Friends,
I was challenged by a comment.
Yes, I do read my readers.
That is a great question. And no, the reader did not ask this specific question.
But, this question naturally evolved out of a comment on this blog post.
Do I want to believe in the Big Bang?
WOW. I am stumped. Honestly. I am stumped.
First, it would require my believing in a Prime Mover. And admitting that belief. AND submitting to what I believed – IMHO.
Second, it would require me to consider what I would do if THE BIG BANG WAS PROVEN WRONG – it is just a theory.
I would be placing what I believe into ‘cement.’
WOW. As much as I have studied the Big Bang. And as fascinated as I am by it, do I really want to lock myself into such a recent phenomena as we find in this theory?
I honestly need to think about this more ….
Ghost.
thewordpressghost 
The Big Bang theory and evolutionism is simply the (pseudo)scientific establishment trying to compete with religion as “having all the answers.” If they do not pretend to “have all the answers” to the most important questions such as who we are and where we (and the world) came from, then they know that they will never gain a worshipful position as “the ultimate authority.” It’s an attempt to wrestle power and influence away from the various religions and religious beliefs; to win the “hearts minds of the people.”
They seem to be pretty successful as the vast majority accepts whatever it asserts and claims without question.
Thank you!
I agree with you. My difficulty arose when I thought about my desire. And honestly? The problem with my desire is about Evolution and not about the Big Bang.
And that is a future blog.
You sound like myself on most days. Do you think Science is doing a good job of scientific research?
Ghost.
“Do you think Science is doing a good job of scientific research?”
That’s a very broad question that is impossible to answer. I think there’s science and there’s pseudoscience. Unfortunately, pseudoscience is often being promoted under the guise of real science.
I agree my question was too vague.
But, I think allowing pseudo ‘Science’ is a fair challenge to Science itself.
And I notice that the un-orthodox Scientists have multiplied at the same time un-orthodox ‘Christians’ have developed ‘new’ strains of Christianity – and that relationship in time does not escape me.
But, shouldn’t Science be above reproach? Or, at least relatively CLEAN from reproach? Politics I expect to be corrupt, but shouldn’t Science be separate from all that?
Ghost.
“But, shouldn’t Science be above reproach? Or, at least relatively CLEAN from reproach?”
Nothing should be above reproach when it comes to assertions made by man.
“Politics I expect to be corrupt, but shouldn’t Science be separate from all that?””
It should be, but unfortunately that is not the case. Politics plays a role in just about every organization. Corruption, biases, agendas, narrow-mindedness can permeate any field.
After all, they are established and maintained–not by some infallible entity of Truth–but by ordinary (flawed and imperfect) human beings.
About ten years ago, I attended a lecture/discussion about religion and science at SIU Edwardsville (IL) in the Buckminster Fuller Dome. http://www.siue.edu/religion/
It was an interesting and engaging discussion. And compared with what we might see today in such a venue, it was very amiable.
I am encouraged we might be able to find a middle ground when readers like yourself respond.
And that is ironic in and of itself.
I find the lack of genuine Scientific curiosity (on both sides of the discussion) ominous.
Did you walk away with an overview of the lecture you would share with us?