Another way of Looking at Design (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Monday, November 16, 2009, 12:54 (5485 days ago) @ xeno6696

Matt: Do you understand why I lean towards materialism because of our operational limitations?
The "operational limitations" are very clear to me, and the attractions of materialism are obvious, not just because it appears to offer a degree of testability, but also because it's by far the most straightforward of all the ...isms. However, while respecting your priorities, I don't share them, and I think they will continue to cause misunderstandings.-For instance, you say: "When we're looking for truths about existence, we need to be 'certain' about a great many things. In terms of music, it is pitch, timbre, and rhythm..." When my heart misses a beat during an opera or symphony, I'm not thinking about pitch, timbre or rhythm, and nor, I dare say, are you! You go on: "All things that man can properly study have a material component." I suspect you mean that it's only material things that can be "properly" studied, and by "properly" you mean scientifically. If so, I agree. However, your various statements seem to imply that existential experience needs to be studied if it is to be taken seriously. If so, I disagree. The impact of music and art, the nature of love ... these can be studied in a sense, but you can never come up with objective conclusions, and you will never be able to explain their essence. They're experiences that go way beyond any material context, but that doesn't dilute their reality. Whether they represent "truths about existence" is another matter. I can only say maybe. But if they do, they aren't testable "studiable" truths, and indeed one of the truths they might tell is that there's a world beyond the material, testable one!-When it comes to life and consciousness, again I agree with you. We can study material aspects ... the structure of DNA, the physical workings of the brain ... but as you say, these won't solve the mystery of origins, and with God we don't even have a material component to examine, so it's all a "holy grail" for me too. However, if we set God in the same context as musical impact or love, study becomes irrelevant (to me). Just as I experience my love for my family as being intensely real, no matter how subjective and immaterial, there are people who experience something beyond the known physical world. It's perfectly understandable that this won't count for you. All such "truths" are subjective, and we can't escape our subjectivity, but I don't see objectivity and "studiability" as the sole criteria for truth. How rash is it to jump onto a "spiritual bandwagon"? Much rasher for you than for me, but still rash for me too. As George never tires of pointing out, I remain obstinately seated on my fence. -You ask: "How much of the search for God isn't simply man's instinctive desire that everything carries meaning?" We don't know, do we? Nor do we know if "the mystery exists only because WE exist." I'm always amazed by the number of people ... believers and atheists ... who are confident enough to think they do know, one way or the other. But so long as you keep asking the questions, as opposed to believing you know the answers, you're a long way away from nihilism.-Congratulations on being accepted into Grad School. As a confirmed technophobe, I can only admire anyone who is able to launch himself into such projects. I hope you'll be happy doing this work, and I have no doubt (away with agnosticism!) that you'll make a success of it.