Do you NEED an explanation for "everything"?

[Santa_Claus]

You be new here - I am one of the intellectual giants of Atheism.

FACT.

[Hermit]

In a sense the scientist is doing the same thing a theologian is, taking the facts of experience and trying to find a cohesive explanation of the facts that unifies and makes intelligible the unintelligible.

What? Yes, both theologians and scientists are trying to find a cohesive explanation of the facts that unifies and makes intelligible the unintelligible. In view of how each go about it, though, this commonality is as trite and irrelevant as observing that both Nostradamus and Einstein made predictions. It's the difference in their methods that matters, rather than their common objective.

I cannot pretend to understand the more sophisticated scientific theories, but I know what they are based on, and I know which methodology yields better results in the knowledge department. It's astronomy over astrology, chemistry over alchemy, evolution over bible stories - in short - observation, induction and testability over faith and "revelation" every time. Of course the Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe and Everything is beyond the purview of science and religious attempts to provide one are worth the evidence they are based on: zero. So, for me any need to know an explanation for everything is out of reach, and it is not a factor in deciding between woo and science.

[apophenia]

In a sense the scientist is doing the same thing a theologian is, taking the facts of experience and trying to find a cohesive explanation of the facts that unifies and makes intelligible the unintelligible.

What? Yes, both theologians and scientists are trying to find a cohesive explanation of the facts that unifies and makes intelligible the unintelligible. In view of how each go about it, though, this commonality is as trite and irrelevant as observing that both Nostradamus and Einstein made predictions. It's the difference in their methods that matters, rather than their common objective.

I don't want to get into a pissing match about epistemic justification, I'm already so engaged elsewhere.

The point was the universality of this felt need and how it is expressed not simply in attempts to determine efficient causes but finds expression in many different modalities. The thread is about the need for explanations, not whose explanations are best. Do try to remain on point.

[Hermit]

The thread is about the need for explanations, not whose explanations are best.

In the opening post Santa_Claus said that "a lot of Atheists have the same need as the Woo peddlers" for an explanation for "everything". I basically said that I was not one of those, and explained why. What's your problem with that?

[Santa_Claus]

The point was the universality of this felt need and how it is expressed not simply in attempts to determine efficient causes but finds expression in many different modalities. The thread is about the need for explanations, not whose explanations are best. Do try to remain on point.

Yeah

[amused]

I don't NEED an explanation for "everything" but it would be nice, wuddinit?

If "life" continues repeating the same patterns and the universe just fizzles out in the end, then the whole thing was pointless except for its own being, amusement, and entertainment. Which is okay, but there sure has been a lot of pain along the way so far.

And I do hope that there is more to look forward to than the depressing thought that the struggle to control real estate will go galactic/universal. For example, those last three episodes of Star Wars were set off by a trade war. Really? They could fly around the galaxy and it was still about controlling real estate?

[Coito ergo sum]

Just wondering

Seems to me that a lot of Atheists have the same need as the Woo peddlers - to have an explanation for the great questions to where we come from / why we are here / where we are going etc etc. and for that Science seems to fill the god vacum. and of course the Climate Change Creationism scam meets the Rapture / EOTW need nicely

My Atheism comes from an understanding of human nature, and perhaps I also lack the gullibility gene so I have never needed convincing. I don't know how my toaster works - but I don't worship it becuase I don't know. The Science stuff? all very interesting (even if mostly gibberish to me) but for me it doesn't really matter that there is a scientific explanation for the sun appearing every morning or that I don't actually know how the sun works, let alone the more complicated stuff . I genuinely don't care.

Of course if everyone (throughout history) had been like me we would still be living in caves and there would be less of us due to Anal sex

I would like to know, because I find it interesting, but until there is sufficient evidence/reason I am happy to say that I don't know something.

[Mr P]

The more I've learned (scientifically speaking) the less I fear the remaining uncertainty. It actually gives me a sense of optimism as there's likely to be something amazing waiting to be discovered in there (to paraphrase Carl Sagan).

[charlou]

I don't NEED an explanation for "everything" but it would be nice, wuddinit?

If "life" continues repeating the same patterns and the universe just fizzles out in the end, then the whole thing was pointless except for its own being, amusement, and entertainment. Which is okay, but there sure has been a lot of pain along the way so far.

And I do hope that there is more to look forward to than the depressing thought that the struggle to control real estate will go galactic/universal. For example, those last three episodes of Star Wars were set off by a trade war. Really? They could fly around the galaxy and it was still about controlling real estate?

[Tero]

I don't NEED an explanation for "everything" but it would be nice, wuddinit?

If "life" continues repeating the same patterns and the universe just fizzles out in the end, then the whole thing was pointless except for its own being, amusement, and entertainment. Which is okay, but there sure has been a lot of pain along the way so far.

And I do hope that there is more to look forward to than the depressing thought that the struggle to control real estate will go galactic/universal. For example, those last three episodes of Star Wars were set off by a trade war. Really? They could fly around the galaxy and it was still about controlling real estate?

Don't worry, we will never leave this planet. We are stuck.

[apophenia]

And I do hope that there is more to look forward to than the depressing thought that the struggle to control real estate will go galactic/universal. For example, those last three episodes of Star Wars were set off by a trade war. Really? They could fly around the galaxy and it was still about controlling real estate?

I've proposed what I think is a rather interesting questions along these lines.

Presuming that the speed of light remains an insurmountable barrier, we will likely end up more or less marooned in this solar system, with ever dwindling resources -- the nearest star being far too distant to reach. Let's also assume that some point in the future, medical science conquers death. No more disease or dying; everybody lives forever. So we have limitless life, and limited resources. Some sort of rationing of existing/living would have to take place, to prevent all our resources being consumed overnight. What kind of ethic or morality would you use to determine who could live, and when, and for how long? Would having children become a heinous crime because of its consequences to the resource pool? And would there be criminals who chose to evade their pre-arranged dying time, like in Logan's Run? What would you found morality on in that situation? Oddly enough, we face a similar situation right now. We have the resources necessary to provide everybody alive with a comfortable quality of life, enough food, adequate medical care and so forth, but our current ethics and morality justifies not allocating the necessary resources to achieve that end. The ethics in play are well known, but in the overall picture of matching resources to needs, like in the future story, our contemporary ethical frameworks seem to be a failure, when measured by the suffering which such ethics perpetuate. (IMHO)

(I want to tie this into theodicy -- which oddly enough crops up in Taoism -- but I'll have to think on it first. [It's possible theoditic problems crop up in multiple metaphysico-ontological systems, like paradoxes in logic and mathematics, which seem endemic to any framework of that type.].)

[Santa_Claus]

And I do hope that there is more to look forward to than the depressing thought that the struggle to control real estate will go galactic/universal. For example, those last three episodes of Star Wars were set off by a trade war. Really? They could fly around the galaxy and it was still about controlling real estate?

I've proposed what I think is a rather interesting questions along these lines.

Presuming that the speed of light remains an insurmountable barrier, we will likely end up more or less marooned in this solar system, with ever dwindling resources -- the nearest star being far too distant to reach. Let's also assume that some point in the future, medical science conquers death. No more disease or dying; everybody lives forever. So we have limitless life, and limited resources. Some sort of rationing of existing/living would have to take place, to prevent all our resources being consumed overnight. What kind of ethic or morality would you use to determine who could live, and when, and for how long? Would having children become a heinous crime because of its consequences to the resource pool? And would there be criminals who chose to evade their pre-arranged dying time, like in Logan's Run? What would you found morality on in that situation? Oddly enough, we face a similar situation right now. We have the resources necessary to provide everybody alive with a comfortable quality of life, enough food, adequate medical care and so forth, but our current ethics and morality justifies not allocating the necessary resources to achieve that end. The ethics in play are well known, but in the overall picture of matching resources to needs, like in the future story, our contemporary ethical frameworks seem to be a failure, when measured by the suffering which such ethics perpetuate. (IMHO)

(I want to tie this into theodicy -- which oddly enough crops up in Taoism -- but I'll have to think on it first. [It's possible theoditic problems crop up in multiple metaphysico-ontological systems, like paradoxes in logic and mathematics, which seem endemic to any framework of that type.].)

I think the above would make a better thread on it's own (some folks don't read all the Santa threads ).

Me would ration things by firing people into the sun. Jews mostly. and black people. and gingers. more Jews. and anyone called Mohammed.

Once I have built my Pyramid on the Moon I will have a spare spaceship available

[GrahamH]

Presuming that the speed of light remains an insurmountable barrier, we will likely end up more or less marooned in this solar system, with ever dwindling resources -- the nearest star being far too distant to reach.

We might be able to reach the Alpha Centauri system in under 100 years using some form of fusion-powered propulsion. ref

[Mysturji]

Don't worry, we will never leave this planet. We are stuck.

What a depressing thought.

[Santa_Claus]

We might be able to reach the Alpha Centauri system in under 100 years using some form of fusion-powered propulsion. ref

Or use Windmills and hugging trees combined with the power of crystals and wishful thinking....... Odd to think that the UK will lead the universe in space travel within the next 5 years.