3 ms·

The Big Bang Theory was the first time that there was a compelling scientific argument that the universe had a beginning and the response by some religious peop

The Big Bang Theory was the first time that there was a compelling scientific argument that the universe had a beginning and the response by some religious people was to rail against the theory on the grounds that the universe has to be 10,000 or so years old. It’s a strange response. Why they are obsessed so much with the idea that the universe is quite young is bizarre to me.

dcow 3y ago
It’s not bizarre if you believe the bible is a reference manual to existence as some more literal religious types do. In that sense it’s pretty obvious why some people want the universe to be 10k years old.
- skhunted 3y ago
  I do understand that there are those who believe in a so called literal interpretation and thus equate each day of creation in Genesis to a thousand years but I don't understand their response to the big bang theory. I would think they would proudly proclaim, "Science now agrees with what we said for thousands of years. Namely, that the universe had a beginning." Instead their response was to attack it vehemently. It's a strange response to me. I think St. Augustine's argument for why there is a God assumes that there was no beginning to the universe because he said that if the universe had a beginning then obviously there is a god. St. Augustine would have viewed the big bang theory as irrefutable proof that there is a god.
  - dcow 3y ago
    I mean yeah I agree. I think most Catholics are amenable to TBBT for exactly that reason. I find the response that we’re talking about comes from the more “born again” literal types. Point is that Catholic doctrine and hence a well thought out framework for approaching christianity is likely not relevant to the type of person refuting TBBT on religious grounds. In my experience these types are definitely a minority, at least.
    - skissane 3y ago
      > I find the response that we’re talking about comes from the more “born again” literal types. Augustine of Hippo wrote a book called The Literal Meaning of Genesis. In which he said that its literal meaning is that the Seven Days were all instantaneous and simultaneous. "Biblical literalism" is fundamentally a (non-magisterial) Protestant position, and insists that the Bible "literally" says things which nobody ever thought it said until the 19th century (e.g. dispensationalism). Turns out that "literal" means whatever you want it to mean. But a lot of people (particularly in the US) make the mistake of equating "evangelical Protestantism" with "Christianity", or even with religion in general, attributing to the latter two things which are rather unique to the former.
      - dcow 3y ago
        If’s rather annoying always having to make this distinction clear, coming from a Catholic background myself.
prmph 3y ago
But the Bible nowhere says or implies that the universe is young. The closest it comes to commenting on the age of the universe is where it says in Genesis the earth was created in six "days". Note that these days do not correspond to 24-hour days (e.g., the creation of the day/night cycle is also referred to as being done in one day), but simply, an unspecified period of time devoted to a particular activity, which could be millions or even billions of years. Also, note that the Genesis account implies the universe and the earth was existing for some period, before action was initiated to prepare the earth for human/animal habitation.
- skhunted 3y ago
  There are lots of people who do believe the Bible teaches that the universe is young. It is such people I'm referring to. I make no claims on the legitimacy of their belief. Though I look askance on their response to the fact that science now says the universe had a beginning.
  - jl6 3y ago
    It might be an overstatement to say that science says the universe definitely has a beginning. We can talk about an early hot, dense state, and subsequent expansion, but there is no direct evidence of exactly what the initial state was. It’s probably beyond the reach of scientific enquiry.

dcow 3y ago

It’s not bizarre if you believe the bible is a reference manual to existence as some more literal religious types do. In that sense it’s pretty obvious why some people want the universe to be 10k years old.

skhunted 3y ago
I do understand that there are those who believe in a so called literal interpretation and thus equate each day of creation in Genesis to a thousand years but I don't understand their response to the big bang theory. I would think they would proudly proclaim, "Science now agrees with what we said for thousands of years. Namely, that the universe had a beginning." Instead their response was to attack it vehemently. It's a strange response to me. I think St. Augustine's argument for why there is a God assumes that there was no beginning to the universe because he said that if the universe had a beginning then obviously there is a god. St. Augustine would have viewed the big bang theory as irrefutable proof that there is a god.
- dcow 3y ago
  I mean yeah I agree. I think most Catholics are amenable to TBBT for exactly that reason. I find the response that we’re talking about comes from the more “born again” literal types. Point is that Catholic doctrine and hence a well thought out framework for approaching christianity is likely not relevant to the type of person refuting TBBT on religious grounds. In my experience these types are definitely a minority, at least.
  - skissane 3y ago
    > I find the response that we’re talking about comes from the more “born again” literal types. Augustine of Hippo wrote a book called The Literal Meaning of Genesis. In which he said that its literal meaning is that the Seven Days were all instantaneous and simultaneous. "Biblical literalism" is fundamentally a (non-magisterial) Protestant position, and insists that the Bible "literally" says things which nobody ever thought it said until the 19th century (e.g. dispensationalism). Turns out that "literal" means whatever you want it to mean. But a lot of people (particularly in the US) make the mistake of equating "evangelical Protestantism" with "Christianity", or even with religion in general, attributing to the latter two things which are rather unique to the former.
    - dcow 3y ago
      If’s rather annoying always having to make this distinction clear, coming from a Catholic background myself.

prmph 3y ago

But the Bible nowhere says or implies that the universe is young. The closest it comes to commenting on the age of the universe is where it says in Genesis the earth was created in six "days". Note that these days do not correspond to 24-hour days (e.g., the creation of the day/night cycle is also referred to as being done in one day), but simply, an unspecified period of time devoted to a particular activity, which could be millions or even billions of years. Also, note that the Genesis account implies the universe and the earth was existing for some period, before action was initiated to prepare the earth for human/animal habitation.

skhunted 3y ago
There are lots of people who do believe the Bible teaches that the universe is young. It is such people I'm referring to. I make no claims on the legitimacy of their belief. Though I look askance on their response to the fact that science now says the universe had a beginning.
- jl6 3y ago
  It might be an overstatement to say that science says the universe definitely has a beginning. We can talk about an early hot, dense state, and subsequent expansion, but there is no direct evidence of exactly what the initial state was. It’s probably beyond the reach of scientific enquiry.