TrueScotsman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2019
- Messages
- 1,816
- Reaction score
- 1,034
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Argument #3 | More Complex Explanations of Reality
With advances in recent science, our picture of reality has been changing quite substantially. The days of reducing everything down to its fundamental particles is over, advances in the Philosophy of Science-Biology have yielded a much more complex ontology to the universe. That over the historical timeline of the universe, matter has evolved based upon the movement and structure of particles. Carbon became the basis of life because of the interactions of its structure with other atoms, but the molecules and subsequent proteins produced by these atoms have features and functions which are novel to that scale and not discernible merely by an analysis of the functions and properties of the component parts.
The brain is an area where the mode of thinking is especially helpful. One could explain the activity of the brain in a totally reductive way, observe the blood transporting oxygen and nutrients throughout, witness the releasing and reuptake of neurotransmitters, etc. But this explanation will not be sufficient to explain what functions the brain is performing. The brain is a neurophysiological structure, which is subdivided into smaller structures such as the Thalamus which is really also subdivided into even smaller structures with more discreet functions. Is human language really equipped to explain such complex interactions, such as the ones going on in our brain?
The mind itself is I think an emergent function of the brain, which is to say it is the emergent function of a symphony of complex scales of interaction. There are many functions of the brain that we are not actively conscious of as well, that is because the brain was built by evolution and the brain was not originally "designed" to be a consciousness machine.
Why does someone need a mythology, when we have reality. That human beings are stardust, that we who are alive are uniquely occasioned to witness this emergent universe, and that civilization and culture is a construction of mankind. Longing for another world I think deprecates this life, which is the only thing certain that this life is true and real. Why would one give control away over that one life, and hope for another one in some existence one is totally uncertain of?
Who are you, Thomas Jefferson reincarnated? Do you have a term for yourself, to describe what you particularly believe? Agnostic Christian? Cultural Christian? Religious Fictionalist? It seems you are iffy on the metaphysical questions, but think the ethics is solid and valid, is that right?I choose to discuss only Point #3. That is because I consider myself a "Christian." Not because I support any particular church or sect, as having experience with several over the years I've found them either too dogmatic or too esoteric for my taste.
No; I consider myself "Christian" because I like the story of Jesus, and I admire the tenet's which have been directly attributed to him by those who are alleged to have been witnesses to his teachings. Whether he be the son of God, or the son of Man, I believe in what he was trying to lead us to think, feel, and do.
Well, I think this question still has work, but the progress made by science in the areas of abiogenesis and indeed the origins of the universe are strong enough for me to think that the existence of a god in the traditional way is very unlikely. For instance, I discussed in my way of viewing the world as "Emergence," which indeed we can see that atoms have component parts, and those component parts of component parts. These hadrons which exist as a sort of wave or field of massless energy, could have potentially been fluctuating for an endless amount of time. Perhaps it was the emergence of mass, from these massless structures/waves that originated the singularity which transformed that energy into matter. I think that's a much better approach than the god hypothesis, which fundamentally shuts down scientific inquiry into these questions. One day there will likely be a well understood answer for both abiogenesis (most likely contender is hydrothermal vents and RNA world) and I think that Quantum Mechanics is the most promising field in terms of learning the origins of the universe.But it is this Point #3, the "Scientific" argument that I take exception with.
It simply does nothing to explain "existence," i.e. how did "everything" start? I don't mean with the "big bang" theory, but what is the nothing within which it existed AND how the "something" we call energy/matter/whatever come to be before it "blew up" and spread out?
Yes, but its not like that territory was unoccupied, religion was the explanation for almost all phenomena. Heck to Jonathan Edwards, we didn't really have a material existence, but existed in the mind of god along with the rest of the universe. It is harder now to say something is true, than it was before, thanks to science and philosophy. Which is how it should be, we need robust knowledge. Based upon multiple means of analysis performed in community and collaboration of peer scientists along with other multidisciplinary perspectives in order to better understand reality. Science understands quite a bit I would say, our theories are still under construction, but human knowledge is a story of progress with hills and valleys. There are no short cuts.Yes, we are using science to learn more and more about ourselves, our world, and our universe. But even our wisest scientists recognize we are only aware of a fraction of a fraction of the knowledge of existence.
I don't think a multiverse perspective is necessary for naturalism, nor even if one existed could there be some kind of "space" between by which to travel over to a different reality. I think we have a pretty robust picture of the universe thus far, and have accounted for all kinds of levels to reality. The way forward to answering the questions of parallel universe or dimensions, or what matter populates the universe will be achieved through scientific progress.We can see into one and two dimensional spheres, and exist in our own 3 dimensional sphere. Yet we also recognize the possibilities of dimensions beyond our own, and multiverses paralleling our own.
Barring aliens, we might be the most complexly organized organisms in the universe. While there is no cosmic significance of that fact, the atoms don't care, I think we can take existential account of our situation being thrust into this mysterious universe. We care, we are significant because others exist here with us for this stretch of time that we inhabit this small speck. Which is why we ought to be concerned about THIS life, and not some conceived afterlife where our true rewards will be received.The universe we do live in is vast and we live on a single speck less significant than any single atom of our own construction.
Only if you fall into Cartesian errors.Hell, we could be an experiment in some "greater being's" universal sized microscope much like a micro-organism studied by a human biologist or perhaps geneticist.
Love how its called faith, when one accepts robust scientific evidence. The word should be used that way, it is just a jab to try and portray people who accept science (and no metaphysics) as having their own religious system. I believe in one world, the natural one, in which I am typing on this keyboard with this primate evolved fingers which will be sent at the speed of light over the internet. When a metaphysical explanation has sufficient evidence to be asserted, then I will seriously consider it. They don't get special pleading to muddy the waters of what we do know concerning the natural world.You've placed your "faith" in science. I share a belief that science may provide us with many answers...in time.
Statements like this just shut your brain off to criticism. No need to analyze Christianity, or express your own view, there is no arbiter to determine who wins, so why try?However, just because some people have come to believe in deity, deities, or nothing...does not mean their belief systems are any more or less valid that yours.
I would agree hope is important, beings which conceive of far into the future can have little hope in the present if all they see before them is suffering. Also I would say that hope for things in the world to change is important, even conservative religions have this element except through the fact that the world will end and we will then enjoy a New Earth which is merged with heaven.It's been my experience that people need/seek hope. Hope that tomorrow will be better than today.
Have you read Ernest Becker?This compulsive need also extends to thoughts beyond this life. Religions claim to fill this niche, and provide the sustenance of hope.
Wish there would have been a census before a being decided to create billions of eternal conscious creatures. I am content with the duration of my days here.I'm an agnostic, but I can also appreciate the unique dynamics of a hope-fulfilling-afterlife.
While some say "I'll believe it when I see it," one man says that those people have it backward. Certain things you can see only when you believe.
To quote a current AT&T TV commercial...
In other words, test MY worldview and then you will see. I find every religion makes this claim, which is why I find it universally uncompelling.To quote a current AT&T TV commercial...
In other words, test MY worldview and then you will see. I find every religion makes this claim, which is why I find it universally uncompelling.
Those nefarious reasons have had their repercussions right on up until the present. I don't think one should be silent on matters of our existence when people who have far less sufficient evidence are doing everything they can to spread a worldview which I think is arguably inadequate. Which isn't to say that all Christianity is undermined, but I think fundamentalist form should probably carry a social cost for believing the earth is 6,000 years old. Criticizing religion from the outside in a sense part of religious reform on the long term, and I think all for the better.I'm not a Christian, or a follower of any other religious belief system for one reason only. After thoroughly studying Christianity, and to a lesser degree, Islam and some of the Eastern religions, the data ( for me ) leads me to conclude that men created God(s), as opposed to vice versa....first to explain the unexplainable, and later for more nefarious reasons.
I think truth is found in the analysis of the LOT of the arguments, which means that I think as many arguments available should be invited to be heard in the human conversation on the topic of divinity. As a former Christian and someone who thinks much of this culture has been directly harmful to my own life and others around me, I think my opinion on the subject of the religion, Christianity is of relevance to the conversation. Its not the final word, even for myself, I'm open to being proven wrong, given how many times in the past I have found myself to be wrong.That said, I am certainly not here to convince anyone to believe as I do, nor to try to convince others to renounce their respective beliefs, and anyone that derives peace and/or solace from their religious beliefs, I consider to be a good thing, providing they don't try to force their beliefs upon me or threaten me with unproven, eternal negatives for rejecting their personal religious beliefs.
They think you're a heretic bound for Hell! This is some strange alliance, indeed.In other words...no...there is a reason you'll find no believers willing to engage with you on this thread, including me...believe or don't believe whatever you like...I will do the same...
They think you're a heretic bound for Hell! This is some strange alliance, indeed.
Thanks for proving that you aren't interested in sincere discussion. Even if YOU were to write out something thoughtful to the OP, I would respond in substance, as I have to all the other posters in this thread.
Bye, why you even posted in this thread is a mystery. As if I cared about your non-participation. Thanks for the PSA.lol...
Bye, why you even posted in this thread is a mystery. As if I cared about your non-participation. Thanks for the PSA.
You posted, in MY thread. Cya!lol...you posted to me 1st, not the other way around...
Bye, why you even posted in this thread is a mystery. As if I cared about your non-participation. Thanks for the PSA.
Those nefarious reasons have had their repercussions right on up until the present. I don't think one should be silent on matters of our existence when people who have far less sufficient evidence are doing everything they can to spread a worldview which I think is arguably inadequate. Which isn't to say that all Christianity is undermined, but I think fundamentalist form should probably carry a social cost for believing the earth is 6,000 years old. Criticizing religion from the outside in a sense part of religious reform on the long term, and I think all for the better.
I think truth is found in the analysis of the LOT of the arguments, which means that I think as many arguments available should be invited to be heard in the human conversation on the topic of divinity. As a former Christian and someone who thinks much of this culture has been directly harmful to my own life and others around me, I think my opinion on the subject of the religion, Christianity is of relevance to the conversation. Its not the final word, even for myself, I'm open to being proven wrong, given how many times in the past I have found myself to be wrong.
I'm not a Christian, or a follower of any other religious belief system for one reason only. After thoroughly studying Christianity, and to a lesser degree, Islam and some of the Eastern religions, the data ( for me ) leads me to conclude that men created God(s), as opposed to vice versa....first to explain the unexplainable, and later for more nefarious reasons. That said, I am certainly not here to convince anyone to believe as I do, nor to try to convince others to renounce their respective beliefs, and anyone that derives peace and/or solace from their religious beliefs, I consider to be a good thing, providing they don't try to force their beliefs upon me or threaten me with unproven, eternal negatives for rejecting their personal religious beliefs.
You posted, in MY thread. Cya!
This I know, people have gotten on my case for not being nice to her about it.Elvira does not do discussion.
Personally, I don’t wish hell on anyone. I mean maybe pedos, but even there, eternity is an awful long time. I know some of my Christian brethren wield hell like a dangerous animal they own and that is not ok. If I can pose a hypothetical, though. If you see kids playing on railroad tracks and you know or believe a train is coming, what would you do?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?