== Religious interpretations ==
I wonder if it might be useful to distinguish philosophical interpretations from religious interpretations? Disturbingly, there is no real discrimination made between the two, and I think the reader might imply that the two are indistinguishable. Alternatively, maybe the section as it stands is unnecessary. After all, it deals only with Christian - mostly Catholic - views anyway, and as such does not cover the topic the subheading refers to. Perhaps it could be placed somehow in the 'categories' umbrella? — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/203.122.211.169|203.122.211.169]] ([[User talk:203.122.211.169|talk]]) 02:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
:I tend to agree with the latter part of this suggestion. The religious interpretations of the Big Bang section is not very comprehensive and more-or-less out-of-date. [[Special:Contributions/69.86.225.27|69.86.225.27]] ([[User talk:69.86.225.27|talk]]) 13:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
::It may or may not be helpful to just remove the section altogether. It doesn't provide a lot of information, and really isn't very useful. [[User:Cadiomals|Cadiomals]] ([[User talk:Cadiomals|talk]]) 01:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
:::I think that it would be helpful to remove the section. There may be a way to link it elsewhere in the article, but it seems really out-of-place and of considerably lower quality than the rest of this very good article. [[User:Hudn12|Hudn12]] ([[User talk:Hudn12|talk]]) 20:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
::::I do not think that it would be helpful to remove the section, especially since the Big Bang does have implications of the origins of the universe, as does religion. The section already links to the main article, ''[[Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory]]'', which contains more information. I disagree with the assertion that the section is "considerably lower quality than the rest of this very good article," especially since the section is buttressed with a variety of scholarly sources. However, I am open to suggestions on improving the section. I hope this helps. With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 20:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::From the daughter article: "Lemaître himself always insisted that, as a physical theory, the Big Bang has no religious implications". I agree with Hudn12 and Cadiomals. This section serves no purpose. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 12:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::User:Viriditas, could you please provide a reference for that claim? Also stating that the section serves no purpose without giving a reason is not helpful. If you look at other articles such as [[evolution]], a section on "[[Evolution#Social_and_cultural_responses|Social and Cultural Responses]]" is given. Having a similar section in this article is indeed helpful. By the way, was this article on your watchlist? You haven't ever edited this article before. I look forward to your comments. With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 18:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Other stuff exists. You have yet to respond to any of the points made in this discussion. Let me summarize them for you to help you focus: 1) religious interpretations is Christian-centric and does not distinguish between philosophy and religion 2) it is neither comprehensive nor current 3) no useful information is given 4) Lemaître himself said that as a physical theory, the Big Bang has no religious implications. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 21:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::No, you are incorrect. The Big Bang, dealing with the origins of the universe does have philosophical and religious implications, which are discussed in depth [[Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory|here]]. You cannot simply state that "other stuff exists," while ignoring this fact. I agree that it would be helpful to add a brief summary of other philosophical and religious interpretations, including those of Hinduism, Islam, etc. to the section of the article. Perhaps you could find the sources and add the information? Also, you stated that "Lemaître himself said that as a physical theory, the Big Bang has no religious implications." Where is a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] for the assertion that you make? I look forward to your response. With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 21:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::"Other stuff exists" refers to the weakness of your argument. You do not appear to have addressed any of the points made by other editors. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 21:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::I am not really sure what you are talking about. The sentence in [[Big_Bang#Religious_interpretations|the section]], which states: "But as a theory which addresses the origins of reality, it has always carried theological and philosophical implications, most notably, the concept of creation ex nihilo (a Latin phrase meaning "out of nothing")" has a total of FIVE references supporting it. I've asked you to provide a reference for your assertion that "Lemaître himself said that as a physical theory, the Big Bang has no religious implications" and you have provided NONE. If you wish to make progress in this discussion, please engage in a friendly dialogue with me rather than dismissing me outright, as I have tried to do with you. Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 21:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::The assertion is from the daughter article you are attempting to summarize, as you were previously informed. You seem to be making this about editors rather than the points made by editors. Do you think every religious concept should have a science section? [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 22:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::Dear User:Viriditas, you stated "Do you think every religious concept should have a science section?" No, I do not. I also do not think that articles on every science concept should have a section on religion and philosophy. Articles on [[ulcerative colitis]], [[gravity]], etc. should not have such a section. However, the Big Bang, as demonstrated by the five sources in [[Big_Bang#Religious_interpretations|the section]], ''does'' relate to religion and philosophy, as does the article on [[evolution]] (although for different reasons). I know that you stated that your assertion is lifted from the daughter article. However the daughter article does not have a citation for that claim. Since you wish to remove the section (rather than ameliorate it) on that basis, I am asking you to provide a reliable citation that assertion. Thank you, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 23:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::This is a featured article. We should no be linking to or summarizing an unsourced daughter article. I'm afraid it is you has the burden of proof, not me. I'm prepared to remove the entire section per consensus. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 23:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::::No, the burden of proof lies on you since you can't provide a single reference for your assertion on which you wish to remove the section. I've provided five sources and if you remove the section, you will be reverted since consensus has not been reached. This discussion has only been opened for one day. Please allow other users to comment. Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 23:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::There's no consensus for inclusion, and you have not addressed any of the problems. Feel free to improve the main article and address the concerns raised in this discussion, but stop asking others to do your homework. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 23:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::That's not how Wikipedia works. I've provided five sources that discuss the relationship of the Big Bang to religion and philosophy and they are currently contained within the article. You are asserting a claim that you can't even provide a reference for it! As such, you're trying to remove a sourced section from the article because you don't like it. Doing so is repugnant and contrary to how this encyclopaedia operates. Moreover, I have worked on this article, unlike yourself, who followed me here simply to oppose me. This kind of disruptive behaviour is not warranted. Once again, allow others to comment. I may start an RfC next week if others have not commented. In the mean time, do not remove a longstanding section from the article. Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 23:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Consensus is how Wikipedia works, and you've added content back into this article that is narrow, out of date, and is linked to an unsourced article. '''Five editors''' support the removal and only one (you) support keeping it. You've been told that the material has problems and needs to be fixed but you refuse to do the work. So, it appears you are ignoring consensus, ignoring the comments of others, and edit warring to push a POV. Yes, that is ''not'' how Wikipedia works. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 23:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Being that religion is a product of mankind attempting to explain the universe, and that the big bang is the actual explanation of the beginning of the universe, I think that these particular topics are interwoven and would be surprised to not see a religious interpretations section. It shouldn't, of course, be phrased in such a way that it gives any sort of credence to the religious view, but the views - if published in notable reliable sources - should be included. I can see how it would be problematic for an FA to use a daughter article, and I can also see the lower quality of writing in this section vs. the others. So I would recommend keeping a section on the topic but making it better (and this can mean removing the section and rewriting it). Expanding it to include other religious interpretations would also be good. I do have to stress though that the sources must be academic, and if there are academic sources on the matter then it means that someone with a PHD who is more qualified than us has seen fit to write about it, and so it would be audacious for us to ignore it. [[User:Noformation|Noformation]] [[User talk:Noformation|Talk]] 23:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
:Dear User:Noformation, thanks for your comment. I agree that the section is indeed relevant but should be expanded to include other viewpoints, as I indicated above. Would you like to make the additions? If not, I have some free time next weekend in which I can improve the section with other philosophical and religious opinion. My academic qualifications would allow me to do so. I look forward to your response. With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]]
::Please stop asking other editors to take over your burden of proof. You are welcome to use your user space to work on a version of the section and unsourced daughter article as your free time permits, but a mainspace featured article is not a sandbox. I also have serious concerns about the content and the sources already in use. Per the consensus of five editors, the material should stay removed until it is ready for mainspace. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 00:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::Definitely not my field of expertise so I will leave it to you and others to make the necessary changes. [[User:Noformation|Noformation]] [[User talk:Noformation|Talk]] 00:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Dear User:Noformation, thanks for your comment! I will give more time for others here to comment and next weekend, I will add more views to the section. Perhaps you could take a look at it then and offer any advice you have for improvements. I hope you have a nice evening. With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 00:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
FWIW (and at the moment) -> I Agree with the Editors who think the "[[Big Bang]]" Article should be about the '''Scientific''' aspects of the "Big Bang" only - after all, the "Big Bang" began (and continues) as a '''Scientific''' notion (and '''Scientific''' fact - at least insofar as our current '''Scientific''' evidences can determine) - OTOH, the "[[Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory]]" Article should be about the '''Religious''' (including philosophical and non-scientific) aspects only - Links between the two Articles could be added to the relevant "See Also" Sections - this may all make the overall discussion of the "Big Bang" notion clearer and more understandable - and (imo) more encyclopedic - at least to the usual Wikipedia reader - in any case - Enjoy! :) [[User:Drbogdan|Drbogdan]] ([[User talk:Drbogdan|talk]]) 01:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:If scholarly sources talk about religious interpretations of the big bang then we have to represent that in this article in some fashion per [[WP:NPOV]], even if it's just a parhraph with a link to the daughter article. The main big bang should include mention of any substantial subarticle as it is technically the parent article. [[User:Noformation|Noformation]] [[User talk:Noformation|Talk]] 01:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::As you are probably already aware, the mere existence of sources does not imply inclusion. We do not "have" to represent any view per NPOV. We have to represent established and minority views in proportion to their coverage on the topic. Anupam seems to be cherry picking sources to argue that the Big Bang is bringing people closer to God. However, that is an undue representation. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 02:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Of course, but if academics are writing on a particular topic it's a good indicator it's relevant for an encyclopedia. I'm not talking popular sources here, I'm talking experts in the relevant fields. Regarding Anupam's sources in specific I have nothing to say since I haven't gotten deep into this. Nothing I've written should indicate that I support Anupam's sources in specific, nor any particular text for the section. My only point is that if there are scholarly sources on the subject then we should talk about it in some capacity. [[User:Noformation|Noformation]] [[User talk:Noformation|Talk]] 02:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Well, we should probably start looking at them. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 02:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}
Sorry Anupam but I think the religious implications are way, way out. They make both physics and religion look bad - and make Wikipedia look way out too. Most of the credible encyclopedias would have passed on this. I think the most that can be done is a See also at the end - even if that. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 02:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:For what it might be worth, I tend to agree with History2007 here. I myself tend to think that maybe, while the subject itself seems to be to notable and worthy of inclusion somewhere, it might be better placed in an article dealing more broadly with scientific views of creation and the religious interpretation of them. I think the more recent multiple-universe theory also has been said to have some specific religious implications, and I suppose the steady-state theory might as well, and it might be best to place all such material in one article, with, maybe, a short statement in the other relevant articles and a link to it. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 02:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:Just because the [[First Cause]] (God) is mentioned, that does not mean we are not dealing strictly with [[natural theology]], a branch of philosophy. Some interpret the moment the bang occurred ~14 billion years ago with ''the'' single act of [[Creatio ex nihilo|creation]] of the universe by its [[First Cause]]. This is [[Deism]], which holds that the [[First Cause]] only provides the initial conditions of the universe and that the universe can then exist on its own without the [[First Cause]] causing, moving, or changing it anymore. [[Theism]] holds that there is just as much ''[[creatio ex nihilo]]'' ("creation out of nothing") now as at the moment of the "Big Bang" because the [[First Cause]] is necessary to sustain beings in existence at every moment of their existence. Also, the question "Can the [[First Cause]] [[Creatio ex nihilo|create out of nothing]] eternal matter, or does the [[First Cause]] have to create matter within time?" is a philosophical one that, e.g., [[Thomas Aquinas]] discusses in his short work [http://josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/DeEternitateMundi.htm ''De Æternitate Mundi'' (''On the Eternity of the World'')], in which he concludes that it must be held on faith whether or not matter is eternal. In short, I suggest renaming the section "'''Philosophical and religious interpretations'''." —[[User:Geremia|Geremia]] ([[User talk:Geremia|talk]]) 03:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::Also, I would like to clarify that [[theism]] and [[deism]] can be argued both from a religious perspective and from a philosophical perspective. This is why this section should be renamed "'''Philosophical and religious interpretations'''."—[[User:Geremia|Geremia]] ([[User talk:Geremia|talk]]) 15:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Per the thread at [[WT:PHYS]], I am offering my comments. I think this section should be removed, as it contributes nothing at all to the description of the Big Bang. Instead, it represents religions trying awkwardly to shoehorn religious texts into a form that doesn't outright contradict the model. Any content of this type should instead be folded into their respective religion articles, not here. If there was a single article about religious views about the creation of the world (the equivalent of the [[creation myth]] article, but for active religions; counterpart to the [[eschatology]] article), then it might be noteworthy enough for a link in the "see also" section, but that's it. Having the section in the Big Bang article does not contribute - at all - to understanding ''of the Big Bang model'', which is what this article is supposed to be about. --[[User:Christopher Thomas|Christopher Thomas]] ([[User talk:Christopher Thomas|talk]]) 06:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:I disagree. From the very beginning, the reception of the theory has been affected by its possible religious implications. (Early resistance to the theory from the scientific community was partly because it was perceived as religiously motivated, a sentiment not helped by the fact the theory was embraced by the vatican early on.) Having this section contributes to the understanding of the social reception of the theory, which is relevant to cover.[[User:TimothyRias|T]][[User talk:TimothyRias|R]] 08:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::Yes, this is certainly true. One reason the [[Steady State Model]], which the [[Big Bang theory]] then superseded, was so popular is that considering matter eternal appears to rule out the need for searching for a [[First Cause]].—[[User:Geremia|Geremia]] ([[User talk:Geremia|talk]]) 15:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::I agree with Christopher Thomas that this adds nothing for a reader interested in physics, but I would go further. It presence makes Wikipedia look silly. I think you can add a sentence in the history section or the notes that that Lemaître was a priest, and in the early days people said it was a religious theory and leave it at that, then a See also link. And the whole page on ''Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory'' is a mess itself. So no point in promoting a link to a junk-text page. And the subsection (although title-painted as philosophy) is not written s such, and does not mention Hindu, Islam etc. And Aquinas had probably never heard of the Big Bang, and that seems like a real stretch. This is really another one of those "surrogate debates about God" that in the end go nowhere. Most theologians do not understand the physics, and most physicists do not agree with the theology of this. A See also is all that it deserves. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 09:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::I would think the current text could be moved to the article [[Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory]] as it seems better sourced than most of what is in that article. [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 10:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::I've tidied the other article up a bit and removed the most glaring OR. [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 10:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Yes, I agree. This text is better suited there, and that other page needs serious clean up. I think 1% (or less) of those who click on Bigbang are looking for half-baked theology anyway, so might as well ship it there with a See also item, for those who want it. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 11:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::For the article to be comprehensive I think some small mention should be made in the ''Motivation and development'' section (possibly with it being renamed. [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 14:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::The condition of the [[Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory]] page is irrelevant to whether this article should link to it. The reception of a theory by society is relevant to the page on the theory. There is nothing silly about mentioning it on Wikipedia, especially since it is discussed in plenty of sources. (In fact, if the article did not cover it, it would blatantly fail the FA criteria, since it is not comprehensive!) Of course, since this article is long and covers a lot of ground, this is not the place to go into depth. The normal course of action in such situations is to have a short section of one or two paragraphs and a {{t1|main}} article link to an article that goes more into depth. (see [[WP:SUMMARYSTYLE]]) This is would the article currently does, and that is perfectly fine.[[User:TimothyRias|T]][[User talk:TimothyRias|R]] 12:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::I also agree with Christopher Thomas (and came here from the post at [[WT:PHYS]]). Since religions have no basis in science or reason it doesn't belong here. I support moving the content to [[Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory]]. '''''[[User:Polyamorph|Polyamorph]] ([[User talk:Polyamorph#top|talk]])''''' 12:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::As I said above, "[[theism]] and [[deism]] can be argued both from a religious perspective and from a philosophical perspective [the latter a branch of philosophy called [[natural theology]]]. This is why this section should be renamed "'''Philosophical and religious interpretations'''."—[[User:Geremia|Geremia]] ([[User talk:Geremia|talk]]) 15:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::::There is no philosophy related content in that section so a renaming seems pointless. [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 15:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
'''Agree with Christopher Thomas and support deleting the section''' (or merging it with the main article on religion): As it stands, that section is the only part of this article that is not about science, which is what makes it stick out like a sore thumb so badly. If we're going to include a section on religious interpretations, why not a section on philosophical interpretations, or on the big bang in popular culture, or on the TV show? I don't think including all those things is a good idea - it would clutter up the article. On that basis I think we should make this article strictly about the scientific theory. The religious article could be linked to in a "See Also" section at the bottom, if desired. '''Waleswatcher''' [[User_talk:Waleswatcher#top|''(talk)'']] 14:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:Certainly it should discuss at least the philosophical issues Big Bang theory brings up. Philosophy is no less scientific than modern science.—[[User:Geremia|Geremia]] ([[User talk:Geremia|talk]]) 15:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::Eh? Philosophy is not scientific at all, it is a completely different discipline. Philosophy does not follow the scientific method. [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 15:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Yes, the definition of "an experiment" in philosophy is drinking a cup of coffee and scratching one's beard... somewhat different from high energy physics - also see [[falsifiability]] for a discussion of that. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 16:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:So a suggestion to those who argue for inclusion: [[Don't fight the tape]]. It is going in the See also, with a small mention as IRW said. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 14:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
'''SUMMARY''' (at the moment): A Clear "'''Consensus Of Editors'''" '''(12 of 16)''' - *'''FAVORS'''* Deleting The Religious-related Section From The Main "Big Bang" Article.
'''FAVORS''' Deletion: (N=12) ->
[[Special:Contributions/203.122.211.169|203.122.211.169]] +
[[Special:Contributions/69.86.225.27|69.86.225.27]] +
[[User:Cadiomals|Cadiomals]] +
[[User:Hudn12|Hudn12]] +
[[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] +
[[User:Drbogdan|Drbogdan]] +
[[User:History2007|History2007]] +
[[User:John Carter|John Carter]] +
[[User:Christopher Thomas|Christopher Thomas]] +
[[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] +
[[User:Polyamorph|Polyamorph]] +
'''Waleswatcher''' [[User_talk:Waleswatcher#top|''(talk)'']]
'''AGAINST''' Deletion: (N=04) ->
[[User:Anupam|Anupam]] +
[[User:Noformation|Noformation]] +
[[User:Geremia|Geremia]] +
[[User:TimothyRias|TR]]
In Any Case - Enjoy! :) [[User:Drbogdan|Drbogdan]] ([[User talk:Drbogdan|talk]]) 17:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)