This is my response to Joe's comment on my previous post:
Again, I don't fully discount the possibility of some unobservable force/entity, something outside the realm of science. But the thing is, if it outside the realm of science, then that means we cannot observe or measure it, so how can we ever know it exists? Our only way to know anything about our universe is by using our senses. And if we CAN use our senses to evaluate evidence supporting the existence or nonexistence of this thing, then it IS in the realm of science. So maybe something outside the realm of science exists, maybe it doesn't, but by definition we can never know one way or the other.
And it goes without saying that it is ridiculous to make the leap from, "I just can't believe that there isn't more to this life than what is in front of us" to "Therefore, Jesus Christ is the son of God who was born of a virgin 2,000 years ago and walked on water and healed lepers before dying for our sins and being resurrected and he has a list of things he does not want you to do but it's OK to do them if you say you're sorry afterwards but the one thing he won't forgive is rejecting or disbelieving his offer of eternal salvation which leaves him no choice but to throw you into a lake of fire for all eternity."
I don't think those particular details, or the details of other faiths like Judaism and Islam, are well substantiated by the sight of a beautiful waterfall. And I'm sure you'd agree with that much.
Also, all the beauty you find in the world is completely subjective, and I actually think it is totally explainable through science. I mean it makes sense intuitively that we would find beauty and comfort in a world that we evolved to survive in. That's why I think many people who live in urban areas get that itch to get out of the city and into somewhere more natural and undisturbed-- because that is the type of environment our predecessors lived in for millions of years. It's a relic of an instinct that evolved long ago. I don't see it as evidence of anything else.
That said, there are still mysteries that science has not (yet?) provided much of an explanation for. And I think the two biggest ones are human consciousness and self-awareness, and the simple question of why anything exists at all. The latter question will probably remain a mystery forever. Did the universe just always exist? No beginning, no end? It's impossible for us to wrap our heads around the concept of something that has always existed without having a beginning (and some religious people use this as justification for believing in God-- apparently unaware that they are contradicting themselves by claiming God has always existed... if God can always exist, why can't the universe? They're just adding another unknown to the equation, explaining nothing).
Again, I don't fully discount the possibility of some unobservable force/entity, something outside the realm of science. But the thing is, if it outside the realm of science, then that means we cannot observe or measure it, so how can we ever know it exists? Our only way to know anything about our universe is by using our senses. And if we CAN use our senses to evaluate evidence supporting the existence or nonexistence of this thing, then it IS in the realm of science. So maybe something outside the realm of science exists, maybe it doesn't, but by definition we can never know one way or the other.
And it goes without saying that it is ridiculous to make the leap from, "I just can't believe that there isn't more to this life than what is in front of us" to "Therefore, Jesus Christ is the son of God who was born of a virgin 2,000 years ago and walked on water and healed lepers before dying for our sins and being resurrected and he has a list of things he does not want you to do but it's OK to do them if you say you're sorry afterwards but the one thing he won't forgive is rejecting or disbelieving his offer of eternal salvation which leaves him no choice but to throw you into a lake of fire for all eternity."
I don't think those particular details, or the details of other faiths like Judaism and Islam, are well substantiated by the sight of a beautiful waterfall. And I'm sure you'd agree with that much.
Also, all the beauty you find in the world is completely subjective, and I actually think it is totally explainable through science. I mean it makes sense intuitively that we would find beauty and comfort in a world that we evolved to survive in. That's why I think many people who live in urban areas get that itch to get out of the city and into somewhere more natural and undisturbed-- because that is the type of environment our predecessors lived in for millions of years. It's a relic of an instinct that evolved long ago. I don't see it as evidence of anything else.
That said, there are still mysteries that science has not (yet?) provided much of an explanation for. And I think the two biggest ones are human consciousness and self-awareness, and the simple question of why anything exists at all. The latter question will probably remain a mystery forever. Did the universe just always exist? No beginning, no end? It's impossible for us to wrap our heads around the concept of something that has always existed without having a beginning (and some religious people use this as justification for believing in God-- apparently unaware that they are contradicting themselves by claiming God has always existed... if God can always exist, why can't the universe? They're just adding another unknown to the equation, explaining nothing).
Posts
3 comments:
I would supplement Ron's argument by asking, what is beauty? Why IS a waterfall more "beautiful" than a tractor hauling a mound of dirty? We as humans taught by experience and reactions of the people in our culture are trained to consider a certain formula of images as "beautiful" and a contrasting formula as "ugly" or "mundane." Everything we know is determined by our society and our culture. However we feel qualified to consider something of monumental, irrational beauty because we don't realize the massive forces of subjectivity that have permanently shaped our every opinion.
You're right, there are also cultural factors at play. But that brings up the question of how standards of beauty become established in a particular culture to begin with... and why they should differ across cultures. I think it is a combination of evolutionary causes and pure chance. Sometimes the evolutionary basis is fairly obvious... it's safe to say that most if not all societies place a premium on large healthy breasts. Is a man's taste for big tits subjective? Absolutely, but this still clearly has an evolutionary basis as large healthy breasts are a sign of fertility. And like I mentioned in my post, people all over the world find beauty in nature, in the outdoors... this is of course where our ancestors struggled to survive for millions of years. They didn't live and hunt in sprawling garbage dumps, an environment modern man would prefer not to be in.
It's the same deal with the foods we enjoy. Taste in food is subjective. And this can be conditioned culturally too, but evolutionary pressures are the ultimate determinant. It seems paradoxical today that we should enjoy fatty foods so much when they are a main cause of heart disease. But again, at the time that our food tastes evolved, fatty foods were not in abundance and easily accessible the way they are today... the problem was that people weren't getting ENOUGH fat, so it made sense to evolve a craving for it. I wonder why more people don't use the deliciousness of a rib-eye as an argument for "something greater."
Post a Comment