"Why not" is one way to keep an open mind. Why not this world in a multiverse. Why not this world in a simulation. Why not a simulation within a simulation. Why not a programmer who wrote the code for this world - and how is this any stranger than our other what ifs.
We're human, we don't just operate on facts - we rely on educated assumptions that we make, some of which may be strong enough to translate into belief. This may be driven by evidence, or just our humanly intuition and experiences.
But this is also human: The beauty of science is that it adapts as new evidence is revealed - someone here said this earlier. [No final answer] but rather based on the current evidence, an answer can be formulated that is consistent with the evidence available at that time.
It's human because it depends on our perspective; where we are in time, whether we find the truths (evidence) or not, and whether we are capable of perceiving all truths. Science is continually evolving in our minds - or more accurately, in the collective minds over time. Can the great jigsaw puzzle ever be solved? That's not the aim of science, as it is proud to point out, but it argues that whatever picture we come up with, it's justified as long as it's based on the current collection of evidence - this is a philosophy.
And I'm personally not satisfied with this, as a way of life. Why don't I deserve the truth in its entirety, in my lifetime? You would ask, why do I even question whether I deserve or not? I guess it's a human thing. But for me, as a person, I intuit closest to monotheism. Monotheism provides a framework where anything is possible, but bound by the belief in the Great Programmer who can do whatever he wants. It can work for anyone, regardless of their time and place; and for me as a person fortunate to live in an advanced age, I can accept evolution, because I think it's pretty robust and who am I to question how he creates the world. This for me is more liberating than having to accept whatever picture current evidence is showing - actually, I look forward to witness more development. It's also quite a comfortable position to be in; if science does show that we live in a simulation, that's OK, if it shows that we live in a multiverse, that's cool too.
I used to be a monotheist and found the certainty it provided quite reassuring. It took a lot of time and contemplation in order to move beyond that, but now I'm quite comfortable to live with the uncertainty resulting from a non-faith outlook.
There are even some traditions that acknowledge the uncertainty of what we know e.g. [1]
But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?
Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows - or maybe even he does not know.
The thing is it's just not very interesting what you "intuit". You're free to do it, but it's of no consequence. Some things that are interesting are (1) observations of reality that allow us to choose among competing hypotheses for how reality works and what has happened in reality, and (2) such testable hypotheses.
If there is a god, of course there are consequences. (This opens up another mess of a rabbit hole so I'll stop here!)
You're right, I "intuit" it because it's unifying and seems to cover all bases, and therefore quite a comfortable position to be in. I also "intuit" it because of the vast indescribable complexity of this world, and it's not just the equations but the thrill, humility and beauty of it all is too much that I have to accept that it doesn't just happen.
But in my earlier point, I wanted to show that a belief in a 'Great Programmer' is not incompatible with a belief in science. I am free to be interested in those two things you mentioned, but I can also attribute the wonders to a god. In a way this is like enjoying an unfinished picture/ story, but knowing how the thread begins and ends: everything comes from him, and everything returns to him. It's like sitting in the privileged seat to witness a slice of this drama. And for me, the least I can do is to acknowledge the great auteur behind it.
That's great but it doesn't prove anything. You're free to believe anything you like, or anything you intuit, but that has no bearing on whether it's true or not.
So, the reason I find those two origin stories can't coexist? Simply because there is no evidence to suggest one of them is remotely true. It's nothing personal. I too believe many things, but I'm happy to admit I may very well be wrong. Call them operating assumptions.
Yes but see, the same uncertainty also goes to you. Evidence may paint a picture, but evidence is also continuously fluid so there is never a correct picture. A more accurate picture, possibly. But even so, we're not just ruled by rational thinking. Even scientists are driven by a thing called wonder and curiosity - you need those facilities together to make progress. Call intuition as one tool to take advantage of.
But hey I may be wrong too. There's no telling unless He says "Game's up, now who amongst you could see me." I admit that there is that fear in me, but as I explained in another child post, I just can't put down the super complexity and beauty of this world to a chance.
(If my tone seems condescending, I apologise as this is not in my intention at all.)
Of course I can only be as certain as the evidence we have. I also know that our understanding will probably evolve and change and we learn new information.
As for chance? Well, for every Earth (only one we know of) there are (as far as we know) billions of dead planets. After billions and billions of dead planets I'm perfectly will to accept that one with life is just chance.
That's not the only chance though. It's a chance within a chance within so many other chances over many, many years, from the moment the Big Bang happened.
For sure our knowledge will grow, but I am not so sure if this will apply to our understanding. Yet the more we know, the more we seem we don't know!
Hey thanks for letting me indulge in this thread, I was hoping to test my thoughts and learn something new (I did) :)
"Why not" is one way to keep an open mind. Why not this world in a multiverse. Why not this world in a simulation. Why not a simulation within a simulation. Why not a programmer who wrote the code for this world - and how is this any stranger than our other what ifs.
We're human, we don't just operate on facts - we rely on educated assumptions that we make, some of which may be strong enough to translate into belief. This may be driven by evidence, or just our humanly intuition and experiences.
But this is also human: The beauty of science is that it adapts as new evidence is revealed - someone here said this earlier. [No final answer] but rather based on the current evidence, an answer can be formulated that is consistent with the evidence available at that time.
It's human because it depends on our perspective; where we are in time, whether we find the truths (evidence) or not, and whether we are capable of perceiving all truths. Science is continually evolving in our minds - or more accurately, in the collective minds over time. Can the great jigsaw puzzle ever be solved? That's not the aim of science, as it is proud to point out, but it argues that whatever picture we come up with, it's justified as long as it's based on the current collection of evidence - this is a philosophy.
And I'm personally not satisfied with this, as a way of life. Why don't I deserve the truth in its entirety, in my lifetime? You would ask, why do I even question whether I deserve or not? I guess it's a human thing. But for me, as a person, I intuit closest to monotheism. Monotheism provides a framework where anything is possible, but bound by the belief in the Great Programmer who can do whatever he wants. It can work for anyone, regardless of their time and place; and for me as a person fortunate to live in an advanced age, I can accept evolution, because I think it's pretty robust and who am I to question how he creates the world. This for me is more liberating than having to accept whatever picture current evidence is showing - actually, I look forward to witness more development. It's also quite a comfortable position to be in; if science does show that we live in a simulation, that's OK, if it shows that we live in a multiverse, that's cool too.