"And God said, let there be light. And there was light."

[guillaumeb]

If one accepts that existence was literally created, it also implies and assumes that one believes that there is/was a Creator to initiate the creation process.

One hypothesis:

The Big Bang hypothesis is widely known in popular thought as the best explanation for how the universe came to be. However, very few people know that a Catholic priest formulated this theory in the late 1920s. Reverend Monsignor Georges Lemaître, a Belgian scientist, challenged the conventional thinking of his colleagues, including Albert Einstein, and rejected the static universe hypothesis for a dynamic model. In the course of carrying out his research, he confronted illogical thinking that pitted faith against reason, and science against the Church. His legacy extends beyond cosmology, to the nature of truth itself

And also:

Father Lemaître's intellectual background was unique. His education was a synthesis of the classics, philosophy and theology along with engineering, mathematics and physics. Perhaps this powerful combination is what allowed his mind to formulate a concept as abstract and significant as the primeval atom hypothesis — his term for what we now colloquially refer to as the Big Bang

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847

What I see in the phrase "let there be light", is a metaphoric rendering of the Big Bang, set in language that a Bronze Age people could understand.

Georges Lemaitre, of course, worded it a bit differently, but that was in the 20th century, with the advantage of 5800 years of scientific advancement and knowledge.

The Abrahamic religions all agree that existence was created by the Creator. Some believers also believe that evolution is a part of creation. I am one of that group that believes that the Creator provided the initial spark, so to speak, and allowed what evolved to evolve from that spark. Thus the "let there be light" moment.

Others, the so-called Biblical literalists, believe that every word in the Bible is literally true.

[yallerdawg]

1. Confirmed by a really smart guy:

[guillaumeb]

2. An interesting clip.

Georges Lemaitre would likely agree.

[Jim__]

3. The Reverse Solipsist

The Reverse Solipsist is an article in the October/November issue of Philosophy Now by Ray Liikanen. It's an imaginary dialogue between Socrates and a guy sitting on a park bench with the books: The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and The Meme Machine by Susan Blackmore. Socrates' is trying to grasp how cause and effect works with respect to the ideas in these books. The full article is here.

An excerpt:

...

Socrates: In The Selfish Gene, Professor Dawkins calls we humans – well perhaps not so much I as you, seeing that I’m no longer alive – but he calls human bodies ‘survival machines’.

Moe: Yes, that’s why genes are called ‘selfish’. They are replicators, and that’s what they do: they replicate themselves. And they use the bodies of organisms to do so.

Socrates: So these selfish genes created us, body and mind, and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence?

...

Moe: I suppose so, yes. It’s well enough explained in these books. The label ‘survival machine’ applies to every living species, including insects, but the label ‘meme machine’ applies more specifically to us. Memes are ideas; and just as genes replicate themselves by leaping from body to body, so to speak, memes replicate themselves by leaping from brain to brain.

...

[yallerdawg]

4. Moe loses it.

Socrates: So all of these things of which we speak – selfish genes, memes, and the cosmos itself – seeing that these are all things that have happened, they can be called effects?

Moe: I suppose.

Socrates: And would you agree that the cause must precede the effect, and the effect must follow after the cause?

Moe: Yes, I suppose.

Socrates: So while this thinking takes us further and further back along the chain of effects, we still have yet to determine the cause for all these things that have happened. Or could it perhaps be that the effect is sufficient to explain itself as its own cause?

Moe: Maybe. Maybe the cosmos is enough of an explanation of itself.

Socrates: But if the cause must precede the effect, and the effect must follow after the cause, do we not contradict ourselves in this thought that the cosmos, as an effect, must have preceded itself as its own cause?

[marylandblue]

8. Hence Aristotle concluded the universe has always existed

A conclusion medieval commentators rejected on religious rather than philosophical grounds, saying Aristotle didn't have the advantage of revelation.

In modern times, we have a whole different idea. We've learned the universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine. Electrons randomly pop from here to there. Space bends and time is not constant. Subatomic particles pop in and out of existence. All without cause. If all these things we couldn't imagine (yet we can prove to be so) happen, then the universe could have caused itself

Much as I love Socrates, empiricism has triumphed over his logic.

[guillaumeb]

53. Spontaneous creation?

Really?

Okay.

[marylandblue]

56. No, eternal matter

No beginning, no end. If someone uses Aristotle as a source, they should use his actual beliefs.

[guillaumeb]

57. Another concept that relies on faith.

But if that is what you believe, or what some believe, I understand.

[marylandblue]

58. It's not what I believe

I believe in empirical observation and theories derived therefrom. The evidence is that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. This requires no more faith than it does to believe that the Sun is a giant fusion reactor.

[Angry Dragon]

5. so the whole Bible is a metaphor??

[guillaumeb]

6. There is metaphor and message.

There is history and religious instruction.

[Angry Dragon]

7. how does one tell the difference??

because we are told god works in mysterious ways

[marylandblue]

9. Easy. Which parts do you like?

The parts you like are the message. The rest is metaphor. That's never been mysterious because all the commentators did it that way.

[Angry Dragon]

10. About the only part I really like is the part about the 27 or 72 virgins

[marylandblue]

11. Sorry wrong book. Now I have to kill you.

[Angry Dragon]

12. so many gods, so many books

[trotsky]

38. Bingo. n/t

[guillaumeb]

13. Are you asking me to interpret the Bible for you?

I cannot. I would never say that I could.

[MineralMan]

14. Can you interpret it for yourself?

If so, please describe the process you use. I'm sure we will all benefit from that. Thanks.

[guillaumeb]

15. How do you interpret philosophical text that uses metaphor and poetry?

Use the same process for the Bible and I am certain you will do an excellent job.

[Angry Dragon]

17. gilly that was a real cop-out answer

NO ONE really knows what the Bible says, even though more books have been written about it than any other

[guillaumeb]

19. One can read the words.

But the meaning is debated. The obvious answer, not a cop out.

[Angry Dragon]

22. It is said by many that the Bible was written or inspired by god.

You say the meaning is debated.
By you saying that, you are saying there is No true message of path to god.
Sounds pretty poor reasoning on god's part.
Here it is boys and girls to you to figure out if these words make any sense.

Pretty poor indeed

[marylandblue]

25. The words are debateable too

Last edited Sun Dec 3, 2017, 06:12 PM - Edit history (1)

The words we read are selected, redacted, and recopied versions of stories that were probably originally oral traditions. So if there were some divine inspiration in the original words, we have no way of identifying those words or even knowing if they made it into the text.

[marylandblue]

26. The book of Genesis is a mythological text, not philosophical or metaphorical

A myth is a made up story intended to be taken as fact. That the myth might bear a passing resemblance to some modern scientific idea is a matter of sheer coincidence. LeMaitre did not believe that Genesis described the Big Bang.

[Act_of_Reparation]

31. Bingo.

The claim that Genesis is metaphorical philosophy hinges on the assumption pretty much every man or woman of consequence in the first 3,500 years of the Judeo-Christian tradition simply forgot and interpreted the story as literal fact, and as a matter of total coincidence we rediscovered the real, metaphorical nature of the story right around the same time science showed this literal interpretation to be a load of bunkum.

[Angry Dragon]

16. You just told us that the light was a metaphor......how do you know??

[guillaumeb]

20. Do you understand that this is an opinion piece?

If so, you have your answer.

[MineralMan]

21. Generally, when someone has an opinion and expresses it,

he or she makes some attempt to explain how he or she arrived at that opinion. If that doesn't happen, someone is very likely to ask how that opinion came to be.

Just saying it's an opinion is not an explanation, I'm afraid. It's a tautology.

Likening Genesis 1's first verses to the "Big Bang" is pretty common, but doesn't really stand up, once you get to later verses in that chapter. Then, we have jumped ahead many billions of years, without any further information being provided.

Yes, this was directed at unlearned people a very, very long time ago. So what?

Is it a metaphor? Sure. It's a metaphor for "God Did It. You Don't Need to Know More Than That."

[marylandblue]

24. Actually, it doesn't stand up from the first verse

First God creates heaven and earth (that is before the big bang). The earth was made of water (which never happened). THEN the light of the big bang was created. So the sequence is all wrong from Day 1.

George Lemaitre used the term "cosmic egg" to describe his theory. Hindu creation mythology says creation was like the breaking of an egg. That sounds more like the Big Bang than the Bible So how did the equally unlearned Hindus get a better metaphor than the Israelites?

[Angry Dragon]

23. I agree with MM, tell us how you came to this opinion

[Lordquinton]

28. Something something Chior...

I doubt we'll get anything but ad hominems and deflection/reframing.

[Angry Dragon]

29. yea, gilly likes to talk religion but he has no idea how he got there

[Lordquinton]

30. Very common occurrence

among the religious. They are very vocal about their beliefs, but the second you start to ask questions it's all mysteries, revelations, "other ways of knowing" and so forth. Schrodinger's theist.

[MineralMan]

18. Metaphoric Rendering:

[longship]

27. I prefer this version.

Where there is more room for James Clerk Maxwell than gods.



Oh physics! Save us from metaphysics.
Blaise Pascal.

[marylandblue]

43. Well Maxwell did believe in demons

[Act_of_Reparation]

32. If you expect to find meaning in text...

...you're going to find it, whether it's there or not.

[guillaumeb]

33. Everyone has unprovable opinions, theist and non-theist alike.

And everyone will discover something to validate those unprovable opinions.

The difference, in my view, is that theists admit that their beliefs are faith based, while many atheists feel that their beliefs, or philosophy if you prefer, are based solely on reason.

As if the reasoning aspect of consciousness could be separated from the emotional or intuitive side of the brain.

[Act_of_Reparation]

34. So your response to legitimate criticism is...

"I know you are but what am I"?

Great. Glad we had this chat.

[guillaumeb]

35. So your reponse to my response was:

to avoid the substance of the response in favor of something else.


Thank you for your something.

[Act_of_Reparation]

36. The "substance of the response"

1) "Everyone holds unprovable opinions" -- This does not make your method of deriving meaning from text (i.e. injecting your preexisting beliefs into it) any less flawed.

2) "Theists admit their opinions are based on faith" -- This does not make your method of deriving meaning from text any less flawed.

3) "The rational brain cannot be separated from the emotive" -- This does not make your method of deriving meaning from text any less flawed.

[guillaumeb]

44. I never made any such claim.

But it does imply that all humans use both rational and emotional means to arrive at conclusions.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

37. As an English teacher, that's a cop out.

You made an opinion from a text. It is NOT valid literary analysis to say "we all have opinions." There are opinions about books that are fundamentally wrong. The Great Gatsby is NOT a love story and NOT about love in any way. It is about the American Dream. How do we know? Because the text makes it clear and does not support love as the thematic approach.

Not all opinions are valid. And if you claim an interpretation of the text, you should be able to substantiate that interpretation. There are various methods, but the easiest is to make sure there is textual consistency. Then you can start to look at author and time of writing to check for other things.

But "it's just my opinion man," when it comes to literary analysis is just plain

[guillaumeb]

45. Speaking as a literature major, you said:

There are opinions about books that are fundamentally wrong.

An interesting, if flawed premise.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

46. If we are talking about the intent of the author,

it is absolutely not a flawed premise.

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is NOT an argument for reinstating slavery. That is fundamentally wrong.

[guillaumeb]

48. Can a work be interpreted in ways that an author did not intend?

Of course.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

49. Of course

That doesn't inherently make them valid.

And we can certainly get to deconstruction as a means to interpret which look at factors even the author may not have realized, but there still, even in deconstruction, need to be textual consistency.

Just because it is an interpretation, doesn't make it correct.

[guillaumeb]

50. Ah yes, inherent validity.

Another vague concept wherein what is determined to be inherently valid can vary greatly.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

59. So now you want to apply scientific standards to lit analysis?

Seems like an odd application, even for you. Though it gives you the chance to throw out a buzzword attack on something you don't seem to really be winning, so, I guess it is like you.

[guillaumeb]

60. Simply noting the very subjective nature of literary analysis.

I like how you have appropriated another's meme about winning.

Good when the choir is in harmony, agreed?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

61. It's not a meme; it's a metaphor.

I have indicated ways in which we can make sure that literary analysis eliminates as much subjectivity as possible and you have not engaged in that discussion. That's on you.

[guillaumeb]

62. Eliminating subjectivity is an illusion.

Assuming that you grew up in the US, you assimilated certain things as part of the socialization process in this country. There are things that you accept as correct without having examined and analyzed them. It is possible to modify your socialization process, but the idea of eliminating subjectivity is an illusion.

[Lordquinton]

47. Care to back up your opinion here?

No? Didn't think so.

[Lordquinton]

40. What atheist "beliefs" are you talking about here?

Because by definition it's not anything to do with a deity, so you must be speaking of something else that I have no idea about.

[marylandblue]

41. In my experience, theists don't use faith that way.

They establish their belief in some manner that is, to them, reasonable, whether it's because of a received tradition, proofs from prophecy, First Cause, personal spiritual experience etc. The "faith" part is what they do with that belief - i.e. trust Jesus to bring them to heaven.

You are the one separating reason from emotion, in that your beliefs are totally unmoored from any hint of reason whatsoever, as if you could say "the sky is green," and that would be a valid opinion because you "feel" it is so.

[trotsky]

39. Yes, we already knew you were a creationist.

Thanks for the confirmation.

[Cartoonist]

42. And Supergod said, "Let there be a God."

And Ultragod said, "Let there be a Supergod."
And Mothergod said, . . .

When are we going to bury this idiotic Intelligent Design BS?

[VMA131Marine]

51. The Big Bang Theory is a direct consequence of the General Theory of Relativity

at the time, everyone assumed that the Universe was static so Einstein had to add a Cosmological Constant to the equations so that the theory matched. When Edwin Hubble actually demonstrated that the Universe was expanding Einstein went back and deleted the constant calling it the worst mistake he ever made. Had he left it out and just followed the theory he could have predicted Hubble's observations.

[guillaumeb]

52. And the Big Bang theory was formulated by a priest.

Reverend Monsignor Georges Lemaitre actually formulated this theory.

[VMA131Marine]

54. True, but he used the physics available to him

it's not like he derived the theory out of the Bible. The fact that he was a priest is incidental to his discovery.

[guillaumeb]

55. True, LeMaitre recognized

that faith and science deal with different areas, and he separated the two processes while recognizing the validity of each.