Science, religion and the truth

[blü 2]

It´s fine by me if you don´t bother to watch the linked video as I asked.

So it really is the case that you don't know what your own video says?

If I had that problem, I'd be after fixing it asap.

But that's a matter for you, of course.

 

[Mock Turtle]

And how many tools do you need in order to observe the day- and nighttime scenario and motions of the Earth and the Sky above? You just need a stick in the ground and some marker points in a circumference of this stick. Then you can mark all what´s needed to know for humans in order to follow the creation and survive.

What the heck has this to do with creation? It is just observation of what is cyclic in our human world. No wonder those in the past took notice of the changing seasons when their survival depended on knowledge of such but it hardly impacts on creation.

Oh yes, and then you of course generally need to connect your mind with nature on and above the Earth in order to communicate intuitively with everything.

As in finding solutions to diseases? Or what happens when we drive some species to extinction? Or understanding that defecating upstream of where one gets one's drinking water would not be wise? They knew all this?

Of course they all got their same mytho-astronomical convictions by observing the same motion of the Earth; the Sun; the Moon, the 5 visible planets and everything else in the Sky. If this global and collective scenario is a coincidence to you, you certainly need to spend some time in nature and get updated on nature and its myths.

Such that it produced astrology. Great, and valued by many, but still bunkum.

No obviously, you can´t see - You even can´t see the most obvious causes to ancient common stories of creation even when it is written black on white and explained to you in plain sentences.

I just don't see much value in such, that is all. Speculation might be useful if it leads to something useful but all too often it doesn't, and where one should keep one's mind open rather than follow lines of thinking that just lead into a maze

 

[Native]

It Aint Necessarily So said: ↑
When scientists discovered that the galaxies should not be gravitationally stable based on known science, and that the universe appeared to be accelerating in its expansion, it modified the narrative to account for this new evidence. Same process.
--------------
Native said: ↑
Do you realize what you´re saying and claiming here? Of course galaxies are stable in their own right and formational stage! This has NOTHING to do with any human theory in the first place! The point is HOW humans INTERPRET the galactic imageries and motions.
-------------

That wasn't my point. My point is that it is a strength of science, not a defect, that it modifies its narrative to conform to new evidence. The galaxy thing was one example.

Yes it is a strength in science that new discoveries can be taken into account, but it is certainly a general weakness just to add unseen matters into an observation in order to get the former theory and its calculations to fit. Such things are´nt science but pure science fictions on the border line to meta-physics.

What I said is that these myths are mutually exclusive. I reject them, which you might call excluding them, but that isn't what mutually exclusive means. It means that if any one is correct, all of the rest are wrong - a contradiction to your claim that they reinforce one another and collectively reveal some truth other than how human beings think and behave.

Native said: ↑
The creation myths are excluded by you because you don´t understand these and the astronomical and cosmological descriptions.

What I said is that these myths are mutually exclusive. I reject them, which you might call excluding them, but that isn't what mutually exclusive means. It means that if any one is correct, all of the rest are wrong - a contradiction to your claim that they reinforce one another and collectively reveal some truth other than how human beings think and behave.

Whether you meant mutually exclusive or not, it does´nt really matter as you apparently exclude myths in general, which also is why you cannot tell of neither the similarities nor any differences.

The fact in ancient Creation Myths is NOT any differences but their similarities and the science of this is called Comparative Mythology for your information.

I conclude that ancient myths are stories with no value to science, just the humanities . . .

Why do you disconnect science from humanities? Maybe you should study ancient myths where the "humanities" were closely connected to knowledge of nature and forget to read scientific books of speculations for some time? ;-)

Native said: ↑
How can you judge myths and religions at all when you don´t bother to care more and investigate what you´re talking about?

Why do you assume that because people don't agree with you that it is due to failure to look at the material? You seem to rule out the possibility that one can look at some of these myths and religions and justifiably reject them all as being wrong ideas about reality simply because of the process used in generating them - faith. I reject all faith-based, insufficiently evidenced claims including those in myths and religions.

There the mythical ignorant goes again You just don´t agree in mythical informations because you just dismiss them all in general per mental bias. But of course you believe in all kinds of scientific faiths in theories. You just call such faiths ASSUMPTIONS so it sounds more "scientific".

Native said: ↑ ( #432Native, Yesterday at 10:13 AM )
A logical test for you: What´s the similarities and differences between these two galaxies?

That's not a logical test. A logical test would require reasoning. The answer to your question would be a list of known facts.

I was trying to see if your logical observable sense could conclude anything from watching the two images to which you replied:

I see two spiral galaxies with different configurations of their spiral arms (shape and number) and a difference in the shape of the central areas of the two, one more circular and the other more elongated.

So far so good In cosmological science generally just speaks of "spiral galaxies" but obviously there is 2 different types of galaxies which shows up different numbers of outher arms; different central luminosity and especially different central structures.

Our Milky Way is the type of galaxy which has a lesser central luminosity, barred elongated structures from the center and out and lesser galactic arms. If looking closely on these barred galaxies there is NO WAY standard cosmology can explain why and how it is that there is an abrupt 90 degree turn between the barred structure and out in the arms.

This scenario can only be explained as fairly sudden outgoing motion from the galactic center out in the bars and further out in the galactic arms. Very much like a rotating 2 arm garden sprinkler spreading droplets (here: stars) in the surroundings.

This explanation is of course all against gravitational ideas of celestial motion where gravity is thought to attract everything and to hold everything, hence the idea of central galactic "heavy black hole" which should hold stars orbiting in galaxies, very contrary to the scientific worries of the factually observed motions of stars to "fly away from galaxies".

Stars are really flying away from the centers of barred galaxies and you can read all about it from google links here.

The answer you are looking for would not be relevant to the discussion of whether myths have value or how science adapts its models to account for new, unexpected data.

How would you know of relevance to me and this scientific observation compared to the myths when you apparently per bias dismiss myths. You even wouldn´t believe it IF I described the mytho-cosmological relevance as you just dismiss myths - and at the same time agrees in inserting "black stuff" when cosmos disagrees on your "science".

Native said: ↑
Why can´t you se any truth in this even when " . . . light to heaven above and earth beneath. To the stars they gave appointed places and paths" is mentioned in the Norse Mythology?

I don't need ancients to tell me the trivial fact that stars emit light.

And what they? Some pantheon? Sorry, but I have no reason to believe that any such thing exists. So much for truth.

You apparently have huge problems in connecting the concept of "light" to the concept of "pantheon" even as this connection is described in the creation story in the Abrahamic Bible and also in the Norse Mythology - but never mind.

Native said: ↑
The problem here is that you, per biased automatism, refuse the ancient knowledge and don´t even take factual astronomical descriptions in myths seriously because you can´t connect the correct myth to the correct astronomical or cosmological issues.

I see no problem here. I have no need to connect these myths to science or anything else except human nature.
I don't feel the same as you about ancients having hidden or lost knowledge of any value today.

Well, maybe you don´t even know what you need as you dismiss the mythical content

Native said: ↑
It is on this unconscious and disconnected level that you conclude ancient myths to be nonsense and claim modern science to be objective facts.

My judgments are quite conscious, evidence-based, and are connected to reality through empiricism - what we can reproducibly experience - and pragmatism - what works to help us accomplish our goals.

Of course your JUDGEMENTS are quite CONSCIOUS - even when you judge matters which is UNCONSCIOUS to you

Actually, I have quite a bit of education and exposure to the liberal arts both in school and thereafter, as with those two cosmology books I referred to that I also read in the eighties when in a self-teaching mode. I've been through all of this decades ago. I purchased and enjoyed the entire Joseph Campbell series, The Power of Myth also in the eighties.

I´m very pleased for these informations Well, I´m STILL a member of Campbell´s Forum, although not very active these days.

I don´t blame you for not getting a genuine global mythical interest from your time on this forum since it´s all about "personal development" according to Carl Gustav Jung, where "mythical archetypes" just refers to personal qualities and not to collective matters in the mytho-cosmological meaning. But OK, his ideas of personal and spiritual development is fair enough. He just forgot to connect human experiences, dreams and visions to the creative archetypes in Cosmos itself.

I didn't find much value in myth in my life at that time either, and your views haven't changed that any, either. I don't know what this subject does for you, or why you are so enthusiastic about it, but it does little for me.

I can´t help it since I´ve had my part of cosmic visions which made me very enthusiastic indeed And most certainly very stubborn too

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Oh yes, and then you of course generally need to connect your mind with nature on and above the Earth in order to communicate intuitively with everything.

Yeah, that is it. It varies to some extent, but the idea that e.g. fact matters, is not a fact as facts go, because you can only understand that it is a fact, that fact matters, in your mind. In a weird way that facts matter, is itself a myth in modern western mythology of with reason, logic, evidence and all the objective "magic". That facts matter, is subjective and in the mind and no where else. It is not out there in the universe.

That is what some of the "non-religious" people don't get. That facts matter, is a cultural myth and not a scientific fact.

To me the biggest problem for "non-religious" people is that they tend to discard their natural/intuitive spiritual skills too.

The funny - and the difficult - part from having genuine intuitive experiences, is that they are clear facts in the moment they are experienced - but very annoyingly can fade out when coming out of the experience. (I´m here especially referring to some spontaneous out-of-body experiences out in cosmos)

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
It´s fine by me if you don´t bother to watch the linked video as I asked.

So it really is the case that you don't know what your own video says?

Why on Earth would I be that stupid to invite you to a discussion on a video content if I didn´t knew its contents?

 

[blü 2]

Native said: ↑
It´s fine by me if you don´t bother to watch the linked video as I asked.

Why on Earth would I be that stupid to invite you to a discussion on a video content if I didn´t knew its contents?

Then please answer my questions and we can proceed.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
And how many tools do you need in order to observe the day- and nighttime scenario and motions of the Earth and the Sky above? You just need a stick in the ground and some marker points in a circumference of this stick. Then you can mark all what´s needed to know for humans in order to follow the creation and survive.

What the heck has this to do with creation? It is just observation of what is cyclic in our human world. No wonder those in the past took notice of the changing seasons when their survival depended on knowledge of such but it hardly impacts on creation.

Don´t you think observations of the earthly and celestial motions is a part of the creation? And of course knowledge of such can have huge impacts on humans an on the creation in the human environment as we observe much these days too.

Native said
"Of course they all got their same mytho-astronomical convictions by observing the same motion of the Earth; the Sun; the Moon, the 5 visible planets and everything else in the Sky. If this global and collective scenario is a coincidence to you, you certainly need to spend some time in nature and get updated on nature and its myths".

Such that it produced astrology. Great, and valued by many, but still bunkum.

To me it is "bunkum" to invent Straw Men astrology arguments trying to ridicule a fellow debater who have said nothing about astrology at all. This is ridiculous in itself!

Native said:
No obviously, you can´t see - You even can´t see the most obvious causes to ancient common stories of creation even when it is written black on white and explained to you in plain sentences.

I just don't see much value in such, that is all. Speculation might be useful if it leads to something useful but all too often it doesn't, and where one should keep one's mind open rather than follow lines of thinking that just lead into a maze

Nice replied with the maze Do you know what the personal/spiritual purpose of going into a maze is?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yes it is a strength in science that new discoveries can be taken into account, but it is certainly a general weakness just to add unseen matters into an observation in order to get the former theory and its calculations to fit

What you just agreed was a strength you then called a weakness in the same sentence. That's how science takes new discoveries into account - it acknowledges that "unseen matters" must exist to account for them if the things seen can't.

Such things are´nt science but pure science fictions on the border line to meta-physics.

This process generates useful scientific theories, which is all that we ask of it.

The theory of evolution, for example, unified mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately made predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for explaining the observable fact of evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture.That's useful, and how we know that this idea is a keeper.

Creationism, by contrast, an idea generated by mythopoeisis, is a sterile idea that can do none of that or anything else.That is how we know the idea is useless, and to discard it.

This is how we tell a correct idea from a wrong one - its fruits.

The creation myths are excluded by you because you don´t understand these and the astronomical and cosmological descriptions.

The creation myths are rejected by me because I can't use them for anything, even amusement.

you apparently exclude myths in general, which also is why you cannot tell of neither the similarities nor any differences.

Of course I can tell the similarities and differences. Why would you assume otherwise? Because I find no utility there?

Why do you disconnect science from humanities?

For the same reason that universities put them in different departments. They are different kinds of pursuits. I've never had much interest in the humanities. I'm a science, math, and philosophy guy.

You just don´t agree in mythical informations because you just dismiss them all in general per mental bias.

Yes, I've already agreed that I have biases, and one of them is the tendency to dismiss ideas that I can't find a use for.

But of course you believe in all kinds of scientific faiths in theories. You just call such faiths ASSUMPTIONS so it sounds more "scientific".

I go with what works. Science works. If it didn't, we couldn't be having this discussion.

Mythology, on the other hand, I can't find a use for.

You even wouldn´t believe it IF I described the mytho-cosmological relevance

To my knowledge, you have never explained why you think comparative mythology is relevant - why anybody should study it other than that it interests them.

You apparently have huge problems in connecting the concept of "light" to the concept of "pantheon"

That is not a problem, huge or otherwise. I have no problem that connecting those two would solve.

Well, maybe you don´t even know what you need as you dismiss the mythical content

That's an interesting comment. What makes you think that I need anything? I'm content with what I have.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Native said: ↑
And how many tools do you need in order to observe the day- and nighttime scenario and motions of the Earth and the Sky above? You just need a stick in the ground and some marker points in a circumference of this stick. Then you can mark all what´s needed to know for humans in order to follow the creation and survive.

Don´t you think observations of the earthly and celestial motions is a part of the creation? And of course knowledge of such can have huge impacts on humans an on the creation in the human environment as we observe much these days too.

Native said
"Of course they all got their same mytho-astronomical convictions by observing the same motion of the Earth; the Sun; the Moon, the 5 visible planets and everything else in the Sky. If this global and collective scenario is a coincidence to you, you certainly need to spend some time in nature and get updated on nature and its myths".

To me it is "bunkum" to invent Straw Men astrology arguments trying to ridicule a fellow debater who have said nothing about astrology at all. This is ridiculous in itself!

Native said:
No obviously, you can´t see - You even can´t see the most obvious causes to ancient common stories of creation even when it is written black on white and explained to you in plain sentences.

Nice replied with the maze Do you know what the personal/spiritual purpose of going into a maze is?

There doesn't seem to be much point in continuing with this. You seem to see some particular value in there being many creation myths which have very much the same story as if therefore they are true in some sense. They might have value for many but because many believe in the same thing just don't make them true (hardly unusual to see common beliefs) - not in the factual sense. And I just don't see the value that you see, unless it is used as evidence for one's own belief system, in which case I would say it is false evidence. I also don't take most of the religious texts as being evidence of anything in particular, apart from writing existing long ago.

 

[Native]

The theory of evolution, for example, unified mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately made predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for explaining the observable fact of evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture.That's useful, and how we know that this idea is a keeper.

Yes some of modern science is a keeper but when it comes to a scientific area which is a mix of several cosmological theories in progress, much can and shall be changed before it is worth keeping - as for instants in the case of galactic motions where gravity is out of order. (Which you forgot/ignored to comment on in my latter post ion this matter)

Creationism, by contrast, an idea generated by mythopoeisis, is a sterile idea that can do none of that or anything else.That is how we know the idea is useless, and to discard it.

Why do you comment on "creationism" to me? I´m NOT a creationist but a mythologist and a very natural philosopher.

 

[MNoBody]

have any of you guys read more than a review of Gerald Massey's material?

 

[Native]

There doesn't seem to be much point in continuing with this. You seem to see some particular value in there being many creation myths which have very much the same story as if therefore they are true in some sense.

Well it´s totally up to you whether you believe on common human experiences or not.

And I just don't see the value that you see, unless it is used as evidence for one's own belief system, in which case I would say it is false evidence

That´s just the very point in ancient common perception of creation: They´re NOT individual beliefs but empirical and COLLECTIVE since the are found all over the Earth and based on the same observations as described in my profile signature below.

Claiming this ancient global heritage to be false evidences is just ignorant and there you are.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What you just agreed was a strength you then called a weakness in the same sentence. That's how science takes new discoveries into account - it acknowledges that "unseen matters" must exist to account for them if the things seen can't.
...

There is no meaning or purpose in the universe, but the universe must make sense and there must be scientific laws in the universe, because reasons...

Can you spot the problem?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Mock Turtle]

Well it´s totally up to you whether you believe on common human experiences or not.

That´s just the very point in ancient common perception of creation: They´re NOT individual beliefs but empirical and COLLECTIVE since the are found all over the Earth and based on the same observations as described in my profile signature below.

Claiming this ancient global heritage to be false evidences is just ignorant and there you are.

Since you seem to believe in intuition and spiritualty and that one can somehow summon up the truth just by thinking or meditating perhaps - without actual evidence - we seem to be miles apart. I may be ignorant but at least I'm honest about it.

 

[Native]

Since you seem to believe in intuition and spiritualty and that one can somehow summon up the truth just by thinking or meditating perhaps - without actual evidence - we seem to be miles apart. I may be ignorant but at least I'm honest about it.

Good Grief! Are you oppositional in order just to be oppositional? Even if I believe in intuition and spiritual skills, I´ve pointed out all over the places how basic physical observations plays a main role in the stories of creation.

As I write in my profile signature:
We all live on the same Earth; in the same Solar System; in the same Milky Way galaxy and in the same part of the observable Universe. These facts really constitutes the cultural Stories of Creation.

You´re correct in that there is no point in our conversation - So thanks for nothing for now

 

[Mock Turtle]

Good Grief! Are you oppositional in order just to be oppositional? Even if I believe in intuition and spiritual skills, I´ve pointed out all over the places how basic physical observations plays a main role in the stories of creation.

As I write in my profile signature:
We all live on the same Earth; in the same Solar System; in the same Milky Way galaxy and in the same part of the observable Universe. These facts really constitutes the cultural Stories of Creation.

You´re correct in that there is no point in our conversation - So thanks for nothing for now

Well I was meaning this kind of thing that would tend to put miles between us (in reply to another), since I don't believe in such:

To me the biggest problem for "non-religious" people is that they tend to discard their natural/intuitive spiritual skills too.

The funny - and the difficult - part from having genuine intuitive experiences, is that they are clear facts in the moment they are experienced - but very annoyingly can fade out when coming out of the experience. (I´m here especially referring to some spontaneous out-of-body experiences out in cosmos)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

galactic motions where gravity is out of order. (Which you forgot/ignored to comment on in my latter post ion this matter)

I don't know what "gravity is out of order" means. Did you mean that there isn't enough mass visible in a galaxy to account for its structure and motion?

I mentioned that dark matter was proposed to account for galactic stability as an example of science modifying its models to account for new discoveries not anticipated by or accounted for with the existing model. I don't see any other relevance of galaxies to this discussion, and I can't imagine what comment you were hoping to see.

Why do you comment on "creationism" to me? I´m NOT a creationist but a mythologist and a very natural philosopher.

Well, my point was to demonstrate the difference between a useful idea - a keeper - and one that can't be used for anything. I chose evolution and creationism because they are competing hypotheses - one useful, one useless.

Also, because you seem to have an affinity for creation stories, which you seem to think are valuable in some sense, but seem unable or unwilling to say what value you find there or why others should go there with you despite being asked repeatedly by more than one poster here.

Claiming this ancient global heritage to be false evidences is just ignorant and there you are.

The creation myths certainly aren't true. What does that leave?

There you are again calling others ignorant for not seeing value in these myths, all the while failing to say why they should feel otherwise. What I am ignorant of is a reason to care more about myths, and you have done nothing to change that.

I´ve pointed out all over the places how basic physical observations plays a main role in the stories of creation.

No, you've merely repeated yourself without evidence or example.

By contrast, when I disagreed with your contention that all of the creation myths were valid, I produced two specific such myths, showed how they were mutually exclusive, and how they were inconsistent with the scientific account. You offered no rebuttal to my rebuttal, so the matter was resolved.

And pointing out that observation precedes mythopoeisis is a trivial point. Each of those stories is an effort to account for the things their creators saw around them such as the sun, stars, clouds, mountains, and life. It doesn't make the stories any more accurate or useful that somebody made observations before creating those stories.

Incidentally, when I make a point and you neither say that you agree, or if you disagree, why you do, I assume that you agree, or at the least, have no counterargument.

there is no point in our conversation - So thanks for nothing for now

What do you think your point is? Can you state it clearly and explicitly? Make a concrete statement that others can agree or disagree with. "Creation myths are important to you, and you should spend more time looking into them, because ..." or whatever it is that you want others to know.

There is no meaning or purpose in the universe, but the universe must make sense and there must be scientific laws in the universe, because reasons... Can you spot the problem?

Yeah. Straw man argument. Did you think I posted that?

I have never said that the universe had to make sense or that there needed to be regular scientific laws. But I would say that a godless universe needs regular physical laws if it is to produce life and minds capable of making sense of the universe, and that those regular laws must be simple enough for those minds to comprehend for any of the universe to make sense.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

I have never said that the universe had to make sense or that there needed to be regular scientific laws. But I would say that a godless universe needs regular physical laws if it is to produce life and minds capable of making sense of the universe, and that those regular laws must be simple enough for those minds to comprehend for any of the universe to make sense.

That is not necessary to understand the universe as such to have a life. It is only necessary to understand how to live and reproduce.
So now you have to show that if your if has to make sense, it is the case that we can understand the universe as such. Not an if, but that it is a fact.
Remember science and Popper. A hypothesis must be made into a falsifiable and testable observation for it to be science.
So the first step is how to test it? Now it is your turn. You claim science, now do that!

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Milton Platt]

I am tired of this. Some people use truth and science together, others don't. Some people claim science can prove metaphysical naturalism. Others claim it can't.
I know science is not like religion, but some people apparently use science without understanding what it can do. A bit like an authoritative word to win a debate: I draw the card science and I win. And no, I don't mean how some religious don't get it or pure pseudo science. I mean that science is used as an integrated part of world view without noticing what science can do as much what it can't do and in some case without a clue about the demarcation problem: What science can't do.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

So here is how I view it. Science is now so old and established as a human behavior, that some times some people learn about it, is a form of cultural hand-down of a kind of folk beliefs. Now again, I don't mean science as actual science. I mean science as a folk belief or sometimes as a result of a form of Dunning-Kruger.

So let us look at this one: "Even then, facts are subject to modification or replacement." I know and the model and the landscape. Science is not about certainty, it is about the ability to predict an outcome.
I get all these sayings about science, yet science is about constants in nature and the scientific laws of nature. What I am getting at is that science is despite all these sayings to some people an absolute certainty in some sense and how reality really is and what really matters.
So here is an example: Science is the only form of knowledge(that is not science, that is a form of philosophy) and it is not rational to believe in religion(again, that is not science, that is psychology, philosophy and what not).

So yes, science is to you not about truth and to others it is all about truth.

Regards
Mikkel

I am short on time, so read quickly. But I can agree with you on most points you are making. Part of the confusion is that some people do not have a concrete understanding of how scientific methodologies work. Part of the confusion arises from the fact that language is imprecise and words not only have multiple meanings but meanings can change over time.People don’t define how they use a word and then they talk past each other.
I think people interchange the words “truth” and “fact” and they should not.
Even what we view as facts can change, of course.....because we were wrong or because our understanding was incomplete.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
galactic motions where gravity is out of order. (Which you forgot/ignored to comment on in my latter post on this matter)

I don't know what "gravity is out of order" means. Did you mean that there isn't enough mass visible in a galaxy to account for its structure and motion?

Is it that difficult to grasp?
#1) The gravitational laws of celestial motions was based on planetary motions in the Solar System where it was thought that gravity in the Sun hold all planets in the system and motion.
#2) This overall idea/system was also thought to count for galaxies: A central force which hold all stars and motion in galaxies. (The idea of a central massive dark object/force)
#3) Back in 1932 it was first discovered that the starry motion in galaxies was much different from the planetary motions in the Solar System, i.e. the laws of celestial motion was contradicted.
#4) The galactic motions of stars lead scientist to conclude that there must be an other force to hold the stars in the galaxies.
#5) Instead of pondering over why the laws of celestial motion around a gravitational center did´nt apply in galactic rotation, cosmological scientists invented and inserted "dark matter", not even thinking of that they would have 2 observed different celestial motions, which both should fit the 1 and same consensus law.
#6) As a "central black heavy object" in galaxies is thought to hold stars like the Sun should holds planets, this very idea of a central gravitational force in galaxies is contradicted where stars are orbiting differently than planets in our Solar System.
#7) The solution is to revise the laws of celestial motion and NOT to insert unseen matters.

In barred galaxies, as our Milky Way, it is obvious that the formation scenario goes from within the center, out in the barred structure and out in the galactic arms, very much like the system of a rotating two arm garden sprinkler where droplets are spread out, here stars. This pattern of formation confirms the observed galactic rotation curve nicely.

#8) In resent time astrophysicists and cosmologists now comes up with the idea of galaxies formes inside-out which confirms my perception I´ve had some few decades.
#9) If so, we have a galactic center in the Milky Way from where the "local" creation takes off and spreads out in the galactic surroundings, as stated in #7. This of course also includes the formation of the Solar System.
#10) This outgoing formation dismiss the very idea of a "heavy central dark object" in galaxies. It logically also dismiss the idea of a galactic singularity.
#11) Galaxies comes in 2 basic types where in 1 type, the formation goes from outside-in and the 1 type (barred) goes from inside-out.
#12) That is: We have an Universal force of formation which operates "both ways" in spherical circuits and not just 1 as according to "gravity" and that is electromagnetism working in cosmic plasmatic clouds.
#13) The EM is thought to be a separate fundamental force, but in fact it also constitutes the 2 other weak and strong fundamental forces just with different strengths and ranges.

As the Op in this thread is "Science, Religion and the Truth", it would be interesting if Stories of Creation can be compared to the idea of modern cosmology. I of course can´t quote all cultural stories of creation, but just take the general essence from their stories.

They generally all begin with at time or rather a stage of chaos where nothing of the present scenario was formed. Several stories have a "Primordial Waters", a kind of cosmic fluid from where and in where everything is created. They speak of cosmological stages and cosmic principles of matter and elements.They speak of "cosmic rivers which comes whirling together in a center which creates the first entity, a "fiery" Light. Besides this the very Milky Way contours were described in ancient times as a "divine celestial river" in the night Sky.

This mythical information could easily be taken as a description of the formation of the Sun from a random cloud of gas and dust, but it describes the central Light in our galaxy from where the inside-out formation (#8) takes place.

This central galactic location and it´s "(cloudy) rivers (of gas and dust)" is described in religion as "The "Garden of Eden" in the creation or a "Mythical Mound" with a Cosmic Egg or a Lotus Flower is growing from the central warmth of LIGHT from where everything is created in the Milky Way, often described as a creation from mud or soil.

In the biblical description there is a standing debate of "the two time creation of the Earth". This debate derives from the lack of understanding the formation from cosmic/mythical rivers/clouds of gas and dust where the term, "soil" in the biblical description is scholarly interpreted as planet Earth, which isn´t the first to be formed.

According to the biblical "expulsion from the Garden of Eden" of Adam and Eve, this also refers to the inside-out going formation as described in #8 and #9 above. This has of course NOTING to do with a human sin from eating an apple and a subsequent divine revenge on humans. It all deals with the knowledge of creation and from where humans are created and of the very cycle of life, hence the sentence :"if you eat of this apple of knowledge, you shall die".

The religious and mythical term "in the beginning" should really be "before the beginning" as it describes the pre-conditions of the then coming ancient known world. As this ancient known world regards the Milky Way at the most, the religious and mythical "beginning" cannot be taken as a creation of the entire Universe as generally interpreted.

In my opinion, there are several common descriptions between scientific and religious explanations, but it of course demands a natural and logical understanding in both areas, which also means a symbolic understanding in the religious and mythical descriptions. But there is also significant differences between the standing scientific perception of creation and the mythical one and the most important difference perception is this:

In modern cosmology there is a linear time understanding with a beginning of the entire Universe, whereas the mythical understanding of the creation is cyclical and eternal. In the mythical perception of creation, everything is eternally changing between a formation, then a dissolution and a re-formation.And the mythical description does´nt deal with the creation of an entire Universe, but mostly our Milky Way galaxy.

And then to the OP part of "truth". I of course cannot claim my comparative pondering and explanations above as "the truth". What I CAN claim, is that there apparently is an amount of truth both in my cosmological explanation as well in my mythical interpretation if my explanations and comparisons are accepted and taken into serious consideration.

BTW: I will refer repeatedly to this post in eventual coming replies.

With regards from
Native.