Improbable means something that is almost impossible to happen in this case. And by improbable we are talking about something more improbable than getting struck by lightning while winning the lottery. Yet it did happen. Science assumes determinism, which assumes causation. There had to be some cause, particularly a designer.
The atheist and logician Bertrand Russell, in his book, "Why I am not a Christian", smugly poked fun at Hindu cosmology thus: The world sits on the back of an elephant. Ask the Hindu what the elephant sits on, and he replies a giant turtle. After that, it is time to change the subject. What I'm getting at is that we can apply the same logic to the materialist theory of the Big Bang by asking what went bang?
Aristotle actually noted this problem in his theory of the unmoved mover. The unmoved mover is something that causes everything but was caused by nothing itself. This is very unscientific. Yet science is incapable of offering anything any better.
Are you sure you're not being scientific?
Well, I'm not sure he poked fun at it, I am aware he thought it was illogical, however you would have to find the exact quote to prove that he was being disrespectful of such a belief. Well obviously the two are not synonymous or analogous since there is empirical evidence that the big bang existed and the Hindu cosmological belief is mythological. Yes, we could say we don't know the origin of the big bang, although according to science since the whole of matter before the big bang remained as a singularity similar to those you find at the heart of a black hole, there was no time or space since they are dependent on the constant speed of light and since light cannot exist at the point of a singularity due to the excessive amount of gravitational pull. Therefore since time and space can be considered non-existent at this point, it is scientifically logical to say there was no matter since time and space are a necessary dimensionality of time.
I agree, this does not seem like a particularly satisfying answer and essentially says that we do not know however that is just the point, WE DO NOT KNOW. Science could pretend, much like Christians and fabricate and answer but that would limit scientific research and since we do not know it still leaves the possibility open that one day we might discover how everything managed to come about under such extreme circumstances. I cannot give you an answer to the question of 'what caused the big bang?' because when science describes the fact that time and space were non-existent that does not seem like an adequate however to say science equally does not know seems like an inadequate answer but I am afraid that is exactly the point, we do not know yet. What should the practical consequences be of not having such answer be though? To stop scientific research? To believe in God? I should not hope so.
While there was a faction of communism called the God-Builders, of which Maxim Gorky was a prominent member, the communists never made much headway in political sacralization. Yes, there was a cult of Stalin and Lenin, but never one for Khrushchev or Brezhnev. And they were good communists both. I would add that trying to call Stalin a Christian does grave violence against the facts of history--something anybody who defers to science over religion should avoid. Stalin destroyed untold numbers of churches, and executed or imprisoned millions of Orthodox clergy and devout laymen. It's hard to argue he was a Christian when he hated it.
No but the fact that people say that Stalin was atheistic is still false and the same I'm afraid applies to Hitler. Many Christians say that World War two was a secularized war and that Hitler him self was an atheist and it was due to such an absence of religious faith that he committed the atrocities that he did. However, Hitler was a theist. He was a Christian who was a devout believer in the Roman Catholic faith and had ties with the Church throughout the war and in fact the church were highly supportive of him. Yes, perhaps, this is a different story when it comes to Stalin and Mao, however I am highly skeptical that these wars happened because of atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief so to kill someone over the fact that something is non-existent seems highly illogical. The atrocities that occurred under Stalin and Mao would have happened regardless of religion, millions of people would have been killed even if atheism hadn't have existed. There still would have been the delusional and psychopathic belief that anyone who opposed the political aspirations of the communist state should have been killed and this would have carried on regardless. One because the people running such political systems were psychopathic in their nature and two, and more importantly, it was not the most integral part of their philosophy. Of course, it was an integrated part of their belief system but to say that every single person killed under the oppressive regime of communism occurred because of atheism seems highly illogical. It seemed far more politically motivated than religiously motivated but regardless of what motivation was there, those people were psychopaths that would have exploited any belief system in order to have sustained their power. What I have said does not apply to religion however. Under the communist regime, killing would have happened regardless. Would killing have happened during the crusades if religion had not existed? I would be highly highly highly skeptical of that. Such wars had their very foundations in religion. I would say the same for the witch burnings, which was a vile suppression of femininity and the freedom to alter consciousness and practice alternative religion and had its foundations also in religion.
As far as your statement on Bush and Christianity. and "anything can be interpreted from such a doctrine", that's not true. Real Christianity has a very specific meaning, as outlined in the Nicene Creed. As evidence, I would suggest that it would not be plausible for you to call yourself a Christian. Something that has no fixed meaning can mean anything. If Christianity could mean anything, you plausibly could call yourself a Christian.
As far as Bush goes, I would argue that he's a liberal. As such, he does his worship in front of a mirror. Liberalism went from very innocently asserting the individual has rights against the state (think the US Constitution) to placing the individual above all else, especially God. The reason Bush calls himself a Christian is because Christianity is widely recognized as a force for good. Bush was the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing.
I suppose in this matter I beg to differ then. I would personally say that there are bits in the bible that are extremely abstract. The book of Revelations is highly abstract. The belief that one should not commit suicide can be found in the bible and that seems highly abstract to me. We are all committing suicide in some form of another. Even the most pure people in our society who do not drink, do not have sex, do not consume any drugs, could not be considered free from sin. All of us are committing suicide in some way or another. I am committing suicide by going on this computer rather than spending my time at the gym to increase my life expectation. Every time I choose to drive my car, I am contributing to global warming as well as to the toxic amount of chemicals in the atmosphere and thus whatever I do, I can be considered sinful. The same applies to murder. I would say we are all murderers. It sounds absurd however the law of sin is absurd and therefore my conclusions in regards to such a law must also be slightly absurd. Bacteria as a micro-organism can be found absolutely everywhere from your eye-lashes to your bed. It could be considered a living thing. It does not have a consciousness but then most animals do not have a consciousness in the sense that we have a consciousness yet to say they are essentially dead would be dubious. Therefore every time you go to wash your hands, every time you have a shower, every time you clean your kitchen, you are committing an act of murder. Thus, in some indirect sense, we could all be going to hell. I am sure what I have said contradicts what most Christians believe, however that is my point, the doctrine is so open to interpretation that it leads to confusion over meaning since most of it has its basis in metaphysical concepts that are essentially meaningless. This confusion in turn can lead to violent people twisting it in order justify their aggressive actions. Moreover, if it were so clear cut you would not have the many denomination you find within Christianity. There is a huge amount of disagreement and conflict when it comes to interpreting the bible and this had led to many different christian sects branching off and creating separate organizations. I doubt such things would exist if it were such a coherant and cohesive philosophy.
You make a good point. The atheist Karl Marx noted that religion is the opiate of the people. He of course was right. What Marx failed to realize is that sometimes opiates are good. Just as you're going to want a real opiate after serious surgery or accident, sometimes we need a spiritual palliative as life is full of unavoidable pain. Again, God is something I couldn't say with any conviction that I believe in or disbelieve in. It is an abstraction my simple aspie mind just cannot process.
I completely agree however just because something is good and comforting does not mean it is necessarily true. As I said in the beginning of my post and I would like to clarify this once more, I DO NOT want to ban religion in any way or suppress it in anyway if the individual finds it comforting. If she or he is not doing themselves any harm and keeping themselves up at night neurotic about whether or not they are going to burn in hell for eternity or doing anybody else any harm by making people with an alternative sexuality feel guilt-ridden, then it is absolutely fine. People should have such tools at the disposal. It does not necessarily make it true however. Objective reality and the belief systems we find comforting are two entirely different things but I agree with you. If the individual finds religion comforting and she or he is not infringing upon another individual's freedom by believing in such, they have the right to do so and I'm sure it is very beneficial. By the way, I hope you do not feel like I am mocking your beliefs in this post. I do not mean to be condescending or make you feel stupid because I often feel stupid when I am debating. I am solely trying to have a logical debate.
07 Oct 2013, 2:10 am
