Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can Christians Believe That God Is Immanant In The Natural World?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 61 of 88 (411728)
07-22-2007 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by anastasia
07-21-2007 9:54 PM


Cause and Effect
How can something naturally occur from nothing, when nature is all cause and effect?
Quantum theory suggests that nature is not all cause and effect. That is the point.
Is it wrong to say that this idea about 'being contrary to common sense' is just what atheists do when they reach an unexplainable impasse?
Totally wrong. Large areas of science are contrary to common sense. We would barely even need to study science if nature worked in purely common sense terms.
Examples of Scientific Fact Vs Common Sense
1) Acceleration of an object due to gravity is independent of mass
2) An object set in motion will continue moving at the same speed and in the same direction forever if no subsequentforces act upon it
3) Acquired attributes are not inherited
4) A whale is more closely related to a cow than it is to a fish
These are contrary to common sense too. They are still established scientific facts however.
Everything about quantum theory suggests that nature functions in ways that are wholly contradictory to common sense.
In the case of quantum theory that includes our common sense assumptions about cause and effect.
I don't know why, if you have all the 'parts' of God, you think you don't have God.
I have no idea what the parts of God are. All we have is a speculative but plausible theory as to how the universe was created by unconscious natural processes.
If a primitive society worshipped a volcano God and you then explained all the natural processes that formed and acted on the volcano in question (presure, viscosity etc. etc.) would you accept their argument that you had just described all the parts of their volcano god this proving it's existence?
Or would you deny that the volcano god actually existed and state that natural, unconscious and explainable processes were in fact in effect????? Honestly?????
In other words, if you want to prove that God is not in nature by saying nature is 'evil', it won't work. At least not for me.
In all honesty I am not sure where I am going with this. I do not have an overarching point I am trying to make and I would not describe nature as 'evil' in any case
I suppose I am interested to know how a theist does reconcile the fact that nature is so full of pain, suffering and brutality with the idea that a benevolent God is immanent in nature.
Surely you can see how to the non-theist this does seem contradictory and therefore an argument either for the absence of a benevolent god OR for the absence of it's immanence in nature?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : Spelling clarity etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by anastasia, posted 07-21-2007 9:54 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by anastasia, posted 07-22-2007 3:30 PM Straggler has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 62 of 88 (411792)
07-22-2007 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Straggler
07-22-2007 5:03 AM


Re: Cause and Effect
Straggler, from an earlier post writes:
As already discussed there does not seem to be an inherent problem with the concept of something from nothing occurring naturally depsite it being contrary to common sense.
What I wanted to illustrate is that any of us can find answers which defy common sense, or defy a step by step explanation of how something happened. If both of us agree that something just 'happened' for no reason, with no cause, both of us have defied common sense. Common sense tells us there should be a reason. Common sense does not tell us that whales are fish. In fact, once you really look at a whale, you can readliy explain why it isn't a fish. Common sense does not tell me an object will continue moving forever, because I have never thrown a ball and seen this happen. But it would be common sense to say that things happen for a reason, unless we prove that this is not always true.
Quantum theory suggests that nature is not all cause and effect. That is the point.
Yes, I understand, but like I said I can't use this 'suggestion' to your maximum advantage without knowing more about it. For one thing, can quantum mechanics conceivably be in operation before anything existed?
I have no idea what the parts of God are. All we have is a speculative but plausible theory as to how the universe was created by unconscious natural processes.
Well, then, you will have to baby-step, because I still don't know how the natural processes came to be in existence. That is not to say I don't believe you, but I don't 'get it'. Likewise, I don't understand how a God could create from nothing. I guess my problem is that if someone could tell me 'how' something happened, I will have to go back to regression and ask 'how did THAT happen', and in order to have the first real uncaused cause, we would have to say, eventually, 'I don't know'. So, in the same way that I say 'I don't know how God happened, He just is', I would like the consistancy of hearing 'I don't know' on your side, rather than 'the first event happened by quantum mechanics'. That makes me want to look for an even further regressive cause. Perhaps I am being extremely naive.
Or would you deny that the volcano god actually existed and state that natural, unconscious and explainable processes were in fact in effect????? Honestly?????
I don't get it. If someone thought the volcano was caused by an undeground angry God, and I showed them how it was caused naturally, the only thing I could prove is that there is no need for a god to be making the volcano. I know what you are saying, but this is subtly different. I do not have clear proof that there was a natural event which caused the universe, and was itself uncaused. Even if I did, I would not know how to tell the difference between something which looks to have just occured, and something which has occured by an unseen hand.
I suppose I am interested to know how a theist does reconcile the fact that nature is so full of pain, suffering and brutality with the idea that a benevolent God is immanent in nature.
I don't see the problem. At least, it is no greater of a difficulty than asking why a benevolent God could create the brutality, pain and suffering. Some people prefer to look at God as letting the universe go down hill after the 'fall' or something, but I don't personally have a problem with the universe as it is. The only thing 'evil' to me, is something acting in a way contrary to how it was meant to act.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Straggler, posted 07-22-2007 5:03 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Straggler, posted 07-23-2007 8:12 AM anastasia has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 63 of 88 (411927)
07-23-2007 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by anastasia
07-22-2007 3:30 PM


Effective Cause
So, in the same way that I say 'I don't know how God happened, He just is', I would like the consistency of hearing 'I don't know' on your side, rather than 'the first event happened by quantum mechanics'
Oh absolutely I don't know. At this point nobody does. That is the fun of it all. Ignorance is the driving force of scientific discovery.
If I have at any point even hinted that any such thing is more than a speculative theory or untested hypothesis I did so unintentionally.
So, in the same way that I say.........
BUT the two hyptheses are not equal in a very very important way.
The naturalistic hypothesis is derived from the fundamental principles of the most spectacularly successful and far reaching practical and predictive theory of modern times, namely quantum theory.
That does not 'prove' the quantum universe hypothesis is correct at all, but it does give it a foundation that is indisputably superior to that of the 'god hypothesis' which has no evidence based starting point whatsoever.
What I wanted to illustrate is that any of us can find answers which defy common sense
In fact, once you really look at a whale, you can readily explain why it isn't a fish.
But that is not what I said. You are cherry picking elements of my examples to make them sound silly.
Does your common sense tell you that a whale is actually relatively closely related to a cow? Surely not, but nevertheless that is true. Does common sense tell you that the Earth goes round the Sun? But it does.
The point is that the findings of science are often counterintuitive and contrary to common sense. That is why we need science in the first place. We cannot just rely on common sense to understand the world around us. Common sense can be deceptive.
But it would be common sense to say that things happen for a reason, unless we prove that this is not always true.
It has been proven that this is not ALWAYS true. In fact it isn't even USUALLY true. At the quantum level it isn't true at all.
Common sense is wrong regsrding cause and effect.
The most obvious and relatively mundane example is radioactive decay. This is an inherently probabilistic quantum process that has been widely observed.
There is no way to predict which particular atoms will decay because direct cause and effect are just not in operation at that level of reality.
I can't use this 'suggestion' to your maximum advantage without knowing more about it
If you really want to know more the following article is a decent place to start. The link takes you to page 7 of a 9 page article as it that is the most relevant to this particular conversation but the whole article is worth a read if you have time.
http://findarticles.com/...qa3651/is_199601/ai_n8756371/pg_7
BTW I make no claims to be an expert in any of this. I did physics at undergraduate level far too long ago and remain interested in such matters but there are many better qualified than me here at EvC and beyond.
For one thing, can quantum mechanics conceivably be in operation before anything existed?
Now that is an excellent question. Who knows? If not does that 'prove' the existence of God?
I suppose if the principle of cause and effect is effectively just a limitation of human perception, as it appears to be within the universe, then is there any reason to impose it on anything? Including the universe itself?
I guess my problem is that if someone could tell me 'how' something happened, I will have to go back to regression and ask 'how did THAT happen'
If you are willing to accept the uncaused in the shape of a creator why is it so hard to accept the uncaused in the shape of the universe?
We know the universe exists. If anything is to be assumed to be uncaused surely it is the one thing we are sure actually exists rather than any number of creators for which we have no evidence of existence at all!
I don't get it. If someone thought the volcano was caused by an underground angry God, and I showed them how it was caused naturally, the only thing I could prove is that there is no need for a god to be making the volcano. I know what you are saying, but this is subtly different. I do not have clear proof that there was a natural event which caused the universe, and was itself uncaused. Even if I did, I would not know how to tell the difference between something which looks to have just occurred, and something which has occurred by an unseen hand.
The difference you apply is one of certainty not of principle. The above suggests that the only thing that allows your belief in God as the creator of the universe to remain intact is the lack of certainty regards the universe forming by natural processes and your belief that there never can be any certainty as to any such naturalistic theory.
200 years ago it was famously stated that we could never ever know what the stars were made of or how they were formed. Today we do. Who knows what the future of cosmology and quantum theory holds but there have been many gods left by the wayside of history as knowledge of the natural world has increased. A god of gaps is an ever diminishing entity.
At least, it is no greater of a difficulty than asking why a benevolent God could create the brutality, pain and suffering
True. But that is a question I am interested in hearing answered.
Is there another thread I should be looking at for that?
Maybe it is my understanding of the word immanence that is at fault.
Darwin is said to have lost his faith due to his experience of nature and in particular is quoted as citing parasitic organisms 'designed' to eat their host from the inside out.
Why would a benevolent god immanent in nature create such a creature?
Edited by Straggler, : Spelling etc.
Edited by Straggler, : Add link
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by anastasia, posted 07-22-2007 3:30 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by anastasia, posted 07-23-2007 2:58 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 66 by anastasia, posted 07-27-2007 3:14 PM Straggler has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 64 of 88 (412008)
07-23-2007 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Straggler
07-23-2007 8:12 AM


Re: Effective Cause
Straggler writes:
Now that is an excellent question. Who knows? If not does that 'prove' the existence of God?
Ok, let me start with this.
I don't feel that anything will prove the existence of God, perse. The most we are looking at is asking whether something existed before the universe. Was there any pre-existing thing/person/event which caused the universe?
I say yes, you say no. I say a pre-existing phenomenon caused all that is here to study, including quantum mechanics.
To avoid continual regression, the buck has to stop with whatever came first, so 'God' effectively fills that in. Find out what the first thing is, you find out what God is, or who.
Sometimes I don't know if studying the universe can ever definitively answer whether or not something pre-existed. Imagine I have a completely original art work, by an unknown artist who only painted one painting. I can not see any possible way of looking at the painting, the brushstrokes, the pigments, the style, or the subject, which would tell me the name of the artist. Of course it is common sense to say there is a painter, and we can make up whatever legends/myths we like about him. It would be ridiculous to say that not knowing the artist's name means the painting must have divine or supernatural origins. It may also be futile to pretend the painting will eventually give up the name. How many 'artist unknowns' do we see? Should we say all of these paintings are self-existing, and self-creating?
I am sorry if I am rambling, I am pretty sick today, so I will get back to the rest of the post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Straggler, posted 07-23-2007 8:12 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Straggler, posted 07-24-2007 7:56 AM anastasia has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 65 of 88 (412218)
07-24-2007 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by anastasia
07-23-2007 2:58 PM


Re: Effective Cause
I am sorry if I am rambling, I am pretty sick today,
I hope you are feeling better soon
I don't feel that anything will prove the existence of God, perse.
For what it is worth I don't think anything can disprove the existence of God perse either. All any scientific finding can do is remove the NEED for a supernatural answer. That in itself 'proves' nothing whatsoever.
so I will get back to the rest of the post.
Cool. I look forward to your reply but no need to rush on my account. I realise my last post was quite long winded
Be happy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by anastasia, posted 07-23-2007 2:58 PM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 66 of 88 (413077)
07-27-2007 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Straggler
07-23-2007 8:12 AM


Re: Effective Cause
Straggler writes:
Oh absolutely I don't know. At this point nobody does. That is the fun of it all. Ignorance is the driving force of scientific discovery.
If I have at any point even hinted that any such thing is more than a speculative theory or untested hypothesis I did so unintentionally.
No, no fear. If that knowledge were available, I am sure I would have stuck my head out of my shell long enough to hear about it. I am not accusing you of false claims or misrepresentation.
What I was asking, speculatively, was whether science is looking for an explanation of how the universe began? Say tomorrow it was confirmed that a random quantum fluctuation caused the universe, would we, hypothetically, be saying the universe was uncaused? Or would we would be saying the 'event/fluctuation' was uncaused?
You have already mentioned that we don't know if quantum mechanics can exist outside of the universe.
Is it therefore true that we would be looking for something 'pre-existing' and 'uncaused' in itself?
If you are willing to accept the uncaused in the shape of a creator why is it so hard to accept the uncaused in the shape of the universe?
Because, I suppose, right now we are only looking at the basic 'shapes'. Pre-existant, uncaused, and not obligated by the laws of nature. That is the 'shape' of a creator. I am trying to find out if that is the shape of quantum mechanics, or any other natural explanations. If 'yes', then we have conceiveably found our 'god' shape, and we are forced to say 'God' IS nature, or is IN nature. In that sense, we have 'proved' that the God shape exists, but not the Christian Creator Saviour Personal Deity.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Straggler, posted 07-23-2007 8:12 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Straggler, posted 07-29-2007 4:19 PM anastasia has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 67 of 88 (413183)
07-29-2007 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by anastasia
07-27-2007 3:14 PM


Re: Effective Cause
What I was asking, speculatively, was whether science is looking for an explanation of how the universe began?
Definitely. It is one of the great unanswered questions. It would be a crime not to be!!!
High energy particle physics (most closely resembling the conditions of the very early universe) and quantum cosmology (the search for the theoretical basis of any such explanation) are the most relevant fields of study.
At the moment there is a lot more speculative theory than there is physical evidence to justify.
That much has to be acknowledged whichever side of the debate one happens to be on.
I hope that experiment catches up with theory in time. I hope that theists also wish this. Ignorance is ultimately good for no-one.
Say tomorrow it was confirmed that a random quantum fluctuation caused the universe, would we, hypothetically, be saying the universe was uncaused?
Firstly I have no idea how this could be "proved" or "confirmed".
At best it could be mathematically and experimentally demonstrated that this was very possible and indeed likely.
However, with the above qualification assumed, the answer to your question is effectively yes.
Quantum theory is inherently and intrinsically random.
The equations of quantum mechanics are summations of probabilities. They do not describe deterministic linear cause and effect of the type that we (erroneously) take for granted. They effectively decribe uncaused events.
You have already mentioned that we don't know if quantum mechanics can exist outside of the universe.
Is it therefore true that we would be looking for something 'pre-existing' and 'uncaused' in itself?
The universe would be the uncaused in itself.
We have no evidence of anything else outside the universe existing. Therefore science has no requirement to explain or look for anything beyond the universe itself.
In short the answer to your question is - No.
Because, I suppose, right now we are only looking at the basic 'shapes'. Pre-existant, uncaused, and not obligated by the laws of nature.
Cause and effect is a human construct. Not a law of nature.
BUT even if we assume cause and effect IS a law of nature
Why would we expect any law of nature to exist outside of the universe itself?
Do you see the contradictory nature of your question?
You are basing the need for a cause on a "law of nature" that does not exist outside of the nature that has been caused!!!
SUMMARY (utterly and unashamedly biased )
Scientific
Assumption: There is an uncaused
Theory: The universe itself is the uncaused
Basis: Experimentally unproven speculative theoretical basis derived from highly established and vindicated wider scientific principles (i.e. quantum theory)
Theistic
Assumption: There is an uncaused
Assumption: God is the uncaused
Theory: God caused the universe
Basis: No physical evidence or scientific theoretical basis whatsoever making it totally unsubstantiated
I see you are admining a thread on parasites and other such things in nature which covers the other elements touched upon in our discussion. I shall read that thread with interest and hope that the fundies don't hijack it down pointless paths.
Hope you feel better. Stay happy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by anastasia, posted 07-27-2007 3:14 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by anastasia, posted 07-29-2007 9:43 PM Straggler has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 68 of 88 (413224)
07-29-2007 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Straggler
07-29-2007 4:19 PM


Re: Effective Cause
Straggler writes:
Hope you feel better. Stay happy.
Thanks, I am completely well again. It was just a flu or something, but my head was spinning trying to type and all.
I see you are admining a thread on parasites and other such things in nature which covers the other elements touched upon in our discussion. I shall read that thread with interest and hope that the fundies don't hijack it down pointless paths.
Well, yes, I promoted it just for you.
Definitely. It is one of the great unanswered questions. It would be a crime not to be!!!
Is it contradictory to believe the universe is not caused, and also to search for the 'cause' of the universe? I know there are things which I don't understand about the terms scientists use, but I am tempted to quote Rob here. Remember how he uses that quote about science assuming there will be an answer? That scienctists CAN discover how things happened?
Quantum theory is inherently and intrinsically random.
The equations of quantum mechanics are summations of probabilities. They do not describe deterministic linear cause and effect of the type that we (erroneously) take for granted. They effectively decribe uncaused events
I think I am gettng it.
The universe would be the uncaused in itself.
We have no evidence of anything else outside the universe existing. Therefore science has no requirement to explain or look for anything beyond the universe itself.
In short the answer to your question is - No.
You keep saying this. Science has no need to explain anything beyond the universe. Fine. BUT, for the longest time, it was assumed that the universe must have been started by something outside of it. If it can't be shown to have started itself, what do you do?
Cause and effect is a human construct. Not a law of nature.
Did I say it was? Actually, I see what you are thinking. What I mean to say is that there is a possibility that nature itself will NEVER explain how the universe came to be, because it may be that the answer is not in nature. It may be that we can't use natural equations or mathematics to explain things, because we don't know that they have any validity outside of the universe.
I have painstakeningly told you that I am putting aside biases, just to discuss the concept of an uncaused. You don't need to sum up every post with an implication that I am arguing for an agenda.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Straggler, posted 07-29-2007 4:19 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Straggler, posted 07-30-2007 12:37 PM anastasia has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 69 of 88 (413345)
07-30-2007 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by anastasia
07-29-2007 9:43 PM


Re: Effective Cause
Is it contradictory to believe the universe is not caused, and also to search for the 'cause' of the universe?
Is the quantum fluctuation hypothesis I have outlined a 'cause'?
I would say it is an explanation that seeks to decribe how uncaused things CAN happen.
Remember how he uses that quote about science assuming there will be an answer? That scienctists CAN discover how things happened?
Yes this is true. Absolutely. History also suggests that we have a pretty good track record of overturning examples of supposedly unanswerable questions. Often eliminating superantural explanations in the process.
Enough of a track record to persevere with this assumption until proven to be wrong anyway.
Anyway IF we do not assume there is an answer how will we ever find ANY answers?
Imagine if Newton had NOT sought an answer as to why the planets orbit the Sun? Or if Darwin had NOT sought to explain the variety of life? Because in both cases they just attributed these things unquestioningly to God's will?
How sad would that be?
I have no idea whether or not science will be able to answer the question of the origin of the universe with anything other than theory and speculation.
BUT I do know that if we don't even TRY we definitely won't answer anything.
You keep saying this. Science has no need to explain anything beyond the universe. Fine. BUT, for the longest time, it was assumed that the universe must have been started by something outside of it. If it can't be shown to have started itself, what do you do?
Science can only explain that which can actually be shown to exist.
If it can be shown that the universe COULD be uncaused and verify this possibility in some way experimentally (If I knew exactly how to do that I would be collecting a Nobel prize rather than writing here) then there would be no physical NEED for supernatural involvement.
There may well be historical, cultural or personal reasons for believing in a God or the supernatural (I have not heard any that convince me but that is another issue entirely)
All science will ever do is demonstrate that there are no PHYSICAL reasons to believe in a creator or cause.
What I mean to say is that there is a possibility that nature itself will NEVER explain how the universe came to be, because it may be that the answer is not in nature. It may be that we can't use natural equations or mathematics to explain things, because we don't know that they have any validity outside of the universe.
Indeed this may be true.
So - OK then lets close down all the theoretical physics departments. Shut down all the High energy particle colliders. Stop asking the interesting questions about the origins and evolution of of the physical universe and assume that it is all unanswerable.
Surely you don't want that do you?
Creationists of the fundamental lunatic sort would love that to happen but I am pretty sure you would not?
I have painstakeningly told you that I am putting aside biases, just to discuss the concept of an uncaused. You don't need to sum up every post with an implication that I am arguing for an agenda.
So then to summarise - Science Vs God so far..........
Only kidding
Sorry if I have been overzealous at times.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by anastasia, posted 07-29-2007 9:43 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by anastasia, posted 07-31-2007 1:27 PM Straggler has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 70 of 88 (413560)
07-31-2007 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Straggler
07-30-2007 12:37 PM


Re: Effective Cause
Straggler writes:
So then to summarise - Science Vs God so far..........
Only kidding
Sorry if I have been overzealous at times.
Nah, you just seem to assume that I care one way or another about what turns out to be truth. I already acknowledged long ago that my religion is cultural, part of my family traditions, interesting, even fascinating, fun, etc. It is not the be all, end all of who I am, and I don't care at this point if it is true or false. I believe it is true, but I am detached from that belief enough to have normal conversation. I am sure my thought processes nonetheless reveal my upbringing.
I begrudge science nothing. What I do feel is that the 'old man in the sky' concept is not doing justice to the 'real' God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Straggler, posted 07-30-2007 12:37 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Straggler, posted 07-31-2007 2:49 PM anastasia has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 71 of 88 (413576)
07-31-2007 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by anastasia
07-31-2007 1:27 PM


Re: Effective Cause
What I do feel is that the 'old man in the sky' concept is not doing justice to the 'real' God.
If there is a god you are almost certain to be right about that.
Nah, you just seem to assume that I care one way or another about what turns out to be truth.
I do care about the truth. At least in the sense that I want it to be true. I fnd it hard to imagine genuinely not wanting to know what the truth is (whether we actually can or not)?
I already acknowledged long ago that my religion is cultural, part of my family traditions, interesting, even fascinating, fun, etc.
It may even be true
Edited by Straggler, : Crap spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by anastasia, posted 07-31-2007 1:27 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by anastasia, posted 07-31-2007 3:24 PM Straggler has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 72 of 88 (413585)
07-31-2007 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Straggler
07-31-2007 2:49 PM


Re: Effective Cause
Straggler writes:
I do care about the truth. At least in the sense that I want it to be true. I fnd it hard to imagine genuinely not wanting to know what the truth is (whether we actually can or not)?
Hm. I care what the truth is, sure, but we don't know yet. We may never know. We can't base our life around lack of knowledge. We must do the best we can with what we know now. I follow my faith because it teaches me just that. It's 'immediate gratification' maybe, but it is absolutely necessary to have some philosophy for living. That is, once you have the basics of survival. Science does not supply my dreams or my ideals, nor a purpose. In that sense, do I care what is ultimately true about the universe? Not as much as I care what is ultimately true about human nature.
I am rambling again, but I suppose I question what mankind would do if we were not happy with what the truth turned out to be, and how relevent truth is within our short lives.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Straggler, posted 07-31-2007 2:49 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Straggler, posted 07-31-2007 3:37 PM anastasia has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 73 of 88 (413588)
07-31-2007 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by anastasia
07-31-2007 3:24 PM


Dreamers
Science does not supply my dreams or my ideals, nor a purpose.
Except in the few cases of exceptionally blinkered and driven individuals, that is true for almost everyone.
In that sense, do I care what is ultimately true about the universe? Not as much as I care what is ultimately true about human nature.
Science probably has quite a lot to say about human nature too. But I agree that there are more fun ways to experience and learn about human nature than just studying it scientifically
I suppose I question what mankind would do if we were not happy with what the truth turned out to be, and how relevent truth is within our short lives.
I think it is human nature to seek the truth regardless of the consequences.
We seem to be a pretty resilient bunch (the human race that is) and I am sure we can cope with whatever answers are found.
We have so far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by anastasia, posted 07-31-2007 3:24 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by anastasia, posted 07-31-2007 4:27 PM Straggler has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 74 of 88 (413599)
07-31-2007 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Straggler
07-31-2007 3:37 PM


Re: Dreamers
Straggler writes:
I think it is human nature to seek the truth regardless of the consequences.
That's kind of the problem. Truth matters to us somehow even if we know we can't grasp it yet. When it comes to religion, we have to believe that we have enough knowledge of what is 'true', to be good people, and to be accountable for our actions when we are not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Straggler, posted 07-31-2007 3:37 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Straggler, posted 07-31-2007 5:43 PM anastasia has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 75 of 88 (413622)
07-31-2007 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by anastasia
07-31-2007 4:27 PM


Re: Dreamers
That's kind of the problem. Truth matters to us somehow even if we know we can't grasp it yet. When it comes to religion, we have to believe that we have enough knowledge of what is 'true', to be good people, and to be accountable for our actions when we are not.
When it comes to science we have to assume that we can find the answers to the most difficult questions of the day otherwise we would never have found any answers at all.
I don't really see seeking truth as a problem. It is a necessity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by anastasia, posted 07-31-2007 4:27 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by anastasia, posted 07-31-2007 7:05 PM Straggler has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024