Talk:Religious cosmology

Zoroastrian Cosmology

I added Zoroastrian Cosmology, realizing it will probably be me who ends up writing it. If there is a wish for me to complete it sooner than later, or I've completely forgotten about it (which is likely), please remind me, I'd be happy to receive the impetus/reminder. If someone wishes to tackle it, use The Bundahishn as your source. Khirad^talk 03:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

neutrality/accuracy

The opening of this article is incredibly misleading. Religious cosmologies, while they may be accepted by religious individuals, are in no way "epistemologically valid."

The claim that science rests on religious foundations is truly a tired, old, and frankly ridiculous argument. One of the greatest virtues of science is that it allows us to overcome our religious mythologies by evaluating claims in terms of empirically verifiable facts. If its basis were religious in nature, it would have no greater claim to objectivity than religious cosmologies. This is not the case. Science relies on hard facts, not mythological tradition.

The claim that religious cosmologies constitute valid epistemology is not simply biased, it is flat-out false. Hewn 11:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

---

I have changed this description to be more objective. Mikecap 19:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Islam Section....

Needs some rewriting. Someone happily vandalized the islamic section. Leafy 15:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a mistake in the translation of the verse number 51:47. The correct translation reads as 'With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of space,' instead of Steadily Expanding it '. I hope a trained scholar of Arabic language will realize it. (Ali Khan)

I have checked some old tafsirs as follows. They says Allah created the universe and do the expansion thereof. So please try to put it as it is. 1) With Hands We constructed the heaven. Verily, We are able to expand the vastness of space thereof. - Ibn Kathīr (1301-1373 CE) 2) (We have built) created (the heaven with might, and We it is who make the vast extent (thereof)) as We will; it is also said that this means: we expand the provision thereof. - Tafsir Ibn Abbas (618–619 CE) (Fazil) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.244.152 (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are there only pseudo-scientifics verses and none about the hovering throne, the creation of earth before heaven, the falling pieces of heaven and the stars as missiles against jinns ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.7.91.241 (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

WERK

Hey, I just created this account becasue I read something on this article that disturbed me. I know that no one agrees on how to interpret the word "day" in Genesis, but the line, "Note that a 'Genesis day' is most probably to signify a prolonged period of time" is a personal bias. I wanted to change it, but I am not a Wikipedian. So I wanted to put it out there, that maybe one of you could edit it into a block that tells about the two different interpratations or something like that. Cause when I went to that other article that was said to cover it extensively, I could find nowhere that it did -that phrase I mean. I might be over reacting, but, as a Christ Follower, I do not want people who are looking for Genesis related material to think that this is what it is most likely to mean. 1:19, 4 December 2006

Well... I don't know how to put up a nuetrality bulliten thing so... I am going to change it... If you don't like it you can change it back... Thanks?? 12:36 16 December 2006

Jain Cosmology

The calculation of the Rajjus into light years looks incorrect as per the definition of Rajju.

Hebrew Bible

Where does the Hebrew Bible talk of "a flat, circular Earth floating like a bubble in an apparently infinite ocean of water"? There is nothing to that effect in Genesis, nor in Rashi's commentary. Is there any such thing in the Midrash on Bereshit? Marshall46 (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding emphasis to this point: that phrase needs citation or it ought to be erased. --Bejjinks (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This cosmological model comes form the Bible:

Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

The Vault, or firmament, as it is used in other texts is a dome, It holds the ocean of heaven, or the primordial freshwater, from the primordial salt waters. Which the disk of the earth floats upon.

God makes the disc of the earth here:

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

Hinduism

This section needs to be looked at for both neutrality, impartiality and supportive citations. The opening statement that Hinduism is the closest religion to the big bang theory (and other findings of "Science") smacks of being written by a religious supporter of Hinduism. Seeking to legitimize their religions, one can find similar statements amongst adherents to other religions. For example, the many books on scientific alignment of the Bible and the Old Testament. Also, statements contradictorily switch between defining Hindu cosmology as one overarching system and as a multitude of systems that all fall under the category/umbrella of "Hindu" religions. --Vblanton (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Mayan

Would a section explaining why 2012 is important to the Mayan cosmology and a whole paragraph on their view of the cosmos and calendar be acceptable here? It's a dead religion but seems relevant because people keep making movies and news about the end of the world based on their 2012 end of an epoch (not the world). 97.85.163.245 (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Biblical cosmology

I've noticed that the section on Biblical cosmology is biased. For instance, the statement that the Bible "reflects shifting patterns of religious belief" is opinion. What the Bible actually reflects is the fact that revelation was not instantaneous (i.e. not all truths were known from the beginning), and as a result the beliefs started out general and became more specific over the course of history as new revelation was received. This doesn't mean that the beliefs ever "shifted" (which implies that new revelation somehow replaced old revelation, or that specific beliefs changed into other specific beliefs). Also, the point about the "concepts of cosmology are not always consistent", this is also biased opinion. Many would argue that the cosmology recorded in Scripture is entirely consistent. It really depends on whomever is interpreting the biblical text, but frankly, any scholar who reads the text in such a way as to create inconsistencies really has no religious understanding of Scripture in the first place. 96.227.142.233 (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The idea of Ex Nihilo creation in Judaism and Christianity is beyond false.

Genesis one very specifically says:

The Beginning

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

God was hovering over the waters. Cosmic water existed with god in the beginning.

Further it says here:

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

God creates the sky to separate the waters.

This is because the Genesis creation myth is intrinsically linked to the Babylonian Creation Myth of the Enuma Elish, as Abram was from Babylonia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:2B00:C906:B44C:248A:82EB:ECE3 (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of capitalization of universe

There is request for comment about capitalization of the word universe at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of universe - request for comment. Please participate. SchreiberBike talk 00:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Notification of request for comment

An RfC has been commenced at MOSCAPS Request for comment - Capitalise universe.

Cinderella157 (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit

In relation to this edit, my first impression is that although some of the material may be correct, there appears to be original synthesis attempting to promote belief in lost ancient universal scientific knowledge... —PaleoNeonate – 09:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, the edit seems to use at least some reliable sources. If you think some of it is POV, better tag than delete. If you've got a couple of tags, tag the page, i'd say. Or better even, rewrite based on reliable sources quoted.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Not only is the Hindu cosmology section weak, others too. A WP:SummaryStyle may be a better approach. I will bandage it a bit for now, and add some RS as FRT suggests. May return to it later. You both and others are welcome to revise / update. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The new text is already much better. Many thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 03:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained Reverts

Hello please be reminded that you must provide a reason when reverting another person's changes. Continued reverts without justification is considered edit warring. This edit, for example, was unexplained other than 'the last version was better'. In what way? Please discuss.

--Cdfi (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Why is Christian lumped together with Modern Jewish but not with Islam?

Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, all Abrahamic religions have much in common, yet here it seems that the original writer wanted to show that Christianity and Judaism were close and that Islam was somehow a completely different thing.

I propose either to lump the three together under "Abrahamic Religion Cosmology" or to separate Christian from Modern Jewish with each having their own write-up as Islam is already separated out. Thank you --Cdfi (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Good points. I attempted to reorder them, input welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 18:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The usual categories would be Abrahamic/Dharmic/other (which would include Chinese). I'm not sure that would be terribly useful though - the ancient Hebrew cosmology was pretty much identical with ancient Mesopotamian and Greek cosmology, and not terrible different from the Egyptian. The big change came from Greek philosophic cosmology, which introduced the idea that the universe was spherical (on logical grounds, not scientific) and that matter must have had a beginning. From that came the Christian idea of creatio ex nihilo. Very possibly a structure based on religions isnt't the best organisation for the article. PiCo (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose merging Esoteric cosmology into this page. It's a small article with a single source which could easily integrated here. Posted this there as well to try and reach consensus. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I support it and it appears to me like a technical merge, the article did not pass and survive at AfD yet. Thanks for spotting, —PaleoNeonate – 18:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

If it was something that couldn't fit usefully anywhere else I definitely would've gone the AfD route. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Exactly: feel free to boldly merge (without forgetting the {{merged-from}} tag for attribution on the talk page of course), if it's contested we'll then AfD. —PaleoNeonate – 20:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Bold merge complete. I even think I did it correctly this time, my last merge was a mess. Although it was a lot more content. I think this should be a fairly non-controversial one. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Super, —PaleoNeonate – 21:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Change/cite first lead sentence

Change from: Religious cosmology is a way of explaining the dynamic structure and order of the cosmos or universe as a process, from a religious perspective.

Change to: Religious cosmology is the relation of structures and orders in the cosmos-universe, as a whole process, from a religious perspective.

Religious cosmologies could show more then, in what ways our humanity relates us to each other; and more; thanks, Arnlodg (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

References

No improvement - per comment on many other articles please stop wasting editors time -----Snowded ^TALK 21:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Second the no improvement comment.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Apparent self-contradiction

The third paragraph of the lead section begins: "The scope of religious cosmology is more inclusive than a strictly scientific cosmology (physical cosmology) in that religious cosmology is not limited to experiential observation, testing of hypotheses, and proposals of theories; [...]".

The Ex nilho section says: "The belief that God created matter is called creatio ex nihilo. It is the accepted orthodoxy of most denominations of Judaism and Christianity. Most denominations of Christianity and Judaism believe that a single, uncreated God was responsible for the creation of the cosmos." No mention is made of non-Christian/non-Judaic beliefs.

It seems to me that mention of the Big Bang theory and the book A Universe from Nothing belongs in both articles, but I'm neither a physical cosmologist nor a religious person and I could be wrong about that. Regardless, it seems to me that this article contradicts itself re whether or not its topic, religious cosmology, includes physical cosmology. However, I'm not qualified to discuss this, so consider this a drive-by comment in hopes that it will provoke discussion about this by editors more qualified than I to discuss it.

Talk:Creatio ex nihilo § "big bang", "quantum nothingness", etc. relates to this, I think. I'll mention my comment here over there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)