Faith and modernity

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

brings to mind D.Z. Phillips,

by all means, say that God functions as a referring expression, that God refers to a sort of object, that God’s reality is a matter of fact, and so on. But please remember that, as of yet, no conceptual or grammatical clarification has taken place. We have all the work still to do since we shall now have to show, in this religious context, what speaking of reference, object, existence, and so on amounts to, how it differs, in obvious ways, from other uses of these terms.

[noddy]

deist/some flavours of protestant or jewish - the terrible, unknowable god is very simmilar on practical levels to big numbers and universe - but those folks are barely religious anyway, god helps those who help themselves wot wot.

the first cause argument never made any sense to me, its just one more can kick, why not stop at the universe as always existing.

[Nonc Hilaire]

the first cause argument never made any sense to me, its just one more can kick, why not stop at the universe as always existing.

Entropy. The way energy dissipates is not the same process by which it collects and organizes.

[Parodite]

The need for the eternal to explain the temporal, the infinite to explain the finite seems more a semantic issue. It keeps biting its own tail, or tailing its own bite.

[Nonc Hilaire]

The need for the eternal to explain the temporal, the infinite to explain the finite seems more a semantic issue. It keeps biting its own tail, or tailing its own bite.

It can seem that way, but finite/infinite eternal/temporal good/evil are not truly antonyms. They are qualities that cannot coexist.

Not an issue in the vernacular, but in philosophy it can become one.

[Typhoon]

the first cause argument never made any sense to me, its just one more can kick, why not stop at the universe as always existing.

Entropy. The way energy dissipates is not the same process by which it collects and organizes.

Would you please elaborate.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

I never really got the argument for a can-kick, why not stop at the can in motion, always existing?

[Nonc Hilaire]

the first cause argument never made any sense to me, its just one more can kick, why not stop at the universe as always existing.

Entropy. The way energy dissipates is not the same process by which it collects and organizes.

Would you please elaborate.

Talking philosophy not physics, but the way you build a thing is not the way it falls apart. Growth is a separate process from rot, and good is not the opposite of evil.

[noddy]

I never really got the argument for a can-kick, why not stop at the can in motion, always existing?

you would never catch me arguing against the turtles.

[noddy]

the first cause argument never made any sense to me, its just one more can kick, why not stop at the universe as always existing.

Entropy. The way energy dissipates is not the same process by which it collects and organizes.

Would you please elaborate.

Talking philosophy not physics, but the way you build a thing is not the way it falls apart. Growth is a separate process from rot, and good is not the opposite of evil.

my crude understanding of it all is that our proclamations of "natural laws of physics" really only apply to our time and scale - the world of the very small sub atomic things and the world of the very large, universe things, arent always behaving the same.

as such, I dont know how to conceptualise the entropy of the unknown and generally, unknowable.

also, maybe its not growth and rot, maybe its change of form - not a beginning and an end, but a constant cycle.

[Parodite]

It's a miracle that all these spinning plates can be passed off as communicable reasoning.

Camouflage is bitchy and effective. But we see through it, don't we. God is not reasonable, nor unreasonable. Eternal hide and seek. Whatever it is, God it is not. How big a net is needed to catch the big fish? Hell, I don't even know what I'm talking about.

Reason, science, technology are specific human operations that require being in an awake, conscious state. Sleepwalkers and drunks not need apply. However, many non-conscious processes and units are seriously involved, whatever it is we are doing. Even in a deep coma, zillions of unconscious operations continue.

Just to remind that conscious reasoning, doing science and tech, equally require zillions of faithful (!) unconscious processes to continue and participate.

Consciousness is highly overrated, elevated to a divine status, considered a fundamental nature of reality. The Creator of the Physical World even.

Opposite this Golden Calf type fame where Consciousness=God... there is consciousness deemed a mere epiphenomenon of physical brainprocess, ie. a waste product. For both there is zero evidence.

I'm afraid the truth is not "somewhere in the middle" between God and Garbage. It turns out that looking more closely at God makes you find pure garbage, while a more serious investigation into garbage reveals God.

Maybe there is something in the eye of the beholder?

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

I never really got the argument for a can-kick, why not stop at the can in motion, always existing?

you would never catch me arguing against the turtles.

Which is a shame because it always ends up being toybox cosmology.

------

The thing is Pythagoras overtook Aristotle some time ago, we are all Pythagoreans into numbers and functions. Whatever causes are isn't all that interesting without lots of priors or unpacking.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

It's a miracle that all these spinning plates can be passed off as communicable reasoning.

Camouflage is bitchy and effective. But we see through it, don't we. God is not reasonable, nor unreasonable. Eternal hide and seek. Whatever it is, God it is not. How big a net is needed to catch the big fish? Hell, I don't even know what I'm talking about.

Reason, science, technology are specific human operations that require being in an awake, conscious state. Sleepwalkers and drunks not need apply. However, many non-conscious processes and units are seriously involved, whatever it is we are doing. Even in a deep coma, zillions of unconscious operations continue.

Just to remind that conscious reasoning, doing science and tech, equally require zillions of faithful (!) unconscious processes to continue and participate.

Consciousness is highly overrated, elevated to a divine status, considered a fundamental nature of reality. The Creator of the Physical World even.

Opposite this Golden Calf type fame where Consciousness=God... there is consciousness deemed a mere epiphenomenon of physical brainprocess, ie. a waste product. For both there is zero evidence.

I'm afraid the truth is not "somewhere in the middle" between God and Garbage. It turns out that looking more closely at God makes you find pure garbage, while a more serious investigation into garbage reveals God.

Maybe there is something in the eye of the beholder?

I'd take it more seriously if we didn't end up resorting to visual primacy to explain the whole nature of things.

"Do miracles occur?" is the exact same question as "Is nature uniform?"

We do well to take uniformity as axiomatic but it's also not something to be pushed too far, unless one wants to relitigate the ever more fun problems of induction and our insights into probability.

[Typhoon]

An interjection . . .

Not sure what is meant by "nature is uniform", but space is uniform in the following sense:

The laws physics are unchanged if one moves from an arbitrary point A to an arbitrary point B [continuous translation symmetry]
→ linear momentum is conserved.

The laws of physics are unchanged if one rotates about an arbitrary point A [continuous rotational symmetry] → angular momentum is conserved

Both are a result of Noether's Theorem, one of the deepest results in physics, due to Emmy Noether.

Anyways, back to philosophy . . .

[Parodite]

If in the eye of the beholder reality can make rational sense (be described by laws of nature) but that nevertheless all knowledge will always be limited as per the “You still need God to breathe fire into the equations”, or the native Indian “You can’t capture the wind with your hand” (my personal favorite tile wisdom)… remaining questions will be left in the hands of a rational but unknowable Diety of sorts.

If in the eye of the beholder reality in the final analysis makes no rational sense at all (my personal opinion), all reason, knowledge and logic will just be added to our daily life survival toolkit without further pretenses about the meaning of life, who/what is God, what why consciousness etc. No more than a hammer or screw driver can tell you anything beyond nails and screws with some how-to manuals attached.

That being said, how do you talk back to a crazy nuts psychotic reality that begs questions but refuses to make normal sense, while you yourself are part of that same nut case reality and by necessity guilty as hell? Thought immediately gets stuck in philosophical quick sands. Any movement and you get sucked in deeper. Don’t move, just meditate about the peril you are in and buy yourself some extra time. Dream about resurrection, look at the birds crossing the blue dome above until the light goes to dark.

[Nonc Hilaire]

That being said, how do you talk back to a crazy nuts psychotic reality that begs questions but refuses to make normal sense, while you yourself are part of that same nut case reality and by necessity guilty as hell?

Humility. You don’t talk back to reality. You simply observe, appreciate and remember that science is not appropriate if the observer is part of the observation.

[Parodite]

That being said, how do you talk back to a crazy nuts psychotic reality that begs questions but refuses to make normal sense, while you yourself are part of that same nut case reality and by necessity guilty as hell?

Humility. You don’t talk back to reality. You simply observe, appreciate and remember that science is not appropriate if the observer is part of the observation.

Metaphysical claims then have to be arrogant insults. Putting words in God's mouth etc. Holy books are the opposite of humble observations.

In all of science the observer is part of the observed. The case can even be made they are identical. The map is the territory.

I'm not against talking back to crazy nut reality, on the contrary. Agnosticism is a too easy way out.

Claims of faith can be bold and courageous. I respect religious orthodox die-hards, as long as they formulate some sort of answers to scientifos like R Dawkins et-al, and have a common sense approach to life in general.

When the question or answer is not much crazier than reality itself, all is good. And of course, for as long as the faithful do not force their beliefs on others at gun point and don't spread quasi scientific nonsense, indoctrinate children. Playful fantasies and creative imagination are a good force. A human right of every child and adult.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Metaphysical claims then have to be arrogant insults.

Why the desire to polarize everything into procrustean extremes?

[Parodite]

Metaphysical claims then have to be arrogant insults.

Why the desire to polarize everything into procrustean extremes?

You promoted the idea of being humble by not talking back to reality. Maybe it is how you personally experience life? To me it seems impossible to not talk back to life. It is what religions, ideologies and philosophies are doing big time. We all do it regularly.

My cup of tea I explained: nothing wrong with talking back to a reality that is nutty and mysterious anyways. Putting words in Gods mouth, declaring certain literature holy... any other faith or philosophy as long as people don't try to impose their views on others at gun point.

There is nothing humble about Christian faith and dogma, same for Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Communism, Capitalism.. any. Even that "mindfulness" stuff is the opposite of a humble surrender to reality.

Maybe a complete surrender to whatever ideology and traditions attached, has a calming effect with more peace of mind.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Humility is admitting that you may not have all the necessary information.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

An interjection . . .

Not sure what is meant by "nature is uniform"

It would be our confidence in the resemblance of objects and that those unobserved will act in conceivable ways to those observed.

[Nonc Hilaire]

An interjection . . .

Not sure what is meant by "nature is uniform"

It would be our confidence in the resemblance of objects and that those unobserved will act in conceivable ways to those observed.

Agreed. Restated, I think uniformity in nature is the classical requirement that any scientific observation be repeatable.

[Parodite]

Humility is admitting that you may not have all the necessary information.

Fair enough.