|
|
Re: Cosmology and Life
Dan Moerman (dmoerman@umich.edu)
29 Mar 1995 17:58:40 GMT
In article <D5zBMr.HsD@crash.cts.com>, roosen@crash.cts.com
says...
>
>How about some experts in cosmology joining this thread?
Astronomical
>cosmology and the big bang are ruining astronomy.
>
>Robert Roosen (roosen@crash.cts.com) wrote:
>: When I talk about cosmology, I am talking from the
>: anthropological point of view. Each culture has its own
cosmology.
>: I was amazed to see the number of references to God in
Hawking's
>: book. To me, religion is like phlogiston--a handy term to
use until more
>: information is gathered.
>: That is why I am using the term cosmology in reference
to the
>: ASSUMPTIONS that underlie each system. The creation myths.
>: Come on, folks. Infinite mass and infinitely curved
space? Then
>: openly leaving the rest to God? THIS is what the
"scientists" are
>: promoting as fact.
>: This is not astronomy.
Thirty years or so ago when I was in graduate school, I knew a
guy who was a cosmologist. I wasn't sure what it was, so one
beery evening I asked him. He told me this: "There are two
kinds of astronomers, astrophysicists and cosmologists.
Cosmologists are astronomers who neglect the stars;
astrophysicists are astronomers who neglect the universe." I
thought that was amusing. I suggested to him that it would be
interesting to develop an anthropology course (his wife was an
anthropologist) called "Comparative Cosmology" which would
compare the conceptions and ideas that different cultures had
about the nature and origins of the cosmos. He said that it
wouldn't be an interesting course. I asked why. He said
"Because they are all wrong." I have never forgotten that
conversation, but neither have I ever taught the course.
|