A Marginal Jew.

All things philosophical, related to belief and / or religions of any and all sorts.
Personal philosophy welcomed.
Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: A Marginal Jew.

Post by Big RR »

Meade--since the begining of recorded history (and likely well before that), humans have always consigned that which they could not understand to the supernatural, invoking gods and other supernatural beings as the cause of the weather, good or bad harvests, even the sun going away in the winter in exteeme northern or southern areas. Rituals were used to appease the gods and assure (or at least more likely) the outcome they wanted. As observation and the scientific method became more widely used, what is assigned to the supernatural has shifted, but we still use the supernatural to kind of describe the indescribable.

If we want to claim that the universe needs events to be contingent on previous events (which may or not be the case, at least in a cause and effect deterministic way, it's easier to explain the "initial" cause as being of a supernatural nature--that way we do not need to explain it. And humans generally want to believe something has a causal purpose, hence Einstein's apocryphal statement "God doesn't throw dice" in response to the stochastic nature of the universe his theories led to. And many people insist on keeping that understanding, whether it is supported by observable events or not.

Some scientists, like Hawking, have attempted to sidestep this by postulating metaphysical treatises that absolve the need for the supernatural to "explain", even though their explanations are similarly unsupported by evidence. They do make sense and are good thought experiments, but how close they are to reality? Who knows? Yes, these are among some of the greater minds of our time, but then so were early religious leaders in most major religions of their times.

The point is that science neither requires nor endorses the existence of a god or not--anymore than it can require or dismiss the existence of anything supernatural. At best, science can explain how the universe runs, not why, and we should not turn to science when we want to prove the existence of any supreme being. Not that the scientific evidence should be ignored and that should go one believing the universe is only 25000 old (or whatever), but nothing science has provided thus far disproves any such being. Science provides the how, religion, at its best, can provide the why, as well as move us toward an understanding of "salvation" (however it may be defined) and our place in the universe. FWIW, I think metaphysicis can do the same thing for some. But, to use your language, all are tilting at windmills (which might be giants, or not, FWIW).

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8545
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: A Marginal Jew.

Post by Sue U »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:
Tue Nov 01, 2022 11:40 pm
Hawking made up an idea called "imaginary time" which he described as a "just a proposal" that cannot explain what happened in real time. "In real time, the universe has a beginning". A Brief History of Time.

It it not clear that "imaginary time" is Hawking playing metaphysics rather than physics. Without scientific observation or recording of data, he comes up with a fairy story. I bet Gob believes it.
I am only suggesting that there are other ways of thinking about the purpose, meaning and existence of "God" that don't necessarily require an omniscient and omnipotent supernatural deity, or even any "being" at all, even in nominally monotheistic systems. And while these may be entertaining thought experiments, I'm pretty sure none of it really matter in terms of the concrete tasks we have as humans in this world.
GAH!

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: A Marginal Jew.

Post by Big RR »

And while these may be entertaining thought experiments, I'm pretty sure none of it really matter in terms of the concrete tasks we have as humans in this world.
Sue--I am not sure it doesn't matter, it matters as much as any of these other pursuits we humans engage in--whether philosophy, literature, the arts, music, etc.. All of these things affect the way we envision approach those tasks, as well as how we attempt to complete them.

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20702
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: A Marginal Jew.

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Thoughtful replies thanks. Not quoting BigRR exactly
If we want to claim that the universe needs events to be contingent on previous events (which may or not be the case, at least in a cause and effect deterministic way . . . it's easier to explain the "initial" cause as being of a supernatural nature . . . that way we do not need to explain it


That contingent things are all caused surely is an essential truth of science? Is not the purpose of science to discover causes, always with the assumption that there is a cause to be found? In searching for the origin of the universe, science looks for cause.

One idea is that the origin of the physical materials of the universe is a necessary boundless, empty space which produced a shuttlecock. I suppose by theorizing that, one is saying that the "universe" did not have a beginning - the spacey bits were all there was and then came the lumpy bits, fanning out from the nothing. That seems to contradict the central edict of science that all events have cause. We certainly do need to explain "the cause" of the universe whether it is of a natural or supernatural nature.

"The point is that science neither requires nor endorses the existence of a god or not" - thanks for the laugh. Most scientists require that there is no god (using that word in a "beyond-nature" sense) and base their explanations of origin on a concerted effort to deny there is a god. Whatever the evidence, they deny. And as they deny, their explanations become bizarre to the point of fairy stories.

Sue: "I am only suggesting that there are other ways of thinking about the purpose, meaning and existence of "God" that don't necessarily require an omniscient and omnipotent supernatural deity, or even any "being" at all, even in nominally monotheistic systems. And while these may be entertaining thought experiments, I'm pretty sure none of it really matter in terms of the concrete tasks we have as humans in this world"

Philosophical differences then. The reasonable assessment of the evidence is that there is an unlimited creator, although of course one can hypothesize an idiot-savant with Legos, or a flying spaghetti monster. And I'm pretty sure it does matter. :D
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: A Marginal Jew.

Post by Big RR »

That contingent things are all caused surely is an essential truth of science
Not necessarily, at least in the classical physics sense. Relativistic physics has shown us that we do not live in a deterministic universe where every action is initiated by another action; indeed, some of the theories reveal that the universe might be stochastic (or statistically) determined and can differ (Of course this bothered Einstein about a craps playing god). Does that mean the universe is not deterministic--perhaps, perhaps not; we are limited by the state o our knowledge and tools and will discover more in the future. Science uses observation to postulate how things behave, but causal relationships are not required. It's more like saying one result may occur 999,999 out of 1,000,000, another once in 1,000,000 (or billion, or trillion, or...). That is a big difference at the fundamental level.

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8545
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: A Marginal Jew.

Post by Sue U »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:
Wed Nov 02, 2022 2:42 pm
Philosophical differences then.
Well aren't they all? You postulate one supreme creator (presumably) outside our physical universe. Why is that philosophy any more acceptable than the Greek or Roman pantheon, or the current Hindu gods, or the Jain dharma that completely rejects a creator deity because the universe has always existed?
MajGenl.Meade wrote:
Wed Nov 02, 2022 2:42 pm
The reasonable assessment of the evidence is that there is an unlimited creator
Maybe, although Hawking et al. show that there is a scientifically grounded theory under which that need not be. Maybe he was a Jain?
GAH!

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: A Marginal Jew.

Post by Big RR »

More like a Tarzan.

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20702
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: A Marginal Jew.

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Or a Cheeta :lol:

Well at risk of earning a headache . . . what is the 'origin of the universe theory' of each of those religions and the evidence for it?

I assume you know them and regard each as equally valid. (I don't know them). But I can poke the bear by pointing out that if Jainism theorizes that the universe has always existed, then that's blown away by current science, the impossibility of an endless regression of contingent things, and the impossibility of an actual infinite.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

Post Reply