|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Introducing me. There are no gods or supernatural!
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Hawking also tends to use rather loose language in his popular publications. It would be interesting to see if he describes fine tuning in a formal scientific paper.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
And none of those games succeeds in reasoning "God" OUT of Reality … i.e., IOW, contrary to popular atheist literature, "God" is not going to "disappear in a puff of logic" ...
Hahahaha the idea that Douglas Adams is a writer of popular atheist literature is utterly ridiculous whichever way around that statement is read. Plenty of people who are not atheists read Hitchhiker - and very clearly it is not pushing an atheistic message. In fact it is very clearly a comic-satirical form of nonsense.
The formulation of this particular phrase is clearly not to be taken seriously, and nobody anywhere would attempt to use this as a proof for the non-existence of the deity.
Finally, in his "increasingly inaccurately named" Hitchhiker trilogy, Adams includes illusions to a creator God and has characters who are deities.
Of course, one could have pointed to better examples of sci-fi writers who really do have an atheistic agenda and/or beef with Christianity, such as Isaac Asimov. But an interesting feature of the latter is that his popular fiction novels and short stories were never (or, perhaps almost never) about any deity at all.
Of course, various other sci-fi writers take a wide spectrum of views on religion and philosophy.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
'Fine Tuning' and 'Design' both seem to suggest external agency. My guess is that Hawking whilst finding it a useful analogy, was not thinking of supporting the belief that an external agency is necessary. (Or, what Mr Cheesy said.)
Interesting remark, which incidentally proves the force of the argument. Let's backtrack a moment and deal with the definition of what we are describing here. From the useful wikipedia article on fine tuning we find this definition:
"The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood."
OK? That's science. Now saying that this "suggests external agency" is quite right - that's why it's used to support arguments for design. However, it is not in itself an argument for design. It's not an argument for any philosophical position.
The observations about the relationships between the fundamental constants and quantities in the universe give rise to the obvious questions about how we account for them. However we account for them, the relationships between these numbers remain the same.
As with possible explanations of any fact, not all explanations of the relationships between the fundamental structures of the universe are equally plausible.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
Interesting remark, which incidentally proves the force of the argument. Let's backtrack a moment and deal with the definition of what we are describing here. From the useful wikipedia article on fine tuning we find this definition:
"The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood."
Wikipedia is not a gauge of accepted science. And given that is a very minor page, it is highly likely to have been written by someone with an agenda.
And anyway, this paragraph does not even contradict what I said above, go back and read my example. The petri dish within which we exist clearly meets the characteristics of life, hence we are alive. This is not any kind of proof that we are in a specially constructed universe for the reasons I've given above.
quote:
OK? That's science. Now saying that this "suggests external agency" is quite right - that's why it's used to support arguments for design. However, it is not in itself an argument for design. It's not an argument for any philosophical position.
You are fundamentally wrong about this and clearly are mistaken about what is and is not science.
quote:
The observations about the relationships between the fundamental constants and quantities in the universe give rise to the obvious questions about how we account for them. However we account for them, the relationships between these numbers remain the same.
Yes, but nobody is arguing that these constants are not fundamental for life (or at least life as we know it). The argument is about whether these are evidence of some special status of this universe and therefore whether it shows that we are in fact caused by some external agency.
In and of itself, the fact that we exist and have life is not evidence of a creator. It just isn't.
quote:
As with possible explanations of any fact, not all explanations of the relationships between the fundamental structures of the universe are equally plausible.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Quite hard to take anything you say seriously after that remark. Clearly you've not read and understood my example above.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Finally, in his "increasingly inaccurately named" Hitchhiker trilogy, Adams includes illusions to a creator God and has characters who are deities.
“God's Final Message to His Creation:
'We apologize for the inconvenience.”
―-Douglas Adams, So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[QUOTE] ...nobody is arguing that these constants are not fundamental for life (or at least life as we know it). The argument is about whether these are evidence of some special status of this universe and therefore whether it shows that we are in fact caused by some external agency.
Splendid! A point of agreement. Shall we proceed from here? How might we account for these fundamental elements of the universe? I think there are four options.
Either the universe is the way it is because it has to be this way and no other way. In other words, the universe is essential. Clearly that doesn't work, since there are many more ways the universe could be configured so as not to permit life.
What else could we try? Well we could suggest that we just got lucky - this is the only universe there is and its configuration is the result of random chance. That's highly improbable. PCW Davis (Arizona State University), for instance, has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions of the universe being suitable for star formation (without which planets could not form) is one followed by at least 1,000 billion billion zeros (PCW Davies Other Worlds pp160-161, 168-169). He also estimates that a change in the strength of gravity, or the weak nuclear force by one part in 10 to the power of 100 would prevent a life-permitting universe. Not impossible, just highly improbable.
The third option is the one I think you're suggesting. There are a multiplicity of universes, so many of them in fact that at least one will, on the law of averages, turn out to be life permitting. There are a variety of versions of the "multiverse" theory - perhaps you can tell us which one you favour the most and we can discuss its pros and cons.
The fourth option is that the universe is designed. The properties of this designer would be one that is all powerful (to bring all matter and energy into existence) immaterial (since matter is a product of the designer) and personal (since quite a lot of thought has gone into the design).
So we'd need to look at these and see which explanation or explanations appear the more plausible given the evidence available to us.
Is that a reasonable point to move on from?
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
This discussion is clearly batshit: winning a lottery at very low odds tends towards impossible. But that doesn't mean someone fails to win.
It is not possible to talk about the likelihood of these things happening, because we have absolutely no way of knowing. We are the universe/solar system/planet which won the lottery. We know nothing about everyone else.
Stupid conversation, I'm done.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
The fourth option is that the universe is designed. The properties of this designer would be one that is all powerful (to bring all matter and energy into existence) immaterial (since matter is a product of the designer) and personal (since quite a lot of thought has gone into the design).
There are theological problems here, namely that it should be impossible to determine that the universe is created by inspecting the details of that universe (since if it were that would imply God was not free to create universes that didn't look created). Having been created can no more show up among empirical properties of the universe than existing does.
Note that cosmological arguments do not start from any specific property of the universe but from general meta-properties - contingency or change, for example.
It's impossible to argue about the probability of the universal constants, thought-provoking as they might be, since we have no idea what the range over which they could have varied was. It could be that they're as mathematically determined as e and pi.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Dafyd: But logic doesn't apply so the deduction's fine.
No, "logic doesn't apply" doesn't mean "every deduction is fine".
I agree. You are quite right that "logic doesn't apply" doesn't logically imply "every deduction is fine".
Since we're talking about somewhere logic doesn't apply, what we can and can't deduce logically doesn't matter. So I can take 'logic doesn't apply' to mean 'every deduction is fine' even if it's not logical to do so.
(I am mucking about of course since I do not believe 'logic doesn't apply' is a coherent statement. But there is a serious point underlying the mucking about, which is that if you abandon logic all you're left with is mucking about.)
quote:
quote:
Dafyd: We can't come to the conclusion that the universe follows certain rules
Of course we can. We see that the sun rises. Then it gets dark. Then the sun rises again. We deduct that the universe follows a certain rule. We encode this rule in our language by words as 'night' and 'day'. We derive logic from this: even if we're somewhere we've never been before and it gets dark, it will get light again. And God saw that it was good.
I thought the rules we were talking about were specifically logical rules as opposed to empirical rules.
That night follows day is not a logical rule: were the Earth to synchronise its spin on its axis with its orbit so that the sun remained stationary in the sky as it does on Mercury no logical rule would be violated. (ish... there might be physical constraints that mean the maths might not work out - I am not a physicist.)
A logical rule would be that if all cats are mammals and Tibbins is a cat then Tibbins is a mammal. The rule 'all cats are mammals' was reached by empirical research; the discovery that Tibbins is a cat by empirical observation.
The logical rule governing the major syllogism was not reached by empirical observation. One could perhaps envisage a discovery that some cats are in fact descended from dinosaurs and only look like mammals through convergent evolution; one can imagine that Tibbins is in fact a heavily disguised iguana or a fairy; it is not possible that we find Tibbins is a cat and that all cats are mammals and yet Tibbins is not a mammal. There is no set of empirical observations that would amount to that set of claims.
I recommend on this point (and others) Chesterton's chapter The Ethics of Elfland in his book Orthodoxy.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
The fourth option is that the universe is designed. The properties of this designer would be one that is all powerful (to bring all matter and energy into existence) immaterial (since matter is a product of the designer) and personal (since quite a lot of thought has gone into the design).
So what would account for the unkindness which comes about once animals started to evolve? 'Nature raw in tooth and claw' - animals have to eat each other, but it's a brutal natural world.
Would an all-powerful designer whose name was love not have built a better system? (Better for the creatures s/he apparently loves?)
Please don't say 'the devil did it'. An all powerful designer would not factor in such weakness.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
venbede. So what are you doing here? And when you and I brokenly, inadequately pray, that is not invoking God? We are not thinking out loud?
Drewthealexander - posit if God were not. How would an uncaused multiverse cause do universes differently? Especially this one?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
The fourth option is that the universe is designed. The properties of this designer would be one that is all powerful (to bring all matter and energy into existence) immaterial (since matter is a product of the designer) and personal (since quite a lot of thought has gone into the design).
There are theological problems here, namely that it should be impossible to determine that the universe is created by inspecting the details of that universe (since if it were that would imply God was not free to create universes that didn't look created). Having been created can no more show up among empirical properties of the universe than existing does.
Note that cosmological arguments do not start from any specific property of the universe but from general meta-properties - contingency or change, for example.
[?QUOTE]
Cosmological arguments - fine. Fine tuning is a teleological argument.
quote:
[QB} It's impossible to argue about the probability of the universal constants, thought-provoking as they might be, since we have no idea what the range over which they could have varied was. It could be that they're as mathematically determined as e and pi. [/QB]
Happily we don't need to know that for the argument to have force. What makes this argument so troubling for materialists is that very tiny variations in either the contestants and quantities themselves, or the relationships between them (let alone the combination of both) could give rise to life prohibiting universes.
Unless you're suggesting that these numbers are as they are because they couldn't be any other way. Is that an option your putting on the table?
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Drewthealexander - posit if God were not. How would an uncaused multiverse cause do universes differently? Especially this one?
Multiverse theories are quite diverse - coming up with theories and models is what research students do for a living after all. I think we would have to consider one view in particular to have a meaningful conversation on this question.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Would an all-powerful designer whose name was love not have built a better system? (Better for the creatures s/he apparently loves?)
Please don't say 'the devil did it'. An all powerful designer would not factor in such weakness.
I think Christianity faces up to this by saying that the universe God designed is not in the state in which he originally designed it. Hence passages in the New Testament that refer to the redemption of creation as well as to humanity. Christ's redemptive work will end in a new heaven and a new earth.
It's a deep question - worthy of its own thread perhaps. How would you answer it?
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Would an all-powerful designer whose name was love not have built a better system? (Better for the creatures s/he apparently loves?)
Please don't say 'the devil did it'. An all powerful designer would not factor in such weakness.
I think Christianity faces up to this by saying that the universe God designed is not in the state in which he originally designed it. Hence passages in the New Testament that refer to the redemption of creation as well as to humanity. Christ's redemptive work will end in a new heaven and a new earth.
It's a deep question - worthy of its own thread perhaps. How would you answer it?
But why design it to fail?
My only answer is that - to give complete freedom to evolve God had to 'let go' and allow evolution to take its course for good or ill, even if it did involve creatures becoming food for each other. But this doesn't really answer it as God must be 'around' holding it all together, so how do you sit back and allow such horror? I gave my children freedom, but I also protected them (as much as I could) until they were old enough to protect themselves. I see no protection whatever coming from God.
[ 10. April 2015, 14:49: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
@ Boogie. Yes, it's a difficult one. One other suggestion is that to allow the universe to evolve/develop/mature, the principle of free agency lends itself to the possibility of producing harm as well as good. It may be that the universe we have delivers as much good as is possible with the least harm.
Let's see what insights others can bring to this.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
One traditional reply is to do with intelligibility, that is, humans could only live and flourish in an intelligible world, hence a world with no miraculous exceptions, which might produce chaos. I suppose a big problem with this approach is that it's tending towards deism, i.e. God creates an orderly world and stands back; and perhaps also it emits a smell of burning rubber.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Would an all-powerful designer whose name was love not have built a better system? (Better for the creatures s/he apparently loves?)
Please don't say 'the devil did it'. An all powerful designer would not factor in such weakness.
I think Christianity faces up to this by saying that the universe God designed is not in the state in which he originally designed it. Hence passages in the New Testament that refer to the redemption of creation as well as to humanity. Christ's redemptive work will end in a new heaven and a new earth.
It's a deep question - worthy of its own thread perhaps. How would you answer it?
But why design it to fail?
My only answer is that - to give complete freedom to evolve God had to 'let go' and allow evolution to take its course for good or ill, even if it did involve creatures becoming food for each other. But this doesn't really answer it as God must be 'around' holding it all together, so how do you sit back and allow such horror? I gave my children freedom, but I also protected them (as much as I could) until they were old enough to protect themselves. I see no protection whatever coming from God.
It's like the famous "Job" question -- "Why ME … ???" … to which the entirely reasonable answer is, "Why NOT you … ???" (as per Job 38:1ff) …
I suppose -- I know -- that for some creatures, "Life's a BITCH …" … and some human beings deliberately then choose death over life …
To be alive is to struggle, to toil, to breathe, to gnaw, to move, to seek -- not always with great success … There are good biological/existential reasons that creatures have the capacity to self-heal many wounds ...
But that's the deal ...
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The multiverse I'd go for is the one we're in if the material is all there is. So in other words you can't think of any difference apart from causality that God makes? The universe looks exactly as it would if there is no non-ratiocinating uncaused universe causer (a.k.a. God) but there is an uncaused multiverse causer?
Of course there is the possibility that the multiverse is caused by God.
[ 10. April 2015, 16:03: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Boogie's points remind me of the famous line by Fulke Greville, 'created sick, and commanded to be well', taken up with relish by C. Hitchens. Actually inaccurate, of course.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The multiverse I'd go for is the one we're in if the material is all there is. So in other words you can't think of any difference apart from causality that God makes? The universe looks exactly as it would if there is no non-ratiocinating uncaused universe causer (a.k.a. God) but there is an uncaused multiverse causer?
Of course there is the possibility that the multiverse is caused by God.
And there's you're problem Martin - if the multiverse is uncaused, you are back into the same issue as we have discussed re the possibility that our universe is uncaused. The issue is just shifted back a step.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's curious that B. Russell wrote about the 'cause of the universe' as showing the fallacy of composition. I think it's called the mother argument, all men have mothers, but the human species does not. Hence, he argued, things in the universe may have causes, but not therefore the universe; hotly contested, of course.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's curious that B. Russell wrote about the 'cause of the universe' as showing the fallacy of composition. I think it's called the mother argument, all men have mothers, but the human species does not. Hence, he argued, things in the universe may have causes, but not therefore the universe; hotly contested, of course.
In the case of the universe, the suggestion is that it's a fallacy to argue that because everything in the universe has a cause, therefore the universe itself has a cause.
But you can have other reasons for proposing that the universe has a cause that avoid this altogether. Arguing that something can't come from nothing would be one. This is confirmed by scientific investigation (not to mention common experience). This argument is based on inductive reasoning, not reasoning by composition, so avoids the potential trap altogether.
Notwithstanding that, I'm sure it could be quite fun assessing Russell's complaint as it stands.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
To be alive is to struggle, to toil, to breathe, to gnaw, to move, to seek -- not always with great success … There are good biological/existential reasons that creatures have the capacity to self-heal many wounds ...
But that's the deal ...
Absolutely, I know that.
But I see no real reason that a 'loving' God would be behind such. (except the incomplete one that I gave, of course)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I don't see a problem Drew. With the multiverse we have a steady state.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's curious that B. Russell wrote about the 'cause of the universe' as showing the fallacy of composition. I think it's called the mother argument, all men have mothers, but the human species does not. Hence, he argued, things in the universe may have causes, but not therefore the universe; hotly contested, of course.
the evidence appears to be heading towards life starting in interstellar ice - we are stardust
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I don't see a problem Drew. With the multiverse we have a steady state.
As a matter of interest, if you're in favour of steady steady you don't need the multiverse you account for the origin of our universe. Either we're just here inexplicably, or we've always been here. Theories of multiverses became popular in response to the fine-tuning discoveries.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
To be alive is to struggle, to toil, to breathe, to gnaw, to move, to seek -- not always with great success … There are good biological/existential reasons that creatures have the capacity to self-heal many wounds ...
But that's the deal ...
Absolutely, I know that.
But I see no real reason that a 'loving' God would be behind such. (except the incomplete one that I gave, of course)
And for sure, a two-year old in midst of a tantrum doesn't experience mom/dad as "loving," either when dad/mom is firmly saying, "No … !!!" ...
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Who's in a tantrum?
Onchocerca volvulus.
This universe coming in to uncaused existence alone is absurd. This universe being one of infinite universes isn't. It's simplest.
I don't believe in God for any rational reason. I like the story.
[ 10. April 2015, 23:29: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
To be alive is to struggle, to toil, to breathe, to gnaw, to move, to seek -- not always with great success … There are good biological/existential reasons that creatures have the capacity to self-heal many wounds ...
But that's the deal ...
Absolutely, I know that.
But I see no real reason that a 'loving' God would be behind such. (except the incomplete one that I gave, of course)
And for sure, a two-year old in midst of a tantrum doesn't experience mom/dad as "loving," either when dad/mom is firmly saying, "No … !!!" ...
Loving parents explain why the answer is no. They don't hide from their children. Two year old tantrums are due to frustration, loving parents teach their offspring how to deal with frustration.
God doesn't say "no", God simply lets life get on with living. I accept that, but I can't see how love comes into the equation.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
To be alive is to struggle, to toil, to breathe, to gnaw, to move, to seek -- not always with great success … There are good biological/existential reasons that creatures have the capacity to self-heal many wounds ...
But that's the deal ...
Absolutely, I know that.
But I see no real reason that a 'loving' God would be behind such. (except the incomplete one that I gave, of course)
And for sure, a two-year old in midst of a tantrum doesn't experience mom/dad as "loving," either when dad/mom is firmly saying, "No … !!!" ...
Loving parents explain why the answer is no. They don't hide from their children. Two year old tantrums are due to frustration, loving parents teach their offspring how to deal with frustration.
God doesn't say "no", God simply lets life get on with living. I accept that, but I can't see how love comes into the equation.
A two-year old in a tantrum does indeed deserve and should always receive a calm loving explanation … That's what we get in The Book of Job ...
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
Notwithstanding that, I'm sure it could be quite fun assessing Russell's complaint as it stands.
I was told by a philosophy grad student who was into Bertrand Russell that there are two kinds of Bertrand Russell books -- books about mathematics, and everything else. He said they should publish the former all in blue, and the latter all in red. Then serious philosophers could read the blue books and not be embarrassed by having any of his red books on their shelves. Because as a philosopher he was crap.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Who's in a tantrum?
Onchocerca volvulus.
This universe coming in to uncaused existence alone is absurd. This universe being one of infinite universes isn't. It's simplest.
I don't believe in God for any rational reason. I like the story.
Now that is profound. I like it also, well, parts of it. But that doesn't seem to be enough, it has to be seen to be true also. I suppose otherwise, parts of other religions are likeable, and then you have lost the one true faith.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
A two-year old in a tantrum does indeed deserve and should always receive a calm loving explanation … That's what we get in The Book of Job ...
Trite answers like that simply don't wash imo. Job may have been having a two year old tantrum, but plenty of other perfectly calm non-frustrated people see no God (see the OP). The question hasn't been answered. And, to be fair, can't be answered.
But, we continue to ask it and always will.
Why design this universe, in which the natural world is so painful and cruel(not just to humans) if one can do absolutely anything with anything and supposedly loves those very creatures?
I think Drewthealexander comes closest -
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
@ Boogie. Yes, it's a difficult one. One other suggestion is that to allow the universe to evolve/develop/mature, the principle of free agency lends itself to the possibility of producing harm as well as good. It may be that the universe we have delivers as much good as is possible with the least harm.
A bit like democracy - maybe the universe is the least worst option?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Surely also, it depends on whether God needs to be hidden? A God who was not hidden could make life easier for animals, but the hiddenness may be crucial; I am thinking of the Jewish idea of God's withdrawal, (tzimtzum), however this merits its own thread.
[ 11. April 2015, 09:08: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Who's in a tantrum?
Onchocerca volvulus.
This universe coming in to uncaused existence alone is absurd. This universe being one of infinite universes isn't. It's simplest.
I don't believe in God for any rational reason. I like the story.
Now that is profound. I like it also, well, parts of it. But that doesn't seem to be enough, it has to be seen to be true also. I suppose otherwise, parts of other religions are likeable, and then you have lost the one true faith.
Best post by Martin ever - probably.
Know what you mean quetzalcoatl!
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I'm surprised at you q! It's true for me. It's my one true faith and it integrates all that is good for me. It can't possibly exclude truth from other religions or none. It has incalculably benefitted from postmodernism for none.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Story is very important for me, too.
As to drawing from other faiths (also important for me}: I once read a quote to the effect that "All truth is from the Holy Spirit, no matter who says it".
FWIW, I think people approach questions of origin, the possible Other/Divine, "life, the universe, and everything", etc., in many ways. Trouble arises when we forget that. Many people need stories, and don't necessarily vivisect them--some of us (raises hand) soak them up. They're basic nutrition. Other people need formal logical proofs; or find meaning in personal relationships, or in reading and meditating on ancient texts, or through their bodies.
I don't thing most people are necessarily looking for The Ultimate Truth, especially not all spelled out. We want to know we're loved, or why Grandma died and is she ok, why do children suffer, and whether we matter; is Earth the only planet with life, where did everything come from, and when's lunch. (Nod to Douglas Adams.) And how in the world we can get through *this current moment*. Often, that last question is the most important.
Maybe there isn't necessarily one right way to go about this--except to do it (if we can and choose to), and be honest.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm surprised at you q! It's true for me. It's my one true faith and it integrates all that is good for me. It can't possibly exclude truth from other religions or none. It has incalculably benefitted from postmodernism for none.
I sometimes wonder when the fetish for truth began, I suppose it has always been there, in the sense that the adjacent tribe's god has to be disrespected.
Postmodernism is curious, often derided, yet maybe of great benefit to religion, although maybe not the one and only (Rick Astley?).
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
It seems to me that you say you can prove that there is an 'uncaused cause'. This is a strong argument and difficult to counter - though I don't think it is quite axiomatic. However, you then go to say - 'so we can (should) call this entity God.' Then you go on from that to - of all the versions of God we have, the Christian God is most plausible. The problem I have is that those two further steps feel to me like pretty large leaps (not impossible to make, but pretty speculative), whereas it comes across as if you think these further steps are pretty small - the whole hangs together very easily. The smallness of those two further steps makes everything nicely coherent / cohesive - for you. Each component step reinforcing the other steps.
This is speculation on my spiritual life without evidence, which hence unsurprisingly ends up being rather wrong. As far as the naming goes, the only thing I have claimed is that calling the uncaused Cause "god" is admissible for a believer if their "god" is essentially compatible by features (true for some "gods", not true for others). That is indeed an easy and small step, but so for everybody not just me. It's basically a curtesy to the believer that sacrifices a bit of philosophical precision.
But I have rarely said much about why the Christian God is "most plausible", and I certainly have not said much here. In fact, what I have said is that some kind of deism, not Christianity, should be the intellectual default position. I would add to that that this deistic god by default must be either uncaring or evil. My own personal reasons for picking Christianity are complex, and I do not share the prevalent attitude that one should spread one's inner life across the internet. But one key feature of Christianity that attracts me is that it is "crazy" in the right sort of way. It has an "embodied Zen" kind of feel to it. As far as picking religions goes, I will quote myself from a post in Oblivion:
quote:
Assume you are with a large group of people stuck in the desert, and want to get out of there lest you die. Different people suggest different directions to head in (or indeed, to stay put), giving a variety of more or less convincing reasons and appealing to a variety of more or less convincing data. But none of them has an utterly compelling case, i.e., nobody has a working satnav that has both maps of the areas and receives the GPS signal. So what is the reasonable thing to do? Well, you weigh the options to the best of your abilities, and then you go for what seems most probable without looking back. Oscillating between various options (unless they are very close to each other) is generally not going to help, but is going to decrease your survival chances. If you think that one direction is right, then strain to reach the border of the desert that way. Maybe you are right and make it out, maybe you are wrong and will die at the end of a ruinous path, but running around like a headless chicken is going to get you killed for sure. This dedication does not mean however that one must stumble along blindly. If there is serious new information suggesting a change of direction, then one should follow it.
Likewise, I see no contradiction between being firmly committed, faithful, to Christianity and acknowledging that I cannot conclusively prove the falsity of Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, etc. This path seems best to me, so I take it. There is no point in letting uncertainty halt your steps.
... Say you have all these people running off into different religions (different religions), and then you have some (atheists) that think staying put offers best chances. All these people have in their way dealt appropriately with the situation. Of course, it will turn out good for some and bad for others. But they realised the situation and made their decision on how to handle it. Whereas there are some (agnostics) that wander around aimlessly, without being able to commit to one direction or for that matter to staying put. They just cannot bring themselves to make a decision. And then there are some (apathetics) who are just insane and are busy playing card games or otherwise entertaining themselves, completely ignoring the situation they are in. It is these latter two groups who are really in a bad way, with the last group being the worst of them all. These two groups are not doing the necessary thing, they are not properly dealing with the situation at hand. Everybody else is, even the atheists. That is not to say that the outcomes will be the same for all of them, but at least they all gave it a shot. And so I think that this is what we have to do, we have to give religion a shot - one way or another, even by rejecting it.
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
The whole 'even if there was a big bang before this big bang we can constantly regress to God' - just emphasises the remoteness of God. When people are looking for reassurance that their loved one will end up in heaven where they are loved; or that God will step in to heal their son or daughter; or that God who has felt distant bordering on non-existent, will start to give them some sort of experiential reassurance, they don't want to be reminded of the alien, remoteness of God.
I have no problem with "simple" faith. I have no problem with "emotional" faith. I have no problem with "hopeful" faith. Where I get a problem is when people turn around and effectively say: because my simplicity / emotionality / hopefulness requires it, this or that theological or philosophical statement cannot be true. I have a problem when people step back into the intellectual domain and say "because I need X, it is given".
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
My point is that the jump from the deism you describe, to the Christian faith is one hell of a leap in terms of logic and plausibility.
Maybe so. But I think these days we have to worry that many people, or at least educated people, have swallowed the lie that all religion must be irrational simply by the fact that it is religion. I think these arguments have their value in establishing a "rational space" for religion.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by venbede:
This sort of discussion seems to me tautologous and unconstructive. Better to concentrate on how to love God and neighbour than waste time arguing on whether to do so. [/QUOTE
True. But some of us find it fun.
(It also helps if the argument can dispel the impression that God is some kind of big Nobodaddy in the sky.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
It seems to me that you say you can prove that there is an 'uncaused cause'. This is a strong argument and difficult to counter - though I don't think it is quite axiomatic. However, you then go to say - 'so we can (should) call this entity God.' Then you go on from that to - of all the versions of God we have, the Christian God is most plausible. The problem I have is that those two further steps feel to me like pretty large leaps (not impossible to make, but pretty speculative), whereas it comes across as if you think these further steps are pretty small - the whole hangs together very easily. The smallness of those two further steps makes everything nicely coherent / cohesive - for you. Each component step reinforcing the other steps.
This is speculation on my spiritual life without evidence, which hence unsurprisingly ends up being rather wrong. As far as the naming goes, the only thing I have claimed is that calling the uncaused Cause "god" is admissible for a believer if their "god" is essentially compatible by features (true for some "gods", not true for others). That is indeed an easy and small step, but so for everybody not just me. It's basically a curtesy to the believer that sacrifices a bit of philosophical precision.
But I have rarely said much about why the Christian God is "most plausible", and I certainly have not said much here. In fact, what I have said is that some kind of deism, not Christianity, should be the intellectual default position. I would add to that that this deistic god by default must be either uncaring or evil. My own personal reasons for picking Christianity are complex, and I do not share the prevalent attitude that one should spread one's inner life across the internet. But one key feature of Christianity that attracts me is that it is "crazy" in the right sort of way. It has an "embodied Zen" kind of feel to it. As far as picking religions goes, I will quote myself from a post in Oblivion:
quote:
Assume you are with a large group of people stuck in the desert, and want to get out of there lest you die. Different people suggest different directions to head in (or indeed, to stay put), giving a variety of more or less convincing reasons and appealing to a variety of more or less convincing data. But none of them has an utterly compelling case, i.e., nobody has a working satnav that has both maps of the areas and receives the GPS signal. So what is the reasonable thing to do? Well, you weigh the options to the best of your abilities, and then you go for what seems most probable without looking back. Oscillating between various options (unless they are very close to each other) is generally not going to help, but is going to decrease your survival chances. If you think that one direction is right, then strain to reach the border of the desert that way. Maybe you are right and make it out, maybe you are wrong and will die at the end of a ruinous path, but running around like a headless chicken is going to get you killed for sure. This dedication does not mean however that one must stumble along blindly. If there is serious new information suggesting a change of direction, then one should follow it.
Likewise, I see no contradiction between being firmly committed, faithful, to Christianity and acknowledging that I cannot conclusively prove the falsity of Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, etc. This path seems best to me, so I take it. There is no point in letting uncertainty halt your steps.
... Say you have all these people running off into different religions (different religions), and then you have some (atheists) that think staying put offers best chances. All these people have in their way dealt appropriately with the situation. Of course, it will turn out good for some and bad for others. But they realised the situation and made their decision on how to handle it. Whereas there are some (agnostics) that wander around aimlessly, without being able to commit to one direction or for that matter to staying put. They just cannot bring themselves to make a decision. And then there are some (apathetics) who are just insane and are busy playing card games or otherwise entertaining themselves, completely ignoring the situation they are in. It is these latter two groups who are really in a bad way, with the last group being the worst of them all. These two groups are not doing the necessary thing, they are not properly dealing with the situation at hand. Everybody else is, even the atheists. That is not to say that the outcomes will be the same for all of them, but at least they all gave it a shot. And so I think that this is what we have to do, we have to give religion a shot - one way or another, even by rejecting it.
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
The whole 'even if there was a big bang before this big bang we can constantly regress to God' - just emphasises the remoteness of God. When people are looking for reassurance that their loved one will end up in heaven where they are loved; or that God will step in to heal their son or daughter; or that God who has felt distant bordering on non-existent, will start to give them some sort of experiential reassurance, they don't want to be reminded of the alien, remoteness of God.
I have no problem with "simple" faith. I have no problem with "emotional" faith. I have no problem with "hopeful" faith. Where I get a problem is when people turn around and effectively say: because my simplicity / emotionality / hopefulness requires it, this or that theological or philosophical statement cannot be true. I have a problem when people step back into the intellectual domain and say "because I need X, it is given".
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
My point is that the jump from the deism you describe, to the Christian faith is one hell of a leap in terms of logic and plausibility.
Maybe so. But I think these days we have to worry that many people, or at least educated people, have swallowed the lie that all religion must be irrational simply by the fact that it is religion. I think these arguments have their value in establishing a "rational space" for religion.
Yes … Being a person of faith is not "intellectual suicide" (no matter the rantings of a bigot like Rick Dawkins) ...
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm surprised at you q! It's true for me. It's my one true faith and it integrates all that is good for me. It can't possibly exclude truth from other religions or none. It has incalculably benefitted from postmodernism for none.
I sometimes wonder when the fetish for truth began, I suppose it has always been there, in the sense that the adjacent tribe's god has to be disrespected.
Postmodernism is curious, often derided, yet maybe of great benefit to religion, although maybe not the one and only (Rick Astley?).
Interesting that the German for Trust/Faith is vertraue
...which also is reminiscent of virtue. Truth/faith/virtue as a combined concept is somewhat different from the way we currently use the word "truth".
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
Ingo - the reason I wanted to explore this issue is because it kept on being argued that those who argued for an atheistic / materialist position could be shown to be wrong - or at least that was my understanding at the beginning.
I wanted to find out whether this was right or not. Or to put it more accurately, how much weight this argument really had. I am not wanting to either agree with it totally or reject it totally - that binary way of thinking is not IME very helpful.
We seem to agree to some degree that the final step from deism to your Catholicism is substantial. As you say I have no idea about why you took that step. Not sure any further exploration of this part of the debate will be productive.
The issue that most interests me, however, has become a little clearer. I know there are very intelligent logical people who are atheists / materialists. I also know there are very intelligent logical people who are Christians. The question of what separates the two groups is in my view probably not just about intelligence or logic. Both sides no doubt see the other side as being blind to their own confirmation bias.
So at which points might the two disagree? It seems to me that some materialists would disagree with you that all causal links must operate in the same way in all universes and at all points in time. Some would find your argument that the uncaused-cause must be sapient unconvincing. As you say the analogy is stretched - for me I think it is more stretched than it is for you.
quote:
Ingo said:
In fact, what I have said is that some kind of deism, not Christianity, should be the intellectual default position. I would add to that that this deistic god by default must be either uncaring or evil.
Some materialists would quite possibly regard your proof that says deism should be the intellectual default position as logically coherent. However, you call this God 'either uncaring or evil'. So it would be entirely legitimate for them to point out that this God is so different to the God that most Christians (indeed most theists) believe in, as to not really warrant the name.
My point is that, if you are saying that the materialists position is intrinsically illogical - possibly nonsensical - I don't. That doesn't mean however that your position is weak. You argue it very thoroughly.
As I understand it, you maintain greater continuity between this point in time (and this universe), and the beginning of the universe / creation / all the different multi-verses. Many materialists say why should we discount the possibility of things working somewhat differently at the very beginning? That question in my view can and should be taken seriously.
So what I have written, in my view, treats the materialist perspective seriously without resorting to talking about them as if they are idiots.
It doesn't of course, mean they are right.
That is my very tentative take on why two groups of intelligent people disagree so profoundly - perhaps they are not quite so far apart in the first place!
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Just one universe with different logic will do.
What do you mean by "different logic"?
I can imagine a universe with different physical laws - I don't know whether such universes could ever exist, because I don't know how variable physical laws might be in principle, but I can conceive what different physical laws might be.
"Logic" doesn't appear to depend on any physical facts about the universe in the same way. What would a different logical principle look like? Why should a logical (or otherlogical) principle be valid in one universe but not another?
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
I'm really not sure how a logical system can work in this case when words like "exists" (and "cause") are so ill-defined. In fact their definition makes for the different positions. If you believe "exists" is a purely material concept, then the conclusions drawn will be different from those that had other starting points. e.g. to a materialist, anything spiritual clearly does not "exist". End of. To non-materialists, there may be variations in the definitions which create very different outcomes when applying logic. The position is similar in the comments I've seen here on God's morality - the common assumption seeming to be that 21st century western human morality has a direct 1:1 equivalence with what must be moral on a universal and eternal scale.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think that that problem with 'exist' crops up with different terms in relation to the 'non-material', since there seem to be no limits. Thus to speak of a non-material event or experience seems either anthropomorphic or maybe guesswork.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I sometimes wonder when the fetish for truth began, I suppose it has always been there, in the sense that the adjacent tribe's god has to be disrespected.
I think the fetish for truth probably began when people wanted directions to collect honey and not to be sent into the hyena den.
The question of whether the fetish is usefully extended into religion and metaphysics, and the related question of how it applies to art and fiction are somewhat different ones; as is the also related question of how or where or under what circumstances truth differs from accurate enough for purpose. My answer being that while the ends of the line look different considered in isolation, if you start filling in the rest of the line you see no good place at which to abandon truth in the broad sense of appropriate fidelity to reality as an ideal and a virtue.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
I think if you look at the OED - the big one that is, with citations etc. - you would also see that there has been a major change in how we understand what is meant by truth and how it may be apprehended. And that's just in English-speaking lands.
Not that it has become unrelated to earlier understandings, but it would be easy to overlook a change in perception.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I sometimes wonder when the fetish for truth began, I suppose it has always been there, in the sense that the adjacent tribe's god has to be disrespected.
I think the fetish for truth probably began when people wanted directions to collect honey and not to be sent into the hyena den.
The question of whether the fetish is usefully extended into religion and metaphysics, and the related question of how it applies to art and fiction are somewhat different ones; as is the also related question of how or where or under what circumstances truth differs from accurate enough for purpose. My answer being that while the ends of the line look different considered in isolation, if you start filling in the rest of the line you see no good place at which to abandon truth in the broad sense of appropriate fidelity to reality as an ideal and a virtue.
Well, for some reason you are quote-mining, as my point about 'fetish for truth' is obviously a reply to Martin, and not a general statement about truth.
I don't know if tribal religions try to establish their truth; for one thing, part of their value may stem from being counter-intuitive and costly.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
