View Full Version : How Can People Believe This Nonsense?
Islamic Fundamentalism, Christian Fundamentalism, and God knows what else;-)...and especially the belief that suicide bombers and kamikazes held that their deeds would lead them into Paradise...what is the makeup of the human psyche that it can be so easily fooled and led down paths which have absolutely no logical or empirical support, and which when viewed from the outside are easily seen as a potpourri of myths and dreams?
To our ancient ancestors, myth and science were pretty much the same. We as a species still seem to contain a marked vulnerability in this way.
Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
- Voltaire
----------------------------------------------------------------
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
- Voltaire
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum!
[To what evil deeds religion urges men!]
- Lucretius, De Rerum Natura,i:101
----------------------------------------------------------------
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same god who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
- Galileo Galilei
----------------------------------------------------------------
To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin.
-Cardinal Bellarmine (1615, during the trial of Galileo)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
- Thomas Jefferson
----------------------------------------------------------------
Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.
- Thomas Jefferson
----------------------------------------------------------------
FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
----------------------------------------------------------------
People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them.
- Dave Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.
- Andre Gide
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eine Religion, die des Menschen vorzügliche, fast einzige Hoffnung in ein anderes Leben weist, hat die Präsumption der Gaunerei in diesem für sich.
[Any religion which says that mankind's primary - almost only - hope lies in another life, can be presumed to be a hoax in this one.]
- Johann Gottfried Seume
----------------------------------------------------------------
A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
- Albert Einstein, in Time Magazine, 9 November 1930
----------------------------------------------------------------
I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious
theories of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God.
- Thomas Edison
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who engages in the practice of psychotherapy confronts every day the devastation wrought by the teachings of religion.
- Nathaniel Branden, Ph.D., Psychologist
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible is a wonderful source of inspiration for those who do not understand it.
- George Santayana
----------------------------------------------------------------
The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church.
- Ferdinand Magellan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
- Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in Physics
I agree with Terry and Rounder ... (first time i think i have agreed with Rounder) that the same can be said of all religion.
Just think about what we are told about God, the creation of the earth, etc. it would go something like this:
"A few million years ago God was sitting up in the sky and for some reason decided to create the earth. I guess he was bored one afternoon. Then he decided to create a species in his own image to dominate this new planet. Then to keep this species company he created a few million other species, knowing of course that the original species he created will in time ruin all the other species. Of course dinosaurs never existed because they are not mentioned in the bible. Or if they did exists what happened to them? God must have created them, let them roam the earth for a few years and then I guess he tired of them so he killed them all. Now God sits up at his desk up in the sky and watches all 6 billion people down on his planet. The good ones get to join him when they die and the bad ones get to go to the centre of the earth where they will suffer for eternity."
But we're a reasonable society...
the universe was created. What is the explanation absent a supreme being?
Maybe the universe *is* the supreme being. (But okay, I'll admit I'm not sure about this.) /images/wink.gif
Fist let me say that in some ways I feel bad I made this post. I am not trying to ridicule those in some parts of the world who may not have had any education other than religious training. Rather I am wondering how otherwise intelligent and educated people can accept, even fervently believe in, the Fundamentalist interpretations.
To respond to your question, Tom, I don't know if the universe was created, how it may have been created, or whether or not a Supreme Being exists. I am just saying that IF a Supreme Being exists, fine. If a Supreme Being does not exist, fine too. It's the strict belief in much of the other Fundamentalist aspects that I find impossible to swallow, and I find it rather amazing that so many can and do.
To respond further to your question: that a Supreme Being created the universe is certainly one of the "handiest" answers. This doesn't mean it is the only answer or the actual answer however. Most people seem to assume that the universe had to be created. I am not even convinced that this has to be true. To me it makes just as much sense that the universe always existed as that it was created or had a starting point. The Big Bang seems pretty much accepted but there may still have been existence prior to that...I once read, in a Stephen Hawking book I vaguely recall, that there could have been stuff before the Big Bang, but it didn't matter because the Big Bang made it so that the law of cause and effect was broken at that point...what may have existed prior to the Big Bang would have no bearing on what existed after the Big Bang. But all this may eventually be found to be another sort of mythology (probably not but who knows for sure;-)) The main thing here is: I don't know. It may be that the universe was created. Whether a Supreme Being made it I don't know. It is certainly the "easiest" answer. Just because other answers are not so handily available does not mean that there is not another explanation.
On a related note, we tend to view things as starting and ending all the time. However what we view as starting/creation and ending/death may just be parts of change in a continual process of change and transformation. The position of the observer may have much to do with this...we are viewing the phenomena from a perspective, and it is our perspective that starts viewing a certain phenomenon at some point and stops viewing it at another point. If energy can never be lost or created, only transformed, then this may make more sense than it seems to, and it might even apply to the entire universe.
What I am referring to is the literal interpretation of the Bible, and, I would guess, the Koran. Word for word. Some still believe the world was created in a week.
We really don't know, when it comes right down to it. And this is why religion started I think. But our ignorance does not thereby justify the belief in a supreme being. perhaps the universe was created by a committee of advanced beings as a form of gambling. See if the dinosaurs +240 is a good bet to last longer than the sabre tooth tiger. Who knows? But the solution to our ignorance has little to do with our religious beliefs, whatever they might be.
For instance, let's assume there is life after death. When you die, you go on to something else. Okay, what is it? We don't know. If there is such a transformation we will find out soon enough, and there will be a logical explanation for it. Until then, why is there any justification to make up stuff about what might happen? The only justification is some psychological comfort. But it's supplied by someone else and isn't explainable, so is it justified? Even assuming there is a supreme being, how can the primitive beliefs that exist now adequately explain such a being?
I think you can look at the intricacies of the universe and nature, and come to the conclusion that it just couldn't be random. But that certainly does not mean it was all designed and created by one God as described in the Bible or Koran. If you come to the conclusion our existence is not just random, you have to start looking for how it all came about and why. And that is a hard and uncertain path, one humans have just begun to venture down. But our failure to be able to give a logical explanation does not, by that inability, give credence to some belief or another that supplies some form of an answer.
So you believe the little story set out in my post, huh. Good for you.
Two fish in a bowl are seen talking. The talking becomes argumentative. Soon they are fighting. Later all you see is too very worn out fish and a bunch of gills and fins scattered all over the tank. Finally, one asks the other, "All right, if there's no God, who changes the water?"
"and especially the belief that suicide bombers and kamikazes held that their deeds would lead them into Paradise."
For people that believe the above it is true. It is as true for them as is being alive. If they believe this with their conscious mind and the last conscious thought they have is of this belief then it is in fact true for them If their last conscious thought is that of paradise or the journey to paradise, how can you deny that they are not in this place called paradise if that is what their consciousness tells them or was the last thing it told them.
You believe in the "big bang" theory becuase some scientists claim that it occurred. Scientific measurements have somewhat confirmed the theory but not precisely. But even scientists admit that they have no idea what occurred before the "big bang" or how it happened. Maybe "god" or Sklansky or one of my forefathers was playing nuclear baseball and hit a stellar ball so hard that it made a "big bang". Who knows?
Vince (the super?)
Why do you assume I believe anything? I merely posed what I thought was a philosophical question. Lot's of interesting answers though.
Physical existence doesn't imply metaphysical creation, much less prove it. We think otherwise because we have difficulty imagining a finite universe that's always been there in constatnly changing form, but that just means that our understanding of the universe is limited, it doesn't provide grounds for assuming a pre-universe supernature. (Stephen Hawking believes the universe is finite and that physics can explain why or at least how). If we think that the universe must have been "created" because everything in our experience is created by something, remember that everything physical is created by something else that's physical, and that no thing, as far as we can tell, is created metaphysically, out of less than thin air. Therefore, the only sort of creation that we know from experience implies the absence of God.
Yes, none of us would be here if it weren't for a "Big Bang", if you know what I mean. But you're probably too young to know what I mean so forget it.
"For people that believe the above it is true. It is as true for them as is being alive. If they believe this with their conscious mind and the last conscious thought they have is of this belief then it is in fact true for them If their last conscious thought is that of paradise or the journey to paradise, how can you deny that they are not in this place called paradise if that is what their consciousness tells them or was the last thing it told them."
Well, let's say their last conscious thought was that they were, instead of on a hijacked jetliner about to crash, in a little restaurant in Paris having chicken Cordon Bleu. Does this mean that's where they were? No. Does that mean that's where they ended up going? No, it does NOT.
I deny that they were going to this cafe in Paris even if its what their last conscious thought told them.
M, get some sleep. It's late. It's past your bedtime. Good night. Don't have too many nightmares.
For you, 3. For me, 16. Good night. Bedtime for me.
. . . Get a terrible answer!
Briefly :-
We are animals, no different than the cockroach or the goat. The only difference is the development of our brain capability, which has enabled us to have self-consciousness. That's the only difference.
As soon as we have been made aware of our cosmic position (insignificant) and condition (tragic), we have resorted to constructs, in order to fool ourselves. Constructs such as religions. Religions usually promise an after-life, because to accept that "this is it and there ain't no more" is, shall we say, unacceptable. [The ancient Greeks have covered that ground almost completely.]
The more backward a (collective or personal) state of mind, the more intense the control it seeks from a religion, the more complete its abandonment inside the religion's corridors of mysticism. Christianity teaches that we were created in the image of God, in order to I forget what, maybe worship Hold'em. Islam teaches that we were created in order to worship Allah and be His servants. And so on. Religion gives our lives a "purpose". The realization of mortality and one's own insignificance begs for a filling up of that nauseous existential void by a "purpose". Read the letters recovered in the highjackers' bags, as reported by CNN, to glimpse such a "purpose".
--Recommended reading : "Ernest Becker's "The Denial of Death" and "Escape From Evil". Read them at your peril.
I'm not either /images/smile.gif
It's hard for me to express what I'm thinking in a few words regarding your answer. I'll just say for me, given how I perceive the world, our planet and it's various life forms are too much of a coincidence to be happenstance.
I'm not criticizing your post at all. My question was prompted by the response from people who stated that they were atheists. I asked several people the question I posed and one of the answers I received was the "big bang" theory. Of course if something else existed before the big bang theory then how did it come into being? Believing that the universe always existed seems to me that it requires, and I may be wrong about this, an act of faith in itself. So to me there is implied criticism for acts of faith in believing there is a supreme being from at least some of those who are self proclaimed atheists. So in my mind it takes no less an act of faith to beleive that the universe always existed.
Excellent post, well thought out and written IMO. There isn't really anything I can add to this.
IMO the believe that "a finite universe that's always been there in constatnly changing form" requires an act of faith. I also believe that believing in supreme being requires an act of faith.
It still amazes me that people can take the leap from religious practices and thinking to actually believing such things fanatically and fully. Don't they hear a little voice in the back of their minds telling them that this is somehow wrong, that something isn't right? Likewise it stuns me when someone snaps and commits a mass murder like in a McDonald's or a high school. I simply can't relate to it, no matter what; that is, I can't envision any circumstances that could lead me to do such a thing or even wish for such a thing. It just seems totally foreign to me.
It also strikes me that humans may well have some inherent weakness or flaw which causes them to suspend rational thought when the emotional or psychological aspects become strong enough. I'm not saying emotion isn't important, but it would be better if people did not completely suspend rational thought even when in highly emotional states. Perhaps some humans are more subject to this trait than are others.
Another trait: the inclination to believe what one wants to believe is clearly pretty damn strong. How did this trait evolve? I can't, off the top of my head, envision any benefit to it in terms of survival of the species; in fact it should have had the opposite effect. So why do humans tend to believe what they want to believe? Perhaps it protects the ego, which feels that it is fighting for survival. Yet still, wouldn't this trait have decreased the chances for survival? I wonder how we as a species managed to retain such a detrimental characteristic.
Now that I think about, this may be true of ALL opinionated people.
We are allowed to question the creation/origin of the universe but we are not permitted to question the creation/origin of god, correct?
I would like to know how the things that exist came to be. I am not willing to accept a stupid and unquestionable answer just so I can put my mind to rest regarding the question.
To me, "We don't know yet" is a much better answer than "God made it. That settles it. Give me 10% of your money for the rest of your life and don't ask any more questions."
Perhaps the survival benefit is the same as the herding instinct in other animals; there certainly is strength in numbers.
Herds, packs, prides, etc., all follow a leader who, for whatever reason, is perceived to be better | stronger | smarter | posessing knowledge not available to the masses.
Could it be that a flashy suit & Rolex or a funny hat & robe bestows on a human the same intangible quality that makes a lead cow? Not everyone / everycow wants to be a leader, but the urge to follow seems to be strong in many species, quite likely because of the safety which being part of a group provides.
When the group / herd reaches critical mass and must divide due to pressures such as food resources, sanitation, etc., a new leader must somehow convince part of the group to leave the safety they have always known and to follow him into the unknown to found a new group. If that new group survives and thrives, it also spreads the "gullibility" gene, assuming the convincing was done through verbal manipulation (human method) rather than brute strength (cow method).
And so, through this rambling speculation, I seem to have convinced myself that gullibility (willingness to believe without evidence) is not only a survival trait, but is probably a very good way for a species to become very widespread.
"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day.
Give a man religion, and he'll starve to death praying for a fish."
- anonymous
"I deny that they were going to this cafe in Paris even if its what their last conscious thought told them. "
You Mr. M.... are a sick puppy.
Vince
All I am trying to say is that believing something does not make it so.
They could be 100% convinced that they were going to Paradise after their death. Their last conscious thought could have been that they would soon be in Paradise. They just never got there.
In the words of Bertrand Russell: Your argument that 'Universe exists' implies that 'There is a Supreme Being' is (Russell's words) 'exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject."'
That we do not know how the universe came to be (if such a question is even meaningful is unclear) is hardly proof of a Supreme Being, for such proof falls to the reducito ad absurdum counter Russell hints at above. If the existence of a universe means something, call it GOD, made it, then the existence of a GOD means something, call it GOD2, created GOD, and so on. Then the religious answer, 'Nothing made GOD, GOD just is,' which is no logically different than the contention that the universe just is (though Occam's razor has often been invoked to favor the latter).
Personally, I try to describe phenomena such as the universe or the presence of man as simply as I possibly can. I have yet to find anything that can be described better with a God than without one. They may be somewhat close (as the suggestion 'the universe just is' and 'God just is and It made the universe' are), but most aren't.
I'll turn your request on its ear - give me a logical proof that starts from the existence of the universe and infers a Supreme Being. I can't answer your question (yet - though it's unlikely we'll divine the answer any time soon), but neither can you answer mine in a logically valid way. You'll have to rely on something other than logic to make the leap from your existence to that of God. Most call it faith.
If the Parisian waiters treat Afghani terrorists the same way they treat US tourists, having them go to a small cafe in Paris for eternity may not be completely lacking in justice...
Jeff
Be sure to order in English even if you speak French.
I once saw a television program. It gave me insight on religon. If you happened upon some uninhabited land, except for it's occupant's. I know that's a contradicatory statement, but you'll get my point. You would find them praying to something, or someone? It's a basic need in ever human, or perhaps a gene? I don't know, or pretend to know.
Bin Laden has this belief, or gene, and millions of dollars. That is a deadly combination. and
that is all,
dannyboy :o)
He didn't say a finite universe that's always been there, exactly. The universe can be finite in time as well as in space. If you accept that time was created along with the universe, which is certainly the current scientific position, then the universe's beginning cannot have a "cause". Cause and effect is a temporal phenomenon with effect following cause. There is NOTHING prior to the creation of the universe, not time, not space, not causes, nothing. This is what I mean about the universe being finite in time. The beginning of the universe marks the boundary of existence.
Chris
There is a very good book that explores some of these things Terry and M brought up. It is Julian Jaynes, The Origin of Consciousness In the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. I realize some of you may have seen this book mentioned over on the website that has the poker book where you bet a sandwich to win a big pot. That website notwithstanding, in that its praise is faint damnation, the book is a very interesting read. I have seen some new scientific studies cited in the popular press that seem to support some of the points Jaynes made. He tied in his knowledge of literature, anthropology, philosophy, neurology and psychiatry, and came up with an interesting hypothesis. He argues that the human brain functions differently than it did a few thousand years ago. When language was invented, people had a different cognitive make-up. He argues that the change in thinking was brought about by survival pressures. Once language was invented and civilization got more complex, things changed. His premise is that religious belief is a vestige of a mind that had auditory hallucinations coming from one half of the brain as a major way to control and influence behavior. Once the "gods" stopped talking to people directly, they invented new religions to try to get back to the old feeling. So you can kind of see how the belief in one God with general rules of conduct set forth was an advance over needing to hallucinate commands from an individual god. Whether you agree with Jaynes's conclusions, the book is very thought-provoking. A quick experiment you can try that Jaynes pointed out is to (if you have a Bible anywhere around) compare Amos and Ecclesiastes. See if you think the writing of these two books in the Bible shows a different consciousness or cognitive structure.
I have seen recently that scientists have shown right-brain activity when people are undergoing a religious experience. Jaynes wrote his book before a lot of the imaging technology we have now existed. He may have been a bit ahead of his time.
"All I am trying to say is that believing something does not make it so. "
One of the most false statements one can make. You can never prove that someone does not go to paradise. You cannot prove a negative. The only way to prove something like this is through experience. If you die and you experience an after life you will know you are wrong. If you die and do not experience an after life, well then.... You see, in the case of believing in an afterlife, it becomes true for you just because you believe it to be true. There can be no other answer. All the logic, all the math and all the science cannot change this truth.
Vince
Vince wrote:
You believe in the "big bang" theory becuase some scientists claim that it occurred. Scientific measurements have somewhat confirmed the theory but not precisely. But even scientists admit that they have no idea what occurred before the "big bang" or how it happened.
------
Actually, according to Big Bang theory there WAS no "before" the Big Bang. Time and space came into existence at the creation of the universe. It might be a hard thing to get your head around, but time ceases to exist at the moment of creation of the universe. There is NOTHING, no time, space or entities of any kind before the Big Bang (and hence also the event had no cause, at least not in the day to day sense. This part is subject to some disagreement, but the part about there being no "before" the Big Bang is accepted wisdom).
Some people have held this philosophy for a long time. St Augustine wrote in the fourth century "The universe was created with time and not in time". Hence the conception of God as a being existing outside of time.
Chris
So you are taking the position that believing in something makes it so, when we know that this is generally not the case.
Maybe believing in an afterlife is an exception to the rule? That is why I gave the Paris cafe example. If they believed they would be going to a Paris cafe after they died, I don't think you would be arguing along the same lines or asking me to prove that they didn't end up in a Paris cafe. So give me one good reason why their belief in a final destination of Paradise after their deaths should have any more reason to come true than their belief in going to a Paris cafe.
Chris,
I'm not so sure that the part of no "before" the Big Bang is completely accepted scientific wisdom. If I am not mistaken in my recollection, Stephen Hawking may have postulated (or related the theory in his book) that there could have been a "before" the Big Bang...but that it was irrelevant because the Big Bang reordered everything so completely that nothing prior to the Big Bang had any effect on anything after the Big Bang. I also vaguely recall that this was not described as a discredited theory.
Regards,
M
"So give me one good reason "
"Reason" has no place in a discussion of the afterlife.
vince
"Actually, according to Big Bang theory there WAS no "before" the Big Bang. Time and space came into existence at the creation of the universe."
I know that this is the explanation. Time and space came into existence at the the Big Bang and I doubt that I know enough about this to argue intelligently. But that never stopped me before. Just ask M.... or Weideman or Glover et al. Anyway, the only reason there is no attempt to classify a "before" the Big Bang is because "before" is a measure of time. If "time" as we know it was created with the big bang then it follows that there was no "before" the big bang. Consequently, there is no reason to speculate if anything was there or not. There are those that believe that all matter was contained in an infinitismal "black hole" of some type and from this came the big bang. If so then the "head" as you put it tries to place a "before" to the occurance of the big bang. But rather than argue further about a subject of which I have no clue I will yield to your explanation. The point is not whether there was time before the big bang or not. The point is that if you believe there was then for you there was time before the big bang and no one can prove otherwise. Belief is the underlying strength of all truths and myths.
Vince
Reasons for such beliefs include:
1. Social/cultural pressure to conform to the beliefs/practices of one's reference group, which works in concert with the individual's emotional need for belonging.
2. Other emotional needs of the individual, such as the need for a sense of meaning/purpose and the need to deny emotionally painful aspects of reality.
3. Stupidity. Individuals who have the aptitude and experiential learning which enables them to think in a logical and scientific manner are generally less susciptible to rigid fanatical beliefs.
4. Mental illness. A small portion of fanatical believers may have particular brain disorders which render them susceptible to irrational/delusional beliefs of a religious nature. People with such disorders will usually exhibit generalized impairment in their social and adaptive functioning.
-Mike
Well, if you want to deny the existence of any objective truth, I can't easily argue any further /images/smile.gif
Chris
Vince this is a thoughtful post of yours and I am not trying to argue about any of it except one little point. By the way I don't even know for sure if there was a big bang. The point of contention is just this:
"The point is that if you believe there was then for you there was time before the big bang and no one can prove otherwise."
Just how far would you take this principle? I don't think it has validity and that's why I am asking. For instance, if someone believes that 2+2=5, it just doesn't...and not even for them, no matter how hard they believe it. So where do you draw the line in saying that one's beliefs can make something true for them?
Then you must agree that if they believed they were going to a Paris cafe after the crash then that became true for them too.
One destination based solely upon belief is as valid as any other.
Right. Let's try disentangling some semantics.
The use of the word "creation" implies both a creator and a time, opening the door to semantic maipulation.
The word "universe" means "everything that exists", not just the stars, planet, galaxies of which we are aware. Talk of alternate universes is meaningless since the word itself encompasses "everything."
The Big Bang did indeed happen; the evidence is solid and is not questioned by "real" scientists. The questions arise only about how, why, what it was like, etc.
Now:
There was a "before" the Big Bang. Time was not "created" at the Big Bang. The BB is simply a convenient point at which to begin counting time since we presently know nothing of what took place before it.
The Big Bang was NOT the "creation" of the universe, it was a "change in state" of the universe which has always existed, since it is, by defintion, everything that exists.
Having tightly defined our terms and avoided easily misunderstood words, we seem to have eliminated the "need" for a creator.
Geeze I like thinking about this stuff /images/smile.gif
Space and time and the universe were, in fact, both created at the Big Bang. It's not a question of simply not knowing what went on beforehand. There's no such thing as "beforehand". This is accepted doctrine. Read some books by Hawking or Paul Davies, who writes very accessibly about cosmology. Just because the universe encompasses everything that exists, that doesn't mean it can't be finite.
Chris
PS: M, I would say that Hawking was talking about the so called "rebound" theory, which is now pretty much discredited...
"Then you must agree that if they believed they were going to a Paris cafe after the crash then that became true for them too."
Yes. One cafe latte please.
Vince
"For instance, if someone believes that 2+2=5, it just doesn't...and not even for them, no matter how hard they believe it."
You must understand that I use the word "believe" literally. There are those that believe they are Napoleon and you cannot prove to them that they are not. 2 + 2 = 5 is something Mason and David believe so be careful because it just may be true. But, yes, an individuals belief is unshakeable. That's not to say a belief cannot change but if someone believes something stongly enough then for them that is the way it is. (for them)
Vince
Then what about the deluded souls who stand in a downtown area with a sign saying "The World Ends Tomorrow"...they might believe it as strongly as David and Mason believe that 2+2=4, but...tomorrow and the next day come for them too...and the would doesn't end for us OR for them. Their 100% belief DID NOT make it true, even for them. And what's more, they know the world did not end. They might try it again in a few months with complete faith, but when it doesn't happen again, their erroneous beliefs have again run smack into reality.
Doesn't the above example disprove your contention that a strong enough belief means that's the way it is for them?
>> Space and time and the universe were, in fact, both created at the Big Bang.
in fact? This is a FACT? Were you there? How do you know? It looks like my attempt to remove the semantic difficulties from the discussion has failed, as you are throwing back at me the very usage that I had tried to eliminate.
>> There's no such thing as "beforehand". This is accepted doctrine.
Questioning "accepted doctrine" is one of the things I do best.
>> Read some books by Hawking or Paul Davies, who writes very accessibly about cosmology.
I have read much much more than the popular press pap on the subject of cosmology. My statements (unless they are attributed quotations) are the result of actually THINKING about things, hence they may tend to go beyond currently popular notions.
>> Just because the universe encompasses everything that exists, that doesn't mean it can't be finite.
No arguement there. I would tend to say the concept of "infinity" applies only to mathematics. The universe, however large, is most certainly finite.
===============================
Define "universe" as "everything that exists". At some point in time, about 10 to 16 billion years ago, there existed (in the universe) a "thing" (and note that it may not have been the only one), popularly called a singularity, which exploded. That explosion altered (not created) the state of the universe and began a chain of events which resulted in the state of the physical location in which we now live. The Big Bang, therefore, was not the "creation of the universe", it was, rather the beginning of the large bubble-like formation (inside the universe ) that we inhabit and that we have not yet been able to see outside of.
That explosion was not the beginning of time. The singularity(s) had already existed in the universe for an unknown length of time. The explosion does, however, mark a convenient place to begin measuring time in human terms simply because it is so difficult to see (or think) beyond that point.
Therefore: The Big Bang was neither the "creation of the universe" nor the beginning of time. It was simply an event. Using charged words full of hidden meaning, such as "creation", only makes it more difficult to see it for what it was.
PS: If my fingers could keep up with my head my best estimate is that there would be an additional 14,000 words here /images/smile.gif
Well I do recall that the "beforehand" theory was not put forth as being the most widely accepted view...I just think it was not discredited at the time of the writing, and I don't remember anything about it being related to a bang-bang-bang type theory.
Maybe it has been discredited by now, as you think likely, or maybe it hasn't. I think the gist of it was that the Big Bang did indeed create time and space but that it was not created out of nothing: nothing that existed prior to the Big Bang had any effect on what came after, since everything was so completely re-ordered that the chain of cause and effect was entirely broken and everything started anew. Thus previously existing time/space/matter became completely irrelevant and it was as if they had never existed at all.
I'm not really favoring one view over another, just relating as best I can from memory of a brief perusal.
Also noteworthy was the idea that the two concepts are not necessarily opposed to one another in a certain sense: the Big Bang was the start of everything in the universe, but there was stuff before that, which just didn't matter anymore.
Also, just because there is a generally accepted notion amongst scientists does not necessarily mean that the other has necessarily been discredited. If it has been thoroughly discredited, rather than just being less popular and out of favor, I would be interested to know.
"Doesn't the above example disprove your contention that a strong enough belief means that's the way it is for them?"
No. Haven't you ever heard the expression that "Tomorrow never comes"? But if it ever does be careful because those deluded souls may just be right.
Vince
Fine, change the the sign from "the world ends tomorrow" to "the world ends on October 3rd, 2001". 15 minutes from now they will know they were wrong no matter how hard they believed it. That probably won't keep them from trying again though, but eventually they will move on to other things.
The idea that believing hard enough in something will make it true is pure POPPYCOCK.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.