Reason as controlling force of the universe

[nutronjon]

I think you've got the cat by the tail here, Nutronjon.

 

The "Reason" you talk of, as used by the old Greek philosophers you bandy around, is a metaphor for figuring out how stuff works. By reason, you can deduce certain things. Mathematics is a good example of pure reasoning.

Mathematics does not rule the universe. Mathematics, however, is a process of describing the universe.

 

As is Science.

 

Science is, like the "Reason" philosphers have in mind, a process to deduce the laws operating in the universe.

 

Science does not rule the universe, either.

 

Science merely describes it.

 

"Reason", or "Reasoning", is not a "force" at all.

 

The way the philosophers intended the saying, was merely as metaphor.

 

And you're not seeing that.

 

And that's about it.

 

I have no problem with what you said, and thought you were supporting my argument, until the last lines. I am really confused by what appears to be a flip from supporting my arguement, to an opposing it?:confused:

 

What is important is that we agree things happen for a reason, and we can figure out the reason with science, and then govern ourselves with reason. Hum, perhaps this discussion should move to Humanities and turn to the issue of authority?

 

I think the problem people are having with my arguement, is that I have said it makes sense to accept a God exist, and that we just don't know much about God, however, we can study nature and infer something about God. Ayer argued Talk of God is either about everything or nothing, and thus "God" is not a genuine name. God exist as an abstract concept, not a tangible reality. I have said there are good reasons for accepting the existance of God, at least as an abstract concept. One is bringing an end to superstition, and another is protecting and spreading democracy- rule by reason.

 

It would have been fun to explore the order of universe with the idea that this is a way to study God, but it appears the prejudice runs too strong for such a discussion. I think this is a prejudice against abstract thinking in general, but whatever- if it can't be done here, it can't be done here.

[freeztar]

What is important is that we agree things happen for a reason, and we can figure out the reason with science, and then govern ourselves with reason.

 

What you are calling reason is often referred to as causality in science.

 

Hum, perhaps this discussion should move to Humanities and turn to the issue of authority?

As long as the discussion is about god, it should remain here.

I think the problem people are having with my arguement, is that I have said it makes sense to accept a God exist, and that we just don't know much about God, however, we can study nature and infer something about God.

Why do I feel like I'm on a carousal? Yes, you're exactly correct that this is the problem people are having. My problem is that you still have not answered my question: What can we infer about god through studying nature? If you can not answer this, then you can not expect your argument to be taken seriously. Does this make sense?

 

God exist as an abstract concept, not a tangible reality. I have said there are good reasons for accepting the existance of God, at least as an abstract concept. One is bringing an end to superstition, and another is protecting and spreading democracy- rule by reason.

 

We don't need an abstract concept of god for either of these. In fact, a belief in god seems to slow down progress towards these goals.

 

It would have been fun to explore the order of universe with the idea that this is a way to study God, but it appears the prejudice runs too strong for such a discussion. I think this is a prejudice against abstract thinking in general, but whatever- if it can't be done here, it can't be done here.

Did you read the thread "science is closed-minded" nutron? If not, please take the time to do so. It might help you understand why you have this feeling of prejudice.

 

Anyhow, this site is most certainly not prejudice to abstract thinking. There are countless threads here that deal with concepts that require abstract thinking to understand, such as time-dilation, multiple dimensions, and time travel. I don't think anybody here has a problem understanding the concept of god as an abstract idea. It's just not needed for us to attempt to explain the natural world. It's not a good tool.

[nutronjon]

What you are calling reason is often referred to as causality in science.

 

 

As long as the discussion is about god, it should remain here.

 

Why do I feel like I'm on a carousal? Yes, you're exactly correct that this is the problem people are having. My problem is that you still have not answered my question: What can we infer about god through studying nature? If you can not answer this, then you can not expect your argument to be taken seriously. Does this make sense?

 

 

 

We don't need an abstract concept of god for either of these. In fact, a belief in god seems to slow down progress towards these goals.

 

 

Did you read the thread "science is closed-minded" nutron? If not, please take the time to do so. It might help you understand why you have this feeling of prejudice.

 

Anyhow, this site is most certainly not prejudice to abstract thinking. There are countless threads here that deal with concepts that require abstract thinking to understand, such as time-dilation, multiple dimensions, and time travel. I don't think anybody here has a problem understanding the concept of god as an abstract idea. It's just not needed for us to attempt to explain the natural world. It's not a good tool.

 

Okay you refuse to discuss God with all the religious people of the world, and then you will correct the errors in their thinking how?

 

God is an abtract idea not a tangible reality, unless we hold the matter of God is atomic particles. No matter, no tangible reality. The carousal that I really want to get off, seems to be caused by everyone treated "God" as a tangible reality instead of an abstract thought. And then twisting the meaning of reason/cause to fit a tangible God, instead of getting it is also abstract and not tangible. If we understand God and reason as astracts, then why are we arguing? Science deals with tangible reality and God isn't tangible. Reason isn't tangible. Time and gravity are not tangible.

 

:confused: God is not needed to explain nature!:) We can study nature and infer something about God. What does nature infer about God? That gravity causes things to fall to earth. That physical laws cause things to happen, etc... THEREFORE :) the bible has a few errors and we need to work on these if we want a correct understanding of God, and to prevent things like witch hunts and superstition in general. For example, we now agree we have enough evidence to know the world is round and circles the sun, and is not exactly the center of the universe, except perhaps from our point of view. When we are open to talk about God, we can look at nature and ask questions about religious notions, and in so doing use reason to resolve our differences.

[modest]

God is an abtract idea not a tangible reality, unless we hold the matter of God is atomic particles. No matter, no tangible reality. The carousal that I really want to get off, seems to be caused by everyone treated "God" as a tangible reality instead of an abstract thought. And then twisting the meaning of reason/cause to fit a tangible God, instead of getting it is also abstract and not tangible. If we understand God and reason as astracts, then why are we arguing? Science deals with tangible reality and God isn't tangible. Reason isn't tangible. Time and gravity are not tangible.

 

If god is tangible then it can be tested for. If it is not tangible then it cannot be tested for. You want to test for an intangible god. That is fundamentally inconsistent and wrong. Despite several people pointing this out in different clever ways you are unwilling to address it. You either fail to see the problem everyone is talking about or are ignoring it. In either case, you are correct, this conversation is going nowhere.

 

edit:

For the purposes of this post I'm using "tangible" to mean any variable that can directly affect the outcome of an experiment.

[REASON]

Time and gravity are not tangible.

 

I believe time and gravity are tangible because they are real and can be measured. I have a device for measuring time on my wrist.

 

 

:confused: God is not needed to explain nature!:) We can study nature and infer something about God. What does nature infer about God? That gravity causes things to fall to earth. That physical laws cause things to happen, etc... THEREFORE :) the bible has a few errors and we need to work on these if we want a correct understanding of God, and to prevent things like witch hunts and superstition in general. For example, we now agree we have enough evidence to know the world is round and circles the sun, and is not exactly the center of the universe, except perhaps from our point of view. When we are open to talk about God, we can look at nature and ask questions about religious notions, and in so doing use reason to resolve our differences.

 

If god is merely an abstract concept, then the idea of Nature as God is false because nature is not an abstract concept.

 

What does the force of gravity infer about God, that things fall to Earth? What do things falling to Earth infer about God, that there is a force that we call gravity? It's an endless circle that doesn't actually describe or infer anything about God, it simply describes nature.

[Overdog]

Quote:

...we need to work on these if we want a correct understanding of God, and to prevent things like witch hunts and superstition in general.

 

That's what we are doing, nutron, do you not see belief in god(s) as superstitious? If you don't, tell me what is the difference?

[Boerseun]

You're saying:

 

a) God isn't tangible

:shrug: We can blame certain happenings in, and physical features of, the universe on this intangible entity.

 

Okay. Say we do. Then you have to agree that there will be a measurable difference in the Universe inhabited by you, and the one inhabited by a Hindu staying somewhere in Delhi. We can set up control universes inhabited by a few Shintoists, a few Bhuddists, as many as you wish.

 

The sad truth is that all these universes will exhibited the precise same features, although some fundamental elements of these universes are blamed on a bouquet of different gods, according to your proposal.

 

What can this mean? Does it mean that all gods have the same measurable properties, precisely the same, to the "t"? Which means they're all one and the same?

 

Or is it simply a case of your argument being redundant, and these gods didn't exist to begin with?

 

You cannot use a dogmatism in an argument based on empirical evidence.

 

...and Science is a set of arguments based on tangible evidence.

 

And that's about it, I guess.

[nutronjon]

I believe time and gravity are tangible because they are real and can be measured. I have a device for measuring time on my wrist.

 

 

 

 

If god is merely an abstract concept, then the idea of Nature as God is false because nature is not an abstract concept.

 

What does the force of gravity infer about God, that things fall to Earth? What do things falling to Earth infer about God, that there is a force that we call gravity? It's an endless circle that doesn't actually describe or infer anything about God, it simply describes nature.

 

 

No, your watch does not make time a tangible reality. Watch time is an abstract which we treat as tangible reality. People do the same thing with God and this is what gets us into trouble.

 

I believe the saying given by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence is, the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. What is studied is nature, a tangible reality. Then completely abstractly, we ponder what nature might tell us of God.

 

The force of gravity infers there are universal laws, not supernatural beings that make things happen. What is important here is the concept of universal laws that we can study.

 

What are you expecting as a discription of God? If we think of God as the organizing force of the universe, what is there to say about how the universe is organized? Is this not science? Originally Protestants expected science to explain God. The problem was the bible is not a book of science, and the Protestants thought correcting the corruption of the church was interpreting the bible literally. Their need to interpret the bible literally, and science not being compatible with the bible, tore everything apart. There are good reasons for bringing science and God back together, and this does not compromise science in any way.

[REASON]

No, your watch does not make time a tangible reality. Watch time is an abstract which we treat as tangible reality. People do the same thing with God and this is what gets us into trouble.

 

I am of the philosophy that time is real, as a function of the relationships of matter and energy that exists independent of our perception of it.

 

 

I believe the saying given by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence is, the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. What is studied is nature, a tangible reality. Then completely abstractly, we ponder what nature might tell us of God.

 

So what? I don't defer to Jefferson on this issue and neither does the scientific community. You do.

 

 

The force of gravity infers there are universal laws, not supernatural beings that make things happen. What is important here is the concept of universal laws that we can study.

 

Agreed.

 

 

What are you expecting as a discription of God?

 

Nothing. It is you that is expecting a description of god, and you expect it can be inferred from nature. How do you expect this can be done? How do you know that what you are inferring is correct in your description of God? While making these inferrences may be important to you personally, it is not important to science. It gives no meaning to scientific research.

 

 

If we think of God as the organizing force of the universe, what is there to say about how the universe is organized?

 

You have yet to establish why it is important for anyone to think of God that way. Why is God necessary, nutron?

 

 

Is this not science?

 

No. Conjecture and speculation are not scientific.

 

 

There are good reasons for bringing science and God back together, and this does not compromise science in any way.

 

Like what? There is no way to include God in science, nutron, other than to arbitrarily designate that which we observe in nature to be God. But to do so doesn't provide any real meaning to either. This has been stated over and over again to no avail.

 

Ok, so let's say we all agree that the force of gravity is part of God. Now what? Let's take it a bit further and say that everything we observe in nature is part of God. Now what? What does establishing a God label for natural occurances do? It doesn't make God more important than a slimy sludge, and nature is still just nature even as you have defined it as God.

 

At some point, you are going to have to recognize that establishing a sense of God is a personal need, not a scientific one.

[C1ay]

reason

• noun
  1. a cause, explanation, or justification.
     
  2. good or obvious cause to do something: we have reason to celebrate.
     
  3. the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements logically.
     
  4. (one’s reason) one’s sanity.
     
  5. what is right, practical, or possible: I’ll answer anything, within reason.

   

  [*]verb

  1. think, understand, and form judgements logically.
     
  2. (reason out) find a solution (to a problem) by considering possible options.
     
  3. (reason with) persuade with rational argument.

 

None of the listed definitions appeal to me as any kind of "force" so I would not label any perceived controlling force of the Universe as "reason". I also do not see any reasonably perceived controlling force in the Universe to label so what is the point in seeking a label for it?

[Overdog]

What are you expecting as a discription of God? If we think of God as the organizing force of the universe, what is there to say about how the universe is organized? Is this not science? Originally Protestants expected science to explain God. The problem was the bible is not a book of science, and the Protestants thought correcting the corruption of the church was interpreting the bible literally. Their need to interpret the bible literally, and science not being compatible with the bible, tore everything apart. There are good reasons for bringing science and God back together, and this does not compromise science in any way.

 

What are you expecting as a discription of Zeus? If we think of Zeus as the organizing force of the universe, what is there to say about how the universe is organized? Is this not science? Originally Protestants expected science to explain Zeus. The problem was the bible is not a book of science, and the Protestants thought correcting the corruption of the church was interpreting the bible literally. Their need to interpret the bible literally, and science not being compatible with the bible, tore everything apart. There are good reasons for bringing science and Zeus back together, and this does not compromise science in any way.

 

EDIT: This is what your argument sounds like to me.

[nutronjon]

What are you expecting as a discription of Zeus? If we think of Zeus as the organizing force of the universe, what is there to say about how the universe is organized? Is this not science? Originally Protestants expected science to explain Zeus. The problem was the bible is not a book of science, and the Protestants thought correcting the corruption of the church was interpreting the bible literally. Their need to interpret the bible literally, and science not being compatible with the bible, tore everything apart. There are good reasons for bringing science and Zeus back together, and this does not compromise science in any way.

 

EDIT: This is what your argument sounds like to me.

 

 

Why do we have to think of God as a humanized being?

[InfiniteNow]

Why do we have to think of God at all?

 

 

Isn't that the most pertinent question at this juncture, the one which has been asked of you repeatedly during your time here?

[C1ay]

Why do we have to think of God as a humanized being?

 

What God?

[Overdog]

Why do we have to think of God as a humanized being?

 

I don't think of god at all. The purpose of substituting Zeus for God in your argument was to hopefully illustrate to you how absurd your argument sounds.

 

I made an assumption that you were an athiest as far as Zeus is concerned.

I am an athiest as well, I just believe in one less god than than you.

 

EDIT:

It appears you have taken the step of getting rid of the notion of God as a humanized being, but it is a half-way step which leaves you in a position that neither side is likely to agree with. If believing in God as a humanized being is supertitious, then believing in God at all is too.

[nutronjon]

Because this thread might show up in google seach, I am making one last post for those who might come here.

 

Democracy as religion begins in Athens. It begins with a belief in many Gods and evolves away from believing in supernatural beings, to believing, reason, is the controlling force of the universe. By this, I do not mean reason as thought, but the cause of the effect. Such as, gravity is the reason things to fall to earth. Chlorophyll is the reason plants turn the sun's rays into energy the plant can use for growth. Humans don't have chlorophyll for photosynthesis, so they must eat plants and animals to get this energy. As you might realize, the way to know God, the reason for all things, is to study nature, not to study mythology. There are things we can learn from mythology that are socially important and personally helpful, but the story tellers were telling stories, and did not understanding the causes of effects through scientific study, that is God made manifest. This means, democracy rest on science and reason, not myth and superstition.

[Boerseun]

This means, democracy rest on science and reason, not myth and superstition.

No, Nutronjon.

 

Democracy is simply a statistical expression of the will of the people.

 

The people whose opinions you've polled in order to constitute a "democracy", are neither reasonable nor scientific. They are simply "The People". A political system run under myth and superstition is called a Theocracy. But Science has absolutely nada to do with Democracy. It's like saying you like the smell of blue. Or the colour green tastes loud.

 

There is no connection between the concepts, I fail to see why you keep on repeating your mantra. Regardless of Google searches and how often you repeat the phrase "Reason is the controlling force of the universe", "Reason" is not a force, neither is it in control of anything. At best, reason simply describes what's happening. It doesn't control anything. Not in the least.