
0.0% of Icelanders 25 years or younger believe God created the world - BinaryIdiot
http://icelandmag.visir.is/article/00-icelanders-25-years-or-younger-believe-god-created-world-new-poll-reveals
======
gonvaled
> 93.9% of Icelanders younger than 25 believed the world was created in the
> big bang, 6.1% either had no opinion or thought it had come into existence
> through some other means and 0.0% believed it had been created by God.

Why are those exclusive? Once you believe there is an omnipotent god, and
basically not understandable by the human mind, then his delivery mechanisms
can be anything. Big Bang can be just "the way" god created the Universe.

I would say religion is compatible with anything: since it is not based on
reason, it can not conflict with any other human discipline. Which is (if you
ask me), by design.

~~~
thaumasiotes
This is kind of weird. Most people I know would distinguish between "the
world" (not created in the big bang) and "the universe" (also not created in
the big bang -- it's an expansion event -- but at least _related to_ the big
bang).

> I would say religion is compatible with anything: since it is not based on
> reason, it can not conflict with any other human discipline. Which is (if
> you ask me), by design.

That isn't by design; it's what remains after religion lost a bunch of
conflicts ("where did the water from Noah's Flood go?").

~~~
gonvaled
> This is kind of weird. Most people I know would distinguish between "the
> world" (not created in the big bang) and "the universe" (also not created in
> the big bang -- it's an expansion event -- but at least related to the big
> bang).

Dont't get you there. What is the world, and what is the universe in your
definition?

> That isn't by design; it's what remains after religion lost a bunch of
> conflicts ("where did the water from Noah's Flood go?").

I would say that religion is always, by design, outside the realm of reason.
That "design" was badly done when humankind knew less things, so that the
religion "designers" made mistakes thinking that they could get away with
stuff which was later on taken over by other human disciplines, so that lots
of subjects can now be reasonably debated.

But the aim of all religion is to be outside rational discussion. As human
knowledge progresses, religion is forced to become more and more metaphorical:
since the actual facts that it can claim are dwindling, it must relegate
itself to the emotional, and accept the facts we know about the universe as
god way of expressing himself.

~~~
MichaelGG
>But the aim of all religion is to be outside rational discussion

That's pretty revisionist. Religion certainly was not like that in the past.
People 100% truly believed things were literal fact. Religion was an actual
thing that "happened" in day-to-day life. It's only in more modern times, with
more investigatory powers that people claim that all of religion is out of
reach, and that if you try to claim it to be literal, then you're interpreting
it wrong.

~~~
gonvaled
> That's pretty revisionist. Religion certainly was not like that in the past.

"There is a teapot orbiting the sun, between Venus and Mercury". That is a
very concrete fact, and in principle verifiable. I am _anyway_ making a claim
outside of rational discussion, because I know that with out current knowledge
and technology, it is impossible to discuss this fact.

That's how religious facts work: they make concrete claims, but unverifiable
with the knowledge and technology of the period when the claim is made.

That those claims are unmasked by the progress in human knowledge is just a
design flaw of religion, not a prove that they anyhow want to take part in the
rational discourse.

------
J-dawg
I wonder how humanity will handle the decline of religion.

I identify as an atheist (I think), so I've always greeted stories like this
as good news. The sooner we all move past the medieval stuff and start
thinking rationally the better, right?

However there's a part of me that's envious of religious people. I still
struggle with the idea that life is inherently pointless, that there is no
fundamental morality in the universe.

How amazing it would be to believe in an omnipotent being who loves me and
wants me to be ok. I'd love to believe this so much, my rational brain just
won't let me.

Something I've noticed about non-religious people: when pushed on the issue,
very few will admit to being 100% Dawkins-style atheists. People will often
say something hand-wavy like "I believe there's something out there".

~~~
majewsky
> there is no fundamental morality in the universe

How about this: Morality may not be a fundamental property of the universe,
but since we, created by the universe, shape and experience morality, it can
be argued that morality is an emergent property of the universe.

And in my opinion, some of the most beautiful things in this plane of
existence are emergent properties of simple systems.

~~~
J-dawg
This is a nice way of looking at it. Thanks.

------
frgewut
_Believing_ in Big Bang sounds just so wrong.

[edit] I just hope someone will not create a "Big Bang Church".

~~~
elcritch
The cosmological Lemaître- Eddington model later became knick named "big bang"
by Frederick Hoyle later, who apparently was reluctant to "believe" that the
universe had a beginning point. It's commonly speculated that many of the
physics community at that time disliked the idea as a statically existing
universe was in vogue and that Lemaître was a Catholic priest caused Hoyle and
others to deride the model as a "big bang" (with an underlying assumption that
Lemaître assumed that God was the originator of why the expansion happened,
see [1] pg 6). It's a bit unclear as to the exact thoughts of Lemaître and
Hoyle, but there a good history on arrival [1].

So belief in the big bang affected the physicists who figured out the original
cosmological model of the big bang and it took changing beliefs (based on
evidence gained day the scientific method) for it to become accepted as a
theory. Belief matters quite a bit. :)

[1]: [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.0219.pdf](http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.0219.pdf)

------
seele
"A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred
things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden -- beliefs and
practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all
those who adhere to them." E.Durkheim [1][2]

In this sense, liberal democracy, with its rituals (eg. PC) and non-provable
beliefs ("we are all equal"), etc. can be seen as religion.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Émile_Durkheim](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Émile_Durkheim)

[2]
[http://durkheim.uchicago.edu/Summaries/forms.html](http://durkheim.uchicago.edu/Summaries/forms.html)

~~~
elcritch
It's kind of thought provoking to apply the definitions of religion in a
logical manner to movements like string theory, or LGBT movements, or even
programming cultures in addition to traditional religions like Christianity.
Essentially if there are beliefs and practices which are beyond questioning at
the risk of violating taboos and social ostracization then you get a form de
facto religion. Not that this necessarily makes these things wrong, but it
does carry consequences and should be realistically scrutinized by the public.
At least if I become religious I prefer to knowingly choose it or be aware of
it -- e.g. I'm Christian and chose to be so including accepting certain
intellectual dissonances. Personally most of those intellectual dissonances
have provided more areas for me to grow in deeper understanding of the world
(vis-a-vis my world views). In physics I keep an eye on similar dissonance
like the current non-compatability of quantum mechanics and relativity at
mixed scales. Or that new EmDrive which could prove valuable insight into
physics... However, since social beliefs also follow physical laws and result
in consequences (I consider it as a multivariate game theory problem where
different religious beliefs and axioms will produce different optimal outcomes
-- though we rarely live up to the optimal solutions). Look forward to reading
Durham and see if the views offer more clarification.

------
0x07c0
This being Iceland everyone knows that the world was created by the Gods
,emphasis on the s, not God, so stupid question. But on a more serious note
the Norse creation myth is actually interesting:

[http://norse-mythology.org/tales/norse-creation-myth/](http://norse-
mythology.org/tales/norse-creation-myth/)

Shorter version:

[http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/creation.html](http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/creation.html)

Executive summary:

We live inside the dead ice giants Ymir's eyebrows...

------
s_q_b
"The Big Bang" is just as hand-wavy as "God." It's still belief in a set of
laws that govern the universe with no explanation for the origin of these
rules other than _no where._ Call it what you want: God, the Trinity, Allah,
Jupiter, Zeus, the "Big Bang."

They're all the same concept.

Man seems to crave an answer to the question posed by what Aristotle called
the "prime mover," the force that set all other events in motion.
Unfortunately,the universe isn't very good at explaining what happened before
it existed.

~~~
roywiggins
> "The Big Bang" is just as hand-wavy as "God."

No, it isn't. The Big Bang theory doesn't say anything about a prime mover.
The Big Bang theory is simply: once, in the past, the universe was very dense
and extremely hot. Ever since then, it's been getting less dense and less hot.

Further back, there's a singularity, which we can't reason well about because
our math stops giving answers that seem physical (what does infinite density
even mean?).

The Big Bang says nothing about why or how the universe got to be so hot and
dense a finite time ago. Was there a previous "Big Crunch"? Was there a
quantum soupy bulk? Eternal inflation? The Big Bang theory doesn't care. It
just describes what we think the early universe looked like.

~~~
s_q_b
What was the event that led the singularity to begin to expand?

~~~
Sammi
As roywiggins said: "Further back, there's a singularity, which we can't
reason well about because our math stops giving answers that seem physical"

I sense that with your what you're trying to find a why. There is no why.
There is only what.

Science and math do not give meaning or intent to the universe. They just
describe it. You are free to put intent or meaning into it, but that is you
doing it.

~~~
s_q_b
I am not looking for an answer. I just suspect the answer is "It's not
currently known." And that's fine. By definition, the answer is probably
unknowable. But that event did occur, and everything you see around you is a
result of it.

I must respectfully disagree with regard to the role of the question "Why?" in
the scientific method. "Why" is very much a core part of science. Science
almost always begins with the question of "Why?"

Why is the sky blue? Why does an apple drop to the Earth? Why doesn't the
movement of the Earth through the Ether deflect light? Why is there a spike in
the cosmic microwave background radiation 2.725 Kelvin? Why are the laws of
physics the way they are, instead of some completely different set of laws?

Most importantly, what caused the universe expand rapidly from a single point?
What was that event? This is the question I've posed.

So far I've seen three answers:

>>1\. The math stops giving us answers that seem physical.

>>2\. That question can't be answered because it happened before the existence
of the universe.

>>3\. That's not science because it's not falsifiable.

\---------------

To answer each of these in turn:

1\. Math is not divine. ( _Gasp_!)

It is merely a human tool for the communication of ideas.

"The math breaks down" usually means one of three things:

>>a. It would be far easier to explain this with a more precise and efficient
language for communicating these ideas. Can we switch to mathematics to
discuss?

>>b. The mathematics makes sense logically, and renders sound predictions, but
doesn't correspond to any human experience of the physical world, so it can't
be explained.

>>c. I don't know, but that's what my [teacher, professor, Feynman's ghost]
told me.

In the case of (a.), sure, no problem. We're a fairly mathematical bunch
around here. With regard to (b.), let's say I was constructing a theory of the
universe in very precise German. Then one day, my German model started giving
descriptions that didn't seem physical, I would assume the bug was in my
German. If your mathematics stop giving answers that seem physical, maybe it's
the math that's off, not the universe.

So the question remains: what caused the universe to expand to its current
size from a single point? What was that event? If you can't answer, or believe
the answer to be extant but unknowable, then we're back to square one.

2\. Math is hard, and while not all of us are Physics PhDs, this isn't exactly
a lay audience either, so do your best to explain in English.

Physicists use analogies all the time. Einstein was famous for his thought
experiments, which communicated tremendously complex ideas with analogies so
simple and elegant that someone with less than a secondary school education
could grasp them.

Einstein even wrote _Relativity: The Special and General Theory_ as a
"popular" science text, so that as many scientists in as many fields as
possible could understand the implications of his theories.

As has often been said on HN, "if you can't explain it, you probably don't
really understand it."

3\. What is your evidence that all possible hypotheses about the cause of the
expansion of the universal singularity cannot be falsified?

\----

It seems to me that you want to have an existential fight over the meaning of
life, wherein mighty Physics slays the godly believer in the name of truth,
justice, and the scientific method.

All I want is an answer to a single simple physical question: What caused this
singularity to suddenly expand?

~~~
Sammi
Now you're just spinning wheels. Going in circles.

You seem to want an answer noone is able to give. Is it impossible for you to
accept that some things are unknowable?

------
rdl
Deism seems completely compatible with science. I'm not sure how a Deist would
answer this -- would depend on exact phrasing and meaning of terms in
Icelandic, which I don't know.

------
franksunjin
Ramen

