God and the Theory of Everything

[_Gadianton]

AS,

I believe the fact of the matter is that "science" in a very broad sense, not TOE, can, in principle, answer questions about our "purpose" in a very dumbed-down sense that religion often answers such questions. I think you are making the implications of what I'm saying stronger than they are.

A future exo-archeology can answer the question of "why" humans were created by alien scientists a billion years ago. This kind of "purpose", lame as it might be, parallels the kinds of "purpose" often offered as revealed knowledge. What is explained is not so different.

You may not like them, but religion generally is in the business of giving answers in terms of final causes/teleology.

give me two examples, if you would.

thus I don't know why you are comparing final causes with intermediate answers.

I'm not.

teleology, anyway, does not exhaust the set of "why" questions one can ask (per Moksha's comment about religion giving us "why"), it is not exclusive to religion, it exists independent of religion in philosophy, and borrowed from philosophy by religion.

[_Gadianton]

I am not aware that you know of my tradition's teachings. Are you truly familiar with the Sophian Tradition?

Sharyl, I have no doubt that you know much more about that Sophian Tradition than I do, and if I have questions about it, I will defer to your authority on the matter. I do know that all the theories about cosmology I have learned about from watching science documentaries were taught by the Sophian Tradition long ago; that's a pretty big chunk of teachings right there. ;)

[_moksha]

Hi Moksha,

Does religion necessarily answer "Why" questions that science either cannot answer or does a poor job answering?

Science does a poor job of answering our deep yearning for there to be existence beyond death.

Not sure that science suggests a purpose for our life beyond survival and reproduction.

[_ludwigm]

Not sure that science suggests a purpose for our life beyond survival and reproduction.

Reproduction was done.
One child and three grandchildren on my branch, four children and 15 (near 16) grandchildren on my wife's.

At this moment, I am focusing to survival.

[_Gadianton]

Science does a poor job of answering our deep yearning for there to be existence beyond death.

Thanks for the response, Moksha. It is true that science does an absolutely terrible, F-grade job at answering a deep yearning for life after death. Some further points of discussion could be:

-is yearning for immortality technically the same as asking "why?" about something?
-do religious answers to questions always satisfy yearning?
-in my world religion class at the Y, the textbook for the course introduced Nirvana by comparing it to the LDS conception of outer darkness (the comparison wasn't intended as a cheap shot). Buddhists do not have the same yearning for an afterlife that we do, quite the opposite when life is pain. Religion, if it does have answers, won't satisfy everyone.

Not sure that science suggests a purpose for our life beyond survival and reproduction.

As my friend Aristotle Smith may point out, if science suggests the purpose of life is survival and reproduction, it's walking the fine line of smuggling in teleology, and here I would have to agree.

I do not believe science suggests a purpose for our life. In certain outlandish hypothetical scenarios that rival the outlandish hypothetical scenarios various religions offer, I believe that empirical investigations can uncover "purpose" to our life, answers to "why" questions religious people ask that are on the same level of the answers that religious people give us. These aren't "good" answers, and the point of this exercise is to show that the religious answers aren't good either.

[_Aristotle Smith]

I believe the fact of the matter is that "science" in a very broad sense, not TOE, can, in principle, answer questions about our "purpose" in a very dumbed-down sense that religion often answers such questions. I think you are making the implications of what I'm saying stronger than they are.

OK.

give me two examples, if you would.

A very Mormon one would be the LDS seminary favorite, Moses: 1:39, which gives the Mormon teleology for mankind.

A second example would be the entire first chapter of Genesis. It answers a question like, "Why is the world the way it is?" The answer Genesis 1 gives is basically because the world needs to function in a way as to give humans a place to live out their lives as creations in the image of God. The fundamentalist will see it as an account of the material and efficient causes of creation, i.e. a scientific/historical account of how the world came to be. I think this is an anachronistic reading of the account because ancient Hebrews simply didn't think in these terms, and I would argue in a real sense they couldn't. So what can the modern reader who doesn't think the world was literally created in six 24 hours periods get out of this account? A telos of the world itself.

Or move one chapter forward which answers the question, "Why are there men and women?" A scientific account argues in terms of genes and the evolutionary fitness of sexual reproduction. But it doesn't venture into a final cause, or if it does, it does so without warrant. Genesis 2 says there are men and women so that neither is alone, but that they are companions, that's the telos of two sexes. The first account is most helpful if you are trying to understand the mechanics and biology of reproduction. The latter is more helpful in trying to navigate the social realities of actually living with someone.

[_moksha]

I do not believe science suggests a purpose for our life.

Many religions provide an answer to why there is life.

Does science provide any answers as to why we should be good to one another?

[_Gadianton]

Genesis 2 says there are men and women so that neither is alone, but that they are companions, that's the telos of two sexes...The first account is most helpful if you are trying to understand the mechanics and biology of reproduction.

I think this is a very good example that clearly makes your points.

- If the account means, "God created Adam and saw that it was good, but Adam was alone, God reasoned loneliness is bad, and so he drew up plans for a helpmeet, a woman in this case, and his design achieved his goal to eliminate loneliness for Adam," then science might answer "why". In my alien scenario, scientific investigations can uncover the laboratory of the alien designers and discover that men and women were designed for the purpose of eliminating loneliness. In regard to what science can tell us, perhaps the problem is that as I understand Aristotle, psychological goals don't count toward a final cause. So any religious answers to "why" that rely on God's psychology aren't "final" in the way Aristotle intended by "final" and neither are the answers provided by exo-archeology in my alien scenario. This is in part what I mean by religion giving answers to "why" questions that don't end up really answering "why". If I'm wrong, and intelligence-directed goals count as teleology, then science can do teleology indirectly by uncovering the psychology of the designer. If religion simply answers final-cause facts about the universe outside of God's psychology through God's revelation, science might be out, but philosophy isn't.

- A problem with religion splitting Aristotle into three parts science and one part religion, is getting a coherent picture to emerge where all the 4 causes work together in harmony. What happens when biology comes up with same sex attraction? God's teleology fails drastically because the first three causes plus one commandment prohibiting homosexuality lead to Adam's gay son being awfully lonely. Options are to become Unitarian and allow God's teleology to change, or become a fundamentalist toward science and insist there is no scientific basis for homosexuality. The former is problematic because it tips the hat to the way science and man's philosophizing can triumph over God-revealed teleology.

- Another problem with "purpose" in the teleological sense is that it can conflict with "purpose" in the sense of personal meaning and fulfillment. Many religious people believe atheists lack purpose because they lack ultimate personal fulfillment. What personal fulfillment is might be hard to define, but in a scenario where many people are destined to damnation so that the saved can appreciate their respective happy state, purpose seems to border on nihilism. Same problem as seeing the purpose of Sardines as easy food for the rest of the ocean.

[_Gadianton]

Many religions provide an answer to why there is life.

Does science provide any answers as to why we should be good to one another?

Here are two questions, I'm interested in a religious answer to each:

"Why is there life?"

"Why should we be good to one another?"

Can you answer these, Moksha?

[_harmony]

Here are two questions, I'm interested in a religious answer to each:

"Why is there life?"

Because God was lonely.

"Why should we be good to one another?"

Can you answer these, Moksha?

Because it feels better than being selfish.