FallentoReason 2.0

[FallentoReason]

Well I've heard people argue that if we think we individually have intentionality who is to say that larger order things such as the earth ('Gaia'), the galaxy or the universe doesn't also? What really is the boundary between me and not-me? The air I breath and my lungs are in a relationship. Same with the water my body needs. Life feeds on life and so is connected in that way. Inorganic matter is taken up into living beings and returns to inorganic states when the organism dies. So the organic and inorganic worlds are tangibly interconnected. So perhaps in describing the networks of which any particular organism is a part we wind up describing parts of the world that go beyond the organism. In that sense the boundary between me and not-me is indeterminate. In some sense we could say instead that we are an aspect of a larger organism.

Ordinarily we wouldn't infer intentionality to anything which is not alive and conscious. But when you look at the way the counterbalancing forces on our planet result in stable states that promote life it can look intentional. Where does the web of life begins and end? Does the sun which fuels it all belong? Would there be any life in the web without the sun?

There is no necessity -so far as we can tell- for inferring deities but neither is there any way of ruling them out. Personally I think Occam's razor describes a good rule of thumb rather than a compulsory conclusion. So I'm not convinced it ever adequately justifies any conclusion. If it gives you the meaning you seek, why not infer a deity?

Perhaps it isn't a question of whether or not a deity exists apart from me so much as it is a question of whether I exist apart from everything else. If I am a part of a larger thing then that thing encompasses my intentionality and so includes it and that of every other creature. Feeling thankful to the greater organism of which we are a part and without which we could not exist is not such a screwy idea.

Wow, I've never heard anything like this before. It's a pretty interesting take on things.

So if I'm not mistaken, what you're basically saying is that the components that make up the universe (e.g. us, rocks, gravity etc.) are necessarily in relationship with one another and through this relationship it makes it seem to us that it was all "intentional". Then that means that the arguments for Intelligent Design cuts both ways in favour and not in favour of some sort of Creator. Food for thought!

---

Whenever I hear Deist arguments, I always think of the wise words of Carl Sagan: "Why not save yourself a step...".

Sheer human awe at the size/scale/complexity/incredibility of the universe is only natural but so too, is everything we've ever discovered about the universe. Remember that there's never been any robust evidence for any supernatural proposition ever and wherever any such propositions have been testable, they've failed those tests.

Yeah, I agree that it's never been proven through science that there exists a supernatural realm and/or a supernatural being. The thing is though that science will never be able to do that because all science does is analyse the "aftermath". Let me give you an example:

I punch my mate in the shoulder. Through scientific analysis we could have determined that I did it with x force in Newtons. What the analysis won't be able to tell us is why I did it. Science can only simply describe to you how it happened.

Again, I have to admit that maybe, as a human, I'm inclined to see the universe as having that "why" component as well as what science tells us about the "how".