The Narnia Code

[dan-cat]

Okay, so I've worn you down from it being inherent in all humans to 'people in general'

It's pretty well much the same thing for my purposes. I accept that there are always going to be exceptions, those who don't have the capacity to question anything at all.

I'd agree that most people would question why, but mainly in a practical sense. They would want to know what had caused it to happen differently and how they could get it to conform back to expectations.

Good so you agree with my point then? The need to question why is there for most people. It just needs a stimulus.

If they started applying the idea that a being had caused it happen in a different way, how could they ever place any faith in gravity again? What would prevent this being from doing the same again, whenever the mood took them? Once the idea of such a being is accepted, surely none of the natural laws can be relied upon?

Religion has been and still is to a lesser degree so popular because the participants have questioned what it would be like WITHOUT such order. They have asked WHY is everything so ordered and found that religion is an appropriate answer. The occasional appearance of 'disorder' only serves to re-enforce this position. Good over evil etc etc. 'evil' being the stimulus.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

Religion has been and still is to a lesser degree so popular because the participants have questioned what it would be like WITHOUT such order. They have asked WHY is everything so ordered and found that religion is an appropriate answer. The occasional appearance of 'disorder' only serves to re-enforce this position. Good over evil etc etc. 'evil' being the stimulus.

Can I interrupt here and ask what, if anything, do you think could ever erode such a position (one that is reinforced by both supporting and contrary data)?

 

[Alc]

Religion has been and still is to a lesser degree so popular because the participants have questioned what it would be like WITHOUT such order. They have asked WHY is everything so ordered and found that religion is an appropriate answer. The occasional appearance of 'disorder' only serves to re-enforce this position. Good over evil etc etc. 'evil' being the stimulus.

So what do you think accounts for the huge - and it is truly huge - drop in the popularity of religion, over the centuries? As various posters here delight in pointing out, science can't explain everything, so why hasn't everyone turned to religion?

 

[Alc]

I only just noticed this bit

It's pretty well much the same thing for my purposes. I accept that there are always going to be exceptions, those who don't have the capacity to question anything at all.

So are you saying that because I don't believe there is a 'why' to the way physical laws behave, I don't the capacity to question anything at all? That's a bit of cheap dig, isn't it?

 

[dan-cat]

I only just noticed this bit

So are you saying that because I don't believe there is a 'why' to the way physical laws behave, I don't the capacity to question anything at all? That's a bit of cheap dig, isn't it?

No it isn't a cheap dig at all. What's with people interpretating what I say personally on this thread


I was saying that my understanding of inherent and 'most people' is tantamount to the same thing for the purposes of my argument. Nothing to do with your capacities at all.

 

[dan-cat]

So what do you think accounts for the huge - and it is truly huge - drop in the popularity of religion, over the centuries? As various posters here delight in pointing out, science can't explain everything, so why hasn't everyone turned to religion?

Easy. Their questioning has been appeased. In this country church attendance shot up during the first stages of the economic crisis. As soon as disorder comes into play, the questioning kicks back in again.

Life is easier nowadays. When it gets tough watch the demand for answers rise.

 

[Alc]

No it isn't a cheap dig at all. What's with people interpretating what I say personally on this thread


I was saying that my understanding of inherent and 'most people' is tantamount to the same thing for the purposes of my argument. Nothing to do with your capacities at all.

Okay, so no offence taken , but why do I have no capacity to question anything, just because I don't think there is one underlying force/being keeping everything ticking over? Can't I question the practicalities of something without needing to believe there is also a philosophical angle?

 

[Alc]

Easy. Their questioning has been appeased. In this country church attendance shot up during the first stages of the economic crisis. As soon as disorder comes into play, the questioning kicks back in again.

Life is easier nowadays. When it gets tough watch the demand for answers rise.

But the big questions still exist. Why does the universe function? Why do bad things happen to good people. Why do disasters happen. Yes, we've answered a lot of the practical questions about the processes involved, but we're no closer to a philosophical explanation for those than we ever were. Why aren't all churches crammed to the rafters with the curious?

 

[dan-cat]

Can I interrupt here and ask what, if anything, do you think could ever erode such a position (one that is reinforced by both supporting and contrary data)?

That's a pretty difficult question. Individuals can interpret 'data' in anyway they like. It's the interpretation that provides this re-enforcement.

So I guess change their interpretation or give them empirical evidence that satisfies them to the contrary. Considering this is theists we're talking about here, providing them with the empirical evidence is going to be fairly difficult.

 

[dan-cat]

Okay, so no offence taken , but why do I have no capacity to question anything, just because I don't think there is one underlying force/being keeping everything ticking over? Can't I question the practicalities of something without needing to believe there is also a philosophical angle?

I'm not commenting on your capacity at all. I'm saying that the people who don't question why a ball doesn't drop when it should are pretty devoid of any questioning at all. I'm assuming you would question it, that most people would.

The ones who don't, I am arguing, shouldn't invalidate my interpretaion of 'inherent'. That is all.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

That's a pretty difficult question. Individuals can interpret 'data' in anyway they like. It's the interpretation that provides this re-enforcement.

So I guess change their interpretation or give them empirical evidence that satisfies them to the contrary. Considering this is theists we're talking about here, providing them with the empirical evidence is going to be fairly difficult.

Yes. Problem is that a position which is reinforced by anything that looks like it supports the position, but is also reinforced by anything that looks like it contradicts the position, can't ever be demonstrated to be wrong, even if it really is wrong.

 

[dan-cat]

But the big questions still exist. Why does the universe function? Why do bad things happen to good people. Why do disasters happen. Yes, we've answered a lot of the practical questions about the processes involved, but we're no closer to a philosophical explanation for those than we ever were. Why aren't all churches crammed to the rafters with the curious?

Because of what I have said, from the outset. The questioning only kicks in when disorder comes into play. People are comfortable nowadays. If McDonalds is still open then they won't bother. But if times are hard then the questioning kicks in.

That is the reason I'm giving for the decline in questioning and the decline in religion. If you're reasonably comfortable you don't require answers. If you're not then you do. It's why children keep asking why all the time, well mine does. They are not sure of what is going on. They ask why. Once they get comfortable it slows down. If they get uncomfortable again the tendency to ask why will reappear.

 

[Alc]

I'm not commenting on your capacity at all. I'm saying that the people who don't question why a ball doesn't drop when it should are pretty devoid of any questioning at all. I'm assuming you would question it, that most people would.

The ones who don't, I am arguing, shouldn't invalidate my interpretaion of 'inherent'. That is all.

It was a twofold 'invalidation' (for want of a better word), though.
Your original(?) post mentioned the inherent need to question the being/force behind what is ordering the universe. Yes, I would question it if gravity didn't work as expected, but as long as it does, I won't look for an underlying reason for it. I'm satisfied that certain 'laws' apply and don't believe that it goes anything further than that.

 

[dan-cat]

Yes. Problem is that a position which is reinforced by anything that looks like it supports the position, but is also reinforced by anything that looks like it contradicts the position, can't ever be demonstrated to be wrong, even if it really is wrong.

Yes but I think it probably has something to do with the brain sorting disorder into order for its own benefit. A survival technique of some kind.

 

[dan-cat]

It was a twofold 'invalidation' (for want of a better word), though.
Your original(?) post mentioned the inherent need to question the being/force behind what is ordering the universe. Yes, I would question it if gravity didn't work as expected, but as long as it does, I won't look for an underlying reason for it. I'm satisfied that certain 'laws' apply and don't believe that it goes anything further than that.

Yes but people do question why when things don't work as expected. I'm simply saying that this expectation is different for different people. For you perhaps it would take a ball to float upwards, for people in the past, perhaps a devastating crop failure.

All it takes to trigger the need to know why is for the individuals expectation to be adequately challenged. It is however always there.

 

[Alc]

Yes but people do question why when things don't work as expected. I'm simply saying that this expectation is different for different people. For you perhaps it would take a ball to float upwards, for people in the past, perhaps a devastating crop failure.

All it takes to trigger the need to know why is for the individuals expectation to be adequately challenged. It is however always there.

Then I look forward to the challenge.
If the ball turned into a swan and recited the pledge of allegiance, i'd want to know how but I still wouldn't think it happened for a reason. Perhaps I've just lost my childlike sense of wonder

 

[Mike375]

I would have thought "why does something happen" was an integral part of science or any fact collecting mission.

At a simple level know the "why" can prevent something from happening or allow something that happens to repeated at will.

Doctors know "how" are heart attack happens. But the big question is the "why" the conditions occurred that pre dispose the person to having a heart attack. A company knows the "how" of someone making a purchase but the markeing department wants to know "why"

 

[dan-cat]

Then I look forward to the challenge.
If the ball turned into a swan and recited the pledge of allegiance, i'd want to know how but I still wouldn't think it happened for a reason. Perhaps I've just lost my childlike sense of wonder

Let me tell you a story.

When I was at high school somebody who I was convinced was a friend had his back turned to me writing something down. I grabbed him in a headlock only to my surprise that it turned out to be a complete stranger. He had the exact same hair and build.

It was hilarious but I still use it to remind myself that no matter how convinced you are of something, you might still be wrong. 99 times out of 100 your perception and common sense gives you the right answer but it's still good fun to occasionally question the obvious from time to time.

 

[Alc]

I would have thought "why does something happen" was an integral part of science or any fact collecting mission.

At a simple level know the "why" can prevent something from happening or allow something that happens to repeated at will.

Doctors know "how" are heart attack happens. But the big question is the "why" the conditions occurred that pre dispose the person to having a heart attack. A company knows the "how" of someone making a purchase but the markeing department wants to know "why"

In that case, the 'why' is still a practical question.

For the heart attack, you're not asking what caused the attack, diet, exercise, stress, or whatever. You're not really going to ask if some supernatural force made it happen for some unknown reason. Surely, that would fall into the category of witch doctor?

Likewise, the marketing department will want to know why the person bought what they did, in terms of how they made their decision, not in terms of how this all-powerful force made them buy it.

 

[Mike375]

In that case, the 'why' is still a practical question.

But the "spiratural" is an outcome depending on the "why"

Why is the earth just the right distance from the sun plus a multitude of other aspects that need to be satisfied to support life. The odds of that happening from only 9 planets must be incredibly low. There are two possible "whys". First is by accident/coincidence. But the odds are infinitely small. In fact if the subject did not invite religion into the debate, then the odds are so small it would normally be eliminated for the "why" and the search would continue for a better "why" than by accident.

Consider the following. In summer time in Sydney little lizards will appear later in the morning. Then sometime later they will disappear and then come back a bit later. Is this an accident that they always do this, a coincidence? Such an answer for the "why" is totally unacceptable and further investigation is required. Further investigation of course revealed they are cold blooded and that is the reason "why" they appear later in the morning, disappear and then reappear later.

The key point being that accident/coincidence is totally unacceptable as a reason for "why". However, when we move to all the things that have to be in place for earth to support life then suddenly accident/coincidence becomes acceptable for the reason as to "why"!!!!!!

Let's now assume that an observer is not someone who totally eliminates the possibility of a supernatural. In other words, all "possibles" are on the table. A supernatural is a more logical choice than some trillion zillion billion to 1 chance that it was by accident/coincidence.