Originally posted by shunyadragon
View Post
I think you are a bit over the top in all this. First, I'm not going to go looking for the times I've heard you mention that as a Baha'i, you believe the universe to be eternal in the context of some debate over the age of the universe. I know I've seen it, but it's not something you say often. And I would not be at all surprised if you have never tried to use science directly to support that belief. Secondarily, however, seer's reference here is not much more than the kind of ancillary reference I've seen you make. He's just saying the fellow's direction in his research is consistent with his belief - at best. And I find your unwillingness to acknowledge that nothing is nothing, whether you call it the religious term 'ex nihilo' or you just say 'out of nothing' as Vilenkin did suspect. It would appear you reject to the use of the terminology SOLELY on it's religious basis. Nothing is nothing shuny. I doubt very much there is any significant difference between the nothing of "creation ex nihilo" and the nothing of Vilenkin's "universe is created by quantum tunneling from literally nothing into a de Sitter space" in terms of the initial conditions. Nothing is nothing so to speak. The issue is not the initial state, but the cause of the transition from that state.
Whether you are willing to admit it or not, we all find comfort when science is consitent with what we believe to be true, and it is always difficult when's one's deeply help beliefs are challenged espeically by something as highly regarded on our society as scientific research. It does not trouble me when people: sparko, you, seer, myself, legitimately say this bit of research or that bit of research supports what I believe from a metaphysical standpoint.
Where I get upset is when people distort the implications of the science or out and out lie about it to create some sort of artificial case for their beliefs. What I'm seeing from you here is a bit over the top in the inverse of that. If there are differing avenues of research, some which lend support for the idea the universe, even the multiverse, must have had a beginning. Then so be it. And if I am excited by that because I believe the universe had a beginning based on my religious faith, that doesn't mean that just because I beleive that I can't mention the science that supports it. And it doesn't mean I should arbitrarily reject it just because it happens to be consistent with my faith. And it doesn't mean I should never even mention it in the context of explaining why I believe what I believe. As long as I'm not distorting the science itself, it is what it is.
I do need to be careful not to be less skeptical of new ideas just because they happen to agree with my religious beliefs, especially if the science is suspect.
And I especially shouldn't be willfully ignorant of what good science is IF I am going to point to science in certain instances as being consistent with my faith.
Peace.
Jim
Comment