Subj : Re: The universe
To   : Joshua Lee
From : Bob Eyer
Date : Tue Jan 02 2001 12:44 am

-universe to exist?" There is no logically possible way to answer
-such a question.

 >simple divine will itself; or cause. Thus, cause was emmenated
 >before the material universe, known as "the world of action";
 >so the entire problem you stated is avoided.

-This is all very well as a matter of religious faith; but it won't
-cut the mustard as empirical science.  There is no way, not even

>Since when was the creation of the universe "empirical"?  It
>certainly isn't replicable.

Nor is the birth of the Sun.  The replicable empirical science
comes into the picture from the critical analysis of natural law.

The notion that the universe began with the Big Bang is merely a
consequence of the operation of a number of highly confirmable and
replicable natural laws, such as those which are generally
recognised within the rubric of General Relativity.

-However, this is neither here nor there.  Practically all the
-philosophers and scientists of the modern period, even those which
-elaborated and defended the Big Bang Theory, were theists.  The

>A co-discoverer, and nobel laureatte, of the background microwave
>radiation that provides cosmologists with the best evidence for
>the big bang is an Orthodox Jew.

Good for him.

-popular among scientists during the 1950s; but nobody made the
-mistake of supposing that the Big Bang theory ought to be attached
-to the catechism of some religion.  The issues in this theory are

>Judaism doesn't really have a catechism, other than the short 13
>principles of Maimonidies, and even that formulation, though not
>it's substance, has been challenged.  Judaism focuses more on
>behavior, it doesn't have a "statement of faith".

What about the proposition 'God exists'.  Doesn't Judaism have
faith that God exists?

>That having
>been said, I don't honestly see anything wrong with reconciling
>science to religion, as long as one doesn't see the formulations
>in a finalistic manner.

Well, science dispensed with final causes some hundreds of years
ago when a lot of Aristotelian science was discredited.

>Would you religionists attack science
>than reconcile it?

Depends on how much of their religion is considered by them as
literally true, as opposed to metaphors for some larger and vaguer
concept.  The only religionists who are going to attack science on
the subject of evolution and cosmology are those who think the
accounts in their religious texts, notably Genesis Chapters 1 and
2, are literally true, as opposed to metaphorical tales meant to
convey a more generalised and much less specific message.

The history of reconciliation in these areas is almost entirely a
history of reconciliation of religion with science.

I cannot think of any scientific claim which shows science
reconciling itself with religion.

Bob

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3 (OS/2) 5
 * Origin: FidoNet: CAP/CANADA Support BBS : 416 287-0234 (1:250/710)

.