On Chomsky's annoying mysterianism.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/799000
Can you demonstrate that there is design in nature?
— Tom Storm
I myself don't think it needs to be demonstrated, but that if I need to demonstrate it, then probably nothing I could say would be effective. — Wayfarer
Ok. That's surely an outlier position, but let's get back to this later. — Tom Storm
Design Intent is not an object to be demonstrated empirically. But the designer's unique signature patterns (e.g. characteristic brush strokes by Michelangelo) can be recognized intuitively or implicitly by those who look for them. In physical Nature, some call those consistent patterns : "Laws". Einstein was indeed an "outlier" in his sense of design in nature, where other physicists saw only complexity & randomness.
Design in Nature : How the Constructal Law Governs Evolution in Biology, Physics, Technology, and Social Organizations
https://www.amazon.com/Design-Nature-Co ... 0307744345
Constructal Law :
In this groundbreaking book, Adrian Bejan takes the recurring patterns in nature—trees, tributaries, air passages, neural networks, and lightning bolts—and reveals how a single principle of physics, the constructal law, accounts for the evolution of these and many other designs in our world.
... Google Books
THE GRAND DESIGN as intuited by Einstein
1985214-Albert-Einstein-Quote-What-I-see-in-Nature-is-a-grand-design-that.jpg
↪Wayfarer
TPF : Mysterianism -- Does God exist or not?
Re: TPF : Mysterianism
Continuing with the case of other animals, suppose someone says "dogs will learn how to use laptops, it's just a matter of "learning more" and eventually they will understand it". — Manuel
Dogs don't have fingers to operate laptops, but the notion of them learning button-pushing communication is not far-fetched. Amazon has several models of "dog button mats" available. And I've seen several videos of dogs that seem to know how to speak with technology, even though they lack a human larynx. I wonder what Chomsky would say about chatting doggies using human language to convey their thoughts.
How Do Talking Dog Buttons Work? :
https://www.petmd.com/dog/behavior/how- ... ttons-work
My Talking Dog Uses Her Buttons to Talk About The Past :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS3kviWGkH0
Dogs don't have fingers to operate laptops, but the notion of them learning button-pushing communication is not far-fetched. Amazon has several models of "dog button mats" available. And I've seen several videos of dogs that seem to know how to speak with technology, even though they lack a human larynx. I wonder what Chomsky would say about chatting doggies using human language to convey their thoughts.
How Do Talking Dog Buttons Work? :
https://www.petmd.com/dog/behavior/how- ... ttons-work
My Talking Dog Uses Her Buttons to Talk About The Past :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS3kviWGkH0
Re: TPF : Mysterianism
Why invoke 'fear of religion'... — Isaac
Have you read the essay that this is quoted from, Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion, by Thomas Nagel? I think what he says in that essay is extremely relevant to many of the arguments we see on this forum, including this one, which is why I quoted it. — Wayfarer
Apparently, the majority of humans do not "fear religion". It's mostly god-fearing intellectuals & liberals who are not attracted to mysterious & authoritarian religions with bloodthirsty deities. Religious people seem to reason that it's best to be on the side of the biggest baddest M-F, when the world is out to get you.
I haven't made a study of that specific fear phenomenon. But I see a possible explanation in Liberal vs Conservative politics. Most ancient religions, from which our tamer modern religions evolved, were designed to appease capricious nature deities or sword-wielding warrior-king gods. I take the words of the "preacher" literally : "Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind." The most fearsome gods were modeled upon the typical Middle-Eastern ("off with his head") Tyrant Kings of the era.
Living in fear of your god makes sense if you don't want to get on his bad side. As a political concept, that may explain the resurgence of Fascism in the modern world : Trump ; Putin, etc. As long as Hitler was successful in dominating Europe, most Germans were content to accept his selective benevolence (Jews, Gypsies, Blacks, non-Aryans, etc. were outcasts). It was only a few intellectuals, who could foresee a bleak future for non-conformists in a Fascist world (e.g. The Man in the High Castle).
The upside of Machiavellian dictators & Tyrant gods is that they mandate order --- making the trains run on time --- making it rain for the pious. But the downside is that they surround themselves with yes-men, and kill-off independent thinkers (philosophers), who ask too many questions. Perhaps Mysterianism envisions a more decent deity, but doesn't see much evidence for it in the political and religious realms.
Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion :
I am talking about something much deeper--namely, the fear of
religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself. I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z_IqIx ... view?pli=1
Note-- Like what? Like Hitler's Reich where Jews like Nagel were not welcome?
Have you read the essay that this is quoted from, Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion, by Thomas Nagel? I think what he says in that essay is extremely relevant to many of the arguments we see on this forum, including this one, which is why I quoted it. — Wayfarer
Apparently, the majority of humans do not "fear religion". It's mostly god-fearing intellectuals & liberals who are not attracted to mysterious & authoritarian religions with bloodthirsty deities. Religious people seem to reason that it's best to be on the side of the biggest baddest M-F, when the world is out to get you.
I haven't made a study of that specific fear phenomenon. But I see a possible explanation in Liberal vs Conservative politics. Most ancient religions, from which our tamer modern religions evolved, were designed to appease capricious nature deities or sword-wielding warrior-king gods. I take the words of the "preacher" literally : "Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind." The most fearsome gods were modeled upon the typical Middle-Eastern ("off with his head") Tyrant Kings of the era.
Living in fear of your god makes sense if you don't want to get on his bad side. As a political concept, that may explain the resurgence of Fascism in the modern world : Trump ; Putin, etc. As long as Hitler was successful in dominating Europe, most Germans were content to accept his selective benevolence (Jews, Gypsies, Blacks, non-Aryans, etc. were outcasts). It was only a few intellectuals, who could foresee a bleak future for non-conformists in a Fascist world (e.g. The Man in the High Castle).
The upside of Machiavellian dictators & Tyrant gods is that they mandate order --- making the trains run on time --- making it rain for the pious. But the downside is that they surround themselves with yes-men, and kill-off independent thinkers (philosophers), who ask too many questions. Perhaps Mysterianism envisions a more decent deity, but doesn't see much evidence for it in the political and religious realms.
Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion :
I am talking about something much deeper--namely, the fear of
religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself. I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z_IqIx ... view?pli=1
Note-- Like what? Like Hitler's Reich where Jews like Nagel were not welcome?
Re: TPF : Mysterianism
They can't because dogs don't have a language faculty. Communication and language are frequently confused, they are not the same. All animals (or most of them) have some form of communication, but they don't have language. — Manuel
The dogs in the videos are obviously using pre-recorded human language to express their limited doggie thoughts. But they seem to know the meaning of those sounds. So, it's true that human Language is uniquely human, but the mental & emotional elements from which spoken & written communication evolved were inherited from animal ancestors, who were limited to gestures, such as wagging tails. Apparently language evolved along with hands, big brains, and upright posture.
Why Chimpanzees Can't Learn Language :
Chomsky not only argued that language was uniquely human but he also questioned Charles Darwin's theory that language evolved from animal communication and B.F. Skinner's theory that language could be reduced to learned behavior.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/terr17110
The dogs in the videos are obviously using pre-recorded human language to express their limited doggie thoughts. But they seem to know the meaning of those sounds. So, it's true that human Language is uniquely human, but the mental & emotional elements from which spoken & written communication evolved were inherited from animal ancestors, who were limited to gestures, such as wagging tails. Apparently language evolved along with hands, big brains, and upright posture.
Why Chimpanzees Can't Learn Language :
Chomsky not only argued that language was uniquely human but he also questioned Charles Darwin's theory that language evolved from animal communication and B.F. Skinner's theory that language could be reduced to learned behavior.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/terr17110
Re: TPF : Mysterianism
The problem of intentionality, meaning, and purpose is a very deep one, although, as Thomas Nagel observed, much of the debate about it is shaped by the fear of religion: — Wayfarer
I had to back-up to find your casual use of the phrase "fear of religion", that provoked some prickly reaction. In response, you gave a link to Nagel's article Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion. I didn't find a specific reference, but I suspect that the "evolutionary naturalism" was Dennett's contra-Chomsky notion of The Evolution of Language*4. Regardless of all that in-fighting among philosophers about the mysterious origins of human language, I found Nagel's article interesting on its own terms. For example, he quoted Charles Peirce to indicate a position that is not religious in practice, but seems to almost deify Nature*1*5.
Nagel's argument sounds amenable to my own information-centric non-religious philosophical worldview. Even though the Enformationism thesis is derived entirely from modern scientific knowledge, not from any traditional religion, I find that some Naturalists are discomfited by the notion "that the relation between mind and the world is something fundamental"*2. I suppose that's because Darwin's mundane-evolution theory left the emergence of Mind from Matter as a mystery to solved later. To this day, we still don't have "an adequate theory of consciousness"*3.
Since the content of Nagel's article is off-topic, I won't discuss it further in this post. Except to say that it may indirectly suggest why some of us, frustrated by the inadequacies of Reductionism, Materialism, and Naturalism, have labeled the ultimate origins of Mind, Consciousness, and Language as a poetic mystery, instead of a topic for scientific analysis.
*1. Charles Pierce :
The only end of science, as such, is to learn the lesson that the universe has to teach it. In Induction it simply surrenders itself to the force of facts. But it finds . . . that this is not enough. It is driven in desperation to call upon its inward sympathy with nature, its instinct for aid, just as we find Galileo at the dawn of modern science making his appeal to il lume naturale. . . . The value of Facts to it, lies only in this, that they belong to Nature; and nature is something great, and beautiful, and sacred, and eternal, and real,--the object of its worship and its aspiration.
___quoted in Nagel's Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion
*2. Thomas Nagel :
The reason I call this view alarming is that it is hard to know what world picture to associate it with, and difficult to avoid the suspicion that the picture will be religious, or quasi-religious. Rationalism has always had a more religious flavor than empiricism. Even without God, the idea of a natural sympathy between the deepest truths of nature and the deepest layers of the human mind, which can be exploited to allow gradual development of a truer and truer conception of reality, makes us more at home in the universe than is secularly comfortable.The thought that the relation between mind and the world is something fundamental makes many people in this day and age nervous . I believe this is one manifestation of a fear of religion which has large and often pernicious consequences for modern intellectual life.
___ excerpt from Nagel's Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion
*3. Theory of mind and Darwin’s legacy :
Both dualism and materialism are mistaken because they deny consciousness is part of the physical world. ___John Searle
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1301214110
*4. Dennett and the Evolution of Language :
“To my own surprise, I’ve come to believe that there is an element of truth in the apparently less plausible Platonic story that’s easy to miss, one that seems to be almost completely obscured by the paradox that both Quine and Plato have described. It isn’t that our languages were deliberately invented by particular groups of people, legislators of syndics in the formal sense of these words, sitting around particular tables, at particular times in the past. It seems to me that they’re more like our dogs, our wolfhounds and sheepdogs and dachshunds, our retrievers, and pointers and greyhounds. We didn’t invent them exactly, but our ancestors did repeatedly make deliberate more or less rational choices in the process that made them what they are today, choices among a long series of slightly incrementally different variants, unconsciously shaping the dogs into precisely what their human breeders needed them to be."
https://kingdablog.com/2017/02/21/denne ... -language/
*5. What is naturalist theory of religion?
"Religious naturalism is a perspective that finds religious meaning in the natural world and rejects the notion of a supernatural realm." The term religious in this context is construed in general terms, separate from the traditions, customs, or beliefs of any one of the established religions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_naturalism
I had to back-up to find your casual use of the phrase "fear of religion", that provoked some prickly reaction. In response, you gave a link to Nagel's article Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion. I didn't find a specific reference, but I suspect that the "evolutionary naturalism" was Dennett's contra-Chomsky notion of The Evolution of Language*4. Regardless of all that in-fighting among philosophers about the mysterious origins of human language, I found Nagel's article interesting on its own terms. For example, he quoted Charles Peirce to indicate a position that is not religious in practice, but seems to almost deify Nature*1*5.
Nagel's argument sounds amenable to my own information-centric non-religious philosophical worldview. Even though the Enformationism thesis is derived entirely from modern scientific knowledge, not from any traditional religion, I find that some Naturalists are discomfited by the notion "that the relation between mind and the world is something fundamental"*2. I suppose that's because Darwin's mundane-evolution theory left the emergence of Mind from Matter as a mystery to solved later. To this day, we still don't have "an adequate theory of consciousness"*3.
Since the content of Nagel's article is off-topic, I won't discuss it further in this post. Except to say that it may indirectly suggest why some of us, frustrated by the inadequacies of Reductionism, Materialism, and Naturalism, have labeled the ultimate origins of Mind, Consciousness, and Language as a poetic mystery, instead of a topic for scientific analysis.
*1. Charles Pierce :
The only end of science, as such, is to learn the lesson that the universe has to teach it. In Induction it simply surrenders itself to the force of facts. But it finds . . . that this is not enough. It is driven in desperation to call upon its inward sympathy with nature, its instinct for aid, just as we find Galileo at the dawn of modern science making his appeal to il lume naturale. . . . The value of Facts to it, lies only in this, that they belong to Nature; and nature is something great, and beautiful, and sacred, and eternal, and real,--the object of its worship and its aspiration.
___quoted in Nagel's Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion
*2. Thomas Nagel :
The reason I call this view alarming is that it is hard to know what world picture to associate it with, and difficult to avoid the suspicion that the picture will be religious, or quasi-religious. Rationalism has always had a more religious flavor than empiricism. Even without God, the idea of a natural sympathy between the deepest truths of nature and the deepest layers of the human mind, which can be exploited to allow gradual development of a truer and truer conception of reality, makes us more at home in the universe than is secularly comfortable.The thought that the relation between mind and the world is something fundamental makes many people in this day and age nervous . I believe this is one manifestation of a fear of religion which has large and often pernicious consequences for modern intellectual life.
___ excerpt from Nagel's Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion
*3. Theory of mind and Darwin’s legacy :
Both dualism and materialism are mistaken because they deny consciousness is part of the physical world. ___John Searle
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1301214110
*4. Dennett and the Evolution of Language :
“To my own surprise, I’ve come to believe that there is an element of truth in the apparently less plausible Platonic story that’s easy to miss, one that seems to be almost completely obscured by the paradox that both Quine and Plato have described. It isn’t that our languages were deliberately invented by particular groups of people, legislators of syndics in the formal sense of these words, sitting around particular tables, at particular times in the past. It seems to me that they’re more like our dogs, our wolfhounds and sheepdogs and dachshunds, our retrievers, and pointers and greyhounds. We didn’t invent them exactly, but our ancestors did repeatedly make deliberate more or less rational choices in the process that made them what they are today, choices among a long series of slightly incrementally different variants, unconsciously shaping the dogs into precisely what their human breeders needed them to be."
https://kingdablog.com/2017/02/21/denne ... -language/
*5. What is naturalist theory of religion?
"Religious naturalism is a perspective that finds religious meaning in the natural world and rejects the notion of a supernatural realm." The term religious in this context is construed in general terms, separate from the traditions, customs, or beliefs of any one of the established religions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_naturalism
Re: TPF : Mysterianism
He says that the idea that the mind evolved as a consequence of mindless physical forces is self-contradictory and that there must be a teleological explanation for the existence of conscious beings. — Wayfarer
Yeah, well these, like Nagel's other arguments seem to be right out of the Christian apologist's playbook ('atheism is self-refuting', etc), in seeking to address atheism and the fear of nihilism. — Tom Storm
Guilt by association may be emotionally persuasive, but it's not a good logical argument. Your implication of nefarious motives for the Christian rejection of an Atheist article of faith (based on "Fear of Religion" motives?) may be correct. But what if the Christian thinkers are also correct to see Mind from Mindless as a logical paradox?
I am a post-Christian, but I am not an Atheist, because I also see evidence for teleological patterns in scientific evidence*1, and the necessity for Mind from Mind, that is not dependent on ancient religious speculations. My own Enformationism worldview is non-religious, but it has some philosophical parallels, due to seeing the same causal implications (directional patterns) in the objective evidence*2. My thesis & blog go into some detail to provide a rationale for (non-religious) philosophical teleology, and for the not-so-mysterious origin of Consciousness in a material world.
I don't trace the positive direction of evolution (nothingness to stars to human aspiration) back to the wrathful Tyrant-god of Abrahamic traditions. But I am inclined to accept the ancient Greek notion of a First Cause or Prime Mover of some kind. And the "kind" is of the Logos type. Specifically, something with the power to Enform (to cause change of form). My 21st century origin myth is founded on Quantum & Information theories, not stories of loving & punishing & political absentee-father-figures in the sky. Even so, I am forced to agree with the "apologists" that there are signs of teleological intentions (a heuristic program) in the world. But I disagree on some of the attributed anthro-morphic characteristics of the mysterious Programmer.
*1. Why Teleology Isn't Dead :
Mention teleology in scientific circles and you’ll usually get a skeptical response. Purpose in the way the world is evolving? Patterns certainly—but purpose? No. . . .
Fascinating to be sure, but in the end, skeptics may ask, what's it all about? Is consciousness really inevitable in the universe?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrel ... c8259e6d69
*2. Intentional Causation vs Random Chance :
"At the Santa Fe Institute [for the study of complex adaptive systems] one finds an unusually high density of people who dispute the notion that we are creatures of chance . . . . that there is an inevitability to life . . . . that the emergence of life itself is written into the universal laws."
___excerpt from Fire In The Mind, by George Johnson
Yeah, well these, like Nagel's other arguments seem to be right out of the Christian apologist's playbook ('atheism is self-refuting', etc), in seeking to address atheism and the fear of nihilism. — Tom Storm
Guilt by association may be emotionally persuasive, but it's not a good logical argument. Your implication of nefarious motives for the Christian rejection of an Atheist article of faith (based on "Fear of Religion" motives?) may be correct. But what if the Christian thinkers are also correct to see Mind from Mindless as a logical paradox?
I am a post-Christian, but I am not an Atheist, because I also see evidence for teleological patterns in scientific evidence*1, and the necessity for Mind from Mind, that is not dependent on ancient religious speculations. My own Enformationism worldview is non-religious, but it has some philosophical parallels, due to seeing the same causal implications (directional patterns) in the objective evidence*2. My thesis & blog go into some detail to provide a rationale for (non-religious) philosophical teleology, and for the not-so-mysterious origin of Consciousness in a material world.
I don't trace the positive direction of evolution (nothingness to stars to human aspiration) back to the wrathful Tyrant-god of Abrahamic traditions. But I am inclined to accept the ancient Greek notion of a First Cause or Prime Mover of some kind. And the "kind" is of the Logos type. Specifically, something with the power to Enform (to cause change of form). My 21st century origin myth is founded on Quantum & Information theories, not stories of loving & punishing & political absentee-father-figures in the sky. Even so, I am forced to agree with the "apologists" that there are signs of teleological intentions (a heuristic program) in the world. But I disagree on some of the attributed anthro-morphic characteristics of the mysterious Programmer.
*1. Why Teleology Isn't Dead :
Mention teleology in scientific circles and you’ll usually get a skeptical response. Purpose in the way the world is evolving? Patterns certainly—but purpose? No. . . .
Fascinating to be sure, but in the end, skeptics may ask, what's it all about? Is consciousness really inevitable in the universe?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrel ... c8259e6d69
*2. Intentional Causation vs Random Chance :
"At the Santa Fe Institute [for the study of complex adaptive systems] one finds an unusually high density of people who dispute the notion that we are creatures of chance . . . . that there is an inevitability to life . . . . that the emergence of life itself is written into the universal laws."
___excerpt from Fire In The Mind, by George Johnson
Re: TPF : Mysterianism
Huh? I think you are projecting. I'm not intending to make a logical argument by raising this. I am making what I think is an interesting observation that an atheist philosopher would use the language and arguments of Christian apologetics. — Tom Storm
Sorry, It wasn't meant to be personal. I was referring to the "christian apologist" argument as "guilt by association". To wit : anything postulated by those committed to a different worldview is inherently emotionally motivated, hence unreasonable. It is indeed "interesting" that both sides in the "fear of nihilism" vs "fear of religion" contentions make similar "self-contradictory" arguments.
In the movie about pre-feminism women's baseball, A League of their Own, the catcher says to the tearful fielder : "there's no crying in baseball". Likewise, there's no Fear in Philosophy.
I also don't think I made the point that it is nefarious. Can you explain why this might be seen as nefarious? — Tom Storm
Sorry again. I was using a provocative word (Nefarious etymology = not divine truth) to describe the finger-pointing between pro vs con sides of the "whence Consciousness" disputes. Each side questions the illicit motives (or impiety), not the reasoning, of the other side.
I find some partial truths on both shores, but I think the final truth is in the inscrutable ocean between. After all these years, the origin of meta-physical Consciousness in a physical world remains a mystery. But people still have polarized opinions on the topic. I apologize, if my finger-pointing at Atheist & Theist apologists sounded offensive to you personally. Typically, I find your posts to be a calm port in a stormy sea of opinions
Meta-physical : non-physical ; mental vs material ; ideal vs real. Not necessarily super-natural.
Sorry, It wasn't meant to be personal. I was referring to the "christian apologist" argument as "guilt by association". To wit : anything postulated by those committed to a different worldview is inherently emotionally motivated, hence unreasonable. It is indeed "interesting" that both sides in the "fear of nihilism" vs "fear of religion" contentions make similar "self-contradictory" arguments.
In the movie about pre-feminism women's baseball, A League of their Own, the catcher says to the tearful fielder : "there's no crying in baseball". Likewise, there's no Fear in Philosophy.
I also don't think I made the point that it is nefarious. Can you explain why this might be seen as nefarious? — Tom Storm
Sorry again. I was using a provocative word (Nefarious etymology = not divine truth) to describe the finger-pointing between pro vs con sides of the "whence Consciousness" disputes. Each side questions the illicit motives (or impiety), not the reasoning, of the other side.
I find some partial truths on both shores, but I think the final truth is in the inscrutable ocean between. After all these years, the origin of meta-physical Consciousness in a physical world remains a mystery. But people still have polarized opinions on the topic. I apologize, if my finger-pointing at Atheist & Theist apologists sounded offensive to you personally. Typically, I find your posts to be a calm port in a stormy sea of opinions
Meta-physical : non-physical ; mental vs material ; ideal vs real. Not necessarily super-natural.
Re: TPF : Mysterianism
Does God exist?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... d-exist/p1
The need for a higher supreme power is real if everything else is created. Call it "The Matrix", "Superman" or "God" or "The cosmos". If all the rest is created, the need for a supreme higher power is real and therefore whatever way to decide to refer to it, it is all the same. We are referring to the same real need. — Raef Kandil
Pre-science, primitive people were at the mercy of natural forces. They were confused by & fearful of the exigencies & vicissitudes of Nature, that did not demonstrate any concern for the welfare of Rational beings. So, those beings applied their reason to the problem of wild & unruly Nature, with no apparent purpose. Since humans instinctively organized themselves into hierarchies with a decisive strong-man at the top (civilization), it would seem that Nature might work more efficiently with a super-hero in control : a strong Fascist leader makes the trains run on time.
But their real-world experience with human rulers should teach us that "absolute power corrupts absolutely". In practice, even after prayers & sacrifices to the imaginary alpha-male in charge, Nature continued to work against their wishes. So, an equally powerful opponent for the the "good god" became necessary to blame when things went wrong, and to make sense of the continued misfortunes of humanity. Sometimes, a nurturing female counter-part was added to neutralize the macho bosses' excesses.
Over time, the pantheon of Nature gods expanded to suit every perceived human need. Still, after all the religious efforts to tame Nature from the top-down, She remains at best neutral to human preferences. So today, we are dependent on Culture & Technology to force Nature to conform to our own needs & wishes. Hence, the perceived necessity for divine succor is less today. Yet, we still feel the need for some protection from Nature's evils, or from the pinching constraints of our Cultural shields. Even The Matrix seemed to be a techno-fix for all that was wrong with both Nature and Culture. . . . . until it decided to serve its own needs above those of its biological creators.
Ironically, "If everything else is created", and the creation itself becomes a problem, then perhaps the world Creator did not intend to create a heaven-on-earth, but a heuristic (trial & error) program to search for the best compromise solution to an open-ended problem. If so, can we expect the designer to intervene every time the cosmic system fails to conform with our local personal needs? Isn't it apparent that the natural world is not a perfected Garden of Eden, but an incomplete system evolving via dog-eat-dog competition? Maybe the savior of mankind will be ever-learning humanity --- a self-serving system within the system --- instead of the absentee Creator. Perchance, we have met the Deity, and he is us.
c531ffef3d680283264f7365703a7a8a.jpg
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... d-exist/p1
The need for a higher supreme power is real if everything else is created. Call it "The Matrix", "Superman" or "God" or "The cosmos". If all the rest is created, the need for a supreme higher power is real and therefore whatever way to decide to refer to it, it is all the same. We are referring to the same real need. — Raef Kandil
Pre-science, primitive people were at the mercy of natural forces. They were confused by & fearful of the exigencies & vicissitudes of Nature, that did not demonstrate any concern for the welfare of Rational beings. So, those beings applied their reason to the problem of wild & unruly Nature, with no apparent purpose. Since humans instinctively organized themselves into hierarchies with a decisive strong-man at the top (civilization), it would seem that Nature might work more efficiently with a super-hero in control : a strong Fascist leader makes the trains run on time.
But their real-world experience with human rulers should teach us that "absolute power corrupts absolutely". In practice, even after prayers & sacrifices to the imaginary alpha-male in charge, Nature continued to work against their wishes. So, an equally powerful opponent for the the "good god" became necessary to blame when things went wrong, and to make sense of the continued misfortunes of humanity. Sometimes, a nurturing female counter-part was added to neutralize the macho bosses' excesses.
Over time, the pantheon of Nature gods expanded to suit every perceived human need. Still, after all the religious efforts to tame Nature from the top-down, She remains at best neutral to human preferences. So today, we are dependent on Culture & Technology to force Nature to conform to our own needs & wishes. Hence, the perceived necessity for divine succor is less today. Yet, we still feel the need for some protection from Nature's evils, or from the pinching constraints of our Cultural shields. Even The Matrix seemed to be a techno-fix for all that was wrong with both Nature and Culture. . . . . until it decided to serve its own needs above those of its biological creators.
Ironically, "If everything else is created", and the creation itself becomes a problem, then perhaps the world Creator did not intend to create a heaven-on-earth, but a heuristic (trial & error) program to search for the best compromise solution to an open-ended problem. If so, can we expect the designer to intervene every time the cosmic system fails to conform with our local personal needs? Isn't it apparent that the natural world is not a perfected Garden of Eden, but an incomplete system evolving via dog-eat-dog competition? Maybe the savior of mankind will be ever-learning humanity --- a self-serving system within the system --- instead of the absentee Creator. Perchance, we have met the Deity, and he is us.
c531ffef3d680283264f7365703a7a8a.jpg
Re: TPF : Mysterianism -- Does God exist or not?
For me, god is a metaphysical entity, by which I mean its existence isn't a matter of fact, but a way of looking at the world. — T Clark
As a concept, "God" plays many roles, and has many definitions. By some definitions, Satan is a god, and some envision a cloven-footed creature running amok in the world. But for me, the only relevant role of G*D for a non-theist, is to explain the existence & order of the physical world. Since that definition places the creator outside of the creation, it is unknowable by empirical means. Hence, it is necessarily a "metaphysical" (mental) conjecture, not a physical (material) object. So, we may never know the final answer.
A non-physical First Cause of the physical world, literally doesn't matter. So what difference does it make, if god does not exist in any meaningful sense? For example, some thinkers have postulated god-substitutes (e.g. Multiverse) that assume the essential attributes of a world creator (e.g. intelligence, intention, creative power) are self-existent properties of space-time and matter-energy. Hence, nothing special. That is indeed a "way of looking at the world", but leaves the crucial "why?" unanswered --- not to mention "how?". Does a contingent world require a reason for being? Why ask "why"? Why not just "shut up and calculate"? Why do philosophers ask "why?", and argue endlessly over un-provable postulations?
As a concept, "God" plays many roles, and has many definitions. By some definitions, Satan is a god, and some envision a cloven-footed creature running amok in the world. But for me, the only relevant role of G*D for a non-theist, is to explain the existence & order of the physical world. Since that definition places the creator outside of the creation, it is unknowable by empirical means. Hence, it is necessarily a "metaphysical" (mental) conjecture, not a physical (material) object. So, we may never know the final answer.
A non-physical First Cause of the physical world, literally doesn't matter. So what difference does it make, if god does not exist in any meaningful sense? For example, some thinkers have postulated god-substitutes (e.g. Multiverse) that assume the essential attributes of a world creator (e.g. intelligence, intention, creative power) are self-existent properties of space-time and matter-energy. Hence, nothing special. That is indeed a "way of looking at the world", but leaves the crucial "why?" unanswered --- not to mention "how?". Does a contingent world require a reason for being? Why ask "why"? Why not just "shut up and calculate"? Why do philosophers ask "why?", and argue endlessly over un-provable postulations?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests