Religious Typology Quiz

[Cypress]

And teleology is often meaningless. WHY does gravity obey in the inverse square law format? No reason.

MANY aspects of teleology CAN be addressed by science. Quite a few.



Agreed.



The unknown can be unknowable. But simply imagining something to be one way or another is not an improvement in knowledge.



I disagree.



And there's a very high likelihood it will largely be "imaginary" unless there is a way to "ground proof" it in reality.

Don't get me wrong: I love philosophy. I just don't think that it is some non-overlapping magisteria with science. I think the value comes when science provides the supporing framework for philosophy.

I think it was Murray Gell-mann who was attracted to his 8-fold classification system of subatomic particles because he was heavily into Buddhism and the 8-fold Way. It is extremely unlikely that there is some necessary link between the two. In this case the "philosophy" was a pretty metaphor. Not necessarily reality.

Teleology is not generally addressed by science.

Science really only addresses the formal and material causes from Aristotle's metaphysics.

Plenty of scientists are happy to know that the wave function and Schrodinger equations just work mathematically and are able to make predictions. That's as far as they want to think, anything else is irrelevant.

More philosophically minded scientists are curious as to what quantum mechanics really means metaphysically.

If we define knowing something as universal, necessary, and certain knowledge about which we cannot be wrong, then scientists philosophically don't know anything, what they have are opinions and interpretations based on a starting set of assumptions or axioms.

Issac Newton didn't actually know anything, strictly speaking. He thought he had acquired universal and certain knowledge with his laws of motion.

But his laws of motion were based on assumptions that we now know are false; he assumed time and space were uniform and unchanging. That assumption was just wrong, and it made his laws of motion only reasonably accurate at less than relativistic velocities.

That's not to say scientific interpretation and opinion can't approximate true, universal, and certain knowledge. I am scientific realist who believes our theories can ultimately start to approach universal and certain knowledge which cannot be doubted.

 

[Phantasmal]

Very interesting exchange of ideas, and thanks for being courteous about it! Enjoying the exchange.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Agreed on unknown.

A slight disagreement about imagination vs. improvement. The US was built upon an unknown, an imagined ideal. Same for going to the Moon. Same goes for most things that have never been done before; they were imagined first and turned into reality later.

OTOH, imagining that the Earth is on the back of a giant turtle is unlikely to ever be proved true.

I am in no way suggesting that we should EVER assume any question is "unanswerable". My point was just that substituting one "imagined" concept for another does not improve the overall knowledge.

Hypothesizing "God" when one could, with exactly the same amount of evidence hypothesize that the universe has always existed doesn't add anything to the conversation.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Teleology is not generally addressed by science.

Not sure what you mean. That seems like a generalization that doesn't necessarily hold. Indeed vast swaths of science are dedicated to the "reason why this or that is as it is".

Science really only addresses the formal and material causes from Aristotle's metaphysics.

It comes down to whether one believes there is some ineffible "otherness" outside and apart from the physical world. Of course no one can provide evidence of such a thing, but we all can imagine something outside of the physical. Unfortunately that ends up looking more like imagination than actual insight.

Hence why there are so many different "religions".

More philosophically minded scientists are curious as to what quantum mechanics really means metaphysically.

I guess I don't understand what your question means. What do you mean what QM means "metaphysically"?

That's not to say scientific interpretation and opinion can't approximate true, universal, and certain knowledge. I am scientific realist who believes our theories can ultimately start to approach universal and certain knowledge which cannot be doubted.

I guess I see no evidence of anything beyond the physical reality. And I seriously doubt anyone who claims they do. That is not intended to be offensive in any way. I'm sure EVERYONE who thinks there is an ineffible "soul" or some "reality beyond reality" feels confident that they DO have that insight. But, again, it is unverifiable by an independent observer and as such is effectively indistiguishable from "imagination".

Just to be clear: I am NOT saying there is nothing beyond our physical reality....just that no one has any insight into that that is verifiably objective. It is and will likely ALWAYS be indistinguishable from imagination and wish.

 

[BidenPresident]

Not sure what you mean. That seems like a generalization that doesn't necessarily hold. Indeed vast swaths of science are dedicated to the "reason why this or that is as it is".



It comes down to whether one believes there is some ineffible "otherness" outside and apart from the physical world. Of course no one can provide evidence of such a thing, but we all can imagine something outside of the physical. Unfortunately that ends up looking more like imagination than actual insight.

Hence why there are so many different "religions".



I guess I don't understand what your question means. What do you mean what QM means "metaphysically"?



I guess I see no evidence of anything beyond the physical reality. And I seriously doubt anyone who claims they do. That is not intended to be offensive in any way. I'm sure EVERYONE who thinks there is an ineffible "soul" or some "reality beyond reality" feels confident that they DO have that insight. But, again, it is unverifiable by an independent observer and as such is effectively indistiguishable from "imagination".

Just to be clear: I am NOT saying there is nothing beyond our physical reality....just that no one has any insight into that that is verifiably objective. It is and will likely ALWAYS be indistinguishable from imagination and wish.

Science follows three of Aristotle's four causes. Material, Formal, Efficient. Final cause gives many scientists grief because they think it means ultimate cause. By teleology, Aristotle only meant that nature--including humans--is purposeful.
Leibniz took on Aristotle's concept of final cause without saying day to science needed to use it. But explaining the world of science does require final cause.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I am in no way suggesting that we should EVER assume any question is "unanswerable". My point was just that substituting one "imagined" concept for another does not improve the overall knowledge.

Hypothesizing "God" when one could, with exactly the same amount of evidence hypothesize that the universe has always existed doesn't add anything to the conversation.

Is there a difference between imagining there is a god and imagining there isn't? IMO, no. Neither can be proved...which is one reason why I think agnosticism is the most logical position to take.

The Universe has a known amount of time in existence.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Is there a difference between imagining there is a god and imagining there isn't?

I guess I don't understand the phrase "Imaging there isn't a God". That's like imagining there AREN'T invisible unicorns prancing around me.

IMO, no. Neither can be proved...which is one reason why I think agnosticism is the most logical position to take.

That's reasonable. But I don't think we use the same level of doubt on anything else in the world. Is there an invisible unicorn sitting beside me right now? Well, I see no evidence for it...but in some ideal world they MIGHT exist. But if I have no evidence for the existence of them, why would I propose it just because there's a hypothetical situation in which they MIGHT exist?

As such I think it's OK to assume God doesn't exist due to lack of evidence that I perceive. I am fully cognizant that I could be wrong. But if I am given no data to support a contention then there is no motive or even reason for me to propose the existence of that thing.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I guess I don't understand the phrase "Imaging there isn't a God". That's like imagining there AREN'T invisible unicorns prancing around me.


That's reasonable. But I don't think we use the same level of doubt on anything else in the world. Is there an invisible unicorn sitting beside me right now? Well, I see no evidence for it...but in some ideal world they MIGHT exist. But if I have no evidence for the existence of them, why would I propose it just because there's a hypothetical situation in which they MIGHT exist?

As such I think it's OK to assume God doesn't exist due to lack of evidence that I perceive. I am fully cognizant that I could be wrong. But if I am given no data to support a contention then there is no motive or even reason for me to propose the existence of that thing.

Exactly. If a person says to you that there aren't invisible unicorns moving around you, how would they know except for their imagination?

How can I know for certain there aren't creatures from a different plane of existence next to you? All I know is that there is no evidence either way. I'm certainly not going to get bent out of shape over it. LOL

 

[Cypress]

Science follows three of Aristotle's four causes. Material, Formal, Efficient. Final cause gives many scientists grief because they think it means ultimate cause. By teleology, Aristotle only meant that nature--including humans--is purposeful.
Leibniz took on Aristotle's concept of final cause without saying day to science needed to use it. But explaining the world of science does require final cause.

Final cause (teleology) is generally rejected by science because it does not fit into a modern world view that sees the cosmos as without purpose and direction.

There is no legitimate scientific project out there examining the purpose of the big bang.

Biology is a possible exception in that might make some off handed attempts at teleological causes.

Which circles back to my original point: science is not some silver bullet that can pretty much answer almost all the questions we have. I don't even think it can answer most of the questions we have when it comes to teleology, purpose, ethics, values, virtues, and the meaning of life (if there is one).

 

[BidenPresident]

Final cause (teleology) is generally rejected by science because it does not fit into a modern world view that sees the cosmos as without purpose and direction.

There is no legitimate scientific project out there examining the purpose of the big bang

Biology as an exception might make some offended attempts at teleological causes.

Which circles back to my original point: science is not some silver bullet that can pretty much answer almost all the questions we have. I don't even think it can answer most of the questions we have when it comes to teleology, purpose, ethics, values, virtues, and the meaning of life, if there is one.

Final cause is 'that for the sake of which something is done.' It is as ordinary as going for a walk for health. Health is the final cause. Nothing mystical.

 

[Cypress]

Final cause is 'that for the sake of which something is done.' It is as ordinary as going for a walk for health. Health is the final cause. Nothing mystical.

I didn't say anything about walking.
I was talking about science. You can search the world till the cows come home, but you won't find a legitimate scientific institution studying the purpose of the big bang.

Science is investigating mechanistic and material causes.

 

[BidenPresident]

I didn't say anything about walking.

My goodness, you're a fucking dope.

 

[Cypress]

My goodness, you're a fucking dope.

"Teleology: the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve, rather than of the cause by which they arise."


There are exactly zero legitimate scientific institutions spending their budgets on research as to the purpose of the Big Bang, or the purpose of life.

 

[BidenPresident]

"Teleology: the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve, rather than of the cause by which they arise."


There are exactly zero legitimate scientific institutions spending their budgets on research as to the purpose of the Big Bang, or the purpose of life.

ok

 

[Cypress]

Not sure what you mean. That seems like a generalization that doesn't necessarily hold. Indeed vast swaths of science are dedicated to the "reason why this or that is as it is".



It comes down to whether one believes there is some ineffible "otherness" outside and apart from the physical world. Of course no one can provide evidence of such a thing, but we all can imagine something outside of the physical. Unfortunately that ends up looking more like imagination than actual insight.

Hence why there are so many different "religions".



I guess I don't understand what your question means. What do you mean what QM means "metaphysically"?



I guess I see no evidence of anything beyond the physical reality. And I seriously doubt anyone who claims they do. That is not intended to be offensive in any way. I'm sure EVERYONE who thinks there is an ineffible "soul" or some "reality beyond reality" feels confident that they DO have that insight. But, again, it is unverifiable by an independent observer and as such is effectively indistiguishable from "imagination".

Just to be clear: I am NOT saying there is nothing beyond our physical reality....just that no one has any insight into that that is verifiably objective. It is and will likely ALWAYS be indistinguishable from imagination and wish.

There are no legitimate scientists studying the purpose of the Big Bang or the purpose of life. Final causes (teleology) has generally been rejected by science because the modern scientific view is that the cosmos doesn't ultimately have a purpose, direction, or goal....at least not one amenable to scientific inquiry.

Philosophically-minded scientists have been discussing for a century what quantum mechanics really means, what it tells about reality. QM seems to undermine determinism. Other scientists think that's a waste of time, they only care that the equations work and can make accurate predictions. Any pursuit of deeper meaning is pointless as far as they're concerned.

 

[BidenPresident]

I didn't say anything about walking.
I was talking about science. You can search the world till the cows come home, but you won't find a legitimate scientific institution studying the purpose of the big bang.

Science is investigating mechanistic and material causes.

Cause: In Aristotle's Physics:

Again, in the sense of end [telos] or that for the sake of which a thing is done,
health is the cause of walking about. (‘Why is he walking about?’ We say: ‘To
be healthy’, and, having said that, we think we have assigned the cause.)

https://sites.unimi.it/zucchi/NuoviFile/Barnes - Physics.pdf

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I didn't say anything about walking.
I was talking about science. You can search the world till the cows come home, but you won't find a legitimate scientific institution studying the purpose of the big bang.

Science is investigating mechanistic and material causes.

Agreed. Studying the physical universe before it became the universe is beyond their ability.

AFAIK, there's no word for before Space/Time. It's a clear line dividing science and philosophy/beliefs.

All the quantum stuff is interesting because it's studying the fabric of space.

That may be a path to restitching it for our gain...and the galaxy's loss...in the name of Jesus. BWAAA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAAAAA

 

[Dutch Uncle]

"Teleology: the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve, rather than of the cause by which they arise."


There are exactly zero legitimate scientific institutions spending their budgets on research as to the purpose of the Big Bang, or the purpose of life.

Agreed. Same reason as before.

BTW, Ms. BP is ronery.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

There are no legitimate scientists studying the purpose of the Big Bang or the purpose of life. Final causes (teleology) has generally been rejected by science because the modern scientific view is that the cosmos doesn't ultimately have a purpose, direction, or goal....at least not one amenable to scientific inquiry.

Isn't that the same thing as saying that teleology of the universe is a "null set"?

I am always fascinated by people who need the universe to have a "meaning", or "goal". Those seem like absurd notions.

 

[BidenPresident]

Isn't that the same thing as saying that teleology of the universe is a "null set"?

I am always fascinated by people who need the universe to have a "meaning", or "goal". Those seem like absurd notions.

So you gave birth to yourself? You invented the concept of sexual desire? These are goals of nature.