Why Science Has Succeeded But Religion Has Failed
On a Christian forum I frequent, the question was raised as to why Christianity has failed to spread across India and further Eastward. Here is my answer.
Gordon,
What you describe as The abject failure of Christianity to break into India, expand, and continue Eastward can be explained by comparison with the spectacular expansion of Western science throughout the world. Science offers objective truth; religion offers comforting fictions.
Science offers objective truth because it employs a superior epistemological method to find truth. Religions epistemological method is inferior because it relies on the utterances and writings of alleged Gods, God-men, and/or prophets. The following excerpt expands on that point.
Old Theology: Divergence/Convergence
Old Theologys way of knowing promotes divergence of religions. For example, in 1054 the Christian Church split into Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. Later, Luther and the Protestant Reformation brought more denominations. Yet all use the same scripture (plus or minus the deuterocanonical books).
Yet, they diverge; they do not agree. The Roman Catholic Church for centuries taught There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. As St. Thomas Aquinas wrote: [F]or there is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the deluge there was none outside the Ark. Some Baptists say Catholics and Mormons need to be saved. Some Christians believe baptism by immersion is essential to salvation. Ask Christians how to be saved and you will get different, contradictory answers. And, of course, Christianity and Islam have contradictory views on salvation.
Religions diverge. Old Theology religions have not converged to a single truth.
Today, distinct Christian denominations number in the hundreds. The number of the worlds contradictory religious sects is much higher. It could not be otherwise. Scriptures differ, interpretations differ, so religions diverge. Ask someone in Italy, Iran, and India what happens after death and you get three different answers. In Christianity, ask how to be saved and you get contradictory answers. But if God is a reality, shouldnt religions converge? The universe is an objective reality and science has converged to a worldview that mirrors that reality. Ask a physicist, chemist, or biologist in Italy, Iran, and India a question and you get the same answer. Science proves every day that its understanding of the universe is correct. Whenever we use a cell phone or a computer, whenever we use a GPS satellite, or a thousand other devices, we see that science works. Science knows of what it speaks.
So, what should we conclude? If God does not exist, if the Gods of Old Theology are inventions, then we should expect contradictory religions and denominations. But if God is an objective reality, then why havent religions converged? If we assume there is one universal reality, we would expect different people of different times in different countries to have insights which converge. Shouldnt religions done right converge? But they dont. Might the reason be their faulty way of knowing, their childlike epistemological method?
New Theology: Divergence/Convergence
By the 1900s, Newtons mechanics had given Western Europe unrivaled worldly power. The Congo was the Belgian Congo. There was French Indonesia. It was said the Sun never sets on the British Empireand that was literally true because the sun was always shining on some part of the Empire: on India, on Australia, on Canada, or on Britain itself. Yet when Einstein said that Newtonian mechanics was faulty, was wrong, scientists didnt condemn him as a heretic and burn him at the stake. After observations proved Einstein correct, science accepted his theories. Science has a superior epistemological method, a method that doesnt rely on authority, or mere say-so. As a result, science has a superior grasp on truth. Science arrives at universal truth. Religions evidently do not. Thus, at least some beliefs of religions must be fantasy-based.
Religions have not converged. And due to their inferior epistemological method, probably never will.
From
Universal Theology: A New Theology
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.epub
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.pdf
Gordon,
What you describe as The abject failure of Christianity to break into India, expand, and continue Eastward can be explained by comparison with the spectacular expansion of Western science throughout the world. Science offers objective truth; religion offers comforting fictions.
Science offers objective truth because it employs a superior epistemological method to find truth. Religions epistemological method is inferior because it relies on the utterances and writings of alleged Gods, God-men, and/or prophets. The following excerpt expands on that point.
Old Theology: Divergence/Convergence
Old Theologys way of knowing promotes divergence of religions. For example, in 1054 the Christian Church split into Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. Later, Luther and the Protestant Reformation brought more denominations. Yet all use the same scripture (plus or minus the deuterocanonical books).
Yet, they diverge; they do not agree. The Roman Catholic Church for centuries taught There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. As St. Thomas Aquinas wrote: [F]or there is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the deluge there was none outside the Ark. Some Baptists say Catholics and Mormons need to be saved. Some Christians believe baptism by immersion is essential to salvation. Ask Christians how to be saved and you will get different, contradictory answers. And, of course, Christianity and Islam have contradictory views on salvation.
Religions diverge. Old Theology religions have not converged to a single truth.
Today, distinct Christian denominations number in the hundreds. The number of the worlds contradictory religious sects is much higher. It could not be otherwise. Scriptures differ, interpretations differ, so religions diverge. Ask someone in Italy, Iran, and India what happens after death and you get three different answers. In Christianity, ask how to be saved and you get contradictory answers. But if God is a reality, shouldnt religions converge? The universe is an objective reality and science has converged to a worldview that mirrors that reality. Ask a physicist, chemist, or biologist in Italy, Iran, and India a question and you get the same answer. Science proves every day that its understanding of the universe is correct. Whenever we use a cell phone or a computer, whenever we use a GPS satellite, or a thousand other devices, we see that science works. Science knows of what it speaks.
So, what should we conclude? If God does not exist, if the Gods of Old Theology are inventions, then we should expect contradictory religions and denominations. But if God is an objective reality, then why havent religions converged? If we assume there is one universal reality, we would expect different people of different times in different countries to have insights which converge. Shouldnt religions done right converge? But they dont. Might the reason be their faulty way of knowing, their childlike epistemological method?
New Theology: Divergence/Convergence
By the 1900s, Newtons mechanics had given Western Europe unrivaled worldly power. The Congo was the Belgian Congo. There was French Indonesia. It was said the Sun never sets on the British Empireand that was literally true because the sun was always shining on some part of the Empire: on India, on Australia, on Canada, or on Britain itself. Yet when Einstein said that Newtonian mechanics was faulty, was wrong, scientists didnt condemn him as a heretic and burn him at the stake. After observations proved Einstein correct, science accepted his theories. Science has a superior epistemological method, a method that doesnt rely on authority, or mere say-so. As a result, science has a superior grasp on truth. Science arrives at universal truth. Religions evidently do not. Thus, at least some beliefs of religions must be fantasy-based.
Religions have not converged. And due to their inferior epistemological method, probably never will.
From
Universal Theology: A New Theology
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.epub
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.pdf
Comments (346)
I take it you are a believer in New Theology?
Yes. It's something I'm writing which I hope to publish someday.
Have you considered the other factors?
1. Those peoples had religions of their own which satisfy their cultural and spiritual needs.
2. Christianity was brought to them by brutal colonizing empires. 3. Christianity is based on a view of the world and of humanity which is bleak and mean compared to Eastern religions.
Science is omnivorous and voracious - it consumes and subsumes all knowledge, where and by whomever it's discovered. Religion is insular and exclusive. They have different parts to play in human life.
Well put.
The parts being that science finds objective truth and religion offers comforting beliefs.
In other words, more broadly, science concerns forming explanations which we can mathematically agree on about nature in contrast to religion which is concerned with idols and superstitions, conformity and scapegoating. In hindsight, at least in the Western tradition, philosophy concerns began with critiques of religion (i.e. magical thinking) which, in effect, makes space for non-religious narratives and the defeasible, critical reasoning that underwrites the natural (& historical) sciences.
That's waaay simplistic. It's accurate the way one piece of a jigsaw puzzle is accurate.
Where did I say any of them lack something? What you cited is only a small part of all religion. Of-bloody-course all "major world religions" have idols and dogma. (Scapegoating is a readily misunderstood concept better left for another venue.) But then, the overlap of major world religions with spirituality is a mere sliver of moon, and the overlap of major world religions with social structure, nationalism, politics, economics and culture are huge, so the idols are lined up on a shelf against a wall in one room of a great big maze-like building. Or on three interlocking tiles of a 1000-piece puzzle.
And it's successful for the same reason potato chips and cell phones are phones are successful: it offers something people want.
It has failed to find objective reality, as the OP makes clear. It's quite successful at several things, a few of which are actually beneficial to humanity.
Your response is inadequate. The question was not why religion never found its way to India, but why Christianity didn't. If religion had not found its way to India (which is a false hypothetical), I suppose you could speculate that it was because science offered adequate explanation.
The problem is that there is religion in India, so the reason they've not accepted Christianity but they have accepted Hindu has nothing to do with science.
It's like asking why the Saudis reject Christianity. It's certainly not because they have found science and secular humanism satisfactory.
Religion doesn't empirically "find," to be sure, but it does assert objectives truths. This is unlike science which does not assert objective truth. The concept of a non-relativistic reality is incoherent in a scientific model.
You can't fail at something unless you try to do it. No spiritual system ever tried to "find" objective reality. Objective reality never went missing in the first place; it was slapping people in the face and biting them on the ass every day; they didn't need to go searching for it. They were looking for an escape from it, a loophole in it, a consolation for its depredations, a promise that it would let up.
Quite right! Religion has always just assumed canonized "objective reality", which is its most profound failing.
Too, the OP doesn't mention that India has a homegrown religion - Hinduism. Give the Hindus another century or so and they'll start claiming Jesus was an avatar of Vishnu; this isn't something new to them - Buddha now figures as a Vishnu avatar in the Hindu pantheon. @Vera Mont "omnivorous and voracious". We're all Hindus, get it? :pray:
I don't think so.
Quoting 180 Proof
The opening phrase of the ten commandments is: "I am the LORD thy God"
This is claimed to be the spoken word of god to Moses, is it not?
It what way are such claims not presented as objective realities?
The ten commandments are presented by Christians as applicable to all humans in all circumstances.
I think religious doctrines do make objective reality claims and they have failed in the attempts.
"God as the creator of everything." Why is such not an 'objective reality' claim in your opinions?
Calling religious tenets canonised 'assumptions,' seems like an irreligious judgement, I completely agree with but I do think that authentic theists do indeed see their religious tenets as objective truths and its unwise to dilute their fervour, as it does manifest in horrors such as suicide terrorism.
The word that doesn't fit is "objective". "I Am That I Am" is an entirely subjective claim. No proof is offered; no doubt is entertained. In the cited case, where Jehovah is talking to Moses, he just won the Jews in a contest with the Egyptian gods; adopted this small, insignificant nation for his own. Much bigger nations, empires, even, have their own gods. That's the point of the first four commandments, and about two third of Leviticus. It's a covenant, a relationship - personal and subjective.
Meanwhile, houses need to be built with wattle and stone; fields need tilling and livestock needs water, gold and silver have value, kings have power, babies are born, soldiers get killed - that's objective reality and Jehovah doesn't find it, doesn't explain it, he just messes with it once in a while to show off.
Quoting universeness
And Christians know it's BS, since they disobey most of them most of the time, without showing the least fear of being struck down. But what has the bullying of Big Dogma got to do with reality?
Quoting universeness
They make lots of claims, yes. Very successfully. But making claims about reality is not the purpose of the religious impulse. The claims are a stratagem of power structures - all power structures, whether they are labelled as a religion, a political party or a corporation.
Objective reality isn't lost; none of them are looking for it; on the contrary, they're hiding it under layers and layers of "claim".
(That's why faith healers are not like medical healers. Surgery works whether the patient believes in it or not: it's objective. Faith healing works only if the patient believes; if it doesn't work, it's because he didn't believe hard enough: subjective.)
Quoting Vera Mont
Objective vs subjective, faith vs reason, power vs knowledge. Have you read no Kuhn, Feyerabend, Latour, Foucault, Rorty, Rouse, Nietzsche, Varela? Its like the past 60 years of philosophizing about science doesnt exist for you. Youre still stuck in the Kantian-Popperian tradition of science as objective falsification., knowledge opposing itself to power and facts opposing values.
Science offers truth; religion offers something else.
Corrrrrect!
Quoting Joshs
Not even close.
The 'I am that I am,' god words, as you know, were just an attempt to make god seem ineffable but omnipotent so compliance is required on threat of hell and damnation. You confirm this yourself with 'no doubt is entertained.' This is very pernicious as it is intended to be applied to all humans. God as an objective fact is not open to any form of subjectivity the rational human mind can manifest.
Apostacy is still punishable by death under such horrors as sharia law.
The 'objective' claim is foundational to most religions in the sense of their exemplifications such as; there are many other false claims but 'our tree' is the only 'true tree' in a vast forrest of 'subjective trees.'
There script that they preach from, offers them many confirmations of this position, such as:
Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other; there is no God but Me. I will equip you for battle, though you have not known Me, I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me, I am the LORD; there is no other God.
Or
Galatians 1:8-9 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
These are not presented as subjective claims.
I know what you mean by the idea of theists who follow a creed for a mix of their own reasons and probably a 'localised doctrinal fear,' not to, a kind of Pascals wager. BUT there are far too many, whose belief borders on fanaticism and it is unwise to handwave that very dangerous aspect away by referencing 'sensible' examples of everyday human need and activity.
Quoting Vera Mont
I don't see why you use the word 'subjective' in the quote above Vera. I would suggest the covenant mode by Christians is presented more like a sacred vow than a subjective agreement open to revision.
Quoting Vera Mont
I agree and that's the hypocricy, that has to be constantly pointed to. The"do as I say! Not as I might choose to do in secret." approach to life, that is used to measure theists against, since the god posits began. I don't see why you would disassociate or downplay the affects that 'the bullying of big theistic dogma,' has on the everyday lives of people involved in those communities. Look at how they choose to treat outsiders such as trans people or how such affects peoples view on abortion rights and so on.
Quoting Vera Mont
I agree, but imposing their theistic doctrine as a global objective reality that governs or strongly guides almost every action a human takes on a day to day basis is their wet dream. We should never lose sight of that. My concern is that you don't find theism as much of a threat as I do, especially when it is used in the political world.
That's its function: to investigate the external, physical world; to ferret out how it works and figure out how it can be made to work for us.
Quoting Art48
It doesn't fail. It doesn't want to converge on a coherent picture picture of the physical universe. Various religions want to impose their own fantasy on people's internal, metaphorical picture of the universe. A lot more people accept the picture their native religion paints than reject it.
And most people who have an internal, subjective idea of the spirit world don't stop doing or using physical things according to the same physical laws as all the other animals that have no spirit world in their heads. They keep using tools and walking on solid surfaces; a lot of them even do sciency stuff all week and go to church on their holy days with no sense of conflict. It's not a contest, until an organized groups decides to take political power. But that is not about religion, science or reality: it's about power.
Mixing those things together makes for confusion.
Science offers an unbias search for truth imo. Religion offers comfort to help to sate primal human fear.
I think some prefer religion as it offers you some protections. The truth can scare many, especially when they don't or can't see the possibilities for a better future.
Sacred vows, like the ones at a wedding or citizenship ceremony, are very subjective indeed. And of course they're open to revision, and breakage and cheating and dissolution.
As physical laws are not.
It's not a failing. It's an admission that the foundational elements of reality are unknowable, and you either start with Cartesian doubt that ultimately leads to solipsism, or you accept something as being an objective reality that is knowable, as opposed to noumenal.
Yeah but are you really suggesting that there is never any price to pay if you break a 'sacred vow?'
There is power behind such labels as 'sacred vow.' Would you not agree?
It depends upon the person and the religion. My religious views aren't in place as an anxiety medication that you happen not to need.
I personally don't use my religion to answer questions about how the world physically works. I've candidly not ever turned to my religious leaders to figure out how to start repair my car, build a house, to cure me of an illness, or of any other scientific inquiry.
If not for the fundamentalists that provide an easy target for atheists to ridicule for their insistence that world was created in 6 days only for it to be flooded and annihilated of all life but for those animals protected on the Ark, we'd not have to continuously have these conversations about how religion is in battle with science.
I don't think Noah and the flood (from the Sumerian Gilgamesh fable) is the main pivotal problem for Christianity. I think the 13+billion years of their gods non-involvement other than as the suggested prime mover, is a bigger problem. There are no religious scriptural references to events from the Proterozoic up until way past the time of the first Homenids. God is a very recent invention.
I would simply ask you for an honest answer to the following question:
When you are really scared, do you ask your religious beliefs to help you?
That's the whole "there are no atheists in foxholes" thing. I don't know that I fall back on religion when things go bad as much as I try to figure out a way to make things better. But sure, I might resort to reliance upon religious views to sustain me should my world begin to collapse, but that hardly explains why I would hold religious views when my world is not under collapse.
Quoting universeness
And there is no literature indicating that people loved one another during those periods, so we must assume the lack of written documentation means love is a new invention. Or maybe writing was a new invention. That's option B. Or maybe there was writing to that effect, but those writings have been lost to time. That's option C. Or maybe primitive peoples didn't use writing to preserve the historical record. That's option D. Or maybe all of the above. That's option E.
Of course not. Every decision has a price, as does every transaction - both in the physical realm and in the metaphysical or imaginary.
Quoting universeness
Yes. A psychological one, primarily. That's why people who have once had faith, were in love or felt patriotic have a harder time breaking away from their church, their marriage or their country than people who were only pretending when they took those vows.
Secondarily, there is a social burden: the vows are to a community of other people, too: the congregation, the family, fellow citizens, and when you break your vows, you're letting them all down. Their reactions can vary from mild reproach all the way to drawing and quartering.
I think it does, under the wise suggestion of 'be prepared!'
It's your primal fear of the 'alpha male.' Your world is not under collapse only if you comply with what you perceive sustains it and part of that IS your faith that the 'alpha,' has your best interests at heart.
Quoting Hanover
Well ,there were no 'people for the vast majority of the lifetime of the Earth. Certainly none in the Proterozoic (The Proterozoic Eon extended from 2.5 billion to 541 million years ago). No dinos either but many many other species, most of which were wiped out in 'the great dying,' approximately 251.9 million years ago. No people during the Mesozoic either (It lasted from about 252 to 66 million years ago.) The first dinos are around 230 million years age (during the Triassic). The first hominids come on the scene around 4 million years ago and the first homo sapiens around 300,000 years ago.
Quoting Hanover
Only humans who's lifespan is currently so short can believe that love has some eternal element to it imo. Perhaps thats just a very pleasant illusion for us.
Quoting Hanover
I think cave paintings are their best attempt at memorialising their lives, along with our interpretations of information that the fossil evidence provides. Why do you think god created the dinosaurs or the many many creatures that existed before homo sapiens?
My best experience of religion was the late 1960's, the reasonable, ecumenical moment of the 20thy century, when it was quite common for church-going people to visit the churches of other denominations, and the non-affiliated like myself to learn about my friends' churches, for people who didn't all hold the same view to discuss their doctrinal variances, to rationalize their own and their sect's position regarding evolution and technology and social changes, like women's liberation, racial integration, premarital sex, education, divorce and birth control, degrees of one's obligation to self, family, community, nation, humanity and God.
During that time, I met a number of Christians who did work, and took risks, for causes that I also supported. They said they were prompted to do so by their faith; I was prompted to do likewise by my convictions. What's the difference? Good people behave well; bad people behave badly, whatever they profess.
Politics squashed that atmosphere of tolerant openness: religion was seized, once again, as a vehicle for division and conquest. That was a great setback for North America. And it manifests, still, in these manufactured misunderstandings. The physical and the spiritual world are not in conflict with each other. Science and religion are not conflict with each other. Objective and the subjective perception are not in conflict with each other. But humans, humans engage in conflict with one another, and within themselves, on any and every pretext.
Isn't it interesting that Alexander the Great's conquests ended at India? HydaspesRiver marked the limit of his conquests. He of course had died at that period and could not continue its conqueting "career", and I'm far from an historian, but I always believed that he was personally conquered by the great Indian civilization he was faced with.
So, I guess Christian missionaries faced the same problem. And, from what I know, they could not even survive long in Japan either. The Eastern civilization (as we call it today) was too strong to conquer.
So, I was just intrigued by the parallel cases ... I give way now to those who know much better than me.
I don't find this psychoanalysis at all useful. It's based upon knowing close to nothing about me, your having no expertise in the matter, confirmation bias, and projection. It's just your way of saying you don't think religious views are rational, so there must be an emotional component, and that emotion must be fear. All I can tell you is that you're wrong as it applies to me.
Quoting universeness
To believe there is a purpose for everything but to not know the ultimate purpose is no more fatal to that position than is it to believe that everything has a cause but to not know what that first cause was.
I don't deny there was a big bang that represents the first cause, but I do deny there is true coherence to the theory that there can be a first cause when the scientific method requires that all events have causes. This is simply to say that inability to offer fully coherent theories of cosmology from either a religious or scientific view are necessarily going to be lacking.
What about the legal ones? Marital vows have serious, life changing financial and social consequences.
What is a 'treaty' between countries if not a promise or vow. War is often the result of breaking such vows. I still think you are downplaying the possible 'consequentials,' in the human experience. Religious vows are much more powerful than you suggest imo.
Quoting Vera Mont
Second guess: Youre still stuck in in the Marxist-structuralist tradition of scientific realism. Better?
Give me a hint.
Great question Vera! There maybe a very big difference and it's simply 'which group is correct?'
Is your humanist convictions the way forward for the human race or should we follow the theistic 'good' people? I think the consequences of that decision on a global scale may well be an existential one.
If this Earth is very expendable to many many theists because it does not represent the place that they truly belong then how safe is it, under their very significant influence?
Well, for one thing, they're older that the European,
and for another, they are large, populous lands.
But they've been conquered and to some degree converted more than once. That Islam fared better in India than Christianity, well, that might just be down to a more complete conquest by the Umayyad caliphate than the British Empire. Of course, they also came along earlier, so maybe all the people inclined to monotheism were already committed.
I appreciate that but I reject it, as you have not convinced me that your faith is not fear based.
I fully accept that you have no imperative to convince me of your reasons for having a faith.
So, we are where we are. I hope I remain open minded enough to still listen to anyone's attempt to justify/rationalise any faith in the supernatural they hold. I also fully accept that I don't know the origin story of the universe and I cannot disprove god posits.
If you are right then maybe you will exist in some form after your death and I will inherit oblivion.
I find neither proposition more horrific that the other as I have no reliable information about either. Neither do I have any power to prevent either.
I never said psychological effects are less powerful than legal ones. Quite the opposite: they're the most powerful forces in humans - sometimes to the point of overpowering biological ones. For those who mean them sincerely, affirmations of faith are very powerful. But most people don't take any religious vows; they just go to church when they feel like it and identify as whatever religion they were born into. Children of 6 or 7 go through the motions they're taught and feel very solemn when doing it, but the next week, they're shooting spitball during mass, as usual. They're too young to be trusted with a house-key, never mind responsible for a life-long commitment. It doesn't prevent them breaking the rules, any more than marriage vows prevent infidelity or trade treaties prevent industrial espionage.
Hint: When formulating an opinion on any subject, I do not start by consulting philosophers. I have never subscribed to a school of thought... though Epicureanism came close. I have done some reading in history, anthropology and mythology. I don't give a flying fig about theoretical traditions; I judge by what I see actual people actually doing.
It fails to converge on a coherent picture of the spiritual universe.
The disagreements are multiple. A short list:
Is faith alone sufficient for salvation, or are works needed too?
Is Jesus God. Christianity says yes, Judaism and Islam say no.
Do we go to heaven or hell when we die, or are we reincarnated?
Yeah, but this is where the conversation unfortunately gets stupid, with you positing a baseless theory and then awaiting disproof of it.
You're not asking for a justification for faith. You're asking for me to disprove your false assumption that I have a need to cure my anxiety that you don't, and then I'm supposed to take that seriously, and then I'm to convince you that your random speculation is false.
There are pragmatic bases for faith, and I have brought them up in prior posts. You can take a look at William James' "A Will to Believe" if you'd like. There is something there worthy of philosophical debate there, unlike here.
Why would "it" even want to? Religion is not a single entity. It is legion. Why would you expect religions all to have the same world-view when political ideologies don't? The organized religious bodies are rivals, competing for hungry souls, each offering some version of what one man, or a committee, thinks the other people need.
Why confuse dogma with belief? Dogma, doctrine, scripture, canon - these are man-made documents, like a constitution or a philosophical treatise or a company's mission statement (mission... how pretentious is that?) These are administrative, legislative documents, not spiritual ones. People subscribe to them, partly because they find it ready-made when they enter the world; indeed, most enter the world through a religious rite of one particular brand and are expected to follow it. Besides, it's easier than inventing their own.
Belief is internal. Whether believers admit it, realize it, think about it or even care or not, each believer forms his or her own faith. When learning the rituals and tenets of an established religion, each individual congregant customizes the religion; adapts the picture of the supernatural they're given to fit their own imagination, their own emotional needs, their own knowledge of and attitude to the world. A spiritual universe may be shared by many people who believe roughly the same metaphysics, but each internal picture is different. Religious belief, like conscience or taste or sexual attraction, is subjective.
That just reads like sour grapes on your part. I know you cannot provide me with 'proof.' I only require more convincing/compelling claims than those you have attempted so far. My 'assumption,' is supported by your own words:
Quoting Hanover
You certainly don't need to take my request seriously and you are free to accuse me of random speculation but then perhaps you could expand on your quote above. In what way would your religious views sustain you if 'your world' began to collapse?
I only ask so that I might gain a better understanding of your viewpoint. I am not ridiculing your beliefs, I am just trying to follow your rationale.
Quoting Hanover
I would rather read your viewpoints than those of 'William James.'
I have watched many online debates between atheists such as, Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennet, Harris etc and theists such as William Lane Craig, John Lennox, Dinesh D'souza, Cardinal George Pell etc and I watch youtube recordings of Matt Dillahunty, Jimmy Snow, Aaron Ra, Shannon Q, Forrest Valkai etc and their phone in shows. So I am quite familiar with the positions and viewpoints of both sides. If you think the debate going on here is of no value to you then that's ok, as this is not a dictatorial website. Do you agree?
Sour grapes refers to the development of a negative attitude due to an inability to obtain something actually desired. You can feel free to read the parable.
My reference to the stupidity of the current line of discussion doesn't relate to my inability to obtain the delicious grapes you offer (whatever that inapt metaphor might mean here), but upon the idea that you throw out an amateurish, baseless, speculative, uninformed, and entirely unscientific theory and then you seek disproof, as if that's where the onus lies.
If you think the primary driver of religious belief is fear, then perhaps do some research on that subject and show me your studies. It would seem that if you advocate for a scientific perspective, you'd rely upon science for your claims. Here's a place you might want to get started: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_religion
Quoting universeness
What you'd rather do is drone on about some theory you arrived at while sitting in your recliner petting your cat and not be burdened by the extensive discussion that preceded your thinking about it. If we can't get beyond the question of whether you have randomly hit the nail on the head when you declared religiosity only arises as a byproduct of fear, it seems we're years away from advancing anywhere close to the current state of the debate to where something interesting might be revealed.
:lol: Have you been watching James Bond movies again. Perhaps if you watched some of the debates I mentioned or the phone in shows I mentioned you would be able to listen to real theists phoning in and revealing there personal associations between their fears and their theism. Perhaps you could phone in yourself and discuss the issue.
Quoting Hanover
I cannot imagine that I am the first person who has introduced you to the idea that all theism is fear based. It's an ancient posit. 'The fear of god' cannot happen unless you are capable of experiencing fear.
God is presented as the one power that can save you against any threat, yes? Even the threat of death and oblivion. That's its main selling point and it also means that others can manipulate those fears for their own ends.
Science has found truth about the physical universe. There is no Christian chemistry, Islamic chemistry, and Buddhist chemistry. There is just chemistry
Religion has failed to find truth about the spiritual universe.That's why there is Christian dogma, Islamic dogma, and Buddhist dogma.
If religion doesn't want to find truth about the spiritual universe, then so much the worse for religion.
Watching some of the televised material on such like God TV, or even TBN in the UK.
The hysteria you sometime see within audience members is incredible.
Yes, 'true believers,' believe that god is an absolute objective fact.
We are not talking about a tiny number of people here with no political or social power.
Would you agree that manipulating human fear is the number one way to rise to power yourself and impose your personal viewpoints on others. Political, social, religious viewpoints can all be imposed on others via the route of human fear.
I think science succeeds because it is not fear based and religion is fear based.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/541580
Great quotes from a great physicist, Steven Weinberg.
I have the book he wrote with Richard Feynman, called elementary particles and the laws of physics.
I have read it cover to cover twice, over the years. I wish I understood it better.
A great quote from Carl Sagan is:
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
I've never come from a position of literalism, nor from a position that the Bible is the revealed word of God. Are we really again going to trot out the attacks on the fundamentalists?
If you're interested in specific biblical theologies regarding the unknowability of God, take a look at Rambam's 3rd Article of Faith as it relates to the inability to compare God to anything, therefore making him unknowable. https://web.oru.edu/current_students/class_pages/grtheo/mmankins/drbyhmpg_files/GBIB766RabbLit/Chapter9Maimonides13Princ/index.html and https://aish.com/48942416/.
This response is not to suggest any specific accuracy in the Bible, but to respond to your suggestion that the Bible has not been interpreted as you've indicated. The unknowability of God is part of the biblical tradition.
I am also aware of the first line of John which has always been cryptic to me which states that "In the beginning was the word," with "the word" being a translation of the Greek "logos" which references simply order or meaning, making it vague at best.
This is consistent with probably the best translation of the first lines of the Hebrew bible (coming from Professor Richard Friedman): "In the beginning of God's creating the skies and the earth - when the earth had been shapeless and formless, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and God's spirit was hovering on the face of the water, God said "let there be light,."
This again describes God as an organizing force of a pre-existent universe. Again, not a terribly clear notion, and I think consistent with the unknowable.
And of course the Trinity, which the Catholic Church declares an eternal mystery, some suggesting that expressing an understanding of it is heresy.
At any rate, I'm not sure what you want to discuss, the OP as it relates to the failure of Christianity to blossom in the East, whether religious people believe only to find refuge from their fear, to discuss how you've interpreted your Bible versus how others have, or to suggest that science has empirically provable cosmological claims and that's what separates it from religion.
To the extent it matters, I've noted that the use of religious texts to determine facts about the physical world is not a useful endeavor. Finding meaning in one's life, for me, is the proper use of religion. I don't know how you use science for that, but if you do, good for you. But, to the extent you want to argue literalism, that's not interesting.
And yet you offer no cite to this ancient doctrine and ignore all the cites set forth in the Wiki article specifically on the point of psychology of religion. Again, you're making a generalized empirical claim regarding the cause of religiosity and going so far as to say there is no nuance among individuals, but that each and every religious person is there from fear alone.
Everyone at the services I attend seem pretty chill, but maybe they're scared shitless and I don't know it.
I don't blame all muslims or all the tenets of Islam, for the actions of the nefarious group in power in Iran. I merely cite their actions as an example of what those who manipulate theism and theists can achieve. I know that there are counter claims from theists about the nefarious actions to be found in secular governments. We need to have sufficient checks and balances against all manipulations of human primal fears, theistic, political and social.
You stand opposed to state sponsored murder as a means of population control, you don't blame the average citizen for the acts of their brutal government, and you also stand opposed to secular governments that do evil?
What is your stance on mothers and puppies? Are you in favor of those?
Based upon the controversial statements you made about evil, I bet you stand in favor of good things. I just bet you do.
There is no such entity as "science". There is a methodology outlined by humans to guide other humans in the pursuit of a certain kind of knowledge. The human practicing these methods have subdivided their subject matter into separate disciplines, just as the practitioners of religious pursuits have staked out their own territories.
There is no Chemical beatitude, no Biological heaven and no Physical salvation. So what? It doesn't hinder scientists in their endeavours.
Quoting Art48
True. It hasn't found a truth; it has found billions of truths.
Quoting Hanover
I made my points on page 1
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/762981
Well I think finding one's own meaning in one's life is the proper use of one's life. Religion, no matter how 'personalistic', is always essentially totalitarian often infantilizing with it's ready-made, handed down from on high, canonical "meanings".
So much to choose from, articles like:
https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/religion-based-fear-twr/
https://medium.com/spiritual-psychology/3-fear-based-religious-beliefs-that-go-unquestioned-a0d7c03e5c1a
From Bertrand Russell:
Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.
Carl Sagan's quote refers to 'reassurance.' in:
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Why do you think he chose that word?
Sigmund Freud wrote that religion is a delusion created by our subconscious mind in its attempt to deal with fear. He taught that humans are subject to three innate fears: the fear of death, the fear of the destructive forces of nature, and fear associated with suffering and the physical demands of life.
I could list a large number of qualified folks who comment on fear based religion, such as:
https://sofoarchon.com/breaking-free-fear-based-religion-escape-prison-belief-face-lifes-problems/
Those who think religion is fear based would be a long list and you probably will handwave them away anyhow.
I am glad that you find my position so obvious and compelling that you support it with the same affection that you obviously have for puppies and mothers. Do you now accept that manipulating human primal fears to promote a religious doctrine is bad? Even if such beliefs allow you to have a personally tailored supernatural protection already in place that you can appeal to if 'your world starts to fall apart?'
Do you feel that potential protection truly exists?
I am just interested in the personal credence level you give it.
No, Bert, it bloody well can't! Fear, like every other emotion, is with us to stay - unless you mean science can help us all to become cyborgs. Science can also give, and has given, a lot of brand new reasons for fear.
Quoting universeness
And if someone wants both, they can have both.
Quoting universeness
Sound like perfectly natural and justified fears. And so these very intelligent men look around at the practice of religion in their own society and leap to the facile conclusion that this fear was the universal and only motive for religion.
Of course, those fears are justified and useful; there are also unjustified, irrational fears created by human imagination, and unbelievers can have them [phobias, anxieties, neuroses] more easily than true believers, who have a built-in psychological gyroscope.
You can quote a lot of famous people who share your same opinion, and you all will even be right when assuming that it's true - of some people, but you'll be wrong about others. It's an opinion based in your own beliefs, that satisfies your own need for certainty, but no generalization applies to everyone else. However respected a man may be in some specialized field, he cannot know the experience, perception, motivations and inspirations of a stranger.
Especially if he starts at the wrong end.
:lol: I would love to see the rather posh Bertrands response to you calling him bert!
Science WILL offer all sorts of transhumanism in the future and I think science makes many of us fear a lot less. To boldly go.... does exemplify a human wish to conquer primal fear.
Carl Sagan again: (I have this quote beside a photo of Carl on my bedroom wall. Geek and proud to be!)
[i]"We embarked on our journey to the stars with a question first formed in the childhood of our species and in each generation asked anew, with undiminished wonder: What are the stars?
Exploration is in our nature. We began as wanderers and we are wanderers still. We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready to set sail for the stars."[/i]
Quoting Vera Mont
I agree, but I can still challenge them on the 'delusion' part, yes?
Quoting Vera Mont
I agree, and you can also apply it to many famous people that I don't share the same opinions with.
From Aristotle through to Thomas Aquinas to serious horrors such as Ayn Rand.
Alright, so you stand opposed to the totalitarian, infantalizing, ready-made religions. What about those that are not?
Similarly, there is no such entity as Vera Mont. Conversation over.
We can always act with courage when confronting that which we have "reasons for fear" (risk :chin:); it's the lack of "reasons" that paralyzes us with fear (terror), crippling denial and fetishizing infantilizing superstitions (e.g. religion :pray:). Reasoned fears are far more adaptive than the unreasoned fears from the childhood of our species.
Quoting Hanover
Of the extant major world religions, I don't know of one which is not. Which religion do you mean?
Quoting universeness
[i]"We embarked on our journey to the stars with a question first formed in the childhood of our species and in each generation asked anew, with undiminished wonder: What are the stars?
Exploration is in our nature. We began as wanderers and we are wanderers still. We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready to set sail for the stars."[/i] :fire: :up:
Challenge, sure. But preferably in the same courteous tones you would expect from them. People don't much care for being called liars, sight unknown, life unseen.
Quoting universeness
When? Scientific enterprise has been chugging along for 500 years, and yet people are still acting paranoid. Not because they're scared of Nature (primitive people's were not) and fear of death suffering doesn't seem to be any less on this side of the church wall. People are mostly scared of other people, with good reasons and bad ones. Science hasn't made the tiniest dent in that. It has helped us make a lot more people to be afraid of... but then, it's also helped us create the conditions for our own extinction.
Quoting universeness
You haven't met any cats or raccoons? Anyway, Sagan is right: the drive to explore and conquer have been with us much longer than Organized Science or Organized Religion or Civilization. none of those things alleviate fear. The only thing that does is a sense of personal security: when you know where your next meal is coming from, where you will sleep and who'll be there with you and you don't hear any gunfire or howling wind. We're not scared all the time (except maybe white supremacists), and we need to be scared sometimes.
What makes you think our species had a 'childhood'? People without cellphones can be adult and people with rocketships can be immature. Who says people who lived out in the woods, went barefoot and had to catch their own dinner instead of ordering out were less able to reason than people who have access to all the world's history and yet select leaders like Putin and Trump?
For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Judaism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism
This should get us started.
In a world of 8 billion people, Judaism as a whole has about 15 million followers and the "Reformed Judaism" movement only has a little over 2 million followers. Not a major world religion.
While Christiianity is a major world religion, with over 2.3 billion followers, the Christian sect of "Unitarianism", with under 1 million followers globally, constitutes a statistically insignificant fringe.
And Buddhism, with over a half bilion followers worldwde, is a major world religion which, in most of its sects that I'm aware of, traffics in two or more of the common failings of religion I've mentioned: "idols, superstition, conformity or scapegoating".
So far, Hanover, your examples suck.
23% of believers in God don't subscribe to the tenants of a particular religious doctrine, meaning we have millions of unaffiliated theists that avoid your silly criticisms.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2018/04/25/when-americans-say-they-believe-in-god-what-do-they-mean/
You just hold firm to your untenable position that theism is a monolithic, unnuanced belief system. It's just factually incorrect.
Shadowbox with strawmen to your heart's content. *Reason's Greetings*
Quoting 180 Proof
"Religion" as an entity discrete enough to stand trial, should really include all religions... not just the current big organized ones you happen to know about and consider popular enough to count as major.
Someone made an apt comment about that:
Quoting 180 Proof
Right back at you. I am willing to express my reasons for my personal atheism. It seems you are totally unwilling to explain why you have theistic beliefs. This is very common indeed with theists who contact the phone in shows I mentioned earlier. After a few exchanges with the presenters of the show they mostly enter some prolonged stutter and stammer mode or get angry due to their own lack of ability to explain the logic they apply when trying to justify their faith based viewpoints.
:clap: Science offers us protections that encourage us to leave the cave and face those big scary animals and those very 'human unfriendly' conditions in space.
From big spears to bullet proof vests to space suits and even transhumanism.
I for one, feel more confident, 'to boldly go.....,' with science / technology backing me up, than I do trying to defend against the threats life throws at me by pointing a Christian cross and a bible (or a star and crescent symbol and a quran) at it and engaging in forlorn prayer to a nonexistent, when 'my world is falling apart.' Takin a purely pragmatic stance for a moment, I think I have more chance of surviving and thriving within democratic secular humanist governance compared to my chances of surviving and thriving under theocratic governance.
But notoriously, science cannot tell us how to live, only expand our options. Who you gonna call?
The book being promoted here attempts to make a religion of science, and necessarily fails. Just as one cannot fix a broken heart with a spanner, or even a scalpel. The right tool for that job is love, and the science of love is a disaster worse than any quackery, because you cannot have it, you cannot test it, you cannot repeat it, all you can do is kill it.
I will not walk on eggshells around theists and theism for fear of offending them. Especially when so many of them take certain quotes from people like Aquinas as one of their main purposes in life:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5c/42/a8/5c42a859667dd7912a0d1989cc2ea9c8.jpg
I do expect courteous tones from theists but I very rarely get such. I will continue to respond in kind. Not with an eye for an eye mentality but not as a cowed intimidated interlocuter either.
Quoting Vera Mont
The speed of advances in science has been incredible and very impressive indeed imo.
We were always under threat of extinction. 99.9% of all creatures that have ever lived on Earth are extinct, the vast majority of those extinctions have nothing to do with the human race.
Theistic doctrine suggests that the Earth and its contents are here for us to use as we please.
God will at some point return and either destroy the Earth and take its chosen people to be with it or, If it wants to keep the Earth going, then it can easily repair any damage and do what it wants with it.
I look to science to teach humans how vital it is to correct our suicidal stewardship of our planet.
If we continue to treat the Earth the way the fundamentalist Christians suggest we can, then we have a whole lot more trouble ahead.
Science does indeed help to unite people in common cause and certainly has put significant dents in human primal fear. It offers us many technological protections, medical advances, improving lifespan etc. It can show us real pictures like pale blue dot and by doing so, demonstrate to us that we are indeed one little planet and one species that needs to globally unite.
Quoting Vera Mont
Science offers you lots of protective padding/armour and even a machine gun. Lions and tigers and bears oh my ....... they just cant compete.
Quoting Vera Mont
Science and secular humanism is trying to achieve the protections we all want and I have more confidence that they will succeed, compared to the solution of pointing a Christian cross and a bible at our problems alongside praying for a nonexistent god to intervene.
Does an image, directly from science, such as 'pale blue dot,' not have any affect on your personal views on how you should live and does it not impact your view of how others should live?
Quoting unenlightened
You cant love if you are dead! Love wont fix a dying heart but a triple bypass might.
Love dies of natural causes there is no need to kill it but a person can kill it if they choose to.
Quoting unenlightened
An old boring totally debunked suggestion. There is no aspect of science which can be connected to religion. Science has no god to show deference to. No scientist worships or prays to the scientific method, just like they don't worship or pray to that spanner you mentioned.
:up: Very interesting info. I have noted down the links to check them later. Thanks.
You claim! But have heard the Grateful Dead.
Quoting universeness
Having an effect is one thing, but that dot cannot tell me whether to build more rockets or grow more beans. It can show me the dot, but not measure the beauty.
You have convincing evidence to the contrary?
Quoting unenlightened
I would go for growing beans unless you also know how to build significant rockets, then you can do both. Both activities sound useful to me, as compared to other possibilities, such as developing a conviction on your part to start a new religion and build more churches/temples/cathedrals/mosques etc or become a preacher/priest/minister/Imam/theosophist etc.
Quoting unenlightened
A scientist is a person, so can measure beauty as all humans can. Just like you are able to measure beauty. Do you agree that such is in the eye of the beholder? When you compare/discuss your measurement and a scientists measurement of the beauty of the pale blue dot image, you may completely agree, mostly agree or agree that one persons meat is another persons poison.
How does a scientific image like pale blue dot affect you politically? or/and anthropologically?
All those benighted Jews, etc. had been making wine for centuries before Jesus. Science has been part of the human psyche as long as spiritualism - they're part of the same imaginative, curious, exploring and extrapolating mind. They were never in competition - no winning and losing - until they were politicized for the very purpose of pitting people one against another.
Quoting universeness
I hoped you would at least use discernment: attack only those who are have done harm to you or someone who didn't deserve to to be harmed. I hoped you would give individuals the benefit of a doubt; judge them by their words and actions, not a label you've stuck on them.
Quoting universeness
Sure. We can now ensure the death of everything on Earth in fifteen minutes flat. Of course, many creatures would take considerably longer to actually die.
Quoting universeness
None of those extinctions included the human race. This one does. And I thought the benefits of science should include preventing extinction, not insuring it.
Quoting universeness
Those pictures have been seen since since 1959. How many voluntary international unions have taken place since than, and how many divisions?
Quoting universeness
We'll send out lots of space probes with friendly messages and maybe the advanced aliens will come and save us from ourselves.
They both sound like the same kind of wishful thinking in the teeth of all evidence.
I assume you meant 'or someone who did deserve to be harmed,' in the quote above.
We all make such judgements, in the same way you have judged me as deserving of your words above.
I suggest you yourself have made quite a few assumptions and stuck a few of your own inaccurate labels on me.
Quoting Vera Mont
Do you think that's faster than a big rock from space could achieve, or how about a massive eruption of the caldera under Yellowstone park or how fast do you think the Christian god could do it, if it existed?
Quoting Vera Mont
A spoon is a good scientific invention, but I can still kill someone with one. Hopefully M.A.D will prevent nuclear war. Science can, but does not have to be used to destroy. Theism is exactly the same. Its up to 'good' humans to prevent such threats. if they cant then, imo, we deserve our fate. The Earth will survive, and another species will inherit the stewardship of the planet. Even if it takes another 300 million years of evolution through natural selection. I am currently, more concerned that a theist like Putin has control over a nuclear arsenal, than I would be, if he were not a theist.
Quoting Vera Mont
1959! You are impatient Vera! That's only 63 years ago. It's a bit of a 'diva stance' to complain that the human race has not made enough satisfactory global improvements in your lifetime. I personally think that many improvements have been made. But discussing particular examples and giving my details as to why I think a particular example qualifies, is probably a whole other thread. The equality rights gained by LGBTQ+ people in the West for example. Progressive political movements via groups like 'Compass' and 'Momentum' in the UK. I could go on.
Quoting Vera Mont
There may be no aliens close enough to communicate with, for another million years. Perhaps we are the only game in town and the 'aliens,' will be us when we colonise the Moon, Mars and who knows where else.
Update: Here is a very exciting development in nuclear fusion, in the news media today!
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/why-nuclear-fusion-breakthrough-at-us-lab-promises-a-new-source-of-clean-energy/ar-AA15eNdX
:smirk: :up:
Neither can "religion", which has only ever told us how to tribally conform, servilely obey & scapegoat "others".
:clap: :strong:
That is telling us how to live. You may tell a different tale. I certainly do. Science is silent on the matter.
Have you looked at the op's project? I would have thought we'd be about on the same side of rejecting it out of hand.
Science show us how to think about nature and to correct our 'common sense', which can help one adaptively discern how to live.
Sure it can. Rather too often though, it doesn't; hence the maladaptive policies being followed in the age of the triumph of science and the decline of religion.
However accurate our models of objective reality are thanks to science, it doesn't do away with our subjectivity and that we have to make subjective decisions what to do. Hence, just like @unenlightened said above, we can surely make wrong decisions even with scientific knowledge. And sometimes even with relying on scientific reasoning we can make decisions that later we find out to have been wrong, as our questioning and understanding of complex issues can be limited. How things are don't give us easy answers to the question how things ought to be.
Meteor strikes and volcano eruptions are not in the sphere of influence of either religion or science, and so that comparison is irrelevant. I was responding to your uncritical admiration of science. It's just a method whereby humans make tools to manipulate matter. Humans use tools for good and for evil, wisely and stupidly, constructively and destructively. In that regard, religion, which provides tools for the manipulation of minds, is exactly like science.
The point there is: he doesn't. He's a product of human imagination, and he's used by humans as a benevolent force and a destructive force, because humans have both of those impulses and they express both of those impulses in all their creations.
Quoting universeness
Zero. If you wait as long as Christianity has failed to
Quoting universeness
even though they both have
I think you'll be alone in a desert.
Or on the moon. Good luck with that project!
Not at all. Science makes every effort to protect us from both.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/saving-earth-from-asteroids
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_of_volcanic_activity
Quoting Vera Mont
Nonsense! Any new threat created via science is due to how some people choose to employ or manipulate new tech. Even the most benevolent theists have their foundations firmly embed in that which is irrefutable described by 180 proof earlier as:
Quoting 180 Proof
Science has no doctrinal intent to stealthily capture human minds. It obtains its supporters by honest open means. It does not preach, it calculates. It does not peddle fables as truth or offer us all elixirs in the form of blessed holy waters or faith based bottles of 'doctor good.' It does detailed research using rigor, experimentation and empirical conformation. It is also fully open to completely change its orthodoxy if the evidence compels it to. No religion EVER does that.
Quoting Vera Mont
True, so it's time we abandoned such irrational BS, yes?
Quoting Vera Mont
Nah! I think if you knew I found myself in such a circumstance, you would join the search team looking to rescue me. You would then hail me for my attempts to bring new life to the dessert and/or the moon and you would encourage your children to help me and the many millions who support me in trying to make Carl Sagan's prediction of "We are ready at last to set sail for the Stars!" come true.
Ok, maybe not me personally as I am mostly a spent force but space exploration and development is the inevitable destiny of our species.
Isn't that exactly what I said: Science Quoting Vera Mont
Quoting Vera Mont
The operative words are humans and tools.
This is a perennial deflection employed by both the advocates or science and religion. They argue as if the thing itself: Science, were pure and good, and when someone points it that it's also corrupt and bad, they say, Oh, that's just the people who misuse it.
Well, of course it is! Science isn't some pristine concept descended like the Christian dove, a gift and attribute of some god - it's a methodology people invented so they could do things they wanted to do - it's all about human desire and behaviour.
And Religion is not some nebulous cloud that consumed people; it's a set of ideas people invented, so they could describe what they wanted to describe - it's all about human desire and behaviour. (Double Helix.)
Quoting universeness
No, I won't. I applaud people who try to bring some kinds of life to the desert - not the was the 'Israelis' went about it.
But as for going to the stars, I don't believe we are anywhere near ready. I don't think it will happen, and that's fine - I don't think we should be exporting our destructive craziness. Anyway, Sagan missed an opportunity. When asked whether she believed in a supreme deity, like 95% of the population she was going to represent, Jodi Foster should have said: "If you all agree on the god I will present it the aliens."
I think you just enjoy taking any contrary viewpoint you can muster Vera, just for the fun of stoking the embers. I see no particular harm in that and I hope you are having fun doing it. But you overreach in my opinion, when you try to equate aspirational humanity using science with aspirational humanity using theism and theosophistry. I think it's important to assert Hitchens razer here! "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
The theistic imperative is far more pernicious to me than the concerns I have regarding those who use science for nefarious reasons. Some 'well intentioned' delusional theists, even suggest you can find contentment, if you just accept god the totalitarian dictator, without question. If you don't want to plant your flag and champion science or theism, then where do you want to place your flag? A back to basics epicurean / bohemian, low tech society, who might eventually create a nice wee existence for all, here on Earth, but will never leave this pale blue dot?
Do you now choose to throw your flag away and not plant it anywhere?
Quoting Vera Mont
I think that 95% is now under continuing pressure from an ever growing, well organised alternative. Theism is losing more and more of its adherents every day. You should listen to some of the atheist phone in shows on youtube. I think that change for the better will continue.
Carl played his cards well in 'Contact,' when he dramatised some of the sad and rather embarrassing possible affects that American theism could have, on who we might choose to represent us, in a first encounter with aliens scenario. In Contact, we saw a nefarious character chosen and the idea of 'fanatics getting access to the machines,' represented.
But Carl then used one to get rid of the other! :party: :party: :party:
To what is this statement contrary? If science is not a methodology whereby humans achieve desired ends, what is it? Quoting universeness
Do you not see evidence that human scientific endeavour has been put to the service of of human goals? If so, why do you keep citing the successes humans have achieved with the aid of science? You yourself supplied the evidence.
Quoting universeness
That's as valid a preference as anyone else's.
Quoting universeness
They have similarly pejorative descriptions of non-believers. Flinging more sand.
Quoting universeness
I don't carry a flag. I find a flask far better company, and it doesn't make me as large a target.
Quoting universeness
Yup, that'd be by preference - except it doesn't need to be low tech, just smart tech.
But I'm pessimistic.
Quoting universeness
Some. And they're pushing back, big time.
Quoting universeness
You're an optimist... and maybe not quite current on world affairs.
It's dark out there, baby!
You know fine well that you are employing a loaded description of human intentionality when employing science. For me, your use of 'achieving desired ends' invokes a careless, thoughtless, selfish image of scientific advancement that lands somewhere around 'the end justifies the means,' impression for all scientific endeavours so far made. I think your invocations are harsh and inaccurate. For many, if not the vast majority of scientists, their reason for pursuing a particular field of science, is due to an overwhelming fascination with the field. Most are true seekers of new knowledge that allows our species to see further. They use terms like 'standing on the shoulders of giants.'
When they are in full flow about their subject, they seem more content and joyous about life and living the human experience, than any theist I have even seen on TV, in full preacher mode or any audience member in full religious mob hysteria mode, or even those 'messed up' folks 'fitting' on the ground whilst 'speaking in tongues.'
I find the 'wonder and awe,' I see in the eyes of the scientist, far more compelling than the 'servile, slave like, deferential conformity,' I see in the eyes of dedicated theists, who have no convincing explanation for their beliefs other than their own insistence, that there god is real.
You seem content to leave theists like that and not even find out if they are like that because its been poured into them from childhood. I think it's important to give them the freedom of alternative choices.
I am not suggesting that every scientist is immune from becoming a jaded tech creator, who just works for some capitalist individual or group and creates products for the mass market.
Perhaps that image is more akin to your 'achieving desired ends' description of the main intentionality of the main body of scientists. Scientific research, is for me, far more laudable than any theocratic or theosophical endeavour. I am surprised you don't agree but I still love to read your very interesting posts.
You are a force!
Quoting Vera Mont
:lol: What tasty liquid do you have in that flask Vera? Do you really feel targeted? Tell them bam's to take their best shot and spit in their direction if they do. Then duck and cover, if you have to, but come back and rejoin the efforts to defeat them, if you can.
Quoting Vera Mont
The wheel is smart tech but it's just not enough for transhumanism or space exploration and development. For me, any future you might envisage is a humdrum prospect without those.
Quoting Vera Mont
Let them keep trying. They base the fundamentals of their lives on fables, some of which are as ancient as the Sumerians. Time our species grew up and stopped believing in fables. Perhaps the USA is still a stronghold for them but globally, they are losing imo.
Quoting Vera Mont
I am! I am also very current on world affairs. There is plenty of light on offer where I am. You just have to know what switches to turn on.
I'm not responsible for the impression you form. I said
and, yes, also carelessly, short-sightedly and selfishly.
Quoting universeness
I never claimed otherwise. But they're not the ones who have the final decision over how their innovations will be applies and deployed. The ones cleverly devising a new and even more deadly missile do know what its purpose is; the ones fiddling with bacteria and circuitry probably don't. I say probably... but I'm not sure of the percent probability.
Quoting universeness
Yup, you've made that clear.
Quoting universeness
I do agree. I just refuse to deny or condemn the other half of human nature.
Quoting universeness
Not mad keen on target as verb or a department store. The number of projectile weapons on the surface of this rock, anyone can be in a kill-zone any time, without the shooter/bomber/launcher even knowing they're there. Anyone can be individually hunted, for all kinds of reasons. Waving a bloody great rag with some political or military -- or, hell, even sport-related -- significance just renders one more shootable.
Quoting universeness
iyd
Militant Religious Movements: Rise and Impact
Quoting universeness
I do. It's on a shiny silver keg.
We are both responsible to type what we mean and mean what we type. Clarity/misinterpretation, it's up to both of us to achieve as much of the first and as little of the other as possible. My position is that science is our best chance to increase our:
1. Lifespan and robustess.
ability to
2. Survive and thrive as a population of over 8 billion on a single planet.
3. Move off planet, and explore and develop alternate human habitation.
4. Remove money from our existence and start to create a resource based global economy
5. Unite our species globally.
I could add to this list but I think my direction is clear. I think science and new tech has a massive influence on what human beings can do 'next.' At the beginning of your life Vera. Telephone, Television, Electronic computing were in their infancy. Currency format had hardly changed in centuries.
In your lifetime, this has now changed to the incredible situation that you and I, who dont know each other and live very far apart are in very fast communication about the current state of our species and our planet and how we each think the human experience might be improved. We are also debating who and what is to blame for the current state of human global affairs.
Money is now dispensed using plastic cards and contactless beeps. Paper money is on the way out! Its just numbers that rise and fall in our bank accounts. What an enormous change!
Science is the reason for our current communication exchange. Theism has contributed nothing at all! Plenty of theists have contributed to science, but their theism contributed nothing, apart from not disallowing them to contribute to real science. So yes, I firmly plant my flag of approval in the science camp and I see the theism camp as a pernicious and backwards influence on all human attempts to create a fair, equal, universally benevolent, human global society.
You choose not to champion science and this is the basis of our disagreement, on this thread, about why science has succeeded and religion has failed.
Quoting Vera Mont
I don't think you can take that position and still be part of the solution and not part of the problem. I remain very reluctant to try to rip theism away from unstable/psychologically compromised/hopeless/terrified/lonely individuals. I have no problem struggling with strong/confident/self assured theists or nefarious theists (or even nefarious scientists/politicians for that matter).
There are many many good people who are theists, BUT, I feel strongly, that I do them no favours, if I just apply a blanket rule for all, that I leave all of them alone and don't probe enough, to at least find out why they believe what they do. If they say something like 'well that's what I was brought up to believe,' then it's 'game on!' as far as I'm concerned. But, if they start to show genuine fear and discomfort, as they cant cope with any attempt to crumble the theistic pillars they so rely on to support their life and who they are, then I for one, will back off.
Within the American atheist movement, they have set up groups that offer support for theists who are trying to breakaway from their theistic family/community. A theist trying to turn atheist can have their entire world destroyed. The responsibility for such suffering, must be laid fully at the door of the theists who impose it on those who no longer wish to comply with their doctrine.
Do you not feel a responsibility to be a source of help, encouragement etc for anyone who you think is a theist due to historical indoctrinatIon alone?
Quoting Vera Mont
But:
https://www.atheists.org/
https://www.atheismuk.com/
https://thebestschools.org/magazine/top-atheists-in-the-world-today/
also exist and are growing!
:clap:
Which part of "humans use use tools... etc" is unclear?
Quoting universeness
Your hope is shared by many; I never disputed your 'position' and I believe that you are correct in some of those assumptions. But they have no effect on the fact that every tool can be used, and has been used for constructive and destructive purposes.
Quoting universeness
Fine. I'm part of the problem - we all are. There, for example, far too many of us for the planet to support. Both scientists and religionists have contributed to that problem. Both scientists and religionists have contributed to the means of carrying on conflict among people.
Pretending that half of our nature doesn't exist, or declaring that half of our nature shouldn't exist, leads to no solution... if it had, the problem would already be solved. But the 'problem' is humans, and that's insoluble - except, of course, for the Osterhagen Key.
Quoting universeness
Nor have I. I've made as many enemies in that camp as in this, because the militants on both sides desire to win a war, and I believe the only win is peace.
Quoting universeness
Responsibility, no: I didn't indoctrinate them. Sympathy, understanding and forbearance, yes. But then, I have those feelings also for theists who choose to remain in their faith, so long as they do no harm.
:lol: 'Humans use tools,' is very clear Vera. Calm yer jets! But its a very minimalist description of what Science via scientists does and achieves and what potential it holds for the future of the human species.
You seem a bit pessimistic and might I be so bold as to suggest, slightly jaded at times and disappointed in your own species. I think this colours your viewpoints a little. I assume my attempt at psychoanalysis is not welcome but I think my suggestion is relevant if true.
Quoting Vera Mont
I don't think I am ignoring that a part of human nature is attracted to the numinous or god posits or pretending that such does not exist but I would argue against your 50% estimate and your position, as it seems to be. I mean, you seem to be suggesting that we cannot challenge that aspect of our nature. I think we certainly can and indeed must and in doing so, help towards solving the many problems we face.
Quoting Vera Mont
I know that and that increases my hopes for a better future.
Quoting Vera Mont
Some new friends as well.
Quoting Vera Mont
Hard to make peace whist you are actually under attack, socially, politically, economically, racially, culturally etc etc. I am still willing to try your way, if you have a cunning plan.
Quoting Vera Mont
I disagree and I think we do have a responsibility beyond tea and sympathy.
All that evil requires to thrive is for good people to do nothing.
But how do you know that they do have 'choice?' Unless you try to find out, on a theist by theist basis, when you encounter them.
I wasn't trying to describe anything. I was pointing out that
1. Humans use tools
2. Technology (the spawn of scientific discovery) and Religion (the spawn of spiritual yearning) both create tools for the use of humans.
3. All tools can be used for constructive and destructive purposes.
I have no faith in the potential and the future.
Quoting universeness
We can challenge any aspect of our nature - individually. Affecting change in oneself is harder than just challenging, but we can all do it to some extent. Collectively, we can't do anything about human nature. In fact, we cannot do anything collectively. We can negotiate and compromise about external matters, or we can fight over them, and we can certainly affect one another's psyche with the clever tools made possible by science and religion.
Quoting universeness
We created the problems. Whenever we solve one, we invariably create a new one. There is no end to the problems we make and solve and make and solve and make worldwithoutend... except that we now have the capability to end it ourselves rather than wait for the last judgment.
Quoting universeness
I don't. We came close to detente for a couple of decades of the 20th century, but there were then, as there always are, too many interests at stake: both reason and emotion are always monetized and weaponized (hateful modern vocabulary!) by somebody before most people come to their senses.
Quoting universeness
Pious BS! Evil always wins, because it's not hampered by principles, scruples or shame. Its victories can be mitigated by good people, its teeth blunted a little, but good will never score a decisive victory.
Quoting universeness
Just change 'a bit' to 'utterly' and you're right on the money. If I enjoyed being wet, I would go with the dolphins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zfuU6uLwF8
I suppose this marks a boundary line between defeatist pessimism and determined optimism.
I remain with the determined optimists.
Quoting Vera Mont
It's unfortunate your species has disappointed you to such an extent Vera. But, I have to accept, that you do hold the opinon, that the power of the nefarious, will always have the upper hand over the powers of good. But, I think you are totally wrong in that assessment.
The nefarious have been slaughtering good people in their millions for centuries, but we are still here, and we are still many many millions, and a secular, humanist, socialist, united, global society, is inevitable, as is our transhuman, interstellar future.
Exactly. Even if we disregard the truth of our beliefs, it is clear that science is far more likely to survive from a rational perspective. Science acknowledges both our ignorance and our growing knowledge. It knows where its boundaries are, where it can confidently assert the truth. Religion, on the other hand, is fundamentally based on tradition. It asserts that thousand-year-old doctrines are unequivocably true. Thus, it cannot adapt to changes in our environment or knowledge without contradiction. If yesterday the minister completely altered "God's Creed" because they were outdated, whose to say that won't happen tomorrow? (interestingly, this seems to make folk religions more compatible with science due to their decentralized nature). It should be an inherently unstable system, but why hasn't it collapsed yet? Every day religion is forced to yield more and more territory to science; eventually, it will pass a point of no return.
I wish you peace in your mind and reconciliation with your species.
:100: :up:
That is odd. It seems quite undeniable that the power of the good is reduced by moral scruples and the nefarious have more options available; if it were not so, there would be no difference between them. One can point to the cyber wars where security is always playing catch-up to hackers, for example. Or if you want to be mathematical about things, game theory demonstrates that in many cases of the "prisoner's dilemma" sort, virtue (as cooperation) cannot succeed against vice.
I would say that science has great value, and can study values as human attributes. But it cannot produce values of itself, but relies on values of truth and honesty and openness, and so on, that people have as social beings, in order to function. These values are not demonstrated by science, but presumed. The 'success' of science might recommend these values to pragmatists, but that is also not part of the scientific project; such recommendations might equally come from pop-stars or monks or successful psychopaths.
? Alexander Pope, An Essay on Man
How come fascism was so soundly smashed then, when those who supported it tried to take over the planet? Good people can use nefarious people against nefarious people. The 'good' people are perfectly capable of being as devious as the nefarious, if they have to. They will still champion the good, after they have did what they had to do, to smash the nefarious. I have had the 'were the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs better than a mainland invasion of Japan' debate, many times.
Quoting unenlightened
The coming 256 bit encryption available with quantum computing will reduce cyber crime and may even wipe it out!
Quoting unenlightened
The only values we truly know and understand, are human values, yes that's true. So, It's up to all humans to decide if they want to base their personal values on the inputs, processes and outputs of theism (Including monks), pop-stars, psychopaths or science. I have already made my choices to base my values on. I assume you have too. I further assume we are both well cooked by now. But, how we advise the next generation ........ now that does really matter.
Fascism is alive and well. The only thing that was smashed was a nascent empire, like all the empires before that tried to take over the planet. Some win small, some win big; they eventually flounder; some lose before they get any traction. But the aspiring German empire was smashed not by good people doing good things; it was defeated in a bloody, brutal, wasteful, horrible war, by other nations using the very same method as the aggressor.
Quoting universeness
And then they themselves become nefarious.
Quoting universeness
Did you side with the scientifically elegant bombs?
Quoting universeness
That's not the choice for values. That's a simplistic depiction of a long and complex moral development.
Then they are no different from bad people. If there is no difference in behaviour, what is the difference? Is it a matter of belief? Innate superiority? Or are you just saying that good people are people who don't oppose me and my team?
It's global rise and it's ability to organise and co-ordinate was smashed, and the fact that it still has little national embers, and manifestations, does not explain how is was so significantly defeated, despite your claim. that the nefarious cannot be defeated by the good and the good have had no significant victories.
In the West, significant peasantry and serfdom no longer exists. These are significant Victories. Free medical care systems, Free education systems and welfare state systems are significant victories over the nefarious. The list goes on.
Quoting Vera Mont
So, no 'good' people were involved in the defeated of the Germans, Japanese, Italians etc in WW 2?
That's just BS!
The defeat of fascism was indeed achieved by good people doing good things, like destroying the ability of the enemy to exist, in any form, which is able to act as a force.
Quoting Vera Mont
Some can and do, many remain 'good' but a little conflicted. The point is that good people will get in amongst the mud, the blood, the guts and the shadows to defeat the nefarious, if they have to.
The 'good' cannot defeat the nefarious!!!!! Hah! What utter tosh!
Quoting Vera Mont
I side with choosing the better of two evils if there are no other choices.
Quoting Vera Mont
You are just engaging in superfluous wordplay Vera.
Putting together all the parts of the internet involved a long road of complex creations and developments. The internet is the result. The 'complexity' involved, is of little interest to the users and is treated as a black box. We can now each choose our base values from all the inputs, processes and outputs we observe and experience everyday. How much you choose to drill down into the complex historical development of each IPO, is a matter for each individual. Those who are inspired by, and aspire to, the scientific method, will probably drill into the historicity of IPO's, more than theists will.
There is a massive difference in the outcome for the majority of the stakeholders involved.
No-one is 100% good or 100% bad.
We are all capable of being judged as either good or bad, based on the act being judged and who is doing the judging.
For example. I personally judge Winston Churchill as being an evil man. But I would have made the same decision he did, regarding the evacuation of Coventry, he could have ordered, before it was almost bombed into nonexistence during WW 2.
The difference between us, is that I don't think I could have continued to live, after the war. I think I would have killed myself for that particular decision.
I would act like an evil man and would accept my own destruction and utter condemnation, if it meant that I destroyed the nefarious in the process and significantly improved the lives of the majority who were hitherto subjugated by them. If many innocents died because of my method of destroying the nefarious then I think I would still do it, but I don't think I could survive it.
I leave the judgement of who is nefarious and who fights the nefarious to others such as yourself.
We each develop our own moral compass. Others will judge the legitimacy of your moral compass, whether you agree with them or not.
Good people are always involved, whether they want to be or not, and they are usually forced to do bad things. If you choose not to know how many good people are swept up in the actions of 'bad' countries, or what the governments and armies of 'good' nations do in war, I'm sure you're happier.
Apparently.
Yes, once you have removed all the differences, it is impossible to make a judgement.
And yet you do make a judgement, as do I. but my judgement is that some acts are bad; violence, torture, rape, deception, you know the usual stuff. And because good people do not do bad things, bad people have the advantage of being able to be good when it suits them and bad when it suits them more. Now sometimes one has to choose the lesser of two evils, and sometimes we can disagree about such complexities. Nevertheless, the imbalance remains; indeed it has to remain in order for there to be a moral order. If evil was always punished and good was always rewarded, then being good would be mere common-sense and evil would be silly. That is why the religious rewards and punishments were always located "elsewhere".
But your problem is that you are trying to incorporate a moral framework into a crude scientism, and failing to do it, and then just inventing the frankly contradictory notion that good triumphs over evil on that material, self-interest level. Wishful thinking, I'm afraid.
Are you being self-referential here or just making a general statement of opinion about the approach of many or most people? I assume the 'you' you are referring to above, is not me, as I don't see how you could conclude that I am, from what I have typed so far in this thread, someone who would do what you suggest in the quote above.
When the nefarious are on the rise Vera, I do think that a kind of cold 'necessity as the mother of invention,' will often come into play. Are you not suggesting something similar yourself?
But I think that does not describe the real situation. Some people, that I would still consider good, will do bad to bad people. Often, as a 'taste of their own medicine,' or as revenge, if some of their heinous acts were against people you personally cared about. I understand if you would not consider a person who did bad to bad people, good. I would judge on a case by case basis.
Quoting unenlightened
But it's not a problem for me, other than I don't have you as a supporter of my position on these issues.
I can continue to try to convince you otherwise or I can look for support in others or I can do both.
Such is life!
For me, Science and the scientific method provide me with a foundation for my life values and strongly compliment my morality infused, socialist/humanist political viewpoints.
Clearly not. And if you do not have a problem, I can offer no solution.
I don't recall expecting you to. I tend to look to those who I think are capable of offering solutions, or who are capable of supporting the solutions myself and those like me would champion.
If I cant convince you to support me than I don't deserve your support, that's one of the main tenets of democratic socialism. Support is given from the people and only when the majority supports an action, should that action be taken. I believe in that approach, whenever it is feasible to employ it.
A general statement of most people of faith.
Well they certainly seem to be able to say nice things about the utterly nefarious god described in the christian old testament, but despite that, it is certainly true that many good theists have saved the lives of many people in the past, and many of them have given their lives to protect the innocent.
I do accept that the umbrella term should be good and bad people rather than good and bad theists or atheists. Both theism and atheism probably have an equal share of good and bad people.
Not just they; all of you. Faith in deities, faith in science, faith in humanity, faith in Good... all the same.
Not the same. those are qualitatively different modes of faith.
Such as?
The realm of philosophers, poets, mystics as opposed to the world of biochemists, physiologists, neuroscientists.
That's true, I guess:
Believing - in the absence of any evidence - that someone who created humans will solve the human condition.
Believing - contrary to all evidence - that something humans created will solve the human condition.
What do you mean by 'contrary to all evidence,' in the context you use it above?
I 'believe' the 'human created' Asprin, will cure my headache(a human 'condition').
Such belief is based on empirical evidence, is it not?
I also believe that praying for my headache to go away, will empirically fail!
Efficacy of prayer.
Studies can't tell if prayer works because the experiment can't measure faith or know anything something is given in place of what is prayered for
Of course they can. Get every member of any evanhellical church, to enter any hospital or even better, any palliative care based hospice, and pray constantly over every terminal patient in that hospice. Then see how many patients become no longer terminal! We could even restrict it to terminal patients of a fixed age range, so that the theists cant use the excuse that the patients were just 'too old to save.'
On the other hand, a decent god should be able to save any human it want's to. Surely if it existed it should feel some responsibility to act to at least save some of these patients based on the previous fundamentalist dedication and worship demonstrated by such groups as evanhellicals. 15,000 children dying of preventable causes everyday, despite the 'claimed power of prayer.'
God seems completely unable to demonstrate its presence in any testable way whatsoever.
Perhaps that's because it does not exist.
God demonstrates his presence to those with faith. As I said, God answers prayers as he wants, not as faithless people want. Someone might pray for a dog and instead get a beautiful wife. They might pray for a cure and get more faith instead. You just don't know how prayer works because you don't practice it
No offence but your examples sound exactly like what someone would say if there were no gods and no way to demonstrate them. Pray for a cure for cancer and instead get a new dog. Such a desultory, random, chaotic outcome of prayer makes a mockery of prayer, right? And to argue something like, 'you don't understand it because you're not a believer' is one of those wonky justifications that resembles, 'you can't see my imaginary friend because you don't believe in her' type of justifications.
Prayer has never been about getting stuff. It's opening oneself to spiritual things one finds uncomfortable. People who pray for cures already know this. Infinity resides in everyone. To disbelieve God is to doubt yourself.
Well, only if you "believe" that you are "God".
And it could be what the truth sounds like. You're going to take this as 50/50 chance? Everything has many interpretations abstractly. Conversations are for bringing out clarity
Spinoza says we are modes of God just as Aquinas says God is in everything in his essence. Obviously the consciousness we experience here is not God because it is not all perfect. But then again to be one with the eternal is to be eternal as well since you are one.
Aspirin, prayer, the rack, MRI, nuclear missiles, polio vaccine, the guillotine, television, chemotherapy, refined sugar, ma jong, plastic, electricity, fracking, DDT, the Mars rover, birth control pills, flags, gods... Lots and lots and lots of inventions. Political and religious ideologies are also human inventions.
Humans use these inventions. There is a clear track record of how humans have so far used these inventions.
To believe that next week or next year humans will all come together in a single, benevolent "We" and start using their inventions wisely for the betterment of all is a great leap of faith.
I don't grok the point you're making.
Aren't you familiar with Spinoza's "intellectual love of God"?
I'm not really in the truth business - except in a pragmatic sense.
How do you know what you said below?
Quoting Gregory
You seem to know an awful lot about a god - his gender and his personality. How so?
To know God is to be one with him. In that moment you are eternal with him where you are not distinguished from God but God is still distinguished from you. That's what I strive for and I've only critiqued the attempt to disprove religion in general in this thread.
If you don't want to find truth than you are truly devoid of both the philosophical and religious spirit. At least you must still be curious about things, right? All I know of God is what I've experienced throughout my life and God is infinite so I must know little about him
You're aware, I'd assume, that there are schools of philosophy which remain skeptical about capital T truth. Are the chances of humans uncovering Truth, even if it exists, likely?
Quoting Gregory
How do you arrive at this? What relationship with god/s must one have to make a claim like this?
Quoting Gregory
How is your embodied or experienced certainty distinguished from the similar certainties of a QAnon believer or a Scientologist or a Hindu?
You're right, but there's something rather disturbing about reductionism (read science). I see progress in the universe, from matter to life to consciosuness and this forward movement is in danger of being impeded/reversed by science e.g. love is oxytocin. Very Laozi alright (we come full circle).
How till that impede or reverse the progress of the universe? For that matter, how can a human activity interfere with the universe at all?
Quoting Agent Smith
Well, being free of the illusion of (evolutionary?) "progress" or the facile reduction of "science" to "reductionism", I'm not disturbed in the least by our human all too human, Faustian bargains. Apotheosis or extinction sooner rather than later? The prevailing entropy gradient of this cosmic neighborhood inspires me! Amor fati (aka "wu wei"), amigo. :fire:
:rofl:
QAnon? How are you distinguished from Stalin I can ask? If you don't think truth is attainable than why are you writing posts? Aren't you trying to be objective? Why should truth be hard to find? Is life bad?
:up: I see you disagree that there's progress the way I described it: Matter [math]\to[/math] Life [math]\to[/math] Consciousness. Why? There clearly is a sequence here, oui monsieur? Going by numbers, the progression is absent, but in terms of who runs the show on planet earth, it's as plain as the nose on your face. Of course it ain't all sunshine and rainbows for conscious beings (it hurts), but some report euphoria (high on life).
Most atheist don't mind a deistic God. They just don't want a deity butting into their business. Anyone who says God is in everything in his essence is a panentheist. People debate whether God choices to create or not. I don't see how these are fruitful debates. If we are one with God that is what matters. Im a nondualist. But you seem to be saying Spinoza wasn't an atheist? He believed in loving God in nature. I don't see how this relates to the occult though. The occult is nothing but anti monotheism
Include Stalin if you wish. My point, which you seem to ignore, is that people are certain about all kinds of fabricated ideas.
So my question asked earlier remains: -
Quoting Tom Storm
:roll:
"Life > Consciousness" > Extinction aka "matter". A sequence (e.g. Möbius loop) =/= "progress".
Quoting Gregory
Spinoza is an acosmist who rejects theistic / deistic (i.e. transcendent) divinity and deems such religions superstitions.
NB: Read the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus.
Bravo! Laozi, very Laozi. The (Möbius) loop, exactly! We return to where we started and begin again (the Sisyphusean carousel). What are the wider ramifications of this simple cyclical pattern?
My favorite speculation
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/607424 :smirk:
Why is atheism the default? I'm just claiming what I know from experience. You've tried to refute the search for religion by rational argument. You're main argument seems to be that religion is a continuum. Religion is between you and God though, not between you and organized factions. If you've never had a religious moment than you don't know what this conversation is about. It doesn't matter what others say or do. It matters what you know and do
Acosmism is theism. You are neither it seems
Interesting! Loopy, definitely loopy, and I see you haven't completely solved the problem ... yet. Any progress on that front mon ami?
Forget atheism, I'm trying to understand how you can claim you know god is male and that in your words - God answers prayers as he wants, not as faithless people want.
You know all this from experience?
Why should we accept this experiential knowledge as opposed to similar claims from other theists who, let's say, know from experience that god wants 'fags to burn in hell' and that women are inferior to men?
What is the nature of this experience and how can we tell what is true from what is false?
Quoting Gregory
:roll:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acosmism
Can you tell when you do right from wrong? That intuition is what humans were given to know truth. God doesn't have a gender. We say "he" because people sexualize God when we say "she". Why would God pay attention to willful disbelief? If it's not willful than faith can come in its due time. To ask for proof from God is not to exercise prayer. You sound like a Catholic talking to a Protestant "how do you know how to read the Bible without the Pope as it's interpreter? Ya'll disagree with each other". A Protestant uses prayer to read the Bible and it doesn't matter if others disagree with him. You are trying to see things from a God's eye view
What's the difference between the Absolute and God? You are splitting hairs in order to avoid the other side of this question
Spinoza appears to say humans lack will but he stills believes in the mind and might be a compatabilist. Anyhow, a mind can't exist without will and he was a passionately religious person. Do you see the face of God in nature? If not than you part with Spinoza
You seem to be answering a different question to the one I asked. Incidentally, the Catholics I know have generally regarded the Pope as a reactionary pissant and someone to ignore. This current pope seems more popular.
My question was:
Quoting Tom Storm
Well those people are obviously wrong. An atheist still has to use internal conscience to decide on moral issues just as religious people have to weigh issues of religion.
How do we determine that the sincere personal experience of one believer is right, while the experience of another is wrong. Is there a process?
Ok! :up:
You would judge it by the same way an atheist would use to assess character in someone or in a group. You can't get inside other people's thoughts and it's up to everyone to find the absolute on their own.
is due to one and only one reason - Doubting Thomas was the Christian missionary to Hindoostan. His skepticism disseminated faster and wider than his faith. The Second Coming is going to take place in India mes amies, in India. :grin:
Science is also failing here. Don't let your anti-religion push you into worshiping or idolizing science.
Prove it! and if you can't, then It's just as feasible for me to say that pixies live in the cupboard of my hallway. YOU wont ever see them as you don't have the faith required! Is this really the mechanism you are trying to peddle?
YOU are an atheist in every sense except in the christian sense. You believe in one more god than I do.
You only have to take one more step, using the same rationale that makes you reject Allah, Vishnu, Odin, Zeus etc.
Quoting Tom Storm
Quoting Tom Storm
Quoting Tom Storm
Quoting Tom Storm
Quoting Tom Storm
Quoting Tom Storm
Quoting Tom Storm
A superb effort from Tom, but of course, when you are asked to explain yourself, you run and hide behind sophistic responses, as all theism does. Tom eventually let you run away, with:
Quoting Tom Storm
Why don't you actually answer his questions and explain how your rationale arrives at god and why you favour the christian god over zeus or odin.
I don't follow the value of the path you are trying to trace out here, in the sense that you seem so unnecessarily negative.
I know you have already confirmed that you have somewhat 'given up,' on your own species, but you continue to demonstrate a strong command of reason, so, I cannot believe you have no confidence left at all, that the human race can create and exist within a very good society that would make the 'human condition,' a very positive experience, for almost all who live it and for 'anything,' that encounters its constituent members. Humans have used that which they invented, yes, and there are many examples where some humans have used human inventions for selfish or nefarious purposes. But, there are also as many examples where humans have used human inventions for very good purposes. It seems to me Vera, that you are merely complaining about the examples you can cite about some nasty humans making nasty uses of human inventions. Like those humans who use food in cans, water in bottles, and land which they claim THEY OWN! to make profit. I think you agree, that the purpose of food is to feed, water to drink, land to live on and from. Using such to make profit is a 'horrible contrivance.' So, humans must continue to strive to correct such errors.
Humans should unite globally, in benevolent common cause, because it would be very wise to do so. You agree with that, yes?
Quoting Vera Mont
Well, what else do you suggest can correct the current shortfalls in the human condition?
You have already made it clear, that in your opinion, religion will never do it.
Science is the only methodology I can see, that can provide the technology, to comfortably provide, the basic needs of every human on this planet, in a sustainable way. The economic and political systems that can and I hope will follow this, are only feasible, if the tech is available in support. Until that point is reached, we will continue to fight over resources and the nefarious rich will remain a problem.
We will not be able to successfully explore and develop extraterrestrial space, until we have tidied up and secured our own home nest. The planned Artemis moon missions and the establishment of a permanent moon base, has not even been achieved yet, and when it has, it will be no more than the tiniest step forward. It will take a lot more time to get it right Vera, as I have typed before, on the timescale of the cosmic calendar, 'give us a f****** chance!'
So, your advice is, don't make the same mistakes theists make all the time. Probably good advice, but we are all forced to plant our flag in one camp or the other. The middle ground is a powerless place, all you can do there, is remain ineffective but you can use it to 'rest and think,' until you decide to move into a camp or else you can remain in limbo and be ineffective, as long as you live.
Don't worship idols, is one of the best advices in all scripture. Idols - defined as human things we hold sacred - are surprisingly common, even beyond religion: the Bible of course, but also the Almighty Dollar, Communism, the Fatherland, or Science.
As soon as we act, we are indeed forced to chose a side, to make a leap of faith. You are correct on this, but we can act without idolizing our intent. We can make money without becoming its slave; we can fight without demonizing our opponent; and we can love science without giving it the final say, always and on every topic. Science is only human. It can fail.
Why the angry post. I answered all Tom's questions and refuted your Wiki argument. My position was just that religion is not unreasonable. I never said I was a Christian. You are either having a bad day or don't have a higher philosophical mindset and aren't interested in truth, like Tom, but in arguing.
Perhaps you are being over-sensitive. My response to you was not angry, it was merely accurate.
You did not answer Tom's questions and your attempt at refuting the Wiki article was spurious hand waving at best. Either defend theism or don't. If you wish to just pose as a theist then fine, be honest about it.
I am having a very nice day and It's vey easy to recognise your boring passive aggressive insult with:Quoting Gregory
:smile: Is that all you got?
Don't worship anything is better advice. Worship is an extreme, irrational, dangerous activity.
I suspect most rational people avoid it based on observation of those who practice it.
All gods are idolised by some imo, including yaweh and allah, a statute is not really needed.
Quoting Olivier5
I broadly agree, but would suggest that attempting to regularly consider the consequences of the actions you do eventually decide to take, is also very important. I need to make money under the current economic system I live under to survive, but I can still work as much as I can towards removing money as the main driver of human lives and I can also work hard against those who promote capitalism as a good way to power a human society. The good thing about science is that it can fail many many times but the scientists will try try again.
Quoting universeness
:fire:
1) religious people believe that the world comes from a spiritual source. They all agree on that. Whether they agree or not on religious manifestations (religions) they are not atheists because they believe in the spiritual source. Obviously! So bad argument 1 answered
2) you say faith cannot accomplish a miracle. Well prayer is not perfect most of the time and if faith is not strong enough for a specific miracle God still grants more than what is asked for. You can't always see God's work Simple
Any other concerns?
Now, now, that's not a quality response. Arguing is tedious and I don't think there has been any arguing in this thread. I only undertake questioning like this to better understand what others believe and why, whether they are postmodernists or theists. Sometimes people make claims which require follow up questions for clarification and sometimes people struggle to answer them.
History. Written, oral, artistic depictions, and fossil record. Also the number of human currently alive, the percent of those currently endangered, at risk and marginal; the percentage currently living in luxury beyond the dreams of ancient eastern potentates. The condition of the planet and its non-human inhabitants.
Quoting universeness
The human race has had science since before it was human. It has been using science from the very beginning; for about 5 million years. Somewhere in there, they learned to use fire, altered bones, skins, stones, logs and reeds for their purposes and established settled communities. Many of those may have been - there is some evidence that some were - very good societies. Near the present, around 6000 years ago, they invented the wheel, writing and religion. In that 6000 years. with all those ancient tools and a million new ones, they did not create a good society. They created islands of goodness for some fortunate generations of a segment of one society or another, but they're never sustainable.
What will happen in the 50 years that could have happened, and didn't, in the past 6000?
Quoting universeness
We are not on the cosmic calendar; we are on the doomsday clock. I'll be out of you way soon enough. But the messes made by science and technology are not going anywhere; their effects are in operation. To believe that this trend will be reversed in the available time requires faith. I have no faith.
I don't say humans being can't make good societies: it is very probable that they have, and that those societies were more durable than the more recent ones. It is possible that a remnant of humanity will start over and do better - but their task will be far more difficult. Our distant ancestors lived on a far more hospitable and generous planet than our descendants will have.
Appeal to popularity / tradition fallacy > magical thinking (i.e. make believe) :fire: :eyes: :pray:
A more likely "source" ...
Yep, the universe doesn't care whether there's progress or not, but that doesn't mean there's none.
There's a point to @Lambert Strether's remark. If I place A, B, C in that particular sequence, one begins to see growth/advancement in the series so arranged i.e. one instinctively feels C > B > A. Zen Buddhism comes to mind - the apotheosis of mentation is moshin no shin (mindless mind) or in other words when consciousness peaks, it absconds or disappears.
The net entropy, you're right on the money, increases. Was there any order to begin with or was it always chaos and then more chaos? @Gnomon.
Keep rolling, watch out for that cliff mon ami!
And so will the priests. Amen.
Not only that, but physicists have well established that entropy is the nature of the universe, which even goes against a nonconsensual human theory of progress...or even a popular one
@180 Proof, @Agent Smith, @Tom Storm, @Vera Mont
I agree, in principle with Lamberts recent typing's in this thread BUT we are not separable from the universe, we are OF the universe, so there is a 'frame of reference,' within which the universe does care. We are that frame of reference. WE CARE and we are part of it!
I know the hard problem of consciousness, currently remains a 'hard problem,' but do you not ruminate sometimes about our role in giving purpose to the universe in all it's 'hard to perceive' vastness?
We need no god to humble ourselves before. We may be quite an important happening in the universe. We might be emergent. Do you assign any credence to this kind of viewpoint?
Btw, I am not advocating the current definitions of panpsychism or cosmopsychism but perhaps there is a case for some kind of future collectivisation/networking of knowledge/consciousness.
I agree that 'progress' is ultimately interpretive but 'change,' is empirically observed in all of our lives, every day and it is also very clearly demonstrated historically, from the days of the Proterozoic.
Entropy is increasing on the largest scale of the universe, there is no doubt about that, but locally, phenomena like the human race has the potential to continue to spread, grow in numbers, ability and lifespan. Surely if this potential is realised, and we eventually gain at least, an interstellar influence, then, this points to an emergence. That emergence must have some kind of collective/networked consciousness to it? Do you agree?
I'm really only interested in what we do to each other here and now. :wink:
In what sense do you employ the word 'spiritual' here?
What convinced you that the supernatural/transcendent/outside of spacetime existed?
What evidence was presented to you or presented itself to you?
These are the types of questions Tom was asking you that you ran away from and you are still running.
If you answer them, you might compel atheists such as myself to change the number of gods they 'have faith in' from 0 to the 1 you favour. Are you afraid that your detailed personal reasons for your theism are too weak and will sound delusional? Are they just based on human primal fears? How can anyone judge if you only offer theistic generalisations, using words like 'spiritual.'
Quoting Gregory
Give me an actual example, from your personal experiences, that you have or do label 'god's work.'
Surely, others will then be able to assign a personal credence level to your claim, in a rational way.
You seem very reluctant to offer actual exemplifications, you only offer theistic generalisations. You need to do a lot better than your personal general needs and wishes for supernatural superhero's to exist, as it allays your fears of what's happening outside our caves
:lol: How much of your personal time are you offering me?
Yeah, I saw that wink Tom! You are a seeker! You are incapable of ignoring the possible futures for our species imo. You will ruminate on such at times, whether you choose to fight the urge or not.
It's important to stay sane, but life can become a bit boring, if you always resist dancing with the unknown.
To the question "when are you coming?" there are varied and intriguing answers, eh?
But the Earth is close to 5 BILLION years old and the first hominid species had to start with inventing rudimentary stone and wood tools and as you suggested, gain some controls over fire. The technical and scientific infancy and childhood of our species has taken the vast majority of that 5 million years.
The first homo sapiens (humans) was a mere 315,000 years ago.
Quoting Vera Mont
The rate of technical advancement is increasing at a far bigger rate than it did in the majority of the 300,000+ years of the existence of the human race.
Quoting Vera Mont
:grin: Don't worry, that doomsday clock will tick for another billion trillion years of human existence.
I hope you are here for many years yet Vera! and if you are not, I personally, will miss your posts and your persona.
Quoting Vera Mont
I would choose to live now if offered to live in any past era. In fact, I would choose to be born in the distant future if I could make such a choice. Our future is not restricted to this planet.
Seems to me, you are very much enjoying thinking such thoughts!
Your head may hurt at times but you have to be alive to feel the pain and you also get to continue to 'wonder' what the correct answers are. WooHoo!
Absolutely, and long may their musings continue, as it means more and more of them stop being priests.
Many of the most ardent atheists who now have growing, public, online platforms are ex-theists.
They are causing a domino affect. Theism is not the future, it is the past.
Hence the word "also", meaning one of several definitions. Meaning, 'progress' does not have to be read as going from less to more or inferior to superior; it canalso indicate the simple unidirectional sequence of events.
Quoting Lambert Strether
I can think of no reason why it should. Or even learn any language at all.
Quoting Lambert Strether
I sad nothing whatever about 'development'. Nose and toes pointing the same way, one foot before the other, repeat. That's forward progress, whether the destination - known or unknown - is Disneyland or a swamp.
Quoting Agent Smith
One can also (alternatively, as another possibility) one could see three individual items, or a row of items, or a puzzle, or an encrypted message. The one who does the seeing need not be familiar with this alphabet and so interpret those images as pictograms for a house, a woman and a bundle of laundry. And one could meditate on that until he lost his mind...., I guess.
As some other posters have already highlighted, progress is subjective and/or illusory (perhaps they both mean the same thing). Are we making any progress?
Of one kind. The trouble with dictionaries.....
Great! Report what progress we've made.
Consecutively numbered pages 1 thru 8.
You can flip that however, you need the however for a comparator.
Intense thirst is so wonderfully relieved!
:up:
Supernatural, above and beyond the universe, infinite. I don't believe in God because of arguments, but from experience. The stance I took in this discussion was that you were wrong to say faith is unreasonable. Something doesn't have to be proven to be reasonable. Your 2 specific arguments were refuted by me. God doesn't have to answer prayers specifically in order for the prayer to be efficacious and religious people disagree about specifics in religion but they are not atheist because they believe in the supernatural. So you were wrong in that. As for Tom, he said he was a pragmatist. Are you?
The topic of this thread seems to be based on a Category Error : assuming that materialistic Science and spiritualistic Religion are competing in the same game, on the same field. Even Aristotle, who was not known for promoting Religion, placed his scientific observations (Physics) into a different chapter from his philosophical commentary (Metaphysics). But conflation of categories is typical of 180's polarized polemics.
180 asserts his personal opinion (belief) on Progress (nada) as-if it was a statement of Fact. But that negative attitude toward history is just as much of an "illusion" (mental model) as the more positive assessments. Both Optimism & Pessimism are subjective judgments "of the heart" instead of value-neutral objective descriptions. Personally, I'm a Peptomist : the world in which I live has both good and bad effects on my evaluation of whether life is worth living.
Scientific Cosmology makes no good/evil evaluation of the beginning of the world. It merely notes that everything now existing was constructed & organized from a hypothetical dimensionless point-of-beginning (Singularity). But, Philosophical Ontology allows us to imagine what that POB was like, based on what we now know about the organization of the world. Plato & Aristotle proposed a scenario in which the infinite potential of Chaos was converted into the finite actuality of Cosmos. Do you have any better answer to the something-from-nothing conundrum? :smile:
The Illusion of Progress :
Progress is an illusion a view of human life and history that answers to the needs of the heart, not reason. In his book The Future of an Illusion, published in 1927, Freud argued that religion is an illusion. Illusions need not be all false; they may contain grains of truth.
https://www.amacad.org/publication/illusion-future
What is progress in philosophy? :
Philosophical proponents of progress assert that the human condition has improved over the course of history and will continue to improve. Doctrines of progress first appeared in 18th-century Europe and epitomize the optimism of that time and place. Belief in progress flourished in the 19th century.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/progress/
Pessimism :
(Philosophy) a belief that this world is as bad as it could be or that evil will ultimately prevail over good. ___Oxford
Note -- 180's anti-religious belief in the dominance of destructive & disorganizing "Entropy" reveals a pessimistic assessment of the historical trend of the world. Yet it ignores the contribution of constructive Energy in the organization of the Cosmos. As for most religious faith, his personal belief is presented as-if it is absolute Truth. Do you believe that the world is "as bad as it could be"? Or do you agree with Shakespeare : There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so The world is simply what it is, but your imaginary or illusory worldview may be seen through rose-colored or dark glasses.
interesting. I would say it's the other way around - materialistic religion (most instantiations of religion) and spiritualistic science (how science is generally understood) are in direct competition as explanations of life on earth, not to mention the compass by which we navigate values and meaning. The naturalistic fallacy isn't much of an impediment to most practical people, who look to science as an effective path to understand reality, while religion ( often a series of fallacies in search of purpose) diminishes in importance, except amongst the fanatics who view religion as a set of vulgar terrestrial commands.
Citation that religious fanaticism is on the rise? My guess in that about half the world's population is truly interested in religion, whole the rest is not
I see you continue to refuse to answer the questions posed by Tom and now me, regarding your personal experiences that brought you to your faith in your god. I wont follow Tom's very respectable attempts at repeating the questions to you. I am left to assume that you are not confident that your answers are strong enough to stand up to scrutiny. I employ pragmatism when I deem that it is wise to do so but I employ many other epistemologies such as skepticism, and the logic inherent in the scientific method. I am sure you do to, but in my opinion, you have allowed your primal fears to compel you into requiring/desiring, a supernatural protector.
I suggest that the next time life overwhelms you, you look to fellow humans to help you, and don't bother praying to your god for its help. It seems to be too busy to help humans. I think that's because it doesn't exist. How much do you rely on prayer to help you in your life?
Science, as some sci-fi novelists have theorized, is ultimately going to make religion true by ... creating (AGI) God. So this success science has made is going to have big payoffs for religion - the Vatican may already be covertly funding & rsearching AGI in one its secret labs hidden somewhere in the high alps. :lol:
Jokes aside, I'd say there is order, but it's local and temporary; chaos, on the other hand, is both global and permanent and increasing, exponentially. Stars, our only hope, burn for billions of years, but they die eventually.
What chance does Enformy have against Entropy - it's a losin' battle and therein lies the rub, eh mi amigo?
That said, your holism is all inclusive and the order of the light had its moment, its time in the sun; it is now the dark ages, the sun is setting - let's go to the beaches, let's drive out to the mountains. Beautiful sunset, oui mon ami?
:clap: Also look at how religious groups (especially the evanhellicals) target third world countries.
Science tries to bring education to those who need it. Theists offer the uneducated and extremely poor, god solutions. Promises of paradise are thrown in, but only after you die and only if you comply with the requirements of the religious sales department, whilst you are alive.
Remember the claim by many native peoples:
"When the outsiders arrived, we had the land and they had their god, now they have our land and we have their god."
What a horrific deal that turned out to be!
I've answered all your questions already. That's enough
Aren't you assuming it's rational to leave religion in the first place?
Aren't you assuming it is rational to start from religion? And don't you need to separate crude religion from spirituality? Or theism from religion? Where do you being? But I'm not much interested in debating the merits of secularism versus religionism, there's enough of that on this site already, right?
I haven't said I can prove religion true. Nondual awareness of unity with God is hard to understand for everyone so people look for proofs. We do need to separate bad spirituality from what is good and make distinctions. I don't think there is a way to tell if the world is becoming more godless. I know a lot of good religious people who are having huge families
I never said we weren't part of it. I correctly said we are only a part of it and an infinitesimal part of it with barely a trillionth of a speck of influence on it
Can I ask if you find theism unpalatable? I think you implied you were a post modernist and subjectivist. Descartes and Liebniz believed in God, even if arguments they used were faulty. Kant believed in God too. I see God through Christian eyes during Christmas and Easter, Eastern eyes when I listen to sitar music, ect. I don't have to tell people about my experiences. Anyone can pick up belief in the most unusual ways
This would be an interesting discussion but should it be here and clog up the science/religion success thread? And I should say it is good when we can have these discussions without getting personal or needlessly rhetorical. I'm not a post-modernist - I lack the ability to understand the arguments - Heidegger may as well be in Latin (well, he did start out wanting to be a priest...)
The short answer is I have no sensus divinitatis and no subsequent argument I have heard has convinced me theism is useful or true. That said, I have a number of friends who are theists. I have two close friends who are a Catholic priest and a sister (nun) they think religion is by and large a terrible blight on the planet (including Catholicism) and many of my views about religion come through the work of religious writers - John Shelby Spong, Richard Rohr, David Bentley Hart.
Ironically, The Hebrew religion was materialistic, morally pragmatic, and this-worldly (no afterlife), so their explanations for existence & evolution were mostly naturalistic, except for the creation of something from nothing. However, the Christian religion was spiritualized, not by Jesus (human messiah), but by Paul, who preached the divine Christ myth to the Gentiles. I suspect that most ancient religions were likewise materialistic, except for their invisible Nature gods, who performed the natural functions that we now assign to invisible Energy. But Christians look forward to salvation from the bonds of Materialism. Even mostly naturalistic Buddhism anticipates a sort of impersonal salvation in non-self Nirvana.
Again, ironically, Quantum Theory does sound a lot like "spiritualistic science", with angelic Virtual Particles existing in immaterial (mathematical) quantum fields of un-real Potential, until manifested to human observers. But I suspect that most modern scientists, including quantum theorists, would object to the idea that they are playing the same game as religion : to reveal the divine purpose of temporal existence in a material world. In Classical Science, meaningful Teleology, or Positive Progress, was a no-no. But some science-based theorists today look forward to a future species salvation in a Technological Singularity. That's not necessarily a Naturalistic Fallacy, but a Cultural Optimism envisioning collective purpose, to aim at the stars. :smile:
Quantum Spirituality :
Could the great challenges of the world, and our lives, be solved through the wisdom of the past merged with the best science of today?
https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Spirituality-Amit-Goswami-Ph-d/dp/9353479339
:up:
Beliefs and practices, in my experience.
Quoting Tom Storm
:100:
:
Ok. I'm open to the idea of universalism (Origen) like Spong and I'd be happy if it's true. It makes more sense and gives more hope to life. Hell makes no sense to atheist and maybe it shouldnt make sense to them. If my mind is stuck in atheism im not less moral either. Religion can make good people do bad things and bad people do good things. Thats what the new atheists dont talk about. Religion has enormous reformative power. Lawrence Krauss however said he would rather not exist if God were real. I think it's important to see things from the other perspective. Have a good night
(NB: "Religious martyrs", by most sympathetic accounts, have always exhibited many acute symptoms of psychosis and are much more compulsively delusional than hopeful or courageous.)
One day, I hope you will run into the arms of atheism and we will be your man.
Free at last Gregory! Hallelujah! Free at last!
The universe is vast and complex but what does that matter without a creature such as us that can feel 'awe' and 'wonder' when we ponder it? We are also compelled to strive to figure out what, how and why it is. We are the only lifeform (we currently know of) that demonstrates such a tendency.
The significance of that may be 'primo' in the entire universe.
I have always ascribed significant value to Carl Sagan's great demotions and I will continue to do so but I also strongly disagree with your generalised significance rating for humankind.
We influence the universe more than any other lifeform does at present.
No extraterrestial lifeform or god society has been in contact with us yet, to prove that wrong.
What draws people to religion? Is it just a verbal pledge of a safety net to catch a believer's fall? Religions tend to be factually barren and yet, people by the millions end up believing in one god or another and even diehard atheists sometimes admit to having doubts about their own beliefs or lack thereof. Scientists like Albert Einstein were deists; perhaps deism is nothing more than the dying embers of theism, the last gasp of breath one sucks in as one passes on.
:clap: Well said Lawrence, for what would we truly be?
A mere entertainment. A purpose for a purposeless, ineffable omnipotent whose existence is completely contradictory
:clap: Soooooooooooo true!
and we have Hitchens:
[b]"What we have here, picked from no mean source, is a distillation of precisely what is twisted and immoral in the faith mentality. Its essential fanaticism, its consideration of the human being as raw material, and its fantasy of purity.
Once you assume a creator and a plan, it makes us objects, in a cruel experiment, whereby we are created sick and commanded to be well. I'll repeat that. Created sick, and then ordered to be well.
And over us to supervise this, is installed a celestial dictatorship; a kind of divine North Korea. Exigent, I would say, more than exigent, greedy for uncritical praise, from dawn until dusk. And swift to punish the original sins with which it so tenderly gifted us in the very first place. An eternal, unalterable, judge, jury and executioner, against whom, there could be no appeal. And who wasn't finished with you even when you died. However! Let no one say there's no cure! Salvation is offered! Redemption, indeed, is promised, at the low price, of the surrender of your critical faculties." [/b]
You will also know Hitchens razor:
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
If we look at institutions and compare success-rates, all we have to do is go to any town in North America and count churches and hospitals or clinics.
But isn't one of major reasons (or even the major reason) Christianity has failed to catch on in India is because of the success/dominance of Hinduism in India (~80% of the population identifies as Hindu, vs something like 2-3% identifying as Christian)? So is it really a failure of religion when one religion is thwarted by a different religion?
And while I agree that religion (and certain varieties of Christianity in particular) has failed- whereas science has succeeded- at discerning factual/empirical truths about the natural world, I think its fairly obvious that this isn't the only objective of religion: in fact, Christianity's insistence on the importance of belief that certain propositions are true (that God exists, that Jesus of Nazareth was god incarnate, and that he was crucified and subsequently resurrected) is actually fairly unique- most religions don't put anywhere near as much emphasis on belief or truth, but are often more concerned with conduct, rites and rituals (i.e. particular ways of living), enforcing certain norms, and maintaining certain traditions and social hierarchies.
And on these counts, I think religion has been fairly successful, and continues to be successful (look at the portion of the global population that is religious, look at the number of countries that are explicitly or implicitly theocratic, i.e. having policy dictated to some extent by a particular religious tradition- take the US and abortion, for instance).
So religion has failed as an explanatory endeavor... but it remains quite successful as a social, cultural, and political force (which I find to be sort of terrifying, to be completely honest).
As far as I know, the special kind of order (Life & Mind) we humans experience on Earth is rare in the universe. But my personal concern is local, so I don't worry about the order, or lack thereof, in the un-inhabitable areas of the cosmos. Nevertheless, like the ancient Greeks and modern Einstein, I do marvel at the beautifully organized structure of the universe. Beautiful, compared to what? To mess, chaos, confusion, squalor, disorder, disarray, clutter, etc. To the effects of Entropy.
From a philosophical perspective though, my interest is universal & cosmic. And modern Cosmology has confirmed the intuition of the ancients, that the Cosmos is distinguished from Chaos in that it is precisely enformed : apparently structured to serve some overall purpose. I don't know what that ultimate goal might be, but the physics of the universe seems to be finely tuned to distinguish organization (Enformy) from dis-organization (Entropy). For example, Evolution seems to function like a computer program, to begin with a loosely-defined goal and to seek-out intermediate solutions leading toward resolution of that cosmic equation : A + B + C . . . . = X.
Like Einstein, I'd like to break the code of that cosmic computer program. Unfortunately. lacking Albert's genius, all I can do is construct crude philosophical approximations of the enigmatic machine that is cranking-out bits of information (energy ; matter) from which to construct a complete cosmic "miracle".
Was Albert a pollyanna, looking only at the bright side of the world? Or a pragmatist, who understood that "all things are relative". Relativity is the reference frame (attitude ; perspective) through which you see one side or another of Reality. So, we only see the part of the universe that happens to be framed within our personal perspective. If you are looking for reasons to despair, aim your frame at Entropy. "Aye, there's the rub." :smile:
[i]There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.
"One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality."[/i]
? Albert Einstein
Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on the idea of reference frames. A reference frame is simply "where a person (or other observer) happens to be standing".
https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/relativity5.htm
Teleology :
[i]Philosophical term derived from Greek: telos (end, goal, purpose, design, finality) and logos (reason, explanation). Philosophers, from Aristotle onward, assumed that everything in the world has a purpose and a place in the scheme of history. As a religious concept, it means that the world was designed by God for a specific reason, such as producing sentient beings to stroke His ego with worship & sacrifices.
1. In Enformationism theory, Evolution seems to be progressing from past to future in increments of Enformation. From the upward trend of increasing organization over time, we must conclude that the randomness of reality (Entropy) is offset by a constructive force (Enformy). This directional trajectory implies an ultimate goal or final state. What that end might be is unknown, but speculation abounds.
2. Teilhard de Chardin postulated that God created the world to evolve toward perfection, eventually to become god-like. He called that end-state the Omega Point.
3. In Chris Langan's CTMU theory, the term "unbounded Telesis" refers to the infinite creative power of God for "planned progress".
4. <
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page20.html
Teleonomy :
[i]Although evolution is obviously progressing in the direction of Time's Arrow, it is treated by Science as if it is wandering aimlessly in a field of possibilities limited only by natural laws and initial conditions. But philosophical observers over the centuries have inferred that evolution shows signs of rational design, purpose, and intention. Traditionally, that programmed progression has been called "Teleology" (future + reason), and was attributed to a divine agent.
Teleonomy (purpose + law) is another way of describing the appearance of goal-directed progress in nature, but it is imagined to be more like the step-by-step computations of a computer than the capricious interventions of a deity. Since the Enformationism thesis portrays the Creator more like a computer programmer than the Genesis wizard who creates with magic words (creatio via fiat), "Teleonomy" may be the more appropriate term to describe the creative process of a non-intervening deity.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page20.html
I believe in God because it is a beautiful idea. It's not about being saved from anxiety. It is very philosophical
I am currently reading the 2012 book by historian James D. Tabor, Paul & Jesus : How the Apostle transformed Christianity. The author presents his interpretation of Christianity as the religion of Paul instead of Jesus. Many years ago, I came to the same conclusion. The inspiring story that Jesus preached was itself a metanarrative*1 of second temple Judaism, as interpreted by the apocalyptic monks we know as the Essenes. But Paul basically spiritualized their worldly anticipation of the Kingdom of God, by transferring it to a heavenly dominion, instead of a return to the golden age of Solomon's reign. For those living under the exploitative oppression of Rome, even a retro-action could be viewed as progressive*2.
Understandably, after the death of their Priest-King Messiah, Jesus' disciples were dispirited & despondent. So Paul saw a new direction for reviving those old this-worldly prophecies, in a way that would give them new hope. Unfortunately, those here & now disciples, expected Jesus to physically rise from the grave, to rule a restored Jerusalem, rid of Romans. But when the annointed king didn't come back to walk the Earth in physical form, Paul reinterpreted the prophecies to foretell that the Lord would instead sit on a heavenly throne in a spirit body to rule the whole world, both Jews & Gentiles. That is about as Meta (above & beyond) as it gets. His metanarrative*3 was intended to re-inspire the hopes & dreams of the Jews, and also to broaden its application to include the Gentiles.
The narratives of Science have also been transformed by new ways of looking at the world. Those "fact-based" meta-narratives are what we call Paradigms (generally accepted worldviews). For example, Gallileo changed our understanding of the stars, from circulating angels or gods to mere lumps of matter following paths prescribed by what later came to be known as abstract Gravity. From that first step, Classical Science began to take a modern materialistic form, in place of the ancient Greek interpretation of astrophysics, in which the agents of change (forces ; energy) were assumed to be intentional, but now viewed as accidental movements of mindless matter. More recently, Quantum Theory began to chip away the materialistic foundation of classical Science. So physicists are again in need of a new paradigm or metanarrative*4 to inspire hope for progress*5. :smile:
1. Metanarrative :
An overarching account or interpretation of events and circumstances that provides a pattern or structure for peoples beliefs and gives meaning to their experiences.
*2. The brief rule of the 2nd century Maccabean kings after revolt against the Greek rulers, could have been interpreted as a "pay off" for their religious "science". Which probably gave the later revolutionaries hope that indomitably keeping the faith would again "pay off" against the Romans.
*3. What is the Biblical Metanarrative? :
The biblical metanarrative is the overall story-line ?by which we can understand the Bible as a whole.
https://www.postmodernpreaching.net/the-biblical-metanarrative.html
*4. Scientific Progress :
Science is often distinguished from other domains of human culture by its progressive nature: in contrast to art, religion, philosophy, morality, and politics, there exist clear standards or normative criteria for identifying improvements and advances in science.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-progress/
*5. Technological Progress :
The technological singularityor simply the singularityis a hypothetical future point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable changes to human civilization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
IS SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS REAL ?
https://mathscholar.org/2019/01/is-scientific-progress-real/
Understood. I disbelieve in "God" because it's nothing but "a beautiful idea" (like utopia ... paradise ... heaven ...) :death: :flower:
Quoting Gnomon
Contrary to the pseudo-"philosophical perspective" above: as the universe develops from minimum disorder to maximum disorder on a (non-constant) gradient, any 'order' is a temporary, dissipative phase-state of disorder. The asymmetric direction of cosmological development does not indicate a "purpose" any more than an avalanche down a mountainside indicates its "purpose". To quote a Nobel laureate theoretical physicist:
[quote=Steven Weinberg]The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.[/quote]
Another esteemed, particle physicist and philosopher Victor J Stenger dismisses teleological pseudo-science like "Enformationism"...
[quote=The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning (2011)]The universe is not fine-tuned to us; we are fine-tuned to our particular universe.[/quote]
[quote=God: The Failed Hypothesis (2007)]We have yet to encounter an observable astronomical phenomenon that requires a supernatural element to be added to a model in order to describe the event...Observations in cosmology look just as they can be expected to look if there is no God.[/quote]
The book referenced is a history book, not a religious treatise. Do you feel that the details of history "don't much matter"? Maybe you missed the intended point of the post in the midst of indirect contextual commentary*1. What I was getting around to though, is a response to your implied parallel between religious & scientific belief in Progress*2. Since Science inspires hope for Physical progress in controlling Nature, it has something in common with religions that preach reasons for hoping that Ethical progress -- to control human nature -- will follow from socio-cultural change.
We evaluate scientific progress by the leverage it gives humanity over the impartial forces of Nature, turning them to our own advantage. But putting such power in the hands of ethically-challenged humans can easily turn pro-gress into re-gress. For example, the Manhattan Project scientists, who gave us the tools to exploit nuclear power, later began to regret their role in unleashing such fraught forces upon a world lacking the necessary moral code to control god-like power*3.
Since the Enlightenment era, progressive Science has been deemed to require an open-minded amoral (factual) stance ; leaving ethical considerations to feckless (non-progressive) philosophers. Yet Science gives us tools that, like a hammer, can be used for both constructive and destructive purposes. Although religions often control human behavior via top-down coercive methods, the philosophical underpinnings*4 of those religions are intended to give us tools for self-control. With that in mind, I was merely expanding on what you intuitively implied : that Science & Philosophy should work hand in hand to advance the interests of humanity in an otherwise indifferent world. :smile:
*1. Context that was meaningful to me -- due to my religious background -- if not to you.
*2. " Perhaps the belief in the progress of science is a secular variant, but at least it pays off now and again" ___Tom Storm
*3. Oppenheimer's Regret :
"I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, 'Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.'"
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph241/anderson1/
*4. Including Agnosticism, Atheism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, New Age, etc . . .
https://www.josh.org/what-are-the-top-religious-philosophies/
I know what it is. You don't think history is tendentious and subject to publishing fads? Interesting.
I thought I was clear - I am not much interested in people's pet theories about how this particular messiah myth was tweaked/distorted over time.
So what? You don't think putting god/s into the hands of your 'ethically-challenged humans' hasn't also been a magnificent scourge - from holy wars to stacking the Supreme Court? The original power of mass destruction was religion.
I apologize for bothering you with my personal interest in the "details" of a myth that was the foundation of my worldview in my youth. Although I no longer believe the myth, I am not hostile to current believers, including my own family. Instead, I understand how compelling such a fundamental narrative can be to those faced with a puzzling and sometimes threatening world. :smile:
What "draws" people against religious philosophies, that have no power to enslave their holders in a particular authoritarian system? Since you have become the designated go-between for the vs Gnomon controversy, I'll take this opportunity to respond to his latest polemical diatribe without actually engaging in dialog. You seem to think that the BothAnd philosophy requires such intercommunication, but I prefer not to get involved in political squabbles.
I do think Deism may be the skeletal remains of religious belief for some people. But, as a rational philosophical stance, it lacks the emotional vibe that "draws" people to religion. My position is a kind of Deism, specifically PanEnDeism. But even that may be too close to religious belief for 180wooboo to abide. So, what "draws" people to Philosophy instead of religion? Certainly not the need for a "crutch" or "safety net". Perhaps instead, the "draw" is insatiable curiosity, as Einstein noted in his case.
In his counter-attack to my post above 180alcoholcontent, made a series of assertions -- not arguments -- supported by quotes from authoritative sources. My post observed that "the Cosmos is distinguished from Chaos in that it is precisely enformed : apparently structured to serve some overall purpose. I don't know what that ultimate goal might be, but the physics of the universe seems to be finely tuned to distinguish organization (Enformy) from dis-organization (Entropy)". To that, he responded :
ENTROPY
"Contrary to the pseudo-"philosophical perspective" above: as the universe develops from minimum disorder to maximum[ disorder on a (non-constant) gradient, any 'order' is a temporary, dissipative phase-state of disorder. The asymmetric direction of cosmological development does not indicate a "purpose" any more than an avalanche down a mountainside indicates its "purpose". To quote a Nobel laureate theoretical physicist: The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless". Steven Weinberg
1. His reversed reference to "minimum disorder" at the Big Bang betrays his prejudice toward Entropy as the dominant dis-organizing principle of the universe. To the contrary, if the universe developed from a state of "minimum disorder" that means it was maximally organized. If so, the philosophical question, that Atheists avoid like the plague, is how did the initial Singularity get organized enough to create a world from scratch? As the link below says, we can distinguish between dissipative (entropy) "natural" and "cultural" (enformy) processes by noting the arrow of Entropy. Which points away from Order (max energy) toward Disorder (max Entropy). Likewise, we can discern Natural processes from Super-natural in the same manner. For example, how did the Singularity get organized into "minimum disorder / max order" prior to the BB? I don't know, but I can guess. 180 is entitled to a personal opinion that the world is a "hostile" place; but I respectfully disagree.
To quote a Nobel laureate theoretical physicist :
"One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality". ___Einstein
Entropy: the disorder of the universe
On the other hand, entropy is also how humans distinguish between natural and man-made structures. If you saw a pile of logs neatly stacked up on the ground, you would probably think that a humanmore specifically, a lumberjackhad done it. But why? Because nature tends to push things to become more disordered. A neat pile of logs is not disordered, but randomly strewn-out logs are. Our brains are able to make a distinction between what is and what isnt natural based on how random it appears.
https://thestrand.ca/entropy-the-disorder-of-the-universe/
(i.e. how Purposeful it appears)
A dissipative structure is a form of organization (order), which means that the entropy (disorder) of the system concerned is not maximum.
https://global4cast.org/2019/06/dissipative-structures-explained-part-3-modern-thermodynamics/
COMPREHENSIBILITY
2. Compare Weinberg's negative attitude to Einstein's more positive view. Which is more authoritative?
"[i]The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible" ___Einstein
"You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton's theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori.[/i] ___Einstein
TELEOLOGY
3. I had a brief dialog with Stenger many years ago, and he did indeed dismiss my musings about directionality of evolution. But then, he was a physicist, not an evolutionary biologist. So, the Darwinian Teleology was not apparent to him.
Ironically, it was Science, not Religion, that revealed the teleological tendencies of the natural world -- that it is evolving in a positive direction. Most traditional religions have always assumed a steady-state universe that either stays the same forever, or simply goes around in circles. But agnostic or godless scientists determined that the evidence from Biology, Geology, and Paleontology indicates that many small random changes add-up to progressive evolution toward increasing order and complexity -- at least in the corner of the cosmos we can study in detail.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page29.html
Why did evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane quip that "teleology is like a mistress to a biologist : he cannot live without her, but he's unwilling to be seen with her in public."? Why is the notion of directional progression in evolution so repellant to mainstream scientists?
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page25.html
Even Darwin himself admitted, regarding blind chance or necessity, that I am compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man and I deserve to be called a theist. Perhaps not a biblical Theist, but an enlightenment Deist. Even theistic botanist, Asa Grey, noted that, Darwinian teleology has the special advantage of accounting for the imperfections and failures as well as for successes. And that is also the case for the Intelligent Evolution corollary to the thesis of Enformationism.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page14.html
Note : see my post above for application of the term "Teleonomy" (future + reason) in place of "Teleology" burdened by its historical connection to Theology.
FINE TUNING
180 quoted Stenger : "The universe is not fine-tuned to us; we are fine-tuned to our particular universe." So, you can choose which theoretical physicist you find to be more authoritative.
4. In the foreword, prominent physicist John Archibald Wheeler summarized the philosophical meaning of this scientific data : It is not only that man is adapted to the universe . . ., as implied by Darwins Theory of Evolution, but that, the universe is adapted to man. He goes on to assert the central point of the anthropic principle, that a life-giving factor lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world. He made that assertion, despite knowing that design is a dirty word in the vocabulary of most scientists. The authors mention several key assumptions, (see side-notes left), that also apply to the Enformationism thesis. Yet, Wheeler goes further out on a limb to contend that, This amazing prediction looks like being some day testable and therefore would seem to count as falsifiable in the sense of Karl Popper. He may be best known for his provocative It from Bit hypothesis, that everything in the material world is created from the immaterial essence that we now know as Information. Which is the core concept of my own philosophical worldview.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html
SUPERNATURAL ELEMENT
5. Although I didn't mention a supernatural God, he again quoted Stenger : "We have yet to encounter an observable astronomical phenomenon that requires a supernatural element to be added to a model in order to describe the event...Observations in cosmology look just as they can be expected to look if there is no God." Compare that Atheistic assertion to Einstein's Deistic attitude.
We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations". ___Albert Einstein
"It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in nature." __Albert Einstein
END OF DUELING PHYSICISTS
This sounds a little passive aggressive - did you intend it this way?
I was brought up in the Baptist tradition so I think I understand.
You seem to like exploring elaborate explanations for everything. I don't. I am not engaged in the mad scramble to make sense of all things as 1) I am not a scholar or expert and 2) I generally reject the premise that humans can attain any kind of absolute truth or ultimate reality. I also leave theology, neuroscience and physics to qualified theologians, neuroscientists and physicists. Ultimately how I conduct my life is unlikely to be effected by any armchair theorising in those areas.
Quoting Gnomon
So, by this concept, nature the universe / multiverse is merely the physical aspect of a greater, non-physical entity (deity, creator, process) aka "Enformer" ... and yet, Gnomon, there is not any evidence for or sound argument demonstrating that in order for nature to be intelligible, and explicable, nature requires a non-physical entity ("Enformer") of which to be a part. I do not discern any substantive differences between (neo-Aristotlean) "Enformationism" and (neo'-Thomistic) "Intelligent Design", but I remain open to being persuaded to reconsider this unfavorable comparison.
@180 Proof, for my money, has one gripe against your theory viz. the fact that it seems impossible to retain design (Enformy, teleology, etc.) without a designer implicit. So thought you try valiantly to distance yourself from religion, it comes off as incoherent at best or deception at worst.
Another thing, please take this as constructive criticism, your theory relies on controversy (dueling physicists) rather than solid facts - its home is in the darkness of our ignorance rather than the light of our knowledge. Given your caliber, I'm expecting a first class response from you.
:smile:
Pepe (Asterix in Spain)
No. I typically apologize when my "exploring elaborate explanations " pushes someone's buttons, and they take offense. That's not "passive aggressive" but merely respectful politeness that is necessary to maintain calm rational dialog on a controversial forum.
What I do intend is to do what philosophers do : "inquiry into fundamental questions". Studying "settled" questions of science, may produce simple explanations, such as E=MC^2. But exploring unsettled, and unsettling, questions of philosophy, often requires "elaborate explanations". So, if you prefer simple or facile explanations, Classical Science can provide them : Isaac Newton -- His third law states that for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction. But many of the fundamental & existential questions of Classical Philosophy remain unsettled after 2500 years of exploration and elaboration. :smile:
What is the work of a philosopher? :
Philosophy encourages critical and systematic inquiry into fundamental questions of right and wrong, truth and falsehood, the meaning of life, and the nature of reality, knowledge and society.
https://philosophy.as.uky.edu/where-can-philosophy-take-me
Philosophical Questions :
[i]Philosophy raises questions that address fundamental issues and beliefs and which require complex thinking rather than empirical research to answer. . . .
Philosophy attempts to clarify and illuminate unsettled, controversial issues that are so generic that no scientific discipline is equipped to deal with them (Lipman, 1988, p. 91).[/i]
https://www.encyclopedia.com/education/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/philosophical-questions-their-nature-and-function
I appreciate your "constructive criticism" by contrast with 180boo's dueling physicists. Although you have been influenced by the anti-design arguments, you remain open-minded to alternatives*1.
Yes, I have concluded that the apparent design*2 -- the "marvelous structure" (Einstein) -- of the universe logically implies a designer, planner, creator. That's why Einstein, and several of the founding fathers of Quantum Theory reached that same conclusion. So, since 180boo responds to my theories with dueling physicists, I'll be glad to let him argue with Einstein. What say you : does the "comprehensibility" of the universe imply a random accidental origin, or an intentional designer*3 of some kind? Even Atheists admit that the emergence of a self-organizing system of Causation (energy) & Regulation (laws) requires something more than shuffling cards for a long, long time.
I have indeed, distanced myself from all religions -- including the indoctrination of my childhood. And I have no inclination to worship the Enformer of my own thesis. It's just an idea. But it's an informed idea : a philosophical hypothesis, like Plato's Logos*4. Since there is no empirical proof for any of the postulated precedents of our universe, your guess is as valid as mine, but mine has a detailed thesis (philosophical argument) to support that logical conclusion.
Regarding "controversy" vs "solid facts", are you aware of any philosophical concept that is uncontroversial? It's the job of empirical science to provide "solid facts" to put an end to controversies, such as phlogiston. But, are you aware of any "solid facts" that terminate all Ontological questions? Are you afraid of controversial topics and the darkness of our Ignorance? If so, you should shy away from philosophical forums. :smile:
*1. I too, reject the magical implications of Intelligent Design proponents, but not necessarily the physical & philosophical evidence they present. As you well know, I don't depend on Biblical authority to support my ideas. Instead of the Instantaneous Design by Fiat of Genesis, I have adopted the Gradual Design by Evolution of Darwinian Teleology. I simply call it "Intelligent Evolution", guided by Laws, not by Chance.
*2. What is the basic definition of design? :
to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/design
*3. The Enformer :
AKA, the Creator. The presumed eternal source of all information, as encoded in the Big Bang Sing-ularity. That ability to convert conceptual Forms into actual Things, to transform infinite possibilities into finite actualities, and to create space & time, matter & energy from essentially no-thing is called the power of EnFormAction. Due to our ignorance of anything beyond space-time though, the postulated enforming agent remains undefined. I simply label it "G*D".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note -- I don't quote the Bible to support the Enformer hypothesis, but the opinions of professional scientists. So, the Enformer is not identical with any of the traditional creator gods, but merely a novel theoretical Principle derived from 21st century science. AFAIK, that hypothetical entity is worshiped by no religion, and has made no threats of eternal damnation. Hence, it's no more scary than the only viable alternative : an eternal regression of self-existent & self-organizing worlds (Multiverse).
*4. LOGOS :
[i]With Plato the story gets a bit more complex, since he had a variety of ways he used this term. Maybe the most straightforward one would be the understanding of logos as opposed to mythos (?????), where logos is perceived as the true, analytical account.
In Phaedo, Plato explained that the characteristic of the true knowledge is the ability to give account, logos, of what one knows. In Theatetus, Socrates described logos as the distinguishable characteristic of a thing.
With Aristotle, we approach the definition of logos that is close to Latin ratio, as well as the modern notion of logos. Aristotle understood logos as the reason and rationality, especially in the ethical sense.
He also used it in the meaning of a mathematical proportion, which we can see in the English word ratio, but this can probably be traced back to Pythagoras.[/i]
https://www.pbs.org/theogloss/logos-body.html
I wonder how much you've really thought through these statements. You don't elaborate much about it, so you end up with cliche: science good/true/real, religion bad/false/fictional.
This is right out of recent critiques of Christianity from the likes of Richard Dawkins and company. There's something to these claims, but in a very specific sense, concerning Biblical literalists and creationists. It presupposes a philosophy of science and religion which I don't agree with anyway, and the narrow analysis that "New Atheists" do make is done on the basis of this philosophical background. But it strikes me now as scientism. (Which I'm still mostly a part of, by the way.)
Science is just another kind of religion, from one point of view. An important and powerful one -- but also very destructive. I think we should start thinking from this point of view, instead of a mutually exclusive one. Both science and religion make philosophical assumptions because both ultimately arise from human questions and human concerns.
Quoting Art48
No you don't. You get many interpretations in science as well, some of which converge. This correspondence view of truth, where we can "mirror" reality of the outside, objective world, should really be abandoned. Fine to talk about in everyday life, but is itself an interpretation of the world and of truth.
Quoting Art48
(1) Religions "done right" certainly do converge in many ways and through many cultures. Even when they're not done right, in fact.
(2) If we're going to focus solely on where religions differ (which they do, in many ways and through many cultures), then we should also say that science (the supposedly "non-faulty" epistemological method) also differs; examples abound. If you cannot think of any, then you're not reasoning fully.
Think about it for a minute: why these generalizations? They're not justified, in my view. Just in terms of looking around, not even due to any deep disagreement about epistemology.
Why do you say this? I see little evidence for it.
Read "the Presocratics", Plato's early-middle Socratic Dialogues, Aristotle, Epicurus, Sextus Empiricus, Lucretius, Epictetus ...
Or, at a minimum, as the exploration of alternatives to religious modes of understanding, emphasizing the intellect and critical reasoning, giving us the proto-philosophy and proto-science of e.g. Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, the Eleatic Monists, the Greek atomists, etc. (and of course Plato, Aristotle, and eventually all of subsequent western philosophy as we now know and recognize it)
Stop the name calling. You are more than capable of criticism without insults. Or ignoring them.
Ive read every one of those men. Hence I see little evidence for it.
The narrative that these men were essentially primitive scientists is unconvincing.
I only read a small portion of the New Theology PDF but I will say that whoever developed it doesn't seem to have a solid grasp of religion in general or in some of the specifics, from what I read.
What would religious modes of understanding be?
Again, the claim that these early thinkers were just proto/primitive scientists (in todays sense) is just projection. Every one of the early Greeks were religious all believed in the gods and spoke of such, all were educated in Homer.
Its really just part of the mischaracterization of religion, in my view. Also a product of the long reaction to Christianity of which the Greeks knew exactly nothing.
Don't worry. It's our little not-so-private running joke. This diabolical dialog has been going on for several years. 180 calls me by a slew of sarcastic names, and I indirectly return the favor with tongue-in-cheek, except that I'm not nearly as creative or prolific in my labels.
I tried to ignore 180's insults long ago, but he just can't let it go. So, now I don't respond directly, and address my answers to Agent Smith -- who is in on the joke -- because he serves as a middle man between two posters who have stopped talking (civilly) to each other. FWIW, 180 seems to be serious about his anti-metaphysical mission, but I'm just kidding. And, mommy, he hit me first!!! :joke:
Philosopher-on-Philosopher Insults :
But for truly epic bitchiness and egotism, you need look no further than that most storied and venerable of academic disciplines: philosophy! The history of Western thought is peppered with thinkers taking aim at their peers sometimes in a genteelly intellectual manner, and sometimes um, less so (yes, Friedrich Nietzsche, this means you)
https://www.flavorwire.com/469065/the-30-harshest-philosopher-on-philosopher-insults-in-history
Can you say how/why it is unconvincing? I find it close to undeniable, in at least a couple important senses: the presocratic Greek philosophers were not only interested in philosophical topics, but also in ones we would now characterize as belonging to the empirical sciences- many/most of them were attempting to explain physical phenomena in terms of natural causes and material constituents, rather than theistic/religious ones, and in particular the pursuit to identify the material principle or fundamental constituent of the physical world (water for Thales, air for Anaximenes, etc) in the same sort of ontologically reductionist sense that e.g. particle physics attempts to identify the fundamental material constituents of reality in contemporary science.
And, importantly, they sought to do this by applying the intellect and critical reasoning, rather than appealing to religious myth or tradition (and some of them explicitly criticized religious/theistic thinking).
So, the rational investigation of the natural world via the application of the critical intellect, with explanations in terms of natural causes and material principles rather than gods or spirits. How is that not proto-science? Not to mention the line of influence and continuity that can be traced from these early philosophical and proto-scientific endeavors, through Aristotle and beyond (up to/including most of western philosophy and even modern science)?
Most of them were at any rate. But they generally didn't invoke gods or spirits as (intellectually/rationally impenetrable) causes or explanations in their capacity as natural philosophers, but looked for natural or physical causes or explanations, or for those who still did invoke gods, to subject them to rational scrutiny and argumentation, abandoning mythology and religious tradition in favor of something closer to what we would now call philosophy or natural science.
But you're certainly right that they weren't just proto-scientists, they were sort of generalists or jacks-of-all-trades, since science, philosophy, metaphysics, ethics, religion, mythology, and so on were sort of all bundled together and indistinct from one another at that point. But what people generally mean- at least what I mean- when they talk of the presocratics as primitive or proto-scientists is this introduction of a rationalistic method for investigating the physical world, and the influence and continuity between these early investigations and the later emergence/development of philosophy and science as distinct domains.
The other notable thing, which I believe is what 180 is highlighting, is this development of breaking away from understanding the world primarily in religious terms, and even in some instances of providing explicit critique of existing religious traditions or ideas. They were thus providing an alternative way of looking at the world that would eventually develop into what we now recognize as science, naturalism, atheism, and so forth. Certainly, they weren't scientists in the ordinary, contemporary sense of the term, but they were important and influential in the eventual development of these intellectual traditions (and so hence the characterization as "proto-science")..
Exactly. :up:
@Mikie seems to have missed (or deliberately misread) this point.
The gods were as natural to the Greeks as what we currently call natural, in my view. But who exactly fo you have in mind? Democritus? Thales? Parmenides?
Quoting 180 Proof
I didnt misread it. I know exactly what was said and I know its exactly wrong.
They were important in the development of nearly everything in the West. Including Christianity. Should we call them proto-Christians? (Many have made that claim too.)
I think the problem here is the meaning of religion and science, in part.
Quoting busycuttingcrap
I think the understanding of the world changed. I dont think the characterization of going from religious terms (here apparently equated with superstitions on par with Santa Claus) to naturalistic ones (and hence proto-science) is accurate. I think thats a story thats been perpetuated without evidence, and gone mostly unquestioned.
Sure, there's some truth to that, but like I said, the difference was that they weren't invoking gods or spirits as causes for natural phenomena for the most part. They were interested in physical causes and explanations, as in the pursuit of the material principle or fundamental physical constituents we see with Thales, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, and the atomists Democratus and Leucippus. I'm not sure how one can miss or deny the parallel between this project, and the similarly ontological reductionist theories of modern particle physics.
So again, the sense in which they were proto-scientists (though they weren't just proto-scientists, but also proto-logicians and proto-ethicists and proto-theologians and so on) is:
- the attempt to understand the world through rational investigation and critical reflection, as opposed to appealing to religious myths
- the attempt to understand the physical constitution and causal mechanisms of the physical world
- the influence and continuity between these endeavors and later philosophy/science
And since they say it better than I could, I'll quote the SEP passage on the legacy of the presocratics, which emphasizes their role as "proto-scientists":
- https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presocratics/#PreLeg
Maybe find a place between listing a bunch of names and rolling your eyes like a schoolgirl.
If thats too vague, Ill make it more specific: of the names you listed, what statement (from any of them, even the non-Greeks) really stands out to you as supporting your narrative?
But who was, exactly? Were people attributing the effects of gravity to invisible angels pulling strings prior to Newton? Did Newton stop being a Christian at any point? Doesnt seem so
That Apollo pulls the sun on his chariot or Eros causes desire through arrows isnt really what was abandoned. Mostly because it never really existed in the sense we think but even if it did, these supernatural phenomena continued on well after Thales.
I think what changed was the understanding of phusis.
Absolutely they were, no disagreement on that point. As for "proto-Christians", that strikes me as a bit of a stretch, but I did just call them "proto-theologians" in the comment I just posted before reading this reply so its not that far off the mark.
Quoting Mikie
Right, and they were at least partially responsible for this change (although I imagine its a bit of a chicken/egg situation). And I'm not equating religious or mythological understanding with "superstitions on par with Santa Claus"- I don't think that's a useful characterization, at the very least its over-simplistic to the point of inaccuracy.
But I also don't see how one can deny that the presocratic Greek philosophers were engaging in an intellectual and rationalistic endeavor that contrasted significantly with traditional religious understandings of the world, that their methods and their areas of interest bear some important similarities with what we now understand as natural science, or that their work was influential and important for the subsequent development of science (and philosophy, and logic, and ethics, and theology, and so on). This is the dominant understanding of the presocratics legacy (as quite adequately expressed in the above SEP quote), because its what the evidence supports, and that evidence is primarily our ancient sources themselves.
Stick with @busycuttingthecrap since I'm not patient enough to spoon feed you anymore that I already have. So you don't agree with my interpretation of the early Western philosophical tradition? Okay, suit yourself, but stop whining dogmatically at me about it.
Youre either not patient enough or cant do it. I suspect the latter, actually. But in neither case did you ever spoon feed me anything. What you did was list a bunch of names that any undergraduate could and said read.
Thats not spoon feeding, its posturing.
Quoting 180 Proof
Not once have I whined. And youre looking far more dogmatic than I am, given youre the one thats refusing to defend your thesis one iota.
A simple I dont feel like it would be fine. Given that you do so often, I would wonder why you bother with a philosophy forum in the first place but at least itd be honest.
"So, by this concept, nature the universe / multiverse is merely the physical aspect of a greater, non-physical entity (deity, creator, process) aka "Enformer" ... and yet, Gnomon, there is not any evidence for or sound argument demonstrating that in order for nature to be intelligible, and explicable, nature requires a non-physical entity ("Enformer") of which to be a part."
As usual, 180 {insert denigratory label here} seems to be insisting that "nature requires a physical entity" in order to be intelligible, as Einstein remarked. That's why he rejects my hypothesis of an entity that pre-dates the Big Bang (yes, I'm aware of the north-of-the-north-pole retort). Ironically, my theoretical Enformer is generally amenable to Spinoza's deus sive natura (nature god), except that Baruch's worldview was based on an eternal physical world.
I merely update his 17th century deity definition in view of our modern understanding : that the physical universe is not eternal, but emerged from "north-of-the-north-pole" -- along with space-time & energy-law -- into measurable reality only a fraction of a light-year ago. So, I merely ask the obvious philosophical question : when & where was the deus in the "time before time". Is that a legitimate philosophical query?
The notion of a "natural deity" was addressed by physicist Paul Davies, in his 1983 book : God and the New Physics*1*2. In a chapter regarding the theological/cosmological notion of "the end of the universe", he noted : "There are many mysteries about the natural world that would be readily explained by postulating a natural Deity". That seems to be what Spinoza intended. Yet Davies then continued : "to invoke God as a blanket explanation of the explained is to invite eventual falsification, and to make God the friend of ignorance". [my bold]
That said, he offered an alternative to a "natural deity", that couldn't explain the origin of temporal Nature itself. In the final chapter of the book, Davies made a disclaimer about Truth : "Physics . . . is not about truth at all, but about models" Likewise, my own Cosmological theory makes no claim on absolute truth. It's merely a philosophical model representing one possible way to understand the ultimate Ontological questions, which are not addressed at all by Physics.
So Davies merely posits a meta-physical (noological*2) notion for consideration : "The existence of mind, for example, as an abstract, holistic, organizational pattern, capable even of disembodiment, refutes the reductionist philosophy that we are nothing but moving mounds of atoms". In following books, he further explored the application of Information Theory -- and its close inter-relationship with Mind -- to those Ontological & Cosmological questions that might possibly offer some philosophical insights into the gaping gap that lies above and beyond the north pole, and the Big Bang. How better to make the natural world "intelligible" (comprehensible) to human minds, that to construct it out of non-physical mental stuff : Enformation (energy + law = power to enform) ? :smile:
*1. God and the New Physics :
https://www.amazon.com/God-New-Physics-Paul-Davies/dp/0671528068
*2. "New Physics" is a reference to Quantum Theory, compared to Newton's old-fashioned mechanical physics.
*2. Noology, derives from the ancient Greek words ????, nous or "mind" and ?????, logos. Noology thus outlines a systematic study and organization of thought, knowledge and the mind. ___Wiki
Well sure, no one ever said otherwise- the claim isn't that the presocratic philosophers extinguished or eliminated all religious or supernatural understandings of the natural world and its causal mechanisms, I'm saying that their project of investigating the world via reason and intellect and argument and explaining things in terms of physical principles or mechanisms represented an alternative to religious/supernatural understandings of the world, and which ultimately laid some important groundwork for and led to our western philosophic and scientific traditions. But unless you give me some positive argument or explanation as to why this account is unconvincing or inaccurate, I'm not sure what else to say except to agree to disagree.
(I also can't help but point out, for what it's worth- and don't take this as a fallacious appeal to authority, as that's not the intention- that none of this is considered controversial in scholarly circles, as in the SEP quote above the scholarly consensus is that the presocratic Greeks were "certainly" physicists, meteorologists, psychologists, etc... in addition to being philosophers, theologians, and ethicists. They were proto-scientists, just as they were proto-logicians and proto-theologians, and all the rest)
I believe your arch foe is William of Occam; metaphysics was always a bit superfluous.
What if I told you that Enformy is a phantasm, an illusion like e.g. the Wagon Wheel effect? How would you respond?
Every generalization*1 is imaginary -- including "Energy", as the invisible*2 cause of all physical effects -- because it is not an empirical observation, but a rationalization (abstraction) from many specific instances to a single holistic conceptualization*3. You won't find any wild Abstractions in the Natural world, because they are denizens of the philosophical Mind -- which is not a tangible thing, but an abstract concept.
What if I said that Energy is a "phantasm" or "fantasy"? Can you show me a physical instance of Energy? Have you ever seen a Photon, which is purportedly the "carrier" of Energy, as a pickup truck carries a load of dirt? Is Energy a feature of your reality? If so, why not accept Enformy, which is merely an information-theoretic term, linking Causation with Organization. Energy is metaphysical, because it has to be inferred instead of observed. Raw energy (random change) is like an atomic bomb, ruthlessly destroying all orderly structures in the vicinity. By contrast, Enformy is the notion of Energy-plus-Regulation (natural law) that non-randomly produces order & organization in the world. The pay-off of "success" for Enformy may be the advent of Culture in a Natural world. Would you prefer to go back to a pre-human pre-metaphysical state-of-nature : red in tooth & claw? Unfortunately, on this forum metaphysical arguments too often become red in ridicule & dis-respect.
Your skeptical questions are relevant -- and I enjoy responding to them -- but they reflect the influence of modern prejudice against Metaphysics, which is merely ideas-about-ideas. Physical Science has allowed some "successful" Materialists to feel superior to "feckless" Philosophers, who have nothing to show for their word-shuffling & idea-shoveling. Ironically, most of the posters on this forum have never successfully produced any objective physical objects that add to the "progress" of Science. Instead, they deal in ideas about ideas (e.g. notion of "progress"), which is what Metaphysics*4 is all about. So, they cut the ground from under their own feet, by denigrating the reasoning that generalizes from instances.
Therefore, Ockham*5 is not a foe of Enformationism, but of unnecessary complexity of conceptualization. I consider Enformy to be a simplification of Negentropy which is a superfluous double negative. The thesis could be considered a form of Nominalism, in that it is all about Essences, like Energy & Enformy :smile:
*1. Generalization :
A generalization is a form of abstraction whereby common properties of specific instances are formulated as general concepts or claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalization
*2. Energy is invisible yet it's all around us and throughout the universe. We use it every day, we have it in our bodies and some of it comes from other planets! Energy can never be made or destroyed, but its form can be converted and changed.
https://ypte.org.uk/factsheets/energy/types-of-energy
*3. Induction :
Inductive reasoning begins with observations that are specific and limited in scope, and proceeds to a generalized conclusion that is likely, but not certain, in light of accumulated evidence.
http://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/reasoning.html
*4. Metaphysics and Philosophy of Religion :
Metaphysics chiefly addresses questions about what is ultimately real and important. Philosophy of religion explores and evaluates religious views of reality and seeks to understand religious practice. Metaphysics chiefly addresses questions about what is ultimately real and important.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/philosophy-metaphysics-and-philosophy-of-religion
Note -- Can you distinguish the general "philosophy of religion" from the specific doctrines & practices of world religions?
*5. Ockham Metaphysics :
In metaphysics, Ockham champions nominalism, the view that universal essences, such as humanity or whiteness, are nothing more than concepts in the mind. He develops an Aristotelian ontology, admitting only individual substances and qualities.
https://iep.utm.edu/ockham/
Note -- Essences are meta-physical because they are nominal, merely names for concepts that are not knowable by physical senses.
Given that we're doing metaphysics, I suppose my and others' very non-metaphysical criticisms are out of place. Reminds of @Bartricks's rule: it hasta make sense and from my interactions with your philosophy, it makes sense alright. Positing entities and forces e.g. Enformy are part and parcel of theorizing/hypothesizing, a very scientific activity. So here's what I think is the good news - Enformationism explains well enough the goings on in the world; now the bad news - Enformationism doesn't make any predictions which could be tested. Is me foot in me mouth? Have I cleared you of all charged and still declared you guilty?
Quoting 180 Proof
:sweat: Critic & amanuensis agree! :clap:
:smile: You mean to say Gnomon's reading The Book of Life backwards! Awesome! :cool:
I just want to clarify that I am not "postulating entities & forces", because I am not a scientist. What I am doing is looking at known forces from a new perspective. The Enformationism worldview is based on cutting-edge scientific theories postulating that Energy (causation) is a form of Information*1 (power to enform ; to integrate into a system), and Entropy is a form of dis-information (dis-integration).
My personal (not institutional) thesis attempts to pull several threads of Information theory together into a unified philosophical weltanshauung. So, what I'm doing is a very philosophical activity : system building. And my system is intended to replace ancient Spiritualism and outdated Materialism. When viewed from one of those outmoded perspectives, Enformationism won't "make sense". That's because it postulates a new Paradigm shift*2.
Since Enformationism is a holistic way of looking at the world, not a reductive scientific theory, it does not make Predictions, only Observations from a new perspective. If you want predictions of physical behavior, look to Science. But if you want simplified understanding of complex physical actions (e.g. Quantum non-mechanics), look to Philosophy. Baffled quantum pioneers turned to ancient Holistic religions for philosophical insights, when their Reductive methods didn't make sense.
So yes, you still seem to be influenced by 180's accusations that I'm doing illegitimate Science. Perhaps he thinks that modern physical (ideas about matter) Science has supplanted metaphysical (ideas about ideas) Philosophy. If so, then this forum is a complete waste of wishy-washy words. And should be posting on a Physics forum. :smile:
*1. The basis of the universe may not be energy or matter but information :
There are lots of theories on what the basis of the universe is. Some physicists say its subatomic particles. Others believe its energy or even space-time. One of the more radical theories suggests that information is the most basic element of the cosmos.
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/the-basis-of-the-universe-may-not-be-energy-or-matter-but-information/
Note -- From the Enformationism perspective, Information is Fundamental.
*2. Paradigm Shift :
a fundamental change in approach or underlying assumptions.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=paradigm+shift
CAUTION : OLD PARADIGM WASHED-OUT
How does this change, if at all, how we live our lives? As far back as the 1980's I recall my science teacher was saying that all of reality is information. I think he had maths in mind. Either way, we still have to set our alarm clocks and go to work, still have to shower and pay bills, still have to find a parking space near the supermarket, right? Can you summarise in some brief, plain English sentences what you consider to be the transformative power of this hypothesis?
Enformationism is a personal philosophical worldview, not a Religion for the masses. So it doesn't offer the life-transforming*1 power of hope for salvation from mundane reality*2. It's also not a Science; so it doesn't provide the culture-transforming power of technological innovation*3. Instead, as an esoteric philosophical worldview, this new Paradigm could change your own attitude toward everything. And the transformation "pay-off" depends on your personal situation : where you're coming from.
However, just as the scientific Quantum paradigm is still philosophically controversial a century later, the Information-Theoretic and Systems*4 view of reality may remain tendentious for at least another generation. In my blog, I discuss a variety of applications of Enformationism*5 to philosophical worldviews. However, since it is based on intellectual & esoteric concepts from science & philosophy, I don't expect it to transform the lives of the masses, as computer technology and Paul's spiritual innovation have done. A holistic concept is hard to "summarize" without getting reductive. :smile:
*1. Life Transforming :
Transforming your life involves going beyond the way you live, co-creating a better life for yourself, and changing the way you live. You do this by using your thoughts, visualization, words, faith, actions, or a combination of them.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/7-steps-to-transform-your_b_7302904
*2. In the book I mentioned before, Paul and Jesus, the messianic Jews under roman rule only aspired to go back to the life they had under Jewish kings. But Paul, seeing that the Messiah died without leading a rebellion against Rome, provided life-transforming hope, by changing the place & time of the Kingdom of God to an immanent spiritual realm. Even that failed to come to pass during Paul's lifetime. But his re-interpretation of pragmatic prophecies (defeat the Romans) into spiritualized salvation (heavenly kingdom to come) transformed a radical revolution into passive Christian acceptance of the status quo, until this very day, or until Jesus decides the time is right. The spiritual "pay-off" is like compounded interest : the longer you wait the bigger the reward. Enformationism does not offer any dramatic conversions, or spiritual transformations. Unless, by "spirit" you mean simply a change of Mind, your attitude.
*3. Life transforming technology :
https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/25-technologies-that-have-changed-the-world/
*4. The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision :
[i]a new systemic conception of life has emerged at the forefront of science. New emphasis has been given to complexity, networks, and patterns of organization, leading to a novel kind of systemic thinking.
This volume integrates the ideas, models, and theories underlying the systems view of
life into a single coherent framework. Taking a broad sweep through history and across sci-
entific disciplines, the authors examine the appearance of key concepts such as autopoiesis,
dissipative structures, social networks, and a systemic understanding of evolution. The
implications of the systems view of life for healthcare, management, and our global eco-
logical and economic crises are also discussed.[/i] ___Fritjof Capra and Pier Luigi Luisi
https://assets.cambridge.org/97811070/11366/frontmatter/9781107011366_frontmatter.pdf
*5. The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
I've thought about them a great deal. Something I'm currently working on.
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.epub
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.pdf
Your use of the evocative term "transformative power" has coincided with the book I'm currently reading about the transformation of Judaism to Christianity. So I'm still riffing on that theme, as well as the topic of this thread : materialistic Science vs spiritualistic Religion. Unlike Paul though, I'm not the cause of that transformation, but merely a reporter on the emerging Paradigm Shift..
Just as Apostle Paul, almost single-handedly, converted the ancient narrative of Judaism -- which had already evolved through several major cultural changes -- by creating a Metanarrative : a new story built on top of an older story*1. At the beginning of the second century AD, bishop Ignatius haughtily referred to Judaism as an "antiquated myth". Likewise, I could refer to previous scientific & philosophical paradigms as "outdated myths", but that would not be accurate. Because those previous worldviews still retain some validity & vitality.
I had never thought about it this way, but my personal Enformationism thesis is essentially a Metanarrative, constructed on the archaeological foundations of previous -isms. For example, even though Quantum Theory was a radically different concept of how the fundamental processes of Nature work, it did not replace or supplant the macro facts of Classical physics. Likewise, Enformationism does not denigrate or dismiss the practical features of ancient Spiritualism (energy, forces, causes) and Materialism (matter as fundamental substance). They still retain some usefulness within the limited scope of their application.
But post-quantum cutting-edge scientists are now saying that intangible Information may be the fundamental "substance" of reality*2. Its application is not just in studies of Computers or Consciousness, but also for understanding Matter & Energy on the quantum-scale foundations of physics. However, on the macro scale of normal human experience, Materialism still makes sense, while invisible Energy & Forces take the place of antiquated notions of Spirits & Ghosts. By comparison to those limited applications, Enformationism seems to be more a comprehensive understanding of the Cosmos, the Milieu, and the Mental aspects of the known world. :smile:
PS__ might say that that last claim is egotistical. However, the focus should not be on the coined term "Enformationism" -- to encapsulate a variety of scientific & philosophical postulations -- but on the consilience of evidence*3.
*1. A metanarrative is a narrative about narratives of historical meaning, experience, or knowledge
___Wiki
*2. Is Information Fundamental? :
What if the fundamental stuff of the universe isnt matter or energy, but information?
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/
*3. Consilience :
agreement between the approaches to a topic of different academic subjects, especially science and the humanities. ___Oxford
Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge is a 1998 book by the biologist E. O. Wilson, in which the author discusses methods that have been used to unite the sciences and might in the future unite them with the humanities. ___Wikipedia
"Science is prayer." (Spinoza & Einstein couldn't have said it better) :fire:
Good move o grandmaster. So Enformationism basically brings together the various strands of worldviews/philosophies out there, two major ones being science and religion, and unites them (metanarrative/holism) into a whole! There is a grandeur in this which appeals to me and perhaps others as well. Godspeed mon ami, godspeed!
When we combine these various worldviews, we're in essence trying to harmonize the rational with the irrational; let's face it, irrationality plays a big part in our lives and better to work with it than against it for the simple reason that that strategy invariably blows up in our face. Too, who's to say, chaos (irrationality) is order (rationality) undeciphered (ununderstood)?
What sayest thou?
:brow:
Quoting Agent Smith
How does reducing, or overcoming, "irrationality" "invariably blows up in our faces"? Explain how "working with" alchemy, for instance, makes chemistry "better".
Those are tough questions your honor :smile:
The struggle against Foolery[/I] (re 180 Proof) is a lost cause, [i]you know that. Simple math based on the fact that most people[/I] are [s]fools[/s] irrational. We're [i]all mad sir! :cool:
C'mon, amigo, that's like saying the struggle for health against illness "is a lost cause". :roll:
Your honor, I believe the trick to good health is to get the right disease. :lol:
Corrigendum (of sorts)
In Christianity and by extension in religion as a whole, there's ample room for the skeptic ( re Doubting Thomas) - the irrational (blind faith) acknowledges and includes in its fold the rational (reason) and it only seems fair that this basic courtesy be reciprocated by reason (in its modern avatar, science).
What sayest thou?
As usual, 180poof :joke: has completely missed the point of Enformationism. As a philosophical perspective, It does not pretend to be an empirical science. So the disdainful comparisons to pre-scientific Astrology & Alchemy *1 *2 are not appropriate. However, in the sense that empirical Astronomy & Chemistry were built on top of centuries of philosophical research into Cosmos & Matter, the parallel may suggest that new empirical scientific paradigms can evolve from older hypothetical worldviews.
For example, Astrology was intended to be a practical method for determining the will of the gods -- who took the form of points of light circling the Earth. And Alchemy was supposed to be a pragmatic method for manipulating Matter. Both were highly regarded forms of Natural Philosophy, and Academic Practice. Yet, they were based on hypothetical models that later were proven to be mistaken. Moreover, similar meaningful metaphors have also mis-led modern scientists. Remember that Rutherford and Bohr made progress in understanding atomic structure based on models that later proved to be inaccurate*3.
It seems that 180degreewrong :joke: considers those ancient proto-scientists (including Isaac Newton*4) to be blithering idiots bowing to imaginary "gods" : invisible forces like Energy/Entropy, that we still today submit to. From that supercilious perspective, Neils Bohr was a cretin making-up unreal models of reality. Fortunately for him though, modern science was, at the same time, developing the technology to produce images of atoms, so they no longer had to rely on imagination. Bohr was also accused of being a mystic*5 because he used ancient oriental notions as metaphors to make Quantum queerness more comprehensible. What were those analogies & metaphors "good for". Did they facilitate gradual progress in pragmatic scientific understanding, even as some were content with religious interpretations & applications of the symbolic imagery.
Enformationism is not a scientific practice, but it is a philosophical worldview based on the latest scientific models of reality : specifically Quantum & Information theories. Both of those sciences have been "good for" radical transformations of technology & culture. And by combining the knowledge from those disparate models into a holistic worldview, we may gain even more insight into the operation of Nature & Culture ; Matter & Mind. :smile:
PS__For those not familiar with the 180proof form of argumentation, it consists primarily of ridicule & mockery. Hence the tongue-in-cheek repartee.
*1. Throughout most of its history, astrology was considered a scholarly tradition and was common in academic circles,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology
*2. Alchemy is an ancient branch of natural philosophy, a philosophical and protoscientific tradition that was historically practiced in China, India, the Muslim world, and Europe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy
*3. In science, analogies have been used to make hypotheses on the structure of atoms since the technology did not exist to be able to see inside it. In 1897, English scientist J.J Thomson made a contribution to atomic theory by suggesting that there was some matter that was even smaller than the atom: the electron. His theory was called the Plum Pudding model, using an analogy to map his prediction. He used plum pudding as a source to describe the target, the structure of the atom. Electrons are like the raisins in the desert, which is the atom. This theory was later disproved by physicist Ernest Rutherford who found that atoms have positively charged centers, and described his understanding of the atom as a cherry, where the nucleus was like the pit. Danish scientist Niels Bohr in 1913 then used the solar system analogy to show people that there were also electrons orbiting around the nucleus. In the 20th century, a number of scientists showed that actually, electrons do not orbit the nucleus in neat orbits like the solar system, but instead move around like particles in a cloud. Despite the fact that some analogies have not stood the test of the time, they were useful tools to help the public understand scientific theories and make sense of complex phenomena.
https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/psychology/analogy
*4. Isaac Newton's occult studies :
any reference to a "Newtonian Worldview" as being purely mechanical in nature is somewhat inaccurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies
*5. Niels Bohr, a founder of quantum mechanics, was a Mystic :
Modern physics leads to mysticism. Why? What do we find when we pull apart reality? Perhaps that we cant ultimately pull it apart.
https://www.niels-bohr-a-founder-of-quantum-mechanics-was-a-mystic/
@Gnomon calls this intention, selection, purpose the "Enformer" (i.e. intelligent designer / cosmic programmer, unmoved mover, first cause, occult telos, woo-of-the-gaps, "man behind the curtain", etc). :yawn:
:up: I'm unaware of the reason for the inference from improbable to agency (god/man behind the curtain). Improbable doesn't imply impossible. Now if a person didn't buy a lottery ticket and won the jackpot we have strong justification to employ the phrase "some kinda weird shit is goin' down bruh!"
Unaware? You need to be woke, bro! :joke:
Cosmic Agency is indeed a rational inference, not a direct observation. The presumed Agent of Creation & Evolution does seem to hide behind a curtain of randomness*1. But perceptive observers can see the patterns within Chaos, which imply the actions of a Pattern Maker. For example, although he is most famous for defining Evolution in terms of Random Mutations, Darwin also realized that randomness is non-directional. So, he added the filter of Natural Selection to weed-out the unfit, and to choose which mutations meet the organizational requirements for replication & survival. To select is to carefully choose as being the best or most suitable.
Although he was disappointed in the religious doctrines of his day, Darwin could not deny the philosophical evidence pointing to a First Cause of some kind*2. He reached that Agnostic position based on the "impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe . . . as the result of blind chance or necessity"*3. His neither-Theist-nor-Atheist position was equivalent to what later became known as Deism.
Those who do put their faith in Blind Chance*4 -- as the creator of this almost infinite living organism we blandly call "The Universe" -- are not un-intelligent. But they do seem to be blinded by emotional reactions to the intellectual blinders (Blind Faith) imposed by the Abrahamic religions of their personal experience. Gamblers, those who do believe in Fortune & Chance for the brave, tend to become addicted to the random rewards (Vegas jackpots), that they interpret as blessings for the faithful.
However, the consistency of the Cosmic Jackpot*5 (14 billion years of continuing complexification) is not what a reasonable thinker would expect from the dominance of Randomness & Entropy. So, the only viable explanation for positive evolution is the innate fitness rules that guide the progress of the universe*6. But, why would the Programmer of an evolutionary project remain anonymous to He/r creatures? I don't know the answer, but some computer programmers are content to embed "Easter Eggs" for motivated seekers to find. :smile:
*1. Why hide? Your guess is as good as mine. Vulcan-like lack of human Ego? A weird sense of humor? Enjoyment of riddles & secrets?
*2. First Cause or Creator :
"The question is of course wholly distinct from that higher one, whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the universe; and this has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed" . . . . "The idea of a universal and beneficent Creator does not seem to arise in the mind of man, until he has been elevated by long-continued culture."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin
*3. Intelligent Evolution :
Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. Charles Darwin,
https://godevidence.com/2018/12/quote-of-the-day-charles-darwin/
*4. Conscious Cosmic Agent :
In his article for the online Aeon Magazine, Is The Universe A Conscious Mind?, philosopher Philip Goff begins with the current consensus of cosmologers, that the universe seems to be fine-tuned to produce living beings. Then he proposes a conscious universal agent to explain how that improbable scenario came to pass. But first, he acknowledges that, "Some take the fine-tuning to be simply a basic fact about our Universe: fortunate perhaps, but not something requiring explanation." However, some experts, such as Lee Smolin, have calulated the seemingly impossible odds against the emergence of Life, simply by random chance. Which makes it sound like a miracle.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page53.html
*5. Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life :
physicist and cosmologist Davies discusses the implications of the fact that the conditions of our universe are "just right" for life to exist: a concept known as the anthropic principle.
https://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Jackpot-Universe-Just-Right/dp/0618592261
*6. Order within Chaos :
Order illustrates that a system has responded to a rule or rules that have made the system behave in a manner that is expected.
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Systems_Theory/Order-Chaos
Note -- the rules (laws) that govern a contingent system, such as the physical universe, are contingent upon the "expectations" of a law-maker
DARWIN IMPRESSED BY NATURAL BEAUTY
In my thread Is Chance A Cause?, I draw the distinction between nature of phenomena (?) and cause of phenomena (a particular combination of causal factors) . I tagged you in one of my posts (you didn't post/reply).
Anyway, to repeat ... a coin toss outcome is for all intents and purposes a chance event but each outcome has a specific cause comprised of the way you positioned your hand, how much force you applied, the strength and direction of local air currents, etc.
Some say the existence of the universe is a fluke however this only describes the nature of the phenomenon; we still need a cause of the phenonemon - some call it Allah, you call it G*D/Enformer. They're all different names for the same thing, I call it The Cause. The point of course is to shed metaphysical baggage and isolate and purify and zero in on The Cause.
In short, arguing for The Cause from improbability is unnecessary. Whether highly likely, unlikely, probable, or improbable, The Cause always exists.
And the cause of "The Cause" ...?
A good ol' question. Hypothesis non fingo.
Why worry about THE unseen ultimate metaphysical Cause? Why not just accept what we know about obvious median physical causes? In his non-science writing, Isaac Newton freely admitted his belief in "God" as the ultimate "Why"*1. But, regarding the mysterious force of Gravity, he avoided the ancient-but-un-scientific metaphysical dodge of "god did it", which doesn't explain how that spooky-action-at-a-distance happens*2. For the same reason, claiming that "Chance is The Cause", is un-scientific, because it doesn't explain how Randomness can result in rationally knowable Patterns of Organization. In human experience, order arises from Intention, not accident*3. Science is intended to Specify Proximate causation, but Philosophy attempts to Generalize about Ultimate causation*4. :smile:
*1. What is Newton's vision of God? :
The God that Newton believed in was a God that not only created the world, but remained in dominion over the world, and had a ``propensity to action'' within the world. Newton's scientific writings, as well as his theological writings, reflected these beliefs.
https://web.media.mit.edu/~picard/personal/Newton.php
*2. Newton's own motto, "hypotheses non fingo" was, in a sense, disregarded by Newton himself: he rejected hypotheses only where they violated his own "regula philosophandi", that is to say, his principle of their strict parsimony. In terms of present-day methodology, we reject hypotheses as scientifically meaningless if they are incapable even of indirect test; and we reject them as superfluous or as implausible if they are too complex and artificial to conform with well established canons of inductive probability. But freedom of scientific theorizing must be preserved wherever the conditions of meaningfulness and of economy appear to be satisfied. ___Arthur Beer (ed.), Vistas in Astronomy https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_Beer
*3. In Architecture School we were once assigned a project called "Design by Accident". The point was to illustrate the difference between Design by Intention, and the noisy patterns of Accidental Coincidence (TV screen). The human mind can interpret noise as signal, by imputing new information (added outlines). And some abstract art depends on the human talent for "reading into" randomness, instead of "reading out" of intention.
*4. What it takes to be ultimate is to be the most fundamentally real, valuable or fulfilling among all that there is or could be.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-ultimates/
RANDOM PATTERNS WITH IMPUTED MEANING
RANDOM PATTERN WITH IMPUTED OUTLINES
CAN YOU SEE THE IMAGE WITHIN THE NOISE?
So, in a sense, this Enformy (order) is a "pattern" in Entropy (chaos). @180 Proof would agree, I recall him saying something to the effect that order is (merely) a phase in chaos.
I performed this little experiment with an online random (chaos) number generator. The first few tries yielded no patterns, but on the third attempt this: 9, 5, 1, 2, 3, 7, 9. A pattern/order (1, 2, 3) emerges in the patternless/chaos.
:smirk:
Yes. Enformy is an anomaly*1, in a process characterized mostly by Entropy. Yet, you could say that it's "the exception that proves the rule". The 'rule' being emergence of organization despite the obstacle of Entropy. Also, the progressive pattern of Enformy has been consistent in our own backyard for billions of years. And exponentially progressive human Culture is an anomaly within gradually evolving Nature.
With those anti-entropy developments in mind, I would rephrase 180's pessi-missal (pessimistic dismissal) of Order as merely a meaningless gap in Disorder : "Life is merely a phase in death". If that was true, what is the significance of your own Life? A rule of thumb for both scientists and philosophers is "when you discover an anomaly, look for the cause". Creative Progress proceeds from anomaly to anomaly. And you can quote Kuhn on that.
For me, the "true state of the universe" is the state of progression from nada (scratch) to those who scratch their heads at anomalies*3. :smile:
*1. Law-like Anomalies :
Scientific development depends in part on a process of non-incremental or revolutionary change. Some revolutions are large, like those associated with the names of Copernicus, Newton, or Darwin, but most are much smaller, like the discovery of oxygen or the planet Uranus. The usual prelude to changes of this sort is, I believed, the awareness of anomaly, of an occurrence or set of occurrences that does not fit existing ways of ordering phenomena. The changes that result therefore require 'putting on a different kind of thinking-cap', one that renders the anomalous lawlike but that, in the process, also transforms the order exhibited by some other phenomena, previously unproblematic.
Thomas S. Kuhn, The Essential Tension
*2. Is the true state of the Universe order or chaos? :
[i]What is orderly are the physical laws, that seem to be the same everywhere we look: the electron always has the same mass and so forth.
What is chaotic arises from the laws of thermodynamics. Entropy always increases in systems, and entropy measures disorder.
Pockets of order get created ? stars and solar systems for example. Gravity is a big help in doing that, along with radiation to take heat out of systems.
But overall the universe is heading toward apparent eternal expansion and cooling off ?
heat death.[/i] __Stephen Perrenod
Note -- The "true state" depends on where you look, and on what you mean by "true". On our local exceptional "pocket of order" (Earth), Enformy has scored a big lead, against the predicted odds of Entropy winning the long game. As for the rest of the universe, several scientists have enough faith in Natural Laws to bet on Enformy's creative power to produce, not just Life, but intelligent Minds. For my own personal purposes, I'm only betting on the home team : Earth. Even so, what has a beginning, can be expected to come to an end. Some call that far-off finale, "Heat Death", others "Omega Point" (a new beginning).
*3. "The true state of universe is non-dual - its neither the state of order nor the state of chaos - it is state that is to be called forward motion of time. Here is some brief explanation " __Arun Jagatheesan
Note -- Another word for "Forward motion" is "Progress". Another term for "Duality" is BothAnd Unity.
180'S VIEW OF ENTROPY
GNOMON'S VIEW OF ENFORMY
COSMIC EVOLUTION from scratch to head-scratchers to the ultimate anomaly???
Quoting Gnomon
:lol: If you get the physics so wrong, G-mon, then your "Meta-physics" is bound to be ... not even wrong.
fyi: Order (i.e. dissipative structures / processes) emerges because of as it net increases the asymmetric gradient of entropy.
:up:
What is an anomaly? Why does it beg/demand for an explanation?
You need to watch this video [math]\downarrow[/math]. Sean Carroll shares his views on entropy and complexity.
Please brush up on your math - the graphs are identical, but I know what you wished to convey and perhaps you thought your audience would be smart enough to do the math themselves. Yours and @180 Proof's (if your assessment is correct) views are indeed opposites of each other - they're, mathematically, reflections of each other and this, to my reckoning, is yin-yang at play (re BothAnd).
Quoting 180 Proof
:up: Are you referring to net entropy?
Starting entropy (say) = 10
Local entropy falls (life's order) = - 2, but at a cost of +3 entropy to the environment
Ending entropy = 10 -2 + 3 = 11
Ending entropy of the system (11) > Starting entropy of the system (10)
Yes.
It's like room cleaning. You cleaning your room = You moving your garbage elsewhere. Your room is clean, but the environment is dirty and the net dirtiness of the system (your room + the environment) goes up!
In science, an Anomaly is a "glitch" : data that contradicts the norm. Literally, the word means "irregular" ; metaphorically it means : "does not fit the expected pattern". The link below indicates that new paradigms ("new physics") in science typically emerge from discovery of anomaly. So, what I'm saying here is that Enformy is not what you would expect from the typical definition of Thermodynamics. If Entropy was so all-powerful, the Big Bang would have snuffed-out in a few light-seconds -- like New Year's fireworks. But contrary to expectations, after billions of solar years, it continues to expand, and to self-organize, and to produce living globs of thinking matter, that ask "why" questions. Don't you think that anomaly demands an explanation? :smile:
The Power of Anomalies :
Progress in science is sometimes triggered by surprises. Data collection resembles gathering of new pieces in a jigsaw puzzle and placing them together. Sometimes one of the pieces does not quite fit. It is natural for scientists to instinctively argue that such a piece does not belong; perhaps it is an artifact driven by uncertainties in the data or a misinterpretation of the experiment. This might indeed be the case in most instances. But every now and then, an anomaly of this type signals a real discrepancy from expectations, either a violation of a highly respected but incomplete law of naturenamely an exception to the rule, or an unexpected surprisesignaling the possibility of new physics.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-power-of-anomalies/
Glitch : a small problem or fault that prevents something from being successful or working as well as it should
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/glitch
Quoting Agent Smith
The contrasting graphs are illustrations -- no math required to see the implication. Obviously, I just turned the original graph up-side-down, to figuratively demonstrate the difference between 180's worldview and my own. In terms of meaning though, the graphs are not identical. One shows Entropy completely dissipating Energy from an initial state of order to a state of utter disorder. The other portrays Neg-entropy (Enformy) organizing raw Energy (potential) into the elaborate structures that we see all around us. The up-side-down graph is what you would get if you place a minus sign in front of the Entropy equation to represent Neg-entropy (Enformy).
The third graph shows what happens to a universe when "the math" allows self-organizing systems to emerge, against the general rules of thermodynamics. That's why there are exceptions to the first & second laws, to make allowance for Open Systems. The linked article by The Information Philosopher provides a plethora of information on the topics of Self-Organization, Complexity, and Enformy (negentropy). On his website, he even gets into the "Math" that I tend to skip-over, because I am neither a scientist nor a mathematician. :nerd:
Entropy :
[i]A quality of the universe modeled as a thermodynamic system. Energy always flows from Hot (high energy density) to Cold (low density) -- except when it doesn't. On rare occasions, energy lingers in a moderate state that we know as Matter, and sometimes even reveals new qualities and states of material stuff .
The Second Law of Thermo-dynamics states that, in a closed system, Entropy always increases until it reaches equilibrium at a temperature of absolute zero. But some glitch in that system allows stable forms to emerge that can recycle energy in the form of qualities we call Life & Mind. That glitch is what I call Enformy.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note -- 180's notion of Entropy envisions a closed system. But Gnomon's Enformy is based on an open system (e.g. Earth) which is able to borrow energy from outside its own sub-system.
Negative Entropy :
[i]Entropy is the amount of disorder or randomness within a system. As the disorder of a system increases, so does entropy. The universe naturally moves to a state of increased disorder or randomness, which means the universe naturally moves to a state of increased entropy.
What is the opposite of entropy? Negative entropy refers to a system becoming less disordered or more ordered. Negative entropy is also known as negentropy.[/i]
https://study.com/academy/lesson/negative-entropy-definition-lesson.html
Note -- the effect of Negative Entropy (Energy ; Enformy) is to produce positive Work instead of just Waste.
Dissipative Structures :
[i]In his 1945 essay What is Life?, Schrödinger would say that "life feeds on negative entropy." Schrödinger described this as "order out of order" that distinguishes life from the "order out of chaos" exhibited by many complex physical systems studied today.
Ilya Prigogine and his collaborator Isabel Stengers titled their 1984 book Order Out Of Chaos. In it, they focused on physical systems far from equilibrium which exhibit the flow of matter and energy from the environment through an open system. Prigogine called them "dissipative structures" and developed the non-linear thermodynamics needed to describe them mathematically.
Prigogine thought these dissipative systems showed "self-organizing" characteristics similar to those of biological systems.[/i]
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/complexity.2.en.html
There's this riddle if youtube videos are to be believed that scientists haven't yet solved: why was the early universe in a low entropy state? Must be the Enformer. :smile:
[The entropy is always increasing, right? So the entropy must've been lower in the past than at present. So the argument proceeds ... The Big Bang was a very low entropy state then.]
Plus the 2[sup]nd[/sup] law of thermodynamics (entropy always increases) isn't actually a law like the law of gravity is. The 2[sup]nd[/sup] law simply states that since there are more ways to be disordered than there are ways to be ordered, entropy (disorder) goes up, BUT ... there's a small, infinitesimally small (non-zero) chance that entropy decreases.
Allow me to explain:
A box, some gas particles in one corner; the gas particles move randomly (entropy increases) and the gas particles attain peak entropy when they're uniformly distributed throughout the box. That's that!
Now the interesting bit - it's entirely possible though extremely improbable that all the gas particles, by fluke and fluke alone, find themselves back in the corner where they began their last journey (entropy decreases).
Have you heard of Boltzmann brains? Read, quite interesting and might help buttress your argument for [I]Enformy[/i].
Yes. According to my non-scientific thesis, the Origin of our universe (closed system), which began with all the energy it would ever have*1, implies energy & regulatory input from outside the system. But other theories assume the eternal existence of Energy & Laws (Potential + Logos), from which our little 'verse obtained its head start. One version of that notion is the Multiverse Theory, asserting that Ultimate Reality has been recycling its energy & laws forever. Unfortunately, that is not an empirically testable theory, hence Philosophy instead of Science. Another hypothesis is Cosmic Inflation*2, which assumes that Space & Time have existed forever, along with the potential energy presumed to be inherent in Empty Space. Yet, again there is no way to confirm that speculation.
The physical & philosophical problem with all of those physical pre-BigBang theories is that they contradict the so-called Laws of Thermodynamics. In order to recycle, a roller-coaster multi-universe would have to pull itself up by the bootstraps in order to get back to the low Entropy/high Enformy starting point. That's why the Enformationism thesis proposes a Meta-Physical (mental ; information) First Cause (creator of Space & Time, Energy & Matter) to explain -- logically, not physically -- how our local 'verse could begin at the top of the Energy/Entropy hill*3. :smile:
*1. Universe began at top of roller coaster hill :
The Universe Began In A State Of Extraordinarily Low Entropy
Based on an elaboration of a 2004 proposal by Sean Carroll and Jennifer Chen, there is a possibility of a new solution to the age-old problem of the arrow of time. This work, by Sean Carroll, Chien-Yao Tseng, and me, is still in the realm of speculation, and has not yet been vetted by the scientific community. . . . The most attractive feature is that there is no longer a need to introduce any assumptions that violate the time symmetry of the known laws of physics.
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25538
HOW DID THE PRIMORDIAL UNIVERSE GET TO THE TOP OF THE ENERGY CURVE ?
*2. Cosmic Inflation, instantaneous exponential expansion, assumes super-natural (extra-natural) forces that don't exist in the Nature that Physics observes. Hence, it's equivalent to magical creation from super-nature into nature, as in Genesis : creatio ex nihilo, or creatio ex materia. To produce something new from something absent, or from pre-existing (pre-nature) material. That kind of theory only makes sense to those who hold a prejudice against philosophical Metaphysics : Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.
*3. Why well never see back to the beginning of the Universe :
[i]the hot Big Bang has since been shown to be preceded by the inflationary Universe, . . .
Of all the questions humanity has ever pondered, perhaps the most profound is, Where did all of this come from? . . . any information about the beginning of the Universe is no longer contained within our observable cosmos.[/i]
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/never-see-beginning-universe/
Note -- The Inflationary thesis leaves us in suspense, with a "hidden" creator, just like all other First Cause theories. If the Cause is design-by-accident, no revelation would be expected. But if the Prime Cause was intentional, some identifying information might be found within the creation itself. That is the premise of Enformationism. But you won't see such embedded revelation unless you are looking for it.
Quoting Agent Smith
The Boltzmann brain thought experiment suggests that it might be more likely for a single brain to spontaneously form in a void (complete with a memory of having existed in our universe) rather than for the entire universe to come about in the manner cosmologists think it actually did. Physicists use the Boltzmann brain thought experiment as a reductio ad absurdum argument for evaluating competing scientific theories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain
I get enough of 180's accusations of "absurdity", without providing him with more ammunition to ridicule the notion of "spontaneous" generation of brains/minds. My thesis proposes the long & winding road of natural Evolution, from spontaneous (?) Big Bang to computing brains with reflective minds. :joke:
:sweat:
Quoting Agent Smith
I'm no Kantian but an "anomaly" revealed by our model represents a limit or an inconsistency of our model rather than an "anomaly in itself" (whatever that means).
It only "demands" that we update our model.
Quoting Agent Smith
Same reason, I guess, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs ... and ... (N+1) system-states > (1) system-state in a non/linear dynamic system. :fire:
It's been speculated that "the Big Bang" is a white hole at the other side of a black hole and there is a dumbell-like symmetry between our matter universe and an antimatter universe so that the "low entropy" of our beginning is canceled-out, or balanced by, the "high entropy of the end of that anti-universe (i.e. the twist, so to speak, in a Möbius Loop-like torus that alternates occillates back and forth between entropy minimums and maximums) such that "the low entropy of our early universe" it's asymmetry is only apparent.
NB: IIRC, I got this from a Sean Carroll article / youtube ... which I only grasp a little better than Roger Penrose's 'conformal cyclic universe' conjecture. (At least none of that "enformy" woo woo's needed.) :smirk:
There's a lot yet to explain in cosmology/cosmogony/astronomy. Did you read 180 Proof's reply to me? There are some mathematical models which purport to account for the low entropy state of the universe - our universe is a white hole who's low entropy state is offset and exceeded by the high entropy state of a black hole "at the opposite end". That would mean your Enformy is actually entropy (of the black hole paired with our universe).
180disproof :joke: likes to throw-out abstruse stuff that he knows you & I are not familiar with. And I suspect -- brilliant as he is -- 180poo doesn't understand those esoteric math & physics conjectures himself. As usual, this ploy misses the point of my personal philosophical thesis. Which does not "purport" to be a scientific explanation of anything.
My coinage of Enformy, which he labels as "woo woo", is simply a combination of Energy (cause) & Form (orderly pattern). And its philosophical meaning is simply Regulated Causation, as opposed to Random Disorder or Destruction. The "woo" arises when I infer that the "Natural Laws" that regulate evolution, are Intentional Organization instead of Accidental Design (oxymoron). The undeniable logical & predictable arrangement (order) of our world is what scientists depend on to construct their hypotheses & models. And it's the exact opposite of what you would expect (anomaly) from an Entropy dominated process : an actual "white hole" instead of a hypothetical reverse black hole.
I'm not a mathematician or cosmologist, so I can't comment on the "mathematical models" that "purport" to explain the low-entropy-high-order beginning of the universe*1. As an amateur philosopher, what matters to me is the simple observed fact that our Cosmos began with all the energy & laws necessary to construct the world we now enjoy after billions of solar years of en-formation & con-struction. 2500 years ago, Plato postulated that our orderly Cosmos (regulated by natural laws) emerged from a pre-existing Chaos (infinite Potential). But even that "deterministic" Chaos was not dominated by Entropy, because it turned-out to be creative instead of destructive*2.
Don't be misled by his White Hole or White Rabbit distraction. On this forum, what "matters" is not Physics (ideas about matter), but Metaphysics (ideas about ideas). :smile:
*1. What Was The Entropy Of The Universe At The Big Bang? :
The second law of thermodynamics is one of those puzzling laws of nature that simply emerges from the fundamental rules. It says that entropy, a measure of disorder in the Universe, must always increase in any closed system. But how is it possible that our Universe today, which looks to be organized and ordered with solar systems, galaxies and intricate cosmic structure, is somehow in a higher-entropy state than right after the Big Bang? . . . .So why was the early Universe so low-entropy? Because it didn't have any black holes. ___Physicist Ethan Siegel
Note -- The absence or presence of black holes does not explain the "why" of the low entropy origin. It merely distracts your attention from the philosophical enigma.
*2. On the Origin of the Universe: Chaos or Cosmos? :
I would like to consider the Universe according to the standard Big Bang model, including various quantum models of its origin. In addition, using the theory of nonlinear dynamics, deterministic chaos, fractals, and multifractals I have proposed a new hypothesis, Macek (The Origin of the World: Cosmos or Chaos? Cardinal Stefan Wyszy?ski University (UKSW) Scientific Editions, 2020). Namely, I have argued that a simple but possibly nonlinear law is important for the creation of the Cosmos at the extremely small Planck scale at which space and time originated. It is shown that by looking for order and harmony in the complex real world these modern studies give new insight into the most important philosophical issues beyond classical ontological principles, e.g., by providing a deeper understanding of the age-old philosophical dilemma (Leibniz, 1714): why does something exist instead of nothing? We also argue that this exciting question is a philosophical basis of matters that influence the meaning of human life in the vast Universe.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-96964-6_21
Note -- That hypothetical "non-linear law" sounds similar to what I call "Enformy".
*3. White Hole : a hypothetical celestial object that expands outward from a space-time singularity and emits energy, in the manner of a time-reversed black hole.
Note -- Doesn't that sound like our expanding, energy recycling, universe?
A white hole is a bizarre cosmic object which is intensely bright, and from which matter gushes rather than disappears.
Note -- Now who's making sh*t up??? Ask 180 if anyone has ever detected a hypothetical White Hole. If he can't document its existence, you can accuse him of promulgating "woo woo". :joke:
PS__Many of 180's counterarguments to Enformy are based on an erroneous premise : that I am making factual statements about physics, instead of personal opinions about metaphysics. For example, I didn't make-up the idea that the universe began in a low entropy state of raw energy & natural laws. It was scientists, whose job it is to determine such things, who offered their professional opinions about that oddity. Yet, some of them, faced with an anomaly, also asked the philosophical question "why?" (for what purpose).
Some of them also proposed physical "how" answers, such as imaginary White Holes. But, 180 thinks my imaginary metaphysical answer to a philosophical question is inadmissible as evidence. Ironically, scientists had already found a similar counter-entropy force in physics, that they labeled "negentropy". I merely gave that concept an information-centric label. 180 doesn't argue with the logic of my inferences from inter-related facts, but attacks Gnomon's credentials as a scientist.
The Remarkable Emptiness of Existence :
Note -- Contrary to expectations, even the vacuum of space, lacking actual stuff, was found to contain lots of potential energy. Is that physics or metaphysics? From my personal information-based perspective, that's what I call EnFormAction : the Cosmic power to enform, to create matter & mind from Potential Energy. Isn't Nature spooky? Woo-woo!
https://nautil.us/the-remarkable-emptiness-of-existence-256323/