• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creation Stories

Lightkeeper

Well-Known Member
I hear people debate over creation, these people call themselves scientists and creationists. I consider the Big Bang theory another creation story and in one to two hundred years this theory may look just as silly as other creation stories. Also, I think people who consider the Big Bang theory could be called creationists. What do you think?
 

Prima

Well-Known Member
I think it's another creation story, also. There's actually Creationists and creationists, I think. Creationists capitalized are those who believe that God was involved in creation, right? So a creationist would be anyone who thought the world was created (which would be anyone except those who believe that the world is an illusion) The Big Bang theory is not Creationist because it does not necessarily include divinity.

I think.

Yes, it may look silly, but it may also be right.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
Lightkeeper said:
I hear people debate over creation, these people call themselves scientists and creationists. I consider the Big Bang theory another creation story and in one to two hundred years this theory may look just as silly as other creation stories. Also, I think people who consider the Big Bang theory could be called creationists. What do you think?

I think you're right. All creation stories are models and/or metaphor for creation. The Big Bang model is just a model, and it may find itself outmoded, but it lacks the metaphorical element that can keep it relevant if it becomes no longer applicable in a literal sense.
 

Prima

Well-Known Member
WAIT...

Did No*s just kinda agree with something I said? Or does it not count because Lightkeeper said it first? :D

I'm wondering if anyone knows of any creation stories that did not involve the metaphysical/divine that have since been dismissed, particularly ancient ones.
 

Lightkeeper

Well-Known Member
No*s said:
I think you're right. All creation stories are models and/or metaphor for creation. The Big Bang model is just a model, and it may find itself outmoded, but it lacks the metaphorical element that can keep it relevant if it becomes no longer applicable in a literal sense.

Remember that creation stories weren't thought of as metaphorical at the time. It would be interesting to see if we develop so far that Big Bang becomes a metaphor.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
Lightkeeper said:
Remember that creation stories weren't thought of as metaphorical at the time. It would be interesting to see if we develop so far that Big Bang becomes a metaphor.

Oh, I realize they were originally considered models as well, but that doesn't change the fact that they were also metaphorical. For instance, it's very easy to read Genesis not as a strict model, but also as an attempt to actually refute other conceptions of what gods are like.

Ancient creation stories have staying power, because they are more than a model. The BB is just a model, and if it loses its claim to being literally factual, it cannot continue to hold force. Ancient stories can :).
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
Prima said:
WAIT...

Did No*s just kinda agree with something I said? Or does it not count because Lightkeeper said it first? :D

I'm wondering if anyone knows of any creation stories that did not involve the metaphysical/divine that have since been dismissed, particularly ancient ones.

OK, OK I retract the statement. We can't allow us to agree on anything :D
 
I think there's a big difference between a story and a description based on systematic observation of evidence and mathematical modeling. Our understanding of the Big Bang will be expanded and refined; many things that don't make sense now will be understood; some of the ways we explain things now will have better, more precise explanations. But this will be because of new research and new observations. Creation stories change for cultural reasons, not scientific reasons.

Creation stories don't generally correspond to the physical realities of origins. They tell us about the perceptions of the people who wrote the stories.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Godless Dave said:
I think there's a big difference between a story and a description based on systematic observation of evidence and mathematical modeling. Our understanding of the Big Bang will be expanded and refined; many things that don't make sense now will be understood; some of the ways we explain things now will have better, more precise explanations. But this will be because of new research and new observations. Creation stories change for cultural reasons, not scientific reasons.

Creation stories don't generally correspond to the physical realities of origins. They tell us about the perceptions of the people who wrote the stories.
Culture will affect science in the same way. Our culture is very scientifically driven in the same way that religion once drove the ignorant masses, and, as you rightly say, culture eventually changed their creation myths. The reason why science drives culture today is because the people allow it to based upon the supposition that scientific naturalism can answer more questions than anything else.

However, if people change their supposition, the way science is used will be changed. Research on such innovative and broad topics could cease, and the scientific mind can be dulled. If such a thing occurs, science will be changed by culture. Furthremore, if a revolution occured in philosophy and philosophers were able to convince scientists that their methods are inferior to a certian philosophical model, then science would be forever changed.

Conversely, if science advances far beyond where it is now in how it gathers and interprets information, it may determine that any theory is bogus.
 

Lightkeeper

Well-Known Member
Godless Dave said:
I think there's a big difference between a story and a description based on systematic observation of evidence and mathematical modeling. Our understanding of the Big Bang will be expanded and refined; many things that don't make sense now will be understood; some of the ways we explain things now will have better, more precise explanations. But this will be because of new research and new observations. Creation stories change for cultural reasons, not scientific reasons.

Creation stories don't generally correspond to the physical realities of origins. They tell us about the perceptions of the people who wrote the stories.
I think the people of OT times observed and came up with the best answer they could for their times.
 

scitsofreaky

Active Member
All creation stories are an attempt to put something we don't understand in ways that we can understand. The Bible's story is put into terms of a working man, big bang in the terms of science, and so on.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
I think the thing that sets the Big Bang apart from other 'creation' stories is that there is no 'creator'. It was a natural event of unknown (but not unguessed at) origin.

wa:do
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
Lightkeeper said:
I think we can advance so far in our knowledge the the BB can be a metaphor.
I disagree.

Religious creation stories are believed on faith as there is no empirical evidence to support them in a literal sense.

The Big Bang is supported by evidence to an extent and once that evidence has been deemed inadequate the "story" fails.

While the BB in part is supported by what I believe is blind faith the road to that faith was paved with observable evidence, evidence that at this point cannot be denied.

My point is that this story will change as new evidence becomes clear and sooner or later it may not even resemble the original story.

Religious creation stories don`t follow this route when taken literally.

They cannot be falsified.
 
No*s said:
Ancient creation stories have staying power, because they are more than a model. The BB is just a model, and if it loses its claim to being literally factual, it cannot continue to hold force. Ancient stories can
smile.gif
.
The BB is not "just a model" No*s....like evolution, it is also a fact. With a powerful enough telescope, one can quite literally see the universe evolving into what it has become today....and the BB is still happening today (just as evolution is still happening). Facts, in my opinion, should have more staying power than myths....but I agree that most of the time (sadly) they don't.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
Mr_Spinkles said:
The BB is not "just a model" No*s....like evolution, it is also a fact. With a powerful enough telescope, one can quite literally see the universe evolving into what it has become today....and the BB is still happening today (just as evolution is still happening). Facts, in my opinion, should have more staying power than myths....but I agree that most of the time (sadly) they don't.

Ah, then I stand corrected on that point. I was under the impression that the BB was a model that explained what we observe right now rather well, but was still a model (albeit a very well-tested model).
 
No*s said:
Ah, then I stand corrected on that point. I was under the impression that the BB was a model that explained what we observe right now rather well, but was still a model (albeit a very well-tested model).
Well you're right, the BB is a model....my point is it is not *just* a model. Like evolution, the BB is also a fact. My fault for not being clearer. :)
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
Mr_Spinkles said:
Well you're right, the BB is a model....my point is it is not *just* a model. Like evolution, the BB is also a fact. My fault for not being clearer. :)

Ah, OK :).

It was partially my fault as well. When saying "just a model," I didn't mean to denigrate it, but rather, to emphasize that it was a model and not metaphor, where creation stories tend to be both.
 

Melody

Well-Known Member
Godless Dave said:
I think there's a big difference between a story and a description based on systematic observation of evidence and mathematical modeling. Our understanding of the Big Bang will be expanded and refined;.
I think it will eventually be discarded. Over the last several months, NPR has interviewed several prominent scientists who are beginning to say that it appears the big bang theory is not panning out but they're not sure what to replace it with. They're going to "study" the situation further though.
 
Top