Science must not become criterion of good (VIS)

Originally posted by Starrman
Isn't knowing more about the state of existence the essence of knowing more about how existence itself came to be? The former a necessary and sufficient condition of the latter?

No, of course not.

Originally posted by Palynka
No, of course not.

How so?

Originally posted by Starrman
How so?

State and origin are different things and you can't always extract one from the other.

The main problem here is that you can't use reverse engineering, that requires existence, to show how existence came to be. It's turtles all the way down. To have the effect of existence you require a cause, which requires existence. Therefore, there is a limit to our understanding of how existence came to be.

Originally posted by Palynka
It's turtles all the way down.

🙂

Originally posted by Green Paladin
🙂

Not exactly, but that quote is so delicious that I had to put it in. 🙂

Originally posted by Palynka
Not exactly, but that quote is so delicious that I had to put it in. 🙂

Q.I. The show that rhymes with Stephen Fry?

Originally posted by Palynka
State and origin are different things and you can't always extract one from the other.

The main problem here is that you can't use reverse engineering, that requires existence, to show how existence came to be. It's turtles all the way down. To have the effect of existence you require a cause, which requires existence. Therefore, there is a limit to our understanding of how existence came to be.

That's not what I was arguing. To know how existence itself came to be, one must first know what existence entails, at least in some way. If you know more about existence your knowledge about its origin must surely be more available, you've got more signposts as it were. If you have accurate and complete knowledge of existence, you have both the necessary conditions for knowing its origins and sufficient conditions to give rise to knowing them.

I'm not sure what first cause has got to do with this, other than that it may or may not be the origin of existence, I fail to see how it impacts on what I can or cannot know of existence. There may not even be a first cause and any limits to understanding which might lay in our capacity to understand existence are not limits to the potential things that existence is made up of. If we could approach total knowledge of existence it still follows that we would come to know its origins.

Why does the discussion always tend to go in the direction of the subject of how life came to be in the perspective of the controversy between evolution and creationism?

The questions which are far more important I guess, are " who are we, why are we here, where do we come from and where are we going ?".

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Why does the discussion always tend to go in the direction of the subject of how life came to be in the perspective of the controversy between evolution and creationism?

The questions which are far more important I guess, are " who are we, why are we here, where do we come from and where are we going ?".

And you don't see that they are the same questions? Or do you mean 'we' as in the subjective present?

Originally posted by Starrman
And you don't see that they are the same questions? Or do you mean 'we' as in the subjective present?

Are they ? I don't think they are the same questions. Evolution can be traced back to the Big Bang ... and then ? Does this answer the questions of who we humans are, where we came from, where we are going and why we are here ?

Originally posted by Starrman
You believe we know less about existence now than say even 200 years ago? Really?

Science may have created a lot of unanswered questions, but these were previously just hidden under the blanket of ignorance and that may be a single thing, but it's a whole lot further away from clarity or answers. I'd rather have 1000 questions and tools to begin answering them, than 1 question and no tools.

I meant 'sorting the mess out' in a practical sense. In a literal, physical sense science has created a great deal of muck. As for knowledge, the sum total of knowledge has increased (we know more about stuff) but so has the sum total of ignorance (a limit once passed only reveals another). At the same time, the sands of knowledge shift continually...the empirical certainties of the 19th century have in many cases been displaced...

Anyhow--for practical intents and purposes--do you live your life according to science, ethics, or a combination of the two? Can they be collapsed into one? Talk of mystery aside.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Are they ? I don't think they are the same questions. Evolution can be traced back to the Big Bang ... and then ? Does this answer the questions of who we humans are, where we came from, where we are going and why we are here ?

I like the notion that the Big Bang signified the 'reincarnation' of the universe. Turtles in everydirection. Mandelbrot turtles...Riemannian turtles...

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Anyhow--for practical intents and purposes--do you live your life according to science, ethics, or a combination of the two? Can they be collapsed into one? Talk of mystery aside.

For most intents and purposes I move towards being a physicalist, so ethics is a relative psychological function built on incredibly complex matter and energy structures. I don't believe in minds, in the philosophical sense. I suppose that physics and maths should subsume all other disciplines at some indeterminate point in the future. But to mix subjects, or reduce them to fewer categories should only be done based upon knowledge of those subjects, not upon ignorance. What ivanhoe is suggesting, using his ancient definitions, does the latter.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Are they ? I don't think they are the same questions. Evolution can be traced back to the Big Bang ... and then ? Does this answer the questions of who we humans are, where we came from, where we are going and why we are here ?

Ah, I see, you're addicted to meaning. Sorry, but I very much doubt there's any such thing. A description of how we came to be is all I need to know who I am, I make the future part of that description as and when it happens. I feel sad that people have a big hungry hole in themselves about this, more often than not they fill it with god or somesuch, but I've yet to hear a good argument for why we should need meaning.

Originally posted by Starrman
Ah, I see, you're addicted to meaning. Sorry, but I very much doubt there's any such thing. A description of how we came to be is all I need to know who I am, I make the future part of that description as and when it happens. I feel sad that people have a big hungry hole in themselves about this, more often than not they fill it with god or somesuch, but I've yet to hear a good argument for why we should need meaning.

I think we need meaning because we are in fact more than the sum of our parts. That which we are, the apex mentis, if you please, of a human being, literally requires a sense of real purpose and meaning. If no such meaning is discovered, then the human creature simply cannot live up to its fullest potential (as a spiritual being). The result of meaning depravity will always be evidenced by a, not necessarily overt, addiction to the material world in some fashion; whether it is alcohol, ambition, lust, approval, etc. That big hungry hole, as you put it, in our hearts, whether we like it or not, must be filled somehow. We are weak and incomplete in and of ourselves by nature, and there's no escaping that reality. Sad, perhaps, I agree. But through my relationship with Christ I have learned the joy of dependency on God. The heart of Christ's teaching has always been, "what is impossible with men, is possible with God." When we are weak, God is strong. This speaks to me, because in my own personal history I've always been keenly aware of my weakness and incompleteness (being a particularly solitudinous and misanthropic person). God makes me strong. In fact, indomitable. Living by faith rather than mere idealistic conviction gives one the fortitude to weather any kind of suffering imaginable. Given this, even from an utilitarian perspective faith is desirable; with or without the attending reality of God. I think God is profoundly utilitarian, however. The dignity which He imbues the human being with is, to me, an unmitigated success. It fits us. Our weakness is a perfect (and if I say so myself, a penultimately sensible) compliment to His strength.