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 04:44:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2821 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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 [accept] 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.
How do we know there isn't one?
> 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 that does not explain 'why' it happens, only how. And know you don't need
to explain the details of electron bonds and such, I know the theory and have
seen it work consistently. But it doesn't explain 'why' it works.
> 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.
My point is that method of analysis yeilds the answer of 'why' things happen no
better than meditating.
>
> > 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.
Therein lies the problem, to automaticly deny that which you can not precieve
is to 'form a conclusion before studing the data.' Doesn't it make you curious
in the slightest that everything does follow the laws of physics. 'Why' does
everything follow the laws of physics. The inherent order of the universe seems
a little too convenient to me.
> To assert otherwise is to create a straw
> man that doesn't pertain to the argument at hand.
Well I can understand how you may interprit my statement as a strawman but I am
being quite serious. See, I have always seen science as a quest for the
knowledge of 'why' things happen. So far all that science has succeded in doing
is explain how things happen at increasingly smaller levels.
>
> > 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?
I suppose one could argue the whole 'god gave humans free will' so the question
should be: Why does god allow us to allow innocent babies to starve to death.
That probably comes closer to a straw man than the other point I am trying to
make.
> 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?
Ok see I am not actually trying to assert that believing in god or a
metaphysical being is better then not believing. (I am not suggesting we
abandon science and all start praying or something.) I am simply trying to
assert that to deny the possiblity outright (in either direction), is to limit
oneself far too much.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message has 2 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
|
|
|
|
