Talk:Omphalos (theology)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Article Overall
This article is confusing.
- I second this, not because the subject matter is confusing, but because the article itself (particularly the intro) is rather poorly written. I suggest it be revised. (I bumped this heading from the bottom and merged it with the one on the top to emphasize how many people seem to agree that the article is confusing).Jamshyd 16:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I have much confusion how hair, fingernails and navels are related wrt the Omphalos (book) or the omphalos hypothesis.
I suppose that I understand the basics of the navel question (If A/E were created by God from dust and rib would each or either have a navel?). Links here would be helpful.
I don't have such an understand for hair or fingernails.
How does Omphalos (the book) or the omphalos hypothesis link hair and fingernails to navels and thence to a "functional" world ?
The point in question is: were Adam and Eve created with full heads of hair, or did it grow in after they were created. Similiarly fingernails. Both seem, by their existence, to imply a history that would be false if they were created as is. Not a very thorny conundrum, but I suppose, pre-science, one had to contemplate such things. - Nunh-huh 04:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Because some things change over time, the fact that they exist doesn't imply time has passed. But our experience is that time is required, so we assume time is required. There is no deception involved, its an "optical illusion".
[edit] bertrand russell
um, whoever wrote the main part of this article knows nothing of bertrand russell. in the link given he even states "I am not suggesting that the non-existence of the past should be entertained as a serious hypothesis. Like all sceptical hypotheses, it is logically tenable, but uninteresting. All that I am doing is to use its logical tenability as a help in the analysis of what occurs when we remember." --MilkMiruku
- The article doesn't say Bertrand Russell believed this, merely that he discussed it (which he did, and notably so). BD2412 talk 23:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- the line "A world in which some essentially followed Russell's theory as a..." makes it sound like the theory was russells alone when he specifically called it an uninteresting sceptical hypotheses. how about changing it to "A world in which some essentially followed a similar theory as a...". is there any info anywhere if Jorge Luis Borges was directly influenced by Bertrand Russell? --MilkMiruku 10:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
--The line "Reverend Canon Brian Hebblethwaite, for example, preached that Russell's concept of such a recent creation," needs to be rephrased. As written, it (along with the earlier statement that Russell was "influenced by Gosse") implies that Russell put this forward as a serious concept for philosophical discussion, whereas--as quoted above--it was merely a vehicle towards a discussion of memory. Russell was stating that the world could have been created five minutes ago, as there is nothing that states that memories must be based on events that actually occurred. Your poorly written line, however, gives the sense that Russell was, like Gosse, an actual believer in the idea that the world was created five minutes ago--which he certainly wasn't.
- Please feel free to correct any language with which you disagree, this being Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Cheers! BD2412 talk 02:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merge from Omphalos (book)?
We have this article describing the Omphalos theology, and another article on the Gosse book that gave the doctrine its name. Neither is excessively long. I would suggest that these articles be merged, and that the book's article, much shorter than this one, be redirected here. Smerdis of Tlön 16:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree - it would be sensible to merge both these pages. DFH 21:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose - although the theory was named for the ideas in the book, the theory has taken on a life of it's own, separate from the book. The modern theological arguments of the Omphalos theory have little to do with the book. The book and the theory are separate entities that should have their own page unless a major rewrite of both articles is undertaken.--WilliamThweatt 01:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, "life of its own" indeed. BD2412 T 02:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral as is, but support if you re-write the stuff about the book as the origin of the name.
- You'd need to re-write the book article to fit in here, but it could be done, though I feel the same as the above, that contemporarily they are different things, the book as the origin of the name could easily be explained and fit in here. SchmuckyTheCat 03:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak support - the book could be a separate stand alone section in this article. However, I think that the mention in Edmund Gosse's book, Father and Son, should be included, as that is the source for most knowledge of it. John Wilkins 10:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- You'd need to re-write the book article to fit in here, but it could be done, though I feel the same as the above, that contemporarily they are different things, the book as the origin of the name could easily be explained and fit in here. SchmuckyTheCat 03:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- OPPOSE The book is very notable on its own, and has sold lots of copies in aseveral reprints. It has led to more philosophical discussion than to other website represents, and is clearly important enough for its own article. There are lots of trivial books with their own article: work on them.Edison 17:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose Haven't been through this already? The book is very important in its own right, as a predecessor of Darwin's Origin of Species. Notable, encyclopedic and verifiable. It is not some sub-topic of the religious view, and people should not have to plow through that to find info about the book. Most of its content is natural history, not theology: the life cycles of plants and animals. If Wikipedia has articles on every high school, every subway station and bus line in the world, every character in a video game and every episode of popular TV shows, it should give an article to something of actual historical amd philoshical importance.Edison 12:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose; as per above. As an aside, don't we need to close off this vote now? Or has that happened already? --Plumbago 08:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Book title
The proper title of the book is Creation (Omphalos): An attempt to untie the geological knot. I have a copy of the original edition, and can send anyone who doubts it a scan of the title page.
The misunderstanding is based on the title as given in Father and Son by Edmund Gosse, who is presumably remembering how it was referred to in the family.John Wilkins 09:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
This is puzzling, since the Ox Bow reprint, apparently a facsimile of the original (ISBN 1-88197-10-8) by Ox Bow Press, Woodbridge Connecticut, done in 1998, says it is of the 1857 edition published by John Van Voorst, London, and printed by R. Clay, London. On its title page it say "Omphalos An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot" and nowhere on the page does the word "creation" appear. Did Ox Bow reprint the same edition you own and omit part of the title?
I first read of this book in a book by Martin Gardner, perhaps his "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science," which I no longer own. If someone can verify that is the book where he discussed Omphalos, it would be a good link to add to this article and to the article on that book. Edison 17:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, but as I have the first edition on my desk, I can verify that title. John Wilkins 12:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC) If it is the "First edition" what is the info as to Publisher, printing, etc? The facsimile eedition does not have the title you state. Thanks.Edison 12:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Well I can't say about the facsimile edition, but here's the details of the copy I have:
P. H. Gosse, Creation (Omphalos): an attempt to untie the geological knot (London: J. Van Voorst, 1857), xiii, [1], 376.
John Wilkins 01:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I now think that it was released under two different titles, perhaps in a later reprint (although this is confusing if Gosse fils is correct that it was discarded). In any case I most certainly have a physical copy dated 1857 with this title. John Wilkins 09:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 5 minute earth
5 minute earth should be merged here because it is essentially a copy and paste of a chunk of information from this article, and contains nothing requiring a separate article. bd2412 T 18:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Does no one have any comment on this? bd2412 T 21:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- The merge is fine, I think, but some sort of mention should be placed in the article. It's rather confusing finding your way to this article via 5 minute earth, as well as the skepticism category template at the bottom with no real explanation. 68.101.68.179 (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge from Last Thursdayism?
Someone suggested merging Last Thursdayism into this article. I disagree, because I think that the other article has too many contents that are not related to the omphalos hypothesis to merge it into this article. Another problem is that Last Thursdayism is contained in the Category:Joke religions and this article should not be contained in that category. --Danogo 07:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- There's some discussion of this already - scroll up a few cm. It's just as well you've reminded me though - I forgot to vote. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Creationism
How exaxtly is this related to creationism--I don't see the connectionTrevorLSciAct 18:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It's related to creationism because it's an attempt to answer a major problem with Young Earth creationism. Young earth creationists say that the universe was created less than ten thousand years ago. Yet there are astronomical objects more than 10,000 light years away. Thus, some young earth creationists claim that these objects were created with the light from those objects already on the way to earth. (There are other responses by other young earth creationists.) Jhobson1 16:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Chateaubriand
Borges' essay mentioned in this article pointed to Chateaubriand's book Genie de christianisme ("Genius of Christianity", 1802), Part I, Book IV, Chapter V, "Jeunesse et vieillesse de la terre" ("Youth and Old Age of the Earth"). This chapter begins:
- "We now come to the third objection to the modern origin of the globe. "The earth," it is said, "is an aged nurse, who betrays her antiquity in every thing. Examine her fossils, her marbles, her granites, her lavas, and you will discover in them a series of innumerable years, marked by circles, strata, or branches, as the age of a serpent is determined by his rattles, that of a horse by his teeth, or that of a stage by his antlers.
- "This difficulty has been solved a hundred times by the following answer: God might have created, and doubtless did create, the world with all the marks of antiquity and completeness which it now exhibits."
- (I'm using the translation by Charles I. White published in 1857 - Italics in original.)
It seems appropriate to mention this early reference (full quotation not necessary). If no one complains, I will add a couple of lines about it. TomS TDotO
[edit] Borges Quote
Isn't that St Augustine originally? Leon 11:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Banned?
"In particular, Rabbi Natan Slifkin, an author whose works have been banned by those who either fear the controversial potential of their content or take offense at his perceived irreverence to classical thought"
Banned where? By whom? And did these banners literally declare "I fear the controversial potential of his work's content"? Roarshocker (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
