I wonder if there are any parts of the Bible Belt that don’t consider themselves to be the buckle…
“Buckle of the Bible Belt” is at least more alliteratively pleasing than “dunlap of the Bible Belt”, which would probably be more accurate. 
As someone who went to a religious Jewish school, I can tell you how it was taught in places I attended.
The Talmud states that whenever God performed a miracle, He also did something to give non-believers a way out of believing in it. The example given is before the splitting of the Red Sea, the verse states that a strong wind blew all night. So someone who didn’t want to believe in the miracle could blame it on the strong winds.
When God created the world, it was a huge miracle. But He needed to include the “out”. So he created it with fossils and the like that indicated the world was far older.
Do I think that’s the real answer? I don’t know. Some Jewish commentaries say that each of the 6 days of creation really encompassed centuries or eons.
I do know that I’ve always had an issue with the Big Bang. Scientific law states that matter can’t be created or destroyed. So the amount of matter that exists today is the same amount that existed when the universe began. Even before Big Bang, the amount of matter was the same. So where did it come from? It had to come from somewhere. So there must be something beyond science that caused it to come into existence.
If there is no answer, you reject theory?
Sounds pretty stupid, and I don’t think you are.
Easier to reject unproven religious crap.
I have an issue with the “god is actively trying to deceive us” explanation. Seems to contradict some of the attributes we want him to have.
You get to that point when you have a very poor scientific education in childhood.
I have seen this so many times in the US.
.
Tough to fix at older ages because the damage is mostly done.
In Judaism, some of the main commentaries on the Torah state that there had to be things like this. If miracles occurred all the time that didn’t have a natural explanation, then it’s not a big deal to believe in God - it would be obvious to all. The “deception” allows for free choice, which in turn allows for reward. If you can only do good, and there’s no option to do wrong, is it deserving of reward?
I didn’t say I reject it. I said I’ve always had an issue with it. If someone would provide an explanation for it, I’d be thrilled. I’ve just never seen one yet.
My point was that Big Bang may have happened. But there had to be something else before it, which created the matter involved in Big Bang. Call it God, call it something else. But according to science, there’s a huge hole in the theory, and it can’t be explained by any theories I’ve ever heard.
I recall a lot of plausible explanations have been floated, but for the most part scientists avoid arguing about things that have no evidence, because you can’t prove anyone right. The evidence surrounding the ‘Big Bang’ is already quite weak and poorly defined.
i think you have to keep in mind what it explains.
it does not explain why there is something rather than nothing. nor does it explain why the world is so intelligible to us.
instead it explains current astronomical observations. stars are all moving away from us. the farther away they are, the faster they are moving away from us.
the explanation is that we are all on a higher dimensional balloon being blown up. every point on the balloon is equally the “center” of the balloon expanding. and the further away two points on the balloon are from each other, the faster they will be moving away from each other.
Incidentally, matter can be created and destroyed, by being converted to or from energy. This is exactly what happens in nuclear reactions for example. It’s the combination of matter and energy that cannot be created or destroyed.
I understood all that already. I’m looking for an explanation of where it all began - before Big Bang, there had to be something. Whether it was energy or matter, something existed. Where did that come from?
There had to be something beyond what modern science understands.
Since time started at the Big Bang, the concept of “before” doesn’t really make sense.
If you need an eternal “thing”, “energy” works as well as”god”, with fewer assumptions about it involved.
Even energy had to come from somewhere. Where did it come from?
We can still talk about “before” in the sense of being logically prior.
then why bring the big bang in at all?
i can answer why for a lot of protestant christian fundamentalists, at least. it has to do with the basis of authority for their religious belief. for various reasons they can’t appeal to either reason or to a church so they have to appeal to the bible, with certain assumptions about how it should be read.
to me, letting this rule our public education undermines the basic assumptions under which democracy makes sense. if god’s ultimately inscrutable will is so completely decisive, as seems to be the case if genesis is historical, then why have democracy at all?
1 Like
Why? Does god have to come from somewhere?
1 Like
In my mind, belief in God accepts that there are things beyond our comprehension, that science can’t explain. Does God come from somewhere? No idea. But the faith aspect is that I can accept that there are things I don’t understand, that may go against science, but still be true.
Sure, there will be things that aren’t understood. The issue of shoving god into the gaps is that the gaps will narrow.
“I don’t know” is a perfectly fine answer. Possibly with a “yet”, but possibly never to be understood. If it comforts you to shove “god” in, fine. It’s not necessary though. It’s possible to be comfortable with unknowns.
2 Likes
I don’t have to invent in incomprehensible God to accept that there are things I can’t comprehend.
7 Likes
I think the problem occurs when faith goes against science (rather than just going beyond science, or completing science). This kind of faith must be an expression of individual will that is irrational by definition.
If this irrational will becomes the basis of democracy, then democracy becomes nothing more than a brute competition of individual wills. This is a kind of “might makes right”.
For example, what do we do about individuals who do not want to be vaccinated as a matter of individual will? It seems to me that the individuals should have to bear the extra burden of not being vaccinated. It might mean they don’t get the benefit of public schools.
I see scientific education in the same way. If some individuals do not want their children the learn science, then they should have to bear the cost of that. I do not think an individual teacher should be able to choose not to teach evolution, for example. That is passing the “cost” onto the children.
1 Like
So a common explanation is maybe what caused the Big Bang was that there was a universe that collapsed into a singularity. And that singularity was what led to the big bang. That is maybe singularities sometimes expand into universes and vice versa. It’s a plausible explanation, but who knows.
It’s not “against science” to say who knows. Scientists commonly accept they don’t have answer sometimes. And it doesn’t take an act of faith but rather a bit of humility. It does take an act of faith to move from “who knows” to “God did it”.
4 Likes