I don’t know why it’s still so surprising to me that proponents of ‘logic’ and ‘reason’ can often be as unreasonable as the fundamentalists they demonize. I suppose it’s a natural reaction to the ignorance of reason from, say, Creationists, that they’d be met with equal ignorance from advocates of ‘reason.’ I guess they figure they should fight fire with fire, but stooping to their level is as bad as losing in my book. Any true lover of wisdom must accept the universal knowledge that we cannot truly know anything. The multitudes of people who view scientific theory as the last word on any question about the universe tend to ignore this fact, even if they do know it, as soon as they get involved in a heated argument. They completely disregard the maleable and ever-changing nature of science and its theories, and propose that the latest commonly accepted theory is fact.
Take for example the Big Bang Theory (not the TV show). If someone in this day and age tried to argue that the big bang theory is wrong, they would surely be met with disdain and condescension from these scientific fundamentalists. If they proposed that, according to Hindu texts, the universe is recycled, created and destroyed in a cyclical process for eternity, they would almost certainly be labelled a fundamentalist and a religious kook. Their accusers would probably ignore the fact that the recycled universe theory has been around almost as long as the big bang theory, and was even entertained by Albert Einstein. They probably wouldn’t even consider the recent research which has concluded that a recycled universe is much more likely to create the inflation necessary to the big bang model. Even if they accepted that the cyclic model is possible, they would still insist that the Hindu scriptures can hold no useful insight into the matter, since they are not based on scientific research. They would see no significance in the fact that a roughly 4,000 year old text proposes a theory that may soon replace the currently accepted one, and they certainly wouldn’t admit that the scripture has any more relevance in the argument despite its being theoretically verified.
Please understand that this is in no way an argument against atheism, or a call to convert to Hinduism and worship Brahma. This is simply a plea for everyone on either side to calm down, listen to the wisdom of their ancestors as well as contemporary experts, and consider all possibilities in any matter, especially the most important ones.
Duck rabbits 
What are you babbling on about? The cyclic universe is a common theme/theory in cosmology.
Sure is, but I’ve heard people argue the big bang as though it’s fact, not addressing the cyclic theory at all. But the main point is that religious theories can be just as relevant as scientific theories, when understood in the proper context. I also just want everyone to know that they know nothing.
I know i know nothing 🙂
The vedic religions don’t come under fire because they’re not anti-science and their observed philosophy is pretty accurate considering what we know today.
Who are you talking about, anyway?
Commenters on other blogs, no one significant. I’ve never heard anyone combat Hinduism directly, but the people this was directed toward tend to dismiss all religious knowledge. This was a reaction piece to them, not you little ape.
I think the recycled theory is more respectable than a multiverse theory… but cosmology is always home to lots of speculation. Dark Matter = universe won’t contract vrs heavy higgs = universe is doomed, ad nausea. Linear time was popularized by Augustine, but the ancient occident believed in cyclical time with simply different players and countries making the same motions
There could still be multiple universes, all recycling constantly, unless there’s a contradiction in that.
No, it’s just multiverses feels “cheap” like rebooting a TV show
See this June 1 article in Scientific American about the multiverse?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-physics-complications-lend-support-to-multiverse-hypothesis&WT.mc_id=SA_Facebook
Yes, already actually. But after reading folks from Tsiolkovsky to Weinacker you take a lot with a grain of salt. A multiverse is like turning Ockham’s razor on your wrist to solve issues that don’t require that level of complexity. It’s like suggesting a one eyed people eater to solve uncertainty issues that it’s better to throw ones hands at. It sells science magazines though 🙂
That it does!
That’s a long article that I don’t have time to read right now, so I apologize if this response is not well-informed BUT…..
I think if there is a multi-verse, it’s much more complex and vaguely defined than what most people think of it as. If the math requires there to be multiple universes, that does not necessarily mean that they exist, and even if they do, they are not ‘universes’ in the same sense as ours is. Similar to the anthropic principle, we may be in the only universe that we can exist in, so all other universes may not match our definition of ‘the universe’ or ‘our universe.’
That’s certainly a probability. Was reading about another theory the other day (Space-Time Torsion) that contends our universe is in fact inside a black hole. I was surprised to hear its actually a viable theory, the math seems to work, and has many backers.
Hm, seems that doesn’t necessarily exclude the multiverse. Actually, if we accept that black holes are portals to other universes, it would follow that ours would have to be in a black hole as well, so all these theories seem to coalesce, at least in general terms.
Net result: further down the rabbit hole we go!
curiouser and curiouser
My all-time favourite three words ever penned!
well two words total, one repeated
Logan, see that switch above your eyes, that one inside your skull on the top left hand side of your frontal cortex? Press it 🙂
much like ‘ehyeh asher ehyeh’
Somebody removed it and all the wires are exposed, I’m afraid to touch it……