Do the Sciences Tell Us What the World is Really Like?

[PureX]

The idea that there must be a reason for everything is, of course, spurious.

That's a pretty massive bias you've got going, there. No wonder you're so mystified by normal human inquisitiveness: you've totally rejected your own.

 

[WalterTrull]

Maybe it is not a big deal if we do talk past each other.

Maybe not. A little frustrating though.

We have different expectations. That does not have to be an issue.

Great Expectations, has a ring

 

[WalterTrull]

In other words yes it provides stuff and means to more stuff, but its also a kind of stuff on its own

'mud ? You reading this? Is this a licensed use?

 

[WalterTrull]

I am always fascinated with this idea that there is some fundamental THING called "The Truth." It is a notion born in religion, and dependent upon the notion that there must be a "reason for everything."

The idea that there must be a reason for everything is, of course, spurious. The number one argument against that is "**** happens!" There is no deep, insightful "TRUTH" to be discovered from how the ichneumon wasp procreates. It's cruel to the caterpillar who basically gets paralyzed and eaten alive over an extended period of time. It just happens. That's how it works.

There's no deep, insightful truth to be discovered from the fact that plate tectonics shows us there will be earthquakes, and some of those earthquakes will cause tsunamis, and some of those tsunamis will drown innocent people in their hundreds of thousands. **** happens.

The sky appears blue to me because my eyes evolved on this world, under this sun, and it is an aid to the survival of all my ancestors whose lives are the reason I'm here. That's all...

Uhm... seems like those are all reasons. 'Course I'm not too swift.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That's a pretty massive bias you've got going, there. No wonder you're so mystified by normal human inquisitiveness: you've totally rejected your own.

Not so. I accept that every event has a "cause," but that does not in any way imply that the "cause" is a reason in the sense of a purpose. Thus, when people say "everything happens for a reason," what they mean is that there is a purpose to everything that occurs, not just a cause or complex set of causes. And that I do not accept. If an asteroid hit the earth 65 million years ago and wiped out the dinosaurs, maybe some people who don't think too deeply might opine that it's because God wanted the dinosaurs extinct. I think it's because earth was simply in the way.

I am not in the slightest mystified by human inquisitiveness. What I am in fact mystified by is humans who claim to be inquisitive, but then accept unexplainable and unverifiable explanations for things without even bothering to look deeper, or to explore the contradictions.

 

[WalterTrull]

What I am in fact mystified by is humans who claim to be inquisitive, but then accept unexplainable and unverifiable explanations for things without even bothering to look deeper, or to explore the contradictions.

I'm mystified by how some people are tall. Yeah, can't do Bball.

 

[PureX]

Not so. I accept that every event has a "cause," but that does not in any way imply that the "cause" is a reason in the sense of a purpose. Thus, when people say "everything happens for a reason," what they mean is that there is a purpose to everything that occurs, not just a cause or complex set of causes. And that I do not accept. If an asteroid hit the earth 65 million years ago and wiped out the dinosaurs, maybe some people who don't think too deeply might opine that it's because God wanted the dinosaurs extinct. I think it's because earth was simply in the way.

I am not in the slightest mystified by human inquisitiveness. What I am in fact mystified by is humans who claim to be inquisitive, but then accept unexplainable and unverifiable explanations for things without even bothering to look deeper, or to explore the contradictions.

But didn't you just dismiss the idea that there could be other reasons for that asteroid hitting the Earth besides chance? And didn't you just do so with no investigation and no evidence?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But didn't you just dismiss the idea that there could be other reasons for that asteroid hitting the Earth besides chance? And didn't you just do so with no investigation and no evidence?

The only thing, other than a simple collision of two moving bodies in orbit around the sun, to explain that asteroid hitting the earth, would be the supposition that "somebody or something cause it on purpose." And since nobody has 'fessed up after all these millions of years, I put it to you that there is no investigation of that possible. (If you can think of a way to begin that investigation, I should be delighted to hear about it.)

As to "no evidence," take a peek at Nasa's Near Earth Object Tracking.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Science doesn't really "explain" anything in terms of uncovering the "truth of it". It simply reveals limited and relative aspects of functionality within the physical realm. Knowing how, physically, the sky appears to be 'blue' in the eyes of a man does not reveal the truth of anything but how the sky appears to be blue in the eyes of a man.

I disagree. Scientists do know the truth as to why the sky is blue due to micro chemistry and
physics. Science reports on factual truth and well enough on the facts that are established through peer review.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Ultimately, I have no means to know whether there is a reality, or whether it conforms to human expectations, nor how consistently so, if at all.

I guess I just don't see the point of even attempting to claim things so clearly outside of my parameters.

Nor do I see that as any evidence for a deity nor as a big deal in any way.

You would have to admit there's still that reality by which we live in any regard of our viewpoints.

 

[LuisDantas]

You would have to admit there's still that reality by which we live in any regard of our viewpoints.

Yes, but there is no telling how predictable it is.

 

[PureX]

The only thing, other than a simple collision of two moving bodies in orbit around the sun, to explain that asteroid hitting the earth, would be the supposition that "somebody or something cause it on purpose." And since nobody has 'fessed up after all these millions of years, I put it to you that there is no investigation of that possible. (If you can think of a way to begin that investigation, I should be delighted to hear about it.)

As to "no evidence," take a peek at Nasa's Near Earth Object Tracking.

So, you're proposing an argument from total ignorance, then. Since no definable entity or thing has "fessed up" to you (why you assume it would is a mystery, in itself) you've decided that no such entity or thing exists. Then, you take the fact that the collision did occur as "evidence" that there was no cause but happenstance.

This is not a well reasoned position.

 

[PureX]

I disagree. Scientists do know the truth as to why the sky is blue due to micro chemistry and
physics. Science reports on factual truth and well enough on the facts that are established through peer review.

But all the facts that science can ascertain reveal is HOW the sky appears blue through eyes of a man. This doesn't tell us WHY the sky is blue. It's just a small collection of physical facts about how it appears to be blue to the human eye. From that, you are just blindly presuming that a limited grasp of the physics of how is the equivalent of knowing why.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So, you're proposing an argument from total ignorance, then. Since no definable entity or thing has "fessed up" to you (why you assume it would is a mystery, in itself) you've decided that no such entity or thing exists. Then, you take the fact that the collision did occur as "evidence" that there was no cause but happenstance.

This is not a well reasoned position.

No more than it is a well-reasoned position to assume that because a rock falls of the cliff, somebody had to choose to make it happen. Millions upon millions of objects -- including our planet -- orbiting the sun certainly includes the possibility (and in fact the certainty) of the occasional collision. That's why I provided you the link to NASA.

So if you think somebody had to choose for a meteorite to kill the dinosaurs, you'll have to give me at least some tiny reason to even suppose such a thing.

 

[PureX]

No more than it is a well-reasoned position to assume that because a rock falls of the cliff, somebody had to choose to make it happen.

So if you think somebody had to choose for a meteorite to kill the dinosaurs, you'll have to give me at least some tiny reason to even suppose such a thing.

The problem is that the only reasoning your bias will allow is what you presume to be 'objectively relevant'. And as you have just admitted, there is no 'objective' evidence (or reason) to make any presumptions regarding purpose, at all. Even though you are clearly doing so, anyway. However, there can still be subjective evidence, and reasoning, for choosing to adopt the presumption that more than chance is at work in the web of cause and effect that existence seems to adhere to.

Let's say one is able to appreciate the 'gift' of being who and where they are because they've chosen to perceive their own existence as being the result of something more than an 'accident of chance'. And not only is their experience of life better for it, but their positive effect on others is increased as well. Wouldn't this, then, be a reasonable argument for adopting such a proposition, especially when there is no 'objective' reason or evidence to contradict that proposition? And meanwhile, where is the subjective value to be gained by adopting the proposition that everything that happens is ultimately just the result chance, and that there is no significant meaning or purpose to any of it?

The problem with being so biased in favor of "objectivism" is that value is subjective, not objective. So that when one's bias excludes subjective experience as being irrelevant, one is excluding that which generates value. And what a sad way that would be, to live!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The problem is that the only reasoning your bias will allow is what you presume to be 'objectively relevant'. And as you have just admitted, there is no 'objective' evidence (or reason) to make any presumptions regarding purpose, at all. Even though you are clearly doing so, anyway. However, there can still be subjective evidence, and reasoning, for choosing to adopt the presumption that more than chance is at work in the web of cause and effect that existence seems to adhere to.

Let's say one is able to appreciate the 'gift' of being who and where they are because they've chosen to perceive their own existence as being the result of something more than an 'accident of chance'. And not only is their experience of life better for it, but their positive effect on others is increased as well. Wouldn't this, then, be a reasonable argument for adopting such a proposition, especially when there is no 'objective' reason or evidence to contradict that proposition? And meanwhile, where is the subjective value to be gained by adopting the proposition that everything that happens is ultimately just the result chance, and that there is no significant meaning or purpose to any of it?

The problem with being so biased in favor of "objectivism" is that value is subjective, not objective. So that when one's bias excludes subjective experience as being irrelevant, one is excluding that which generates value. And what a sad way that would be, to live!

Yes, fine, so you'd like to think your "gift of being" is more than chance. But doesn't that leave you with a bit of a conundrum? I mean, you can presume it to be for this reason or that reason, but absent any evidence whatever, it could also be a trillion and six other reasons, most of which would probably be pretty depressing, too.

Or, of course, you could just assume that a really nice God created you just the way you are so that you could be special to Him. Yes, that sounds just right. Whoever could argue against, and who could argue against the same assumption for Hitler and Pol Pot?

 

[PureX]

Yes, fine, so you'd like to think your "gift of being" is more than chance. But doesn't that leave you with a bit of a conundrum? I mean, you can presume it to be for this reason or that reason, but absent any evidence whatever, it could also be a trillion and six other reasons, most of which would probably be pretty depressing, too.

There are other forms of evidence that you are not able or willing to recognize. And that is the subjective evidence of functional value. You insist on claiming that I "like" one proposition or another as if my liking it is irrelevant. But people like what they like because what they like 'works' for them, in their lives. Specifically, they find increased value in those things that they "like". It's why they like them. And that increased value can effect a lot of 'objective' aspects of life, like mental and physical health, longevity, social cooperation, and so on.

Or, of course, you could just assume that a really nice God created you just the way you are so that you could be special to Him. Yes, that sounds just right. Whoever could argue against, and who could argue against the same assumption for Hitler and Pol Pot?

So now you're claiming that because faith in God helps anyone regardless of their morality it should be avoided? Should we avoid medicine, then, too?