Subject:
|
Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Apr 2003 02:40:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2772 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> You see my problem is that science has yet to answer 'Why' anything happens.
> There are lots of good theories on how things happen but not one single answer
> as to why.
Mike--are looking for a metaphysical, over-arching "reason" behind the
universe? What if there simply isn't one? Science isn't in the business of
determining "why" things happen in this transcendent sense, nor should science
be required to do so. That would be analogous to asking "by what chemical
process does the eucharist become the Body of Christ?" The question, in that
sense, isn't relevant.
Some people aren't content to except that things may just happen without a
metaphysical "reason" behind them. By extension, that's similar to how some
people claim "The reason 'why' I didn't take the bus is because I had a feeling
it would be in an accident." Such people are not content to say "I didn't take
the bus today *AND* the bus was in an accident;" they seem to need to attribute
a karmic (so to speak) cause to it.
On the other hand, science does address *why* things happen in a more
mundane, causative way, such as: "Why does electrolysis of water yield two
parts hydrogen and one part water? Because a water molecule contains two
hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom." But there's no supposition of
metaphysical cause.
> I really don't see how
> that will be any more effective than the Taoist approach of meditating in
> search of perfect enlightenment. (Science still hasn't worked.)
Your parenthetical comment eludes me: science "hasn't worked" in what
context? Also, you're comparing an introspective and fundamentally personal
meditative system to a system of teamwork, re-examination, and data-sharing.
The two are not comparable in any real sense; one is a belief system, the other
is a method of analysis.
> The faith that
> science holds all the answers seems as silly to me
It likewise seems silly to me, especially since it's not a matter of faith
but of evidence and reproducibility. To assert otherwise is to create a straw
man that doesn't pertain to the argument at hand.
> I also happen to believe that limiting oneself to accept only that which is
> tangible will prevent Humans from further evolving and learning 'Why'.
Let me ask you this: Why does God allow innocent babies to starve to death?
Unless you can give me the answer to that question (or many other similar
questions), then you can take comfort only in the *hope* that a reason
exists, even if we have no way to know it. Other than by the introduction of a
metaphysical being, how does that assessment superior to the view that the
universe simply exists without need of a reason why?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
