Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
We're Philosophical Opposites

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Luis Hamburgh on June 12, 2002 19:10:54 UTC

Harv,

>>>"I lost interest in our last conversation..."

I'll try harder to keep you entertained this time around.

>>>"I see emergence of unbelievable complexity that I think randomness alone cannot explain."

In the midst of such vastness, and considering just how minuscule the earth is in relation to the universe, just how exceptional does a random event have to be in order to be truly exceptional? Surely you can appreciate the enormity of the universe. Given the known (never mind the not yet discovered) size and age of the universe, just how unlikely is our situation? If you play roulette for a million years, would you attribute your winnings to something more than "randomness alone"?

>>>"first let's realize that your thoughts are part of a philosophical paradigm called materialism."

In other words, "before we examine the validity of your stance, let me first point out that it's not a valid one."

>>>"your materialist paradigm is not a satisfactory picture"

Not satisfactory to you, of course, but the paradigm I espouse is logically consistent. The only way you can chip away at it is if you reject its entire foundation, reductionism (which you do not -- otherwise your logic would be nil), or (A) postulate something outside of a logical explanation. Either way, I do not see how you can continue this line of debate.

I did offer an explanation as to why you (and those like you) aren't satisfied with (my) paradigm, but you seemed to have missed that part:

>>>(Luis' position) "not only ignores the human need for spiritual meaning (because of reasons such as (1) and (2)), but it fails to account for the order in nature."

Strangely, you included in this statement its very negation. Maybe you didn't see what I was trying to say. I'll try it again...

First of all, I fully acknowledge, and am prepared to explain (have explained, in bits and pieces) - in logical terms - the human need for spiritual meaning. Indeed, I offered a brief synopsis of my stance in the last post ("I think the reason many of us require 'meaning' is because...").

Second, the "order in nature" you describe only takes on a meaning deeper than that we can logically account for if you choose to believe that there is something beyond that which we can identify through reason (see (A) above).

-LH

P.S. ~ Be careful. By speculating there is something "deeper" than that which we might sense through reductionism, and arguing this point from a reductionist standpoint, holists are collectively digging their own philosophical grave. Of course, this is only my opinion.



The human understanding, from its peculiar nature, easily supposes a greater degree of order and quality in things than it really finds. - Francis Bacon

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins