philosophy of science: meaning and functions (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, September 23, 2018, 18:40 (2252 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

Sorry for all the deletions... it's the 5500 character count limit..

DHW: Not he didn’t do it my way, but I don’t accept the logic of a God who wants to prove himself to humans by creating weird and wonderful creatures, most of which we never knew, but at the same time hides himself. You and David rightly emphasize logic in your case for design, but the moment you speculate about his purposes, logic goes out of the window. And I do not regard David's argument that God must think differently from us as a satisfactory basis for belief.

Ok, first, when have I said he wanted/needed to prove himself to you? From a biblical perspective, there are millions of non-material creatures that KNOW he exists. He doesn't need to PROVE he exists. Instead, he has been slandered and needs to vindicate his name which has been tarnished by the slander. The logic is, the creatures were created, performed a purpose, and then were allowed to perish in their own due time. Why does our opinion of what is weird matter in the slightest? Further, who are we to judge his methods? Understand them, certainly, but judge them? I'm reminded of the book of Job 38, which is essentially God verbally spanking Job for the same type of arguments (made in the beginning of ch 37)

TONY: As if somehow he should pop out and give us all the answers to all the questions. Hence my constant reference to you wanting "to have tea with God" in order for you to even acknowledge him. As if that is somehow his responsibility. Isn't the struggle how WE grow, as people?

DHW: I have already given my reasons for neither believing nor disbelieving in him. But when you claim that he “wants credit” for his work, I don’t see why I shouldn’t speculate on possible reasons why he remains hidden. In the passage above, I describe the spectacle, and I suggest this is what he wanted. Now please tell me, irrespective of your own subjective views on your God’s nature, why what I have written is illogical.

Because a beeline to humanity would have produced a world unfit to support our living.

TONY: Now, my belief is that he left us good reference materials, and for the people that can't or won't read it, a wonderful library of his creations to ask questions about and learn. And the parts of his good life guides we ignore, life tends to kick us in the gonads until we get the point.

DHW: If he exists, he’s certainly left us loads of questions and things to learn about. Many religions and philosophies offer us good life guides, although unfortunately some can also be used for gonad-kicking, as demonstrated by the many horrific acts performed in the name of your God.

If I break U.S. law, and claim to be doing it in the name of the government, is the fault the government's, or mine? I'm pretty sure those horrific acts you mentioned all violate the statutes laid out in Exodus 20. Stop blaming the lawmaker for the acts of the criminal.

DHW:I was made to study the Old Testament in my Jewish youth, and was appalled by some of God’s actions. Later I read the New Testament for myself, and preferred its emphasis on love rather than fear. I was never a scientist (David has been by far the best of my science teachers!), have merely dabbled in philosophy, and after a period of religious turmoil, settled into calm agnosticism around my mid twenties. However, the fascination remained and remains. Dawkins’ unbalanced views in The God Delusion were what sparked the idea for my agnostic “guide” and for this website, which has enabled me to broaden my knowledge through good folk like David and yourself, but not to make the irrational leap of faith you would both like to see.

David is indeed a wonderful science teacher, and I am humbled that you learn from me as well. Yet, what I largely see are the arguments that I have presented in some form or fashion. "He didn't do it my way" or "Why doesn't he just answer the questions directly?" Some variation on that theme. Take some time one day when you have it, to read the book of Job. The man lost everything, and then Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar come along, making mostly the same claims you do, or those of the people that blame God for their suffering. But it is Elihu that puts things in perspective, and Jehovah that ask the questions that matter, with no small amount of snark.

TONY: What I am asking is, what part of nature do you see that has no serious purpose?

DHW: I’m sure every organism has the serious purpose of its own survival, just as I am equally sure that life has gone on despite the disappearance of 90%+ of them. I have no doubt that wind, rain and sun etc. are essential to life as we know it. But I really don’t know what this has to do with your God’s purpose for creating the universe and life.

Because we live in a purpose driven universe. All the mechanisms and organisms that exist exist for a purpose. They do something meaningful! Does such purpose driven creation strike you as the product of boredom, indifference, or just for amusement? Would a designer that is indifferent to suffering build in so many mechanisms for healing, pleasure, joy, love, pride, etc.? If he is indifferent to suffering, why bother allowing us pleasure at all?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.