|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Religious cosmology article.|
|This is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, or Apologetics/Polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, or Apologetics/Polemics at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
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. Khiradtalk 03:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
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
The calculation of the Rajjus into light years looks incorrect as per the definition of Rajju.
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 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)
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). 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
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. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)