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 14:00:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2853 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> > 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?
But the crux of my question: "what if there isn't a reason behind the
universe?" I'm not, at this point, saying conclusively whether there is or
isn't one; I'm asking what would be the impact to you if there weren't a reason.
Here's another way of looking at it: how, when faced with an eerie
coincidence like the hypthetical bus accident, are we able to know that
there *is* a karmic/metaphysical/transcendent reason behind it?
> 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. • **snip**
> My point is that method of analysis yeilds the answer of 'why' things happen
> no better than meditating.
Again, you're missing the point; science makes no claims re: the
underlying "why" of the situation. You're requiring it to do so, but that's
not the fault of science.
Why is the "why" so important to you? What would you do if you knew the
reason why?
> 'Why' does everything follow the laws of physics. The inherent order of the
> universe seems a little too convenient to me.
That's the "fine tuning" argument of Creationism, and it's a fallacy
that's been thoroughly rebutted in numerous forms. Check out
http://www.talkorigins.com for a good place to start.
And your question forces another question: Why did God make the laws of
physics the way they are? If your answer is "for His own reasons" or
something similar, then you haven't really found an explanatory answer!
> 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.
But that's why your argument is a straw man; you're defining science as "a
tool for identifying the reason why things happen," but that's not what
science is about. It's inappropriate to require science (or anything) to
behave as something it is not. I could as easily (and as justifiably) say
that I don't believe in God because He hasn't eliminated my student loans.
Obviously, the refutation of my claim is that God isn't responsible for
paying my student loans; I would be wrong to fault Him for failing to pay
them, just as it is wrong to fault science for failing to explain something
that it's not intended to explain.
> > 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.
No, you've actually posed a good question, but it still rests on the
essence of my question: Why does God do [insert puzzling action here]?
> 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.
Ah-hah! Okay, I can accept[1] that in principle. It is, in a manner of
speaking, an act of transcendent faith (as opposed to mundane faith) to
assume that absolutely no god/deity exists. But in my case, given the
evidence available to me, it is not reasonable for me to conclude that a god
exists or must exist.
The position you describe (which I'll call Y) is: "I believe that God does
not exist." Instead, my position (which I'll call Z) is: "I do not believe
that God exists." Y is the presence of belief, but Z is a lack of belief.
Do you see how they're different, and how each requires a different
framework for defense and rebuttal?
By the way--don't be fooled by evangelizing atheists who claim that all
atheists must believe a certain way; that assertion betrays a lack of
understanding.
Dave!
[1] See, Maggie? I can spel somtimes.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
