Replies

You just don't get it, do you? Religion and theology are two different things. I was talking about cosmology (in general) being part science and part religion.

You then decided to introduce theologians and secularists studying religion, thereby obfuscating the issue, which has nothing to do with what I said about cosmology.

The reason cosmology (no matter which) is part science and part religion is because it deals with existential issues that remain a mystery.

The religion part are the axiomatic "self-evident truths," and the science part is the skepticism that drives the research.

Theology is actually a science of God that necessarily deals with doubt. Religion is an organized set of a priori beliefs in a divine entity and is free of doubt.

That's why some cosmologists don't find it a contradiction to be believers (for example Einstein). The existential mystery itself leads us to religious concepts, thus the very subject of cosmology has religious overtones while searching for physical evidence for their verification.

This is nothing new. The Old World Order Church did the same thing. It combined science (Ptolemaic system), philosophy (Aristotle) and theology (based on the Bible) to establish that man is God's central creation and that therefore the earth must be at the very center of the created world.

Thus, the Old World Order had an unshakable belief, based on three independent schools of knowledge (how can they all be wrong!?) that the this is indeed so, and it took extraordinary new discoveries to show that the Old World Order was indeed wrong.

Nothing has changed in that regard. It will take extraoridnary new evidence to change the current cosmological beliefs, to which so many hang on religiously, even though cracks are apparent of all.

To the contrary, dear kosta50, I do get it and I called you to account right away.

In response to my post 882, you said (at 941, emphasis mine)

Cosmology is as much science as it is religion. None of the fancy physics you mention is combined into anything more than a theory, two incompatible theories to be more precise, and a few more emerging from the same pot.

To which I replied at 1004:

Strawman.
I specifically said "physical cosmology" which a branch of astronomy dealing with large scale structures.

"Cosmology" is metaphysics.

My post 882 refers to the science of large scale structures, physical cosmology, a branch of astronomy hinged on math and physics. Without regard to the individual prevailing theories of physical cosmology, my post focuses on the math and physics of the beginning of space and time. Indeed, that is the focus all the way to the end where I give my testimony which I most always do on a substantive post.

I will not stand for my math and physics being painted as metaphysics, i.e. made into a strawman.

If you want to discuss the math and physics, fine.

If you want to discuss alternative theories of physical cosmologies (inflationary theory/big bang, cyclic, imaginary time, multi-verse, multi-world, ekpyrotic, hesitating, steady state, etc.) then fine.

If you want to discuss metaphysics, cosmology, theology or religious studies - then fine.

If you want to discuss the epistemic cut between theology and the study of religion, fine.

But don't misrepresent my work.