmered down and rendered onto the outside of a typical inflatable rubber balloon. As you blow air into that ballon, any one part of it is going to move away from every other part, and the larger the balloon gets the "faster" it appears to be moving away. Imagine as well that at some point, the balloon stops getting filled with air, and it starts leaking out.

Current expansion does not mean future expansion. The current rate of expansion need not have been what was in the past. Our time in the universe is too short to know with certainty. All our best guesses are made based on red shifted spectra from other galaxies... so who's to say that at some point the 'cosmic balloon' won't start to leak air? That's why the cosmologists are obsessively hunting for dark matter.

Interesting. Citing Steven Hawking as a reason to believe in the possibility of existence before the big bang is like citing Hitler as a reason to believe in God's intervention. Steven Hawking is definitely the greatest physicist of our time. He was very clear in stating that he believed that nothing existed before the big bang. He compares the question of what was before the big bang to asking "what is north of the north pole?" Hawking's research didn't change our understanding that nothing existed before the big bang and neither does modern Kaluza-Klein theory.

Interestingly enough, I've thought about the balloon idea before. It fits the idea of accelerated expansion very well, but the thought experiment only goes that far. You must think of what is causing this balloon to expand in the first place. Perhaps dark energy will fill this gap in our understanding. Then we have to ask ourselves how this force changes? We have no reason to assume that the expansion would slow or that the balloon would somehow start to leak. This changes fundamental properties of forces the way that we understand them.

Even if we assumed that this force would magically disappear, what does that mean for the rest of this thought experiment? It would only make sense that gravity would be our universal equivalent of the tension in the balloon (unless we're inventing forces in order to keep this experiment alive). As I've said before, there isn't enough gravity in the universe to pull it back into a singularity. The multitudes of galaxies across our universe have already as a collective exceeded each other's escape velocity. We're past the point of no return. There is no way that our universe can collapse back on itself.

As for your last paragraph, I stand by my position. You may be correct in saying that our expansion may change in the future; however, this is not consistent with science as we know it. Unless the fundamental forces of our universe somehow change, there is no reason to believe that our expansion will change.

I would respond, but you just f**king compared Stephen Hawking to Hitler.