Jump to content

Feynman and gaps


ydoaPs
 Share

Recommended Posts

God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time — life and death — stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand.

 

Are all gods gods of the gaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are all gods gods of the gaps?

 

Some are of zealous speculation, claimed to be validated even by the "gap filler" thought as science. There's always people on the internet who use disgustingly projected reason to invent a new sort of "God" or extreme significant consciousness. There's also those super-theories, believed to solve all problems of science using a loosely connected basis of religious excitement and faulted math.

 

Most often, I see this turned into

. Common people eventually get very involved looking for (and carelessly accepting) any kind of convincing revelation, buried secrets, sacred mysteries or conspiracy they can find (to tease their mind). They're encouraged to stomp in front of physicists faces, probably while not really having the slightest understanding of the things they've heard around physics, "watered down" on some mind-teasing TV special. A lot of people unknowingly stretch the definition energy (in regards to physics), eventually until it leaks into the usual nonsensical spiritual realm.

 

I think I know me cheese, so if anyone thinks this is cynical, just speak up please. Thank you.

Edited by Ben Bowen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most often, I see this turned into

.

 

Interesting links. The second one is a good pseudo-scientific version of idealism; that the world is all in our heads.

I think that the world is real and that "God" is a concept in our heads, and yes, religious folks do cop to that to explain what they (we) don't yet understand. Wow, I agree with Feynman on this one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that god (or gods) was (were) invented to explain mysteries. The purpose of god(s) is to legitimate the dominating power of some people on others. The "explanation of mysteries" part is the necessary gap IMHO, which as science progresses is continuously displaced in order to keep the distance between the presumed god and humans.

Not to mention that beliefs like to create mysteries, like miracles for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that god (or gods) was (were) invented to explain mysteries. The purpose of god(s) is to legitimate the dominating power of some people on others. The "explanation of mysteries" part is the necessary gap IMHO, which as science progresses is continuously displaced in order to keep the distance between the presumed god and humans.

Not to mention that beliefs like to create mysteries, like miracles for example.

I say "both" to your first two statements. Who creates lightening? (assuming a divine agent, of course)... 'Lets call him Thor'... or whatever. Who created the world/universe?... lets call "him" god, by different names in different cultures. Then we get into all the "holy wars" (the ultimate oxymoron) over whose god is the best or 'true' god.

 

Yes to the last statement. Usually rational people would not believe that a 'stinking' (decomposing) corpse could be brought back to life again. But "good Christians" conspire to believe the biblical story of Lazarus's resurrection by the divine power of his old friend, Jesus. (I think it's about peer pressure from the the church through the congregations.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some are of zealous speculation, claimed to be validated even by the "gap filler" thought as science. There's always people on the internet who use disgustingly projected reason to invent a new sort of "God" or extreme significant consciousness. There's also those super-theories, believed to solve all problems of science using a loosely connected basis of religious excitement and faulted math.

 

Most often, I see this turned into

. Common people eventually get very involved looking for (and carelessly accepting) any kind of convincing revelation, buried secrets, sacred mysteries or conspiracy they can find (to tease their mind). They're encouraged to stomp in front of physicists faces, probably while not really having the slightest understanding of the things they've heard around physics, "watered down" on some mind-teasing TV special. A lot of people unknowingly stretch the definition energy (in regards to physics), eventually until it leaks into the usual nonsensical spiritual realm.

 

I think I know me cheese, so if anyone thinks this is cynical, just speak up please. Thank you.

You're clearly right about this. People will believe almost anything. But I'm tempted to ask 'so what'? We can't dismiss God on the basis that some people have a daft idea of Him. I also agree that books proposing a link between, say , 'chi' and what physicists call energy tend to be woolly and vague and not much use to man not beast. But this would not in itself show that there is no connection, or nothing to be gained by exploring the relationship. There's much handwaiving on both sides of this argument, and on the whole people seem to make up their minds long before they look into the issues.

Edited by PeterJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of a personal God existing independent of mind and matter stands on its own. The idea of a God rejects the two extreme views of subjective idealism( the view that only mind exists) as well as naturalism( the view that only the things described by physics exists) and it also rejects objective idealism( a kind of dualism) and brings God has the fundamental reality. Absolute idealism cannot be realised without first realising the reality of God.

 

Neither Subjective idealism nor naturalism and objective idealsim have been proved beyond doubt and therefore the idea of God existing independent of mind and matter cannot be ruled out as a possibility. Ofcourse naturalism doesn't find God necessary now but when it has reached a state where it has to answer those big philosophical questions that's where its real test relies.

 

Therefore I doesn't want to take any side nor I feel it is right to take a deafult position when anything could be possible.

 

I am with Feyerabend. Science stands on its own and even all other schools of philosophical thought stands on its own.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.