RE: FallentoReason 2.0
December 4, 2012 at 9:32 pm
(This post was last modified: December 4, 2012 at 10:02 pm by DeistPaladin.)
As promised, I'm trying to take in all the insightful posts on this thread and assemble my own thoughts on the subject. My mind reels a bit here, not knowing quite where to begin. Tackling religion is a comparative no-brainer, like shooting fish in a barrel. On the other hand, deism v atheism is a lot less clear for me, one where I do have a lot of mixed thoughts and for the sake of intellectual honesty, I'll share them here.
I've probably mentioned before that deism is for me a mental truce between my skeptical brain and lofty sentiments. It's a spirituality grounded strictly in the natural universe. In fact, the natural universe is the basis for that sense of wonder. From the micro to the macro, I see a machine and looking at the human mind and human civilization, I see intent.
Beyond instinctive sentiment, I'd offer that much came together in our evolution that seems very fortunate. I'm not just talking about the increased cranial capacity but other factors. Opposable thumbs, walking upright to free up our hands, shedding our fur allowing us to make these chattering noises to communicate, our innate sense of empathy and community all came together to make our civilization possible.
The counter-argument is the law of infinite probability. Over infinite space and/or time, anything that can happen, however unlikely, will. Perhaps humans won the "cosmic lottery" which is why we're here to think about it at all. This is why "what-are-the-odds?" isn't hard evidence, at least not for our small sample size of 1.
The "sentient puddle" that Kirbmarc mentioned is also a potent analogy. To counter it, I'd need to find a design feature that is beneficial and yet too indirect to be explained by natural selection alone. I've used my "homosexuality proves God" to be a counter-argument (homosexuality in both humans and animals creates stable families that can't have their own children that can adopt orphaned children). Even here though, atheists can still argue this is merely a fortunate by-product.
On the plus side, it's a deist argument that Kirk Cameroon isn't likely to hijack any time soon.
We really need a larger sample so that we have a basis of comparison. If the deism model for the universe is true, I would expect to find plentiful life and intelligent life at that. If it is just us, it begins to look more like we were just fortunate. If many other worlds are also beating the odds, that might tell us something different.
Well deism isn't an answer, which seemed to be his point in that episode of Cosmos. It's not an end to my search but rather encapsulates my sense of wonder that drives my search. I'd still like to know more details about how it all happened and how we might use that knowledge.
I don't think God, by which I mean this mysterious mind that I'm thinking is behind it all, is supernatural.
My reasoning is this: anything that exists can be potentially studied. Anything that can be studied can be potentially understood. Anything that can be potentially understood can be explained. Anything that can be explained is natural. Thus if we had infinite knowledge, I think we'd be able to understand the nature, properties and limitations of God.
But of course I could be wrong and these sentiments might be just that. Hence my "agnostic" side.
...oh, and I also get to identify with great thinkers of the Enlightenment who had fantastic hair.
![[Image: 220px-Atelier_de_Nicolas_de_Largilli%C3%...)_-002.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=upload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Ff%2Ff2%2FAtelier_de_Nicolas_de_Largilli%25C3%25A8re%2C_portrait_de_Voltaire%2C_d%25C3%25A9tail_%28mus%25C3%25A9e_Carnavalet%29_-002.jpg%2F220px-Atelier_de_Nicolas_de_Largilli%25C3%25A8re%2C_portrait_de_Voltaire%2C_d%25C3%25A9tail_%28mus%25C3%25A9e_Carnavalet%29_-002.jpg)
I've probably mentioned before that deism is for me a mental truce between my skeptical brain and lofty sentiments. It's a spirituality grounded strictly in the natural universe. In fact, the natural universe is the basis for that sense of wonder. From the micro to the macro, I see a machine and looking at the human mind and human civilization, I see intent.
Beyond instinctive sentiment, I'd offer that much came together in our evolution that seems very fortunate. I'm not just talking about the increased cranial capacity but other factors. Opposable thumbs, walking upright to free up our hands, shedding our fur allowing us to make these chattering noises to communicate, our innate sense of empathy and community all came together to make our civilization possible.
The counter-argument is the law of infinite probability. Over infinite space and/or time, anything that can happen, however unlikely, will. Perhaps humans won the "cosmic lottery" which is why we're here to think about it at all. This is why "what-are-the-odds?" isn't hard evidence, at least not for our small sample size of 1.
The "sentient puddle" that Kirbmarc mentioned is also a potent analogy. To counter it, I'd need to find a design feature that is beneficial and yet too indirect to be explained by natural selection alone. I've used my "homosexuality proves God" to be a counter-argument (homosexuality in both humans and animals creates stable families that can't have their own children that can adopt orphaned children). Even here though, atheists can still argue this is merely a fortunate by-product.
On the plus side, it's a deist argument that Kirk Cameroon isn't likely to hijack any time soon.
We really need a larger sample so that we have a basis of comparison. If the deism model for the universe is true, I would expect to find plentiful life and intelligent life at that. If it is just us, it begins to look more like we were just fortunate. If many other worlds are also beating the odds, that might tell us something different.
(November 21, 2012 at 9:01 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Whenever I hear Deist arguments, I always think of the wise words of Carl Sagan: "Why not save yourself a step...".
Well deism isn't an answer, which seemed to be his point in that episode of Cosmos. It's not an end to my search but rather encapsulates my sense of wonder that drives my search. I'd still like to know more details about how it all happened and how we might use that knowledge.
Genkaus Wrote:If this is what you mean by "supernatural" or "god" or "creator", then even I would be classified as a Deist or a Theist.
I don't think God, by which I mean this mysterious mind that I'm thinking is behind it all, is supernatural.
My reasoning is this: anything that exists can be potentially studied. Anything that can be studied can be potentially understood. Anything that can be potentially understood can be explained. Anything that can be explained is natural. Thus if we had infinite knowledge, I think we'd be able to understand the nature, properties and limitations of God.
But of course I could be wrong and these sentiments might be just that. Hence my "agnostic" side.
...oh, and I also get to identify with great thinkers of the Enlightenment who had fantastic hair.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
