Can materialistic science answer life’s big questions? |317|

[Laird]

In the end I realised I had to stop, I can't solve the world's problems but I CAN choose to think happy thoughts instead of dwelling on the negative.

Tim, I really like you, and I'm going to enthusiastically affirm these sentiments, hoping that you will forgive me for not engaging you on the rest of your post(s), since I don't think it would be productive... let it simply be said that though it might be "scientifically incorrect" to say so, and perhaps even "illogical", I do think that to some extent (and I speak from experience) we create our own reality, and if we can manage to think entirely happy thoughts, then we are going to create very positive realities for ourselves... and, at the same time, I find it hard to believe that our realities are utterly divorced from those of others, so it is not simply a selfish proposition, it is for the greater good too. Be well, friend.

 

[Laird]

I take responsibility for the title... and credit for the photo :) I thought that was a pretty good one :)

It was pretty cheeky, but I dig it, man. Go ahead and take the (rightful) credit. :-)

 

[tim]

Tim, I really like you, and I'm going to enthusiastically affirm these sentiments, hoping that you will forgive me for not engaging you on the rest of your post(s), since I don't think it would be productive... let it simply be said that though it might be "scientifically incorrect" to say so, and perhaps even "illogical", I do think that to some extent (and I speak from experience) we create our own reality, and if we can manage to think entirely happy thoughts, then we are going to create very positive realities for ourselves... and, at the same time, I find it hard to believe that our realities are utterly divorced from those of others, so it is not simply a selfish proposition, it is for the greater good too. Be well, friend.

I don't really know what to say to that, Laird other than thank you very much. :)

 

[Typoz]

Why would we have been (have we been) designed such that we "need" to "develop" morals and ethics? Why could we not have been designed such that they were an inherent part of our nature?

My feeling is that many of these questions revolve around the same thing: free will. As for morals and ethics being an inherent part of our nature, well perhaps they are, but we are free to choose whether or not to listen to our inner nature. Also, another suggestion, we don't have to go through this entirely alone, we have access to spiritual guidance and support. But because we have free will, we must extend the invitation for such support, in effect through prayer, though I don't mean an allegiance to any particular religion. Otherwise, without us first asking, there are limits on the help which can be given, though even then I don't think we are ever abandoned, but our free will is respected. If it was otherwise, we would be mere puppets.

 

[Small Dog]

Nothing can answer life's big questions, neither materialistic science, nor religion or philosophy. We can only keep guessing.

 

[Typoz]

Nothing can answer life's big questions, neither materialistic science, nor religion or philosophy. We can only keep guessing.

Thought I can sympathise, that in itself seems a type of philosophy. How does philosophy invalidate itself? (and simultaneously invalidate all other solutions!).

 

[malf]

Thought I can sympathise, that in itself seems a type of philosophy. How does philosophy invalidate itself?

Braude said in his chat with Alex (something along the lines of) sometimes all you can do is shrug. Perhaps we should all subscribe to Shrugism? :)

 

[Typoz]

Thought I can sympathise, that in itself seems a type of philosophy. How does philosophy invalidate itself? (and simultaneously invalidate all other solutions!).

My answer on this is that if there were truly no possible solutions, then all effort in either investigation or discussion of such matters would be wasted effort. And indeed there are many people who do follow that in most of their day-to-day life. I say 'most' because those same people do have occasional glimpses of something more meaningful, without even having to look for it. If that's the case, then those who actively seek must surely sometimes see a little further than a glimpse.

 

[hypermagda]

Nothing can answer life's big questions, neither materialistic science, nor religion or philosophy. We can only keep guessing.

I have the feeling you may be right, in the sense that it will be impossible to actually prove the answers "objectively" (I guess one could say "scientifically") in an incontrovertible way - but the reason why I still find it very useful to keep probing is that

1) this type of rational enquiry enables me to spot the "holes" in various, often popular metaphysics (usually well-established religions, but not only) that people may have endorsed without properly analysing their intrinsic logic, mostly because they offer consolation and hope (or just because they were brainwashed as kids);

2) hopefully (and that is my pragmatic goal) this will help me construct a fairly stable theory which makes reasonable sense to me - based on logic, objective evidence and my own experience - other people's experiences are also very interesting, often helpful and I most definitely do not dismiss them wholesale, but first and foremost I have to make sense of my own experiences because I have no doubt about that I have experienced things, though I'm still trying to understand what they mean (my very existence is an experience I'm trying to make sense of :-)).

The way I see it is: different people have different needs. For some (many?) the consolatory value is the most important thing. If something makes them feel good, they will not question it too much but instead will settle for it and make the most of it in a pragmatic way. I am not here to criticise these people or to belittle them. They may in fact be more sensible than me in their pragmatic approach. If they don't harm others, and if this approach helps them to live better, I certainly have no intention to try and dismantle their beliefs. However, for me managing to put concepts and facts in a coherent logical framework is crucial, regardless of its consolatory value. In other words, feeling that I am understanding things better (I certainly do not expect that I will understand everything - I'm pretty realistic about my chances) is far more important than deriving comfort from it.

So, we're all here on Skeptiko for different reasons but I for one benefit from being exposed to different points of view, so thank you all for your thoughts - and once again thank you Alex for making this possible!

 

[Small Dog]

That's all we can do, stumble around in the dark, feeling our way around and hoping not to do much harm to what we step across. There is the reason most Buddha images show him laughing.

 

[Alex]

I think part of the problem with assuming a sole benevolent God who has top down control is there are too many imperfections in this reality that could seemingly be easily patched up?

Bingo. That's essentially the point I've been (probably futilely) arguing in all of my above posts.

I never get this argument... I mean, if we're gonna speculate about the mind of god we can come up with all sorts of reasons for the supposed imperfections we see.

 

[Alex]

The way I see it is: different people have different needs.

I guess you're right... why is this one so hard for me to accept! :)

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

I never get this argument... I mean, if we're gonna speculate about the mind of god we can come up with all sorts of reasons for the supposed imperfections we see.

But it seems we can, at best, try to claim to God as a special case. If I put sentient creatures in a box with the conditions we have in this world I suspect just about every person on this forum would be horrified at what I've done.

Yet the creatures in the box might refer to my supposed "infinite wisdom" or "Grand Design"?

 

[hypermagda]

But it seems we can, at best, try to claim to God as a special case. If I put sentient creatures in a box with the conditions we have in this world I suspect just about every person on this forum would be horrified at what I've done.

Yet the creatures in the box might refer to my supposed "infinite wisdom" or "Grand Design"?

I agree - especially considering that, as "God" you created those creatures yourself just to put them in the box in question and in those difficult (to say the least) conditions, for reasons best known to yourself - who knows, for your enjoyment or for an experiment that you are carrying out because YOU are interested in it, certainly not them, or at least not all of them (I suppose those in awe of the "infinite wisdom" or "grand design" are happy to participate) ...they didn't ask to be put there in the first place, and while some seem to relish the experience not all do - and certainly not all the time (especially if, no matter how good your circumstances, you are aware of the predicament of other far less fortunate sentient creatures - humans and animals).
This of course only applies if there really is only one God (=mastermind) in control of everything (which I strongly doubt.... or at least I hope is not the case because it would feel like being entirely in the hands of a dangerous lunatic).

 

[hypermagda]

I guess you're right... why is this one so hard for me to accept! :)

It's hard for me too, believe me :-) I also struggle to accept it (like lots of other things....)

 

[David Bailey]

I have the feeling you may be right, in the sense that it will be impossible to actually prove the answers "objectively" (I guess one could say "scientifically") in an incontrovertible way - but the reason why I still find it very useful to keep probing is that

The thing is that outside of maths, we can't prove anything. This fact is more obvious in some sciences than others, but in say psychology and archaeology - both of which contribute to the conventional world view - it is particularly obvious.

1) this type of rational enquiry enables me to spot the "holes" in various, often popular metaphysics (usually well-established religions, but not only) that people may have endorsed without properly analysing their intrinsic logic, mostly because they offer consolation and hope (or just because they were brainwashed as kids);

The holes in scientific materialism are pretty clear too. This is particularly true of the science of consciousness.

2) hopefully (and that is my pragmatic goal) this will help me construct a fairly stable theory which makes reasonable sense to me - based on logic, objective evidence and my own experience - other people's experiences are also very interesting, often helpful and I most definitely do not dismiss them wholesale, but first and foremost I have to make sense of my own experiences because I have no doubt about that I have experienced things, though I'm still trying to understand what they mean (my very existence is an experience I'm trying to make sense of :)).

The way I see it is: different people have different needs. For some (many?) the consolatory value is the most important thing. If something makes them feel good, they will not question it too much but instead will settle for it and make the most of it in a pragmatic way. I am not here to criticise these people or to belittle them. They may in fact be more sensible than me in their pragmatic approach. If they don't harm others, and if this approach helps them to live better, I certainly have no intention to try and dismantle their beliefs.

Sadly such people often do harm others - if only their own children. A lot of people report how their world opened up when they finally managed to shrug off the religion they were brought up with.

However, for me managing to put concepts and facts in a coherent logical framework is crucial, regardless of its consolatory value. In other words, feeling that I am understanding things better (I certainly do not expect that I will understand everything - I'm pretty realistic about my chances) is far more important than deriving comfort from it.

So, we're all here on Skeptiko for different reasons but I for one benefit from being exposed to different points of view, so thank you all for your thoughts - and once again thank you Alex for making this possible!

Remember that if time isn't quite as simple as we think of it, the definition of logical may shift quite a lot - for example if the future can influence the past, which seems to happen in numerous precognitive events.

David

 

[hypermagda]

The thing is that outside of maths, we can't prove anything. This fact is more obvious in some sciences than others, but in say psychology and archaeology - both of which contribute to the conventional world view - it is particularly obvious.

The holes in scientific materialism are pretty clear too. This is particularly true of the science of consciousness.

Sadly such people often do harm others - if only their own children. A lot of people report how their world opened up when they finally managed to shrug off the religion they were brought up with.

Remember that if time isn't quite as simple as we think of it, the definition of logical may shift quite a lot - for example if the future can influence the past, which seems to happen in numerous precognitive events.

David

Very wise words, David. Yes indeed, there are pretty gaping holes in scientific materialism, too, of course - I wasn't able to realise this until only a few years ago, precisely because I had been successfully brainwashed (since childhood). Although I was brought up as a Catholic, I saw the holes in that religion very soon, while it took me decades to see through scientific materialism.

As for religion (or even "spirituality", for example New Age) being harmful, I'm in two minds about this - it all depends how literally and unquestioningly people take it, I guess. In some cases it can also provide moral guidance (to some at least) and it certainly has consolatory value for those who believe in something/somebody benevolent and meaningful. It's tough to be questioning everything all the time, as I do, hehe! I certainly would be delighted to be able to see a sufficiently logical and benevolent framework in which I could believe in... but I'm hard to please I guess :-)

Indeed, time is a key factor in our human life experience and it's true that seeing things from 'a different time perspective' may somehow change our (logical) perspective. But our existing here in a state of ignorance (unless something extraordinary gives us a glimpse of how -supposedly- it all works) still wouldn't make sense with reference to our prevailing condition, regardless of the time perspective we take. We're stuck in a "time prison" (by design?) and occasional glimpses of how it may all work (via precognition etc) don't truly free us from our linear experience. There are those who believe that it will all make sense in the end, but this implies that "the end justifies the means", hence that the Universe/God etc is a Machiavellian entity, so our human condition still feels hopelessly like a prison or a box, to use Sci's metaphor.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

hence that the Universe/God etc is a Machiavellian entity, so our human condition still feels hopelessly like a prison or a box, to use Sci's metaphor.

Only if you think there's someone who's both designed reality and continues to monitor it with total control.

Attanasio, in his fiction, suggested a God who is pushing for the Good but is not omnipotent nor omniscient just benevolent.

Franco Ferrucci, in Life of God, suggests God is bound up with creation - specifically Earthly creation.

 

[David Bailey]

We're stuck in a "time prison" (by design?) and occasional glimpses of how it may all work (via precognition etc) don't truly free us from our linear experience. There are those who believe that it will all make sense in the end, but this implies that "the end justifies the means", hence that the Universe/God etc is a Machiavellian entity, so our human condition still feels hopelessly like a prison or a box, to use Sci's metaphor

I feel we rather like putting ourselves in 'prisons'. We play board games, where 'life' has been simplified to a grid of squares, we run races for no fundamental reason (and don't cheat by cutting corners), we scare ourselves nearly to death in a whole variety of ways, etc etc. Assuming our fundamental nature is similar 'out there' maybe we undertake an incarnation on the same basis!

David

 

[hypermagda]

I feel we rather like putting ourselves in 'prisons'. We play board games, where 'life' has been simplified to a grid of squares, we run races for no fundamental reason (and don't cheat by cutting corners), we scare ourselves nearly to death in a whole variety of ways, etc etc. Assuming our fundamental nature is similar 'out there' maybe we undertake an incarnation on the same basis!

David

'Fraid you lost me there...bit too abstract for me - could you make an example? Also, what do you mean by "we"? I hope you're not including me hehe!