From: George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>
Mike said: I didn't say the Bible
should do anything! I said people shouldn't try to make the Bible fit the
current cosmology.
G: I see no reason not to try since I hold
the Bible is written in truth. One
interpretation will inevitably be correct, unless plural meaning was
intended. The purpose of presenting my own
interpretation is to test its metal by those who are more knowledgeable than I
am; iron on iron.
I'm not saying that you ought not interpret the Bible. You have to do that to your satisfaction, period. As a matter of fact, your idea of limiting it to the solar system seems fairly close to something that delivers a greater truth to the original readers without trying to encompass all future knowledge in the process. A good compromise between revealed knowledge and impossibly remote technical truths seems to me personally to be a wise strategy..
I am, however, saying that trying to match the semantics of the Bible to the current cosmology is not statistically wise due to the fact that cosmologies are replaced about once ever two hundred years.
G: I will agree that many ideas do come
across as too contrived and ad hoc.
Yet this is understandable since Genesis was not written with enough
detail to reveal exactly what was taking place. Yet, there is enough stated in Gen 1
that allows science to say something about it. If both represent truth, then
concordance should emerge. We do
seem overdue for a nice one.
Perhaps Genesis does predict vast truths relevant for eons to come. If so, trying to stretch our current cosmology to fit the transcendence of Genesis is equally improbably. Who knows? The long and the short of it, to me, keeps coming back to the Bible not being appropriate territory for scientific interpretation. I, personally find that the important Biblical info has nothing to do with scientific truths and everything to do with how we should treat each other under the providence of God.
GeorgeA had said: That is now unlikely as the observable universe is
finite. It is very likely to be ~ 13.3 billion lightyears radius from
us. It is likely larger, but beyond hope of direct observation.
Mike said: Just because we can only
see so much of it does not detract in the slightest from the probability that
what we can't see conforms to the same continuous hierarchical progression as
all of the rest of it that we can see.
G: Agreed, BBT does not place a limit to
that which is observable to us, and it is reasonable to place a higher
probability on the idea that that which is beyond is not unlike that which is
here.
And I'm absolutely sure the cosmos proceeds for hundreds of billions of light years looking just like it does here, but I'm almost as certain that another billion billion light years distant, that it look notably different.
And to say it is beyond hope of
direct observation is premature. We always seem to find a way observer
ever further. (and direct is a relative term. we don't see anything
directly, we see the light, or in some cases particles like electrons that are
emitted or reflected by the objects we observe)
The reason I chose to use “direct” is
because so much can be discovered indirectly. It seems very unlikely, but not beyond
hope, admittedly, -- perhaps multidimensional space exists in a form that allows
sci-fi travel -- that light, or
other source of information, will ever be directly observed coming from “the
beyond“. Indeed, if accelerated
expansion is the case, we will be seeing less and less.
But all of this will only add new and
improved information to our understanding of what is in God’s front yard. This should not preclude us from
applying what we learn to any new interpretation, especially if one makes great
sense.
If it jumps out at you, you'd certainly try it on for size, that's a perfectly reasonable process. It's trying to force fit it to an existing model that I think leads to problems.
Consider the math example in 1 Kings
7:23+. I have seen others ridicule
the Bible by claiming the Bible says the 3.0 is the inferred value of pi. Yet a more careful examination of the
passage reveals that 3.14 is the better calculated value if one simply subtracts
the brim width of one hand from the bowl diameter of 10 cubits. Applying knowledge can make a big
difference.
I guess I'm led to wonder what difference 3.14 vs 3.0 makes? To me, it would have zero bearing on my reading of that passage describing artwork adorning the house of god. Zero. If the passage were about how men should calculate the relationship between the diameter and circumference of a circle, that would be one thing. But leafing through the semantics of the Bible for rational side-proofs of the perfection of God is, to me, a tiny bit of idolatry in that it kind of says you need more proof than the face value of whats being said.
GeorgeA had said: When has science ever stated that
everything had been observed? The end of the 19th century claimed to have
had things almost wrapped-up. Planck's father advised his son not to get
in physics for this reason, but admitted that there were two minor issues
outstanding: light and gravity. :)
Even now, no decent cosmologist will claim that the Big
Bang contains the whole universe, but that is precisely the presumption that
they labor under. It's called the cosmological principle and it
states that the whole universe is homogeneous, isotropic and all the laws behave
the same everywhere. The cosmological principle is highly unlikely
in the first two aspects and not all that tidy in the third (just imaging how
some of the laws might behave behind the veil of an event horizon).
Don’t forget General Relativity. As I had mentioned, Einstein preferred
to name his theory the Invariant Theory since it showed that the laws of physics
are universal.
It is more likely that BBT and GR are
the best models to date than any other.
Anyone who can demonstrate otherwise should enjoy Sweden when they
go to receive their Nobel prize.
No one is saying they
represent any degree of ultimate and final truth, that is not what theories do,
of course.
I don’t really know how much stock scientists really
place on the cosmological principle.
[I like this term better than the Copernican principle as I doubt he
would have agreed with it since it implies Earth is just another rock around the
Sun.] There is certainly a good
chance we are unique as a species in the whole universe. Our planet will, undoubtedly, be unlike
the vast majority of any other planet.
It is the anisotropies of which we are made, so the cosmological
principle has some merit since it is supported by things like the CMBR, but it
is limited in application.
GeorgeA said: The Greeks 2000+ years
ago knew the Sun was larger than the Earth.
But Aristarchus was way off on just how much bigger.
Still, my general thesis holds. The estimate of the overall size of the
Ptolemaic model was considerably smaller than the estimates of the Copernican
model 500 years later.
Yes, obviously Aristarchus did not when
the day with his model. As for the
size, I did not know they were deemed different in size. Is this due to the parallax issue? That would make
sense.
They interpret
the data just like every human has for the last two thousand years. We see
something and we try to make an answer that is comprehensive. We love a
complete answer and we HATE an open ended presumption. So we take whatever
symmetry we see at the largest scale we can identify and we project that
symmetry to whatever extent it takes to make a complete and sufficient answer
for the whole enchilada. Whether it is a closed system like the Copernican
spheres, an open system like the "Island Universe" of the Milky Way or an
infinite model like the Big Bang, we devise a model that does whatever it takes
to make a complete description of all of Creation. Sooner or later we're
going to have to stop that silliness and admit that Creation is a LOT bigger
than we will ever know.
I don’t get the impression that anyone
is saying an ultimate solution is obtainable. That is why theories are just
models. BBT is a model, albeit a
very powerful model due to the verifications of its predications. [However, I don’t think it is an
infinite model, unlike Steady State Theory.] To not try to build new and better
models would be to forfeit the efficacy that emerge from them.
The problem is, if they don't infer some limiting criteria, they attempt to make a model that is potentially a complete and sufficient answer to the whole universe. It's reflexive. In doing so they make assumptions like the cosmological principal and inflation in an effort to to support a complete picture that history strongly suggests does not exist. It's a psychological issue much more than an evidence thing.
M: Seeking the truth is the same as
presuming that what we know at any given time is a finite segment of what shows
every sign of being an infinite ongoing hierarchical context. Admitting
that prospect actually helps us predict the nature of the universe just beyond
our range of data, helps us seek the truth. Instead of expecting
homogeneity infinitely beyond our view, we should imagine that we just can't yet
discern the change in homogeneity just like we couldn't at first detect the
concentration of stars in the Milky Way from the smooth homogeneous distribution
of stars all around us.
Is your theory testable? Can you demonstrate evidence for this
infinite heirarchy?
Actually a Bayesian analysis of the material structure of the universe says that it is almost certainly virtually infinite (ie at the very least it's another trillion time the size of the visible universe) and it is a flat-out numerical certainty that there is at least on more step to the structural hierarchy of the material universe beyond the expansion profile of the Big Bang.
I can not
demonstrate otherwise, but that doesn’t qualify it to be a theory. I doubt many place ultimate limits to
what is out there. The mulitiverse
idea seems to be tolerated as a legitimate theory, though I wonder if it meets
the tenets necessary to be qualified as such. Maybe it does, I haven’t studied
it.
I actually suggest in my book that the scientific method should be slightly altered to include a Bayesian component of what is most probable in terms of characterizing the unknown. I am not nearly the first to suggest this step either.
GeorgeA poorly stated: Yes, since the Bible is not
about science. However, allowing the Bible to be seen as silly or
equivalent to Greek myths, and faith will suffer. Genesis makes strong
statements that suggest scientific scrutiny has some say in its
credibility. Seeking the truth is what must be continued, and not ignored
in hopes science will leave it alone.
"Allowing it to be seen as silly?" What are you
going to do, change it? change science? It is your
interpretation of the purpose of the Bible that puts that weight, that
suggestion of strong scientific scrutiny in pursuit of its credibility, onto
writings that may be over 5000 years old.
Well, it is not the purpose of the
Bible that brings weight, but various interpretations do vary the scientific
scrutiny. Some interpretations are definitely
regarded as silly. The
stronger science becomes the weaker any interpretations become that are in
conflict with it. However, any
interpretation that is concordant with science is further strengthened by
it.
If you say so. I just think that it risks as much as it gains, the results of neither of which amount to much in my personal interpretation. It has been edifying to me, however to hear your views on this, in that I have only recently joined the list and have a limited perspective on the general landscape of sci. vs. religion. Thanks for your detailed, cogent, fearless responses.
-Mike (Friend of ASA)
How could the Bible have been written
in terms that could hold up for 5 millennia of scientific progress and still be
comprehensible to the people of the time in which it was written? That's
an awfully big burden to place on what is predominately an account of the
relationship between man and God, the likes of which is virtually timeless
compared to the relationship between man and science.
Not at all. If the author is simply writing what he
observed, then the account becomes ageless. A simple account is all that was
necessary, even if it makes it more difficult to resolve with science. Regardless, the burden you suggest only
comes to those who misrepresent the truth; eventually, their claims will be
discovered to be false.
If the account represents what actually
took place, there are objective elements within the text that do allow
scientific scrutiny. It is
reasonable to apply what science has learned to those objective elements.
________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 5 15:31:21 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 05 2007 - 15:31:21 EST