 |
| God as a geometer |
"I do not wish to judge how far my efforts coincide with those of other philosophers. Indeed, what I have written here makes no claim to novelty in detail, and the reason why I give no sources is that it is a matter of indifference to me whether the thoughts that I have had have been anticipated by someone else."
Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Introduction
Science and Religion are treated by some as contradictory ways of thinking. This is not true. Without claiming that I hold the key to the "ultimate truth", I will analyze the philosophy underying both sectors and show that these two ways of thinking are not in conflict, but actually two sides of the same coin. You can never know life fully, unless you see the cosmos in both perspectives.
The existence of God can be proved by both the tools of logic and faith. Religious people are some of the greatest scientists of all times. Science and religion do not always rely on logic and faith respectively. In an era when the new advances of science surprise us every day, religion stays powerful and current. That is not without a reason. No matter how much science advances, there will always be metaphysical questions that their answer can only be found in other ways. Why we exist cannot be answered inside a lab...
Despite the science-religion "war" that some people like Dawkins are trying to make us believe that exists, the truth is much more different, more simple and more "friendly". We should not forget that Christianity was first adopted by the founders of Logic and true Science, the Greeks...And let us not also forget that all the Greek manuscripts of Aristotle and Plato, the founders of free scientific thinking as regarded today, were saved from the passage of time by the Greek Orthodox Christians in the Byzantine Empire and the Islamists Arabs of the medieval times. So perhaps there is not only white and black, but other colours as well...
The main points of a 'Religional Science' unity that exists but still eludes most people, are depicted below.
1. Science for "how", Religion for "why"
The realm of exact sciences (Note: I refer to the physical / exact sciences with the term science in this article from hereon except when stated differently) is the phyisical phenomena world. On the other hand, questions like "what is our purpose in life", "why do we exist" or "what is reality" are out of science's scope (see Conclusions for more on that).
Science deals with the "how", while religion deals with the "why". Both things are interdependent and supplementary. Even if science finds out how every cell of the human brain functions, it will still haven't discovered why it works that way! The "first cause", the beginning of existence is outside of science reach. One could say that science deals with the natural world and the natural phenomena while religion with the supernatural phenomena [10] [1]. That is why both science and religion are needed for the quest of truth. Religion deals with questions science can never answer as the famous ignoramus et ignorabimus ("We do not know and we will never know", like the "I only know that I don't know" of Socrates) of the German physiologist Emil du Bois-Reymond states [7] (although Hilbert attempted to deny that there are things we will never know, Godel with his incompleteness theorem proved that Emil du Bois-Reymond was finally right).
The connection of science and religion can be seen in the diagram I attach below.
It is also very important to understand that science and religion are both based on some kind of faith. Science on the faith that an ultimate truth exists and that logic can reveal that ultimate truth and religion on the faith that an ultimate purpose (and, thus, God) exists (what is interesting to note here is that even though Logic has been proved by Godel that it cannot prove the truth people still believe in it with no questions asked). Thoughout science history, science had God as its starting point. The notion of us, humans, being made in the image of God gave scientists like Newton the power and will to try to understand the universe: "if we are made in His image, then we have the ability to understand His creation", people said from the time of Saint Thomas Aquinas. On the other hand, religion has God as its ending point. It tells us how to behave and act in this world so as to earn a place in the "other" world. Science does not deal with problems of ethics at all. It may tell you how a nuclear bomb explodes, but it has nothing to say about whether you should use it and how. Science deals with measurable things, while religion with things that cannot be measured. And the latter (things for which we cannot speak scientifically) are the ones which distinguish us from animals...
As Albert Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". [Please refer to my knol The limits of science for more on the essense of what science deals with]
2. Logic arguments for metaphysics
Many people are empiricists or materialists and deny the very existence of metaphysics. In this section I have some logical arguments in favour of the existence of things that non-religiour people think belong to the world of fairies. My purpose is to show that saying that the universe has a purpose and that there is an initial cause for its existence is something that is based on logic and not only faith.
Metaphysics - A definition
(Gr. meta ta Physika) Arbitrary title given by Andronicus of Rhodes, circa 70 B.C. to a certain collection of Aristotelean writings. Traditionally given by the oracular phrase: "The science of being as such". To be distinguished from the study of being under some particular aspect; hence opposed to such sciences as are concerned with ens mobile, ens quantum,etc. The term, "science", is here used in its classic sense of "knowledge by causes", where "knowledge" is contrasted with "opinion" and the term cause has the full signification of the Greek aitia. The "causes" which are the objects of metaphysical cognition are said to be "first" in the natural order (first principles), as being founded in no higher or more complete generalizations available to the human intellect by means of its own natural powers. Secondary and "derivative meanings: (a) Anythingconcerned with the supra-physical. Thus"metaphysical healing", "metaphysical poetry",etc. (b) Any scheme of explanation whichtranscends the inadequacies or inaccuracies ofordinary thought. [2]
From that perspective, metaphysical issues are closely related to things existing without any prior cause - look at the "First Cause" argument below for more details and analysis on that.
For example when someone says "I see clouds so I believe it will rain", he is not promoting any religious ideas. He is just making some (probably) valid conclusions (that may even be called "scientific"), but he uses the word "believe" instead of "I know" because he is not 100% certain.
From that perspective, metaphysical issues are closely related to things existing without any prior cause - look at the "First Cause" argument below for more details and analysis on that.
"Believe" - A definition
Because the word "believe" has been misunderstood many times, I would like to make a clarification on the way I use it in this article. From my point of view, "believe" DOES NOT mean either "know" or "I am certain that this is it". When I say "I believe" I use the word with what seems to be the dictionary definition of the word: I have some data to point me towards one conclusion but which are not enough to make me certain (in that case I would say "I know"), so I say "I believe this is it" based on that data and on some logical arguments. I do not use the word "believe" in the religious "bad" version of "censor all other opinions".For example when someone says "I see clouds so I believe it will rain", he is not promoting any religious ideas. He is just making some (probably) valid conclusions (that may even be called "scientific"), but he uses the word "believe" instead of "I know" because he is not 100% certain.
2.1 A higher purpose exists
What is more, I believe (i.e. "my logic dictates that to me after I have examined many facts about the universe" and not "I think so with no supporting logic or evidence") that there is a higher purpose in life. Since everything we do in life we do it with a purpose in mind [3], I find it illogical and highly improbable that our life as a whole has no purpose. This is known as the "teleology" argument.
I don't know what that purpose is. I may never find out! But many things we know and experience indicate that something of "higher essence" is part of our existence - that we are partly made of something more than dust. Luminous being we are, not this crude matter! Science may never understand why we come to tears when we listen to an old favorite song (even though it may explain thoroughly the chemistry and the mechanism of tears), why we laugh, why we may love someone so much that we may give our life for (and I am not talking about the love a mother has for her child - which may be explained by the theory of evolution since the mother has that love to protect her child - but I refer to all other kinds of love a human may excibite, like the love a human has for his/hers friend etc), why we are good, why we excibit altruistic behaviour by helping people unknown to us while at the same time risking our own lives (and without ever wanting that to be known so as to get a reward of some kind), why human strives for creation, writting, poetry, why we may give our lives for higher ideas like freedom, why people kill themselves (if surviving was the ultimate thing we had in mind like the theory of evolution implies, then we would never even consider killing our selves) and so on...
God sits on the sky when a scientist appears and says to Him
"God we do not need you anymore. Finally science has managed to
create life from nothing. In other words we can do what you did
in the Beginning"
"Really? Please tell me!" answers God
"Well, we take dirt and we shape it like You did, then we give
life to it like You did and there we have a human"
"Very interesting, show me how..."
Then the scientist takes dirt and starts forming the shape of a
human body
"No, no" answers God "take your own dirt!"
"God we do not need you anymore. Finally science has managed to
create life from nothing. In other words we can do what you did
in the Beginning"
"Really? Please tell me!" answers God
"Well, we take dirt and we shape it like You did, then we give
life to it like You did and there we have a human"
"Very interesting, show me how..."
Then the scientist takes dirt and starts forming the shape of a
human body
"No, no" answers God "take your own dirt!"
2.2 The First Cause argument
The Universe is intelligible and that logically means (at least that is was this meant to Aristotle) that a First Cause [Gr. Πρώτη Αιτία] must exist. Or in other words, an Unmoved Mover must have set the world in motion in the first place. [4] Science from the beginning of time tries to find the causes of all phenomena, so it is rather ironic that some scientists claim that there is no initial cause. It is not logical to say that every event has a cause, but that the universe it self has not! After all, when examining an event, e.g. a glass of water that falls on the ground, you try to find the initial cause. If you say that "the glass fell because of the law of gravity" you would have "cheated". You did not find THE cause, you just stated the first-most immediate cause. For your analysis to be complete, you must find the cause of the law of gravity, the cause of that cause etc...If no initial cause exists (God?), then actually the simple phenomenon of the glass falling has no cause at all! The world would stop from being intelligible...
Moreover, as the "sufficient cause" argument of Leibnitz states, there must be sufficient reason for something to "be". So there must be some reason for all the universe to exist, instead of nothing!
In summary the "First Cause" argument is as follows:
No arrogant claim of scientists that "we know what caused that phenomenon" can escape dealing with the "first cause". What we seem to "know" is usually only the first or second most immediate cause of a physical phenomenon and nothing more
In summary the "First Cause" argument is as follows:
- The cause of existence for something can lie outside of (so we talk for “possible” things) it or inside it (so we talk for “necessary” things). A child is a “possible” thing: it requires an “outside” cause to exist (i.e. its parents). God (as defined by religions) or the ever-existing universe (as described by Heracletus) are “necessary things (i.e. the cause for their existence lies inside them).
- Something can exist or not-exist. Something exists only if there is “sufficient reason” for it to exist. This is the only way that existence can be justified against the possibility of non-existence. A child can exist or not-exist. If it exists, it does so because of a sufficient cause: its parents and their decision to make children.
- (1) + (2) => Universe requires a cause of existence.
- Nothing can be created from nothing. If at some moment (i.e. before the Big Bang) there was nothing, then nothing should exist now either. So the universe either exists for ever or was created at some point.
- If the universe existed for ever, it does not need an “outside” cause for existence – it is “necessary”. Otherwise it requires an “outside” cause for justification of its existence.
- All the things we observe are “possible” (i.e. they require an “outside” cause to exist). For example I exist because of my parents. This text exists because I write it.
- The universe exists and is the sum of all things that exist in it.
- (6) + (7) => Universe is “possible”, so it needs an “outside” cause to exist. This cause I call “First Cause”.
- Everything has a cause. So the first cause must also have a cause.
- If the first cause has an outside cause, then we end up with an infinite series of causes => No “first cause” exists.
- The conclusion (10) is not correct, since it does not agree with (8).
- (8) + (11) => The first cause does not need an outside cause for existence. The first cause is “necessary”.
No arrogant claim of scientists that "we know what caused that phenomenon" can escape dealing with the "first cause". What we seem to "know" is usually only the first or second most immediate cause of a physical phenomenon and nothing more
. However that means that we do not actually "know " the "true" initial cause of the phenomenon. Science is an excellent tool to examine reality but unfortunately is has its limits. And these limits seem to pose a impenetratable wall at where the explanation of the essense of our existence lies. If we are to accept that we can understand the universe, then we cannot ignore the implications of that "understanding" that we everyday "feel"...
One can find a good summary presentation of the cosmological arguments for the existence of God in the Knol titled The cosmological argument for the existence of God.
2.3 "A priori" and "a posteriori" knowledge
Empiricists deny the existence of knowledge that does not come from experience ("a posteriori" knowledge = knowledge based on experience). In other words: they deny the existence of any "a priori" knowledge. However Kant postulated that there can be human "a priori" knowledge. For example the "1 = 1" syllogism is an a priori knowledge - it is independent of any present, past or future experience. The argument "if A is true and A => B, then B is true" is also an "a priori knowledge". Another exaple comes from our experience in science of counting: when we count or measure we use the underlying notion of "quantity". That notion should be "embedded" in us before we start counting. It is an "a priori" knowledge. [5] [6]
The sum of "a priori" knowledge is actually knowledge that exists without prior cause - something like the "First Cause" stated in the above sub-chapter. That "a priori" knowledge (e.g. of the notion of "quantity" or the notion of "quality" - according to Kant) is the basis of our own understanding of the Universe. And the very existence of such a kind of knowledge states that "something" gave us that knowledge. That "knowledge with no causes" is what the area of "metaphysics" is all about.
The attempt of some empiricists to explain our "a priori" knowledge with terms of evolution fails. In particular, some people claim that what we seem to know before any experience of ours, is actually the encoded knowledge of our ancestors in our genome. Again, finding a possible immediate cause does not mean that we know the true (initial) cause of a phenomenon (see above sub-chapter for more on that). So the question in this case is simply transferred one "level" back to the question: "how did the first human know how to count if he did not have an a priori sense of the notion of quantity?"...
2.4 Ontological arguments
Many thinkers have attempted to prove the existence of a all-powerful being (like the one religions call "God"). These attempts are interesting not because they prove something beyond the shadow of a doubt (there are indeed logicians who think they are correct, but there are also others who think otherwise), but because the show that logic can be a tool that leads to God. One of the greatest logicians of all times, Godel, has made such an ontological argument which you can find at the book "Types, Tableaus, and Gödel's God" [7]. One might disagree with that argument. But the critical point here is that some other logicians agree! So even though this argument has not solved the great mystery of them all, it has given us a great lesson: Logic is not a tool for atheism only, it is a tool for theism as well...
2.5 Other arguments
The existence of "free will" can also show the existence of God. Few people have thought about the implications of the existence of "free will". In a fully "materialistic" (materialism is a dogma believed by many scientists today, who forget that noone has proved or shown that only matter exists in the cosmos) world of universal absolute physical laws that define everything there is no room for free will. The only way to justify the existence of free will is to base that existence on "something" that does not follow the physical laws (which are the ones which make everything predictable in the universe). The foundations of free will must be set on "something" that does not follow the logic "initial conditions" + "physical rules" => predictable behaviour. In that way free will opens the path for the only being that could deviate from the path of the physical laws - God (as a "first cause" - see above respective argument)...
The fact that many people are willing to commit suicide or sacrifice their lifes so as to uphold some "higher" / noble ideas (like honour or freedom of speech for example) directly indicates that something "more" than pure matter exists. If we were to seize existing the moment we died, then noone would care to sacrifice his life for a stranger or conduct altruistic actions whatsoever.
The fact that many people are willing to commit suicide or sacrifice their lifes so as to uphold some "higher" / noble ideas (like honour or freedom of speech for example) directly indicates that something "more" than pure matter exists. If we were to seize existing the moment we died, then noone would care to sacrifice his life for a stranger or conduct altruistic actions whatsoever.
Philosophy and the "Being"
In conclusion, most philosophy is built on top of the great question that troubled Heidegger so much: what "Being" actually is? That question about what reality actually is, is what trigerred the creation of the world of the Ideas of Plato, the "Unmoved Mover" (Gr. Ακίνητο Κινούν) of Aristotle or the ego of Freud. All philosophy is based on that very question. And Heidegger was right in saying that we have forgotten how important it is [8]. All fields of science are failed attempts to get away from the difficulty of that question by breaking it and tranfsofrming it to many others. However the fact that we have broken down the question of "Being" into many smaller ones, does not mean that we have made any real progress. Instead, we have even forgotten the importance of the question! The "Being" is something we cannot define. Heidegger tried (via an etymological analysis of the way the word "ον" was used in the pro-socratic time) but failed. However he did show some of its properties. "Being" is not. The notion of "Being" only appears inside objects which have that property. Thus, "Being" [as a gerund] (ον) cannot exist on its own because if it did, it would be a being [thing that exists]. "Being" entails the notion of not-Being in that way. Even the most thorough analysis of a painting cannot reveal anything about the "Being" of the thing drawn in it. However we do "see" something more than the set of oil and paint on the canvas. When we see a painting we see the "Being" of what the painter painted. In a way the tautology "Being is" (like the "Εγώ ειμί ο ων") is the best way we have to describe what we feel about that notion that defines all things that "are". And it is of great importance to note that "Being" is not the same as "Exist". We humans "are" because we "exist". [9] The word "exist" comes from the Greek words εξ-ίσταμαι, which means "to stand outside of". Humans "are" because they can exist, or in other words because they can stand outside of themselves and question their own existence...
3. Logic and not only faith
Before someone counter-argues that all these are "indications" and not scientific proof, I will argue that saying that is completely wrong. It is a great mistake of the atheists and the agnostics to claim that every argument in favour of the existence of God is "not-logical" or simply "false". The job of every scientist and open-minded person is to question everything. It is not thus logical to say that "we can and must question everything and we must not be dogmatic", but have exceptions on that rule! If we are to question everything, then the dogma of the modern materialistic age that "God does not exist" must be questioned also...
We must bear in mind that for things that relate to all these metaphysical questions (like what is our purpose in life), there is little hard (i.e. not like "I watch the universe and calculate the law of gravity") evidence to rely on. Metaphysics is the realm of "non-measurable" things which are outside the scope of science by definition. Although one could have some hard data about the universe's structure and way of working, we have to rely on "soft" evidence and "soft" (i.e. not "hard", mathematical) logic to make the "leap" required in order to explain things in the metaphysical world. The abovementioned indications are all we've got.
Physical world <===> Metaphysical world
Evidence + "Hard" (mathematical) logic Intuition + "Soft" logic (can be based on hard evidence)
And we must note that at least the ones that argue that there is a purpose in life have some indications to base their arguments on - while the ones that claim there is absolutely no purpose in life don't even have indications, they just have speculations! The theory of evolution is based on some fossil. And it really explains well some things in micro-level: how some species evolve and change over time. I admit that the theory of evolution really works well up to a point.
However explaining how fish evolved and went to the land, doesn't mean that we have explained there is no purpose in life or that there God doen't exist! This is a huge logic leap that isn't at all explained by the ones that favorite the theory of evolution. Most importantly: the theory of evolution explained the "how" up to a point (the "up to a point" phrase is really important and that is why I keep repeating it), not "why"! Even if everything is one day explained by the theory of evolution...why do all specied follow the laws of that theory?!?!? Maybe because of another law that says that all species must follow the rules of evolution? And why that another law exists? etc etc...We must all accept the fact that humanity has so little knowledge about our existence (we don't even know how flu works!) that is really funny for someone to argue that he has found the purpose of our life or that we have no purpose in life!
I do not like it when someone tells me that "you may believe that God exists, but science has shown that the theory of evolution requires no God to exist" for many reasons:
Firstly I am a scientist and my logic tells me that something of "higher essence" exists. All the indications (that I mentioned in point 2) together with my common logic "say" that to me. My conclusions are based not only on faith but on (soft) evidence and (common) logic as well. Faith is required to make the final step from the "it is possible" to "I believe this is it", but this is something common for all people and all things. There is no absolute knowledge - even scientists must have faith in something to draw a "final" conclusion. Faith it is not the only component of the things I say. And we must note that these indications also say the same thing to other scientists as well. Being a "scientist" doesn't necessarily means that you don't believe in God or in a higher purpose in life. This however is my logic - the logic of someone else may reach to a different result when having the same data.
The logic of Aristotle told him that a "First Cause" existed. And noone can accuse him of being blinded by Christianic dogmatism...The logic of Godel (the most importan logicologist after Aristotle) said that God exists and he even found a logical proof for that [5] (seach Yahoo! or Google for Godels proof)! The logic of the scientist that led the project for decoding the human DNA for the first time (Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the Human Genome Project), also told him that God existed!
Secondly, it is true that I believe God exists ("faith"), but I have also some strong indications to argue in favour of my opinion ("logic"). On the other hand, the ones that argue he there is no God also believe (have "faith") that he doen't exist but without any evidence of God's inexistence (in particular they argue that even though the theory of evolution doesn't explain everything right now, they believe that one day it will! OK, when it does, I will change what I write in this site - no problem)! They have no proof for that.
Thirdly, humans have many more tools to reach truth. We have our feelings and our intuition. And my feelings and intuition tell me that something "higher" than us exists. If someone else have the feeling that we - humans (or some alien species we have not yet discovered) - are the highest level of spirit in the universe it is ok by me, but they have as much "hard proof" as I have. We don't know whether our logic or our feeling / intuition are better guides for the truth...Many mathematitians have used their intuition to formulate theorems that every mathematitian believes today but are still unproved...
Science and religion, religion and science should work together to fill in the pieces of the puzzle of human existence. Until we have some better clues, we have to rely on the indications we have and not to "believe" we have the correct answer to everything!
Most people have come to think religion as related to faith, while science as something based on evidence we see. It is true that most of us think of mathematics and physics as the realm of logic and hard evidence. What I will show here is that the abovementioned belief is not correct: "faith" is a basic and integral element not only of religion but of science and everyday life too.
3.1 About Faith
As Socrates, the great Greek philosopher, said "you must know what you talk about before you talk about it". That means that we must first define the term "faith" in order to analyze it. That being said, we use the term "faith" in this article with the following definition in mind: Faith is is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea that has not been proven.
3.2 Faith in science
Scientists use logic to reach conclusions, based on observations data. These conclusions are based on a series of very subtle underlying beliefs. These beliefs include:
- All that exists in Universe is matter and the physical laws. We must not forget that materialism is an underlying dogma of most of todays scientists and not a truth that has been proved [3] (see The limits of science for more details on that science dogma).
- Belief that "Logic" works correctly: This belief is used mainly in physics, since in mathematics it has been proved that logic has flaws and inconsistencies (see Russell paradox and Godel's Incompleteness Theorem).
- Belief that all physical laws apply to the whole universe: For example we can see that gravity applies to our solar system and we believe that the same gravity applies also to galaxies we have not yet even observed).
- Belief that logic induction leads to correct conclusions: This is the basis of most modern physics. When we observe a physican phenomenon and then verify that the same phenomenon takes place in a second and a third and a fourth experiment, we conclude that the same phenomenon will occur also in the next experiment. But we cannot be sure about that. It is highly possible that we have observed the three exceptions to the rule and that all the other experiments we will conduct will result in something different.
- Belief that our senses work correctly: This is of the uttermost importance, but we insist on forgetting it. Our whole perception for the world is based on our senses. We do not know how close is the world we feel via our senses with the "real" world. Take for example the colour "red". We see "red" so we conclude that it exists. However, we forget that most animals do not see "red". So what is the "Real" thing after all? Does red exists or not?
- Belief in the fellow human: This may sound weird, but it is the basis of our scientific society. When a scientist publishes a conclusion all other scientists believe him just be trusting his/her word. If a paper is published on a scientific journal with prestige then it "must" me true. However we have seen many times scientists tampering with their data and posting fake "groundbraking" conclusions. When the historians listen to an eye-witness who says to them what has happed at a given period in time, they just trust him. If you do not test the conclusion yourself, then your belief in what the other scientists says is mostly based on the grid of human trust and only that.
The abovementioned beliefs tend to transform to "dogmas" when we forget that we are using them. When we forget that our conclusions are based on such beliefs that we cannot be sure they are true, then we become dogmatic and stop being true scientists. We must acknowledge our limitations and move on by embrasing them, not by ignoring them.
The following examples are just a very small sample of cases where the "scientific" evidence data is not by itself sufficient to back up a solid "certain" conslusion about the issue under investigation. They are shown here just as a tool to make us all understand that faith is a basic part of most of our beliefs.
3.3 Faith Paradigm analysis
In order to show that faith is used not only in religion, I will use seven examples (paradigms) taken from mathematics [10] [11], religion, history and everyday life. The reader will easily realize that at the end, faith is used in almost everything.
The abovementioned paradigms show one thing: "faith" must be applied in everything. Faith is not a tool of the religious people but neccessary for the mathematians, the historians, the ordinary people. You must use faith in order to "know" that something in the past occured, that infinite in mathematics exists. Not many people know that everything you can accomplish with the use of "infinite" in mathematics can also be accomplished without it. So where does the "truth" is? From where I stand, I'm not even sure that such a thing exists...
The thing to note here is that religious people recognize their belief and even celebrate it. On the other hand most scientists tend to hide the fact that their field of knowledge is also based on beliefs (or worse, they do not even know it)...
4. Evolution as an accident...
If there is not purpose in life, then we should accept the sayings of the theory of evolution, which claims that we are an accident of nature, that we exist because we just...happened to exist! And why do we exist? For no perticular reason! This is in every way illogical: by saying that we exist with no purpose in life, you null the value of human life, you tell everyone that being a human or a...banana is exactly the same! And you choose to ignore all the indications I mentioned above: if there is no purpose in life and if man is so completely stripped off anything of "higher value", then why do we everyday strive to get out of our body and grow spiritually?
5. New scientific findings
New findings in science point towards a different look to our world. Telology (existence of a purpose) seems to find its way through physics. No scientific theory indicates that the cause must always exist before the result. Quantum mechanic experiments (e.g. the experiment of the two holes) show that an electon may "decide" whether it behaves like a particle or like a wave during its course only after a human have watched it. And it "decides" for the whole length of its existence - not only after it has been recorded in a particle detector but even before that! Moreover, the law of physics seem to have limits. Moreover, the universe has a specific amount of processing power (if you look at every particle as a bit of information, then the universe is like a giant computer - according the theory of information nowadays) and this means that it (the universe) can calculate for example the position of planets up to a specific decimal point! Higher accuracy has its limits even for the cosmos itself! The world laws of physics are not so platonic - perfect as once we thought they were. That, along with the fact that the human watching the experiment of the two wholes help the electron determine its existence, creates more room for telology: if the human decides for the electron, maybe he decides for the universe laws as an observer of these as well (or, in other words, the planets move the way they move so as to obey their "purpose" of behaving in the way the human observer wants them to)? Like the electon that its whole existence is determined by its goal ("purpose") to look like a particle or wave at a certain point of time, the human life may be the way it is because of a higher purpose we have in the universe, or because of a higher purpose the universe has for us. Maybe the universe has the higher purpose to be explained by us and we have the higher purpose to reach the higher mental level and connect to the "universe" itself ("theosis", "θέωση" in Greek). We still do not know, but the window for the truth is open.
6. Problems with the theory of evolution
Furthermore, some things for the theory of evolution are yet unanswered: How does a system evolves in something more functional over time? We know from physics that every system's entropy (quantitative measure of the disorder of a system) increases over time (law of thermodynamics). How species then evolve by pure luck? Scientific experiments with flies and other insects have shown random mutations over time, but none of these mutations has led to a better species.
In other words, theory of evolution has showed that it can be used as a tool to analyze biodiversity, but not as a tool to find the ultimate truth about everything concerning life...
The problem of ethics is another major problem that cannot be addresed by the theory of evolution. Please refer to my knol Evolution and Intelligent Design for more on that.
7. Evolution theory is not falsifiable
According to Carl Popper scientific theories must be always falsifiable: i.e. if you are to compile a new scientific theory, you should state in what way or in which case your theory will be proved wrong. For example, a theory stating "all frogs are green" ir proven wrong when a black frog is discovered. However the theory of evolution can not be proven wrong in any way: after you see a species alive and well, you name / baptize it as 'fit for survival'. If you see a species extinct, you name it (again after you observe it) as 'not fit to survive'. No matter what you observe in nature, the theory of evolutions works after the observation and not before it in a way that makes the theory unfalsifiable! The most notorius example of that is the case of the fish coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae).
 |
| Preserved specimen of Latimeria chalumnae in the Natural History Museum, Vienna, Austria (length: 170 cm - weight: 60 kg). This specimen was caught on 18 October 1974, next to Salimani/Selimani (Grande Comore, Comoros Islands) |
That fish was thought to be extinct from the Cretaceous period, so the evolution biologists claimed that it was not fit for survival, thus it was extinct. However on 1938 the fish was discovered to be alive! One could think that this would lead to the conclusion that the theory of evolution was wrong about coelacanth. But No! After the fish was found alive and well, the evolution biologists simply said that "the fish was fit for survival and, thus, it survived"! As simple as that! And life goes on...
8. Science is driven away from humans
The most important thing to say about todays science is that Science has stopped to have human life as its primary focus for a long time now. In its effort to explain everything, it has forgotten that its main purpose is to serve human and improve our lifes. By telling people that we are nothing more than dust and water certainly doesn't help in that direction (although it will certainly grant some people a good funding to go on researching why people are so similar to bananas...). If you axiomatically think the world is consisted only of particles and physical laws that govern their behaviour, then no wander you cannot find any evidence of spirituality in the unverse. If you axiomatically think that there is no purpose in our existence, then it is more than logical that you cannot find any proof for the existence of purpose in the cosmos...
Science must re-unite with philosophy and - as in the times of Aristotle and Plato - try to reach truth with a more holistic way of thinking. Science must understand that the dogmas on which it relies are wrong. Science must understand that not all things are measurable (like moral, emotions, love) and that there are things we will never know via science (see Godel "incompleteness theorem" for that). See the Limits of Science knol for more details on the wrong way modern science has taken.
9. The problem of Human Progress
Humanking progresses. We learn new things, we generate new ideas, we read history and try to make the future better. Our society progresses in all sectors. Some darwinists claim that human progress does not actually exist, that it is actually a mere illusion. They say that the only real progress is the one conducted via random mutations and natural selection. I disagree. We progress in all sectors, even if this progress is sometimes very slow. Even if someone denies progress' existence in one particular sector, he will not be able to deny the fact that humans progress in a way in some fields. This progress indicates that we are not only influenced by our environment, but we also infuence it back. We are not evolving only by adaptation to our environment (as the theory of evolution claims), but we also evolve via our own free will. The fact that we design new life forms or improve our own genome via molecular biology, clearly shows that the notion of 'design' is something that is not just a theological idea but rather a part of reality. We progress because we have free will and because we are consious of our ability to formulate our very own optimized designed future. This provides evidence that we are not the same as the other species. Maybe the structure of society dictates how some of our human traits of 'higher essense' - like the free will - are expressed, but one cannot deny that humans inherently have some traits of such nature...
However it must be noted that for the last 50 years, the progress that was promised by the materialistic based science at the end of the 21st century is not delivered. In contrast to the recent past when scientists' thought was more holistic, we cannot claim that today we have made substantial progress on many sectors [6]. Science today only collects vast amount of data, without suggesting any essentially new theories for the cosmos. Having CD-ROMs and DVDs is not progress...
I certainly hope that will lead science to go back to more holistic ways of thinking, as it used to think back in the good "old" days of Aristotle or even Albert Einstein...
10. Post-Modern Philosophy
Wittgenstein – a pioneer post-modern philosopher – thought that all philosophical problems are actually misunderstandings caused by the limitations of our language. For example, the phrase “the pig hereres” is neither true nor false. That phrase is nonsense: the words used have no meaning. Thus, we cannot claim anything about its truthfulness.
In the same way, the phrase “God exists” cannot be true or false either. In that phrase we use the word “God” without knowing what “God exactly is and the word “exists” without having defined exactly what “existing” means. So, that phrase is nonsense too.
In the same way, the phrase “God exists” cannot be true or false either. In that phrase we use the word “God” without knowing what “God exactly is and the word “exists” without having defined exactly what “existing” means. So, that phrase is nonsense too.
The teachings of Wittgenstein were wrongly used by many atheists to claim that no God exists. The Vienna Circle attempted to make such a misuse and that is why Wittgenstein did not go to their meetings.
The reality is quite different. Wittgenstein in his work Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus was clear on one thing: the things that are of real importance in life are the ones for which we cannot speak about! We may not be able to answer the question “does God exists?”, but that does not mean anything about God’s actual existence! And that question - in spite of what many agnostics "believe" - is indeed one of the most important ones: knowing who we are and how we came to being is knowledge we must all have! As Heidegger [12] said, we may not know what "is" is, but the search for its meaning is what makes us humans...
The reality is quite different. Wittgenstein in his work Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus was clear on one thing: the things that are of real importance in life are the ones for which we cannot speak about! We may not be able to answer the question “does God exists?”, but that does not mean anything about God’s actual existence! And that question - in spite of what many agnostics "believe" - is indeed one of the most important ones: knowing who we are and how we came to being is knowledge we must all have! As Heidegger [12] said, we may not know what "is" is, but the search for its meaning is what makes us humans...
Conclusion
As the Interacademy Panel (IAP - Global network of Science Academies) stated on an announcement it made for the theory of evolution on 21 June 2006: "Human understanding of value and purpose are outside of natural science’s scope. However, a number of components – scientific, social, philosophical, religious, cultural and political – contribute to it. These different fields owe each other mutual consideration, while being fully aware of their own areas of action and their limitations. While acknowledging current limitations, science is open ended, and subject to correction and expansion as new theoretical and empirical understanding emerges" [one can see that statement's full text here].
It is also very important to note that when Edward J. Larson of the University of Georgia in USA attempted in 1997 to repeat an older study conducted in 1916 (by the noted psychologist James Leuba) concerning the percentage of scientists believing in God, he was surprised to find out that the percentage remained the same despite the great advances of science! A very stable 40% of the scientists surveyed (biologists, mathematicians, physicists and astronomers included) answered that they believed in the existence of a God, despite all the astounding scientific breakthroughs in the years that have elapsed [9] ! What is more, a 2005 survey of scientists at top research universities found that more than 48% had a religious affiliation and more than 75% believe that religions convey important truths [11]. So being religious is not imcompatible to being a scientist as some people are trying to make us think.
As a final conclusion one could say that we must stay humble in front of the wisdom of nature, search like a scientist, believe in human and its higher value like a theologist and work all together to discover the truth! Asking the right questions is sometimes more important than knowing the answers...
Links - Other resources
1. Please refer to http://www.geocities.com/spiros_lidar/index for the Greek version of this article.
2. See the Evolution and Intelligent Design - The way to an agreement for arguments in favour of the existence of purpose and/or something of 'higher essence' in the Universe.
You can always contact me at spiros_lidar@yahoo.com or at skakos@hotmail.com for your comments, or simply add your comment here.
Bibliography
1. Common sense - Human Logic.
2. 'Metaphysics', Aristotle.
3. 'The Limits of Natural Selection as Applied to Man', Alfred Russel Wallace (S165: 1869/1870).
4. 'Evidence for Belief', Francis Collins.
5. 'Types, Tableaus, and Gödel's God', Fitting, M.
6. Les Vrais Penseurs de notre temps (1989) (True Thinkers of Our Time), Guy Sorman.
7. Über die Grenzen des Naturerkennens ("On the limits of our understanding of nature"), Emil du Bois-Reymond, 1872.
8. "Reflections on Gödel’s Ontological Argument", Christopher G. Small, University of Waterloo [http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/Godel.final.revision.PDF]
11. Ecklund, E.H., and C.P. Scheitle. 2007. Religion among academic scientists: Distinctions, disciplines, and demographics. Social Problems 54(2):289-307.
Philosophy Knols of the same writer
This Knol is part of a series of philosophy-related Knols I have written, which are listed below.
1. Modern Platonic Dialogue I: A theist, an atheist and an agnostic talking...
2. The limits of science
3. Φιλοσοφία της Επιστήμης και της Θρησκείας [Greek]
4. Religion and Science unification - Towards Religional Science
5. Evolution and Intelligent Design - The way to an agreement
6. The Source of Ethics
7. Why you can't be an agnostic
1. Modern Platonic Dialogue I: A theist, an atheist and an agnostic talking...
2. The limits of science
3. Φιλοσοφία της Επιστήμης και της Θρησκείας [Greek]
4. Religion and Science unification - Towards Religional Science
5. Evolution and Intelligent Design - The way to an agreement
6. The Source of Ethics
7. Why you can't be an agnostic
References
- Science and religion: Reconcilable differences
- The Dictionary of Philosophy, Dagobert D. Runes, Philosophical Library, USA, New York
- Purpose, Meaning & Darwinism
- Aristotelian view of God [Wikipedia article]
- A priori and a posteriori [Internet Encycopedia of Philosophy]
- A priori and a posteriori [Wikipedia]
- Types, Tableaus, and Gödel's God, Springer, Series: Trends in Logic , Vol. 12, Fitting, M., 2002, 196 p., Hardcover, ISBN: 978-1-4020-0604-3
- Sein und Zeit, Martin Heidegger (in Heidegger's Gesamtausgabe), volume 2, ed. F.-W. von Herrmann, 1977, XIV, 586p.
- Heidegger, George Steiner, Fontana Press, 1978.
- Philosophy of Mathematics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
- The Mathematical Experience, P.J. Davis and R. Hersh, Birkhauser, 1980.
- Martin Heidegger [Wikipedia article]
Mojo
Invite as author
Lol
These atheists truly WILL come up with anything to try and (weakly) refute religious texts. Their comments can even add comedic values sometimes.
^^ This will byte them in the hind quarters I'm sure!
Assalamu Aleikum.
Peace be upon you.
You can also contribute by refferting to the article from other sites or by translating the article to other languages. Again, thanks for your good words.
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
The slavery it also openly contents with and neglect of billions referred to as third world.
That is what a weak ideology looks like.
K
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
Scientists also build the atomic bomb, would that deem science as bad?
There are good religious persons and bad religious persons. On who are you going to base your opinion about religion in general?
Many religious people preserved scientific writting of ancient Greeks from being destroyed? Why doesn't that make them "good" people?
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
And you touch on points I comment on in my book of atheists being no less lethal than religious freaks.
K
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
Klaus Rohde
Invite as author
Some points which are probably important
Firstly, I agree with Schopenhauer that one does not have to be a professional to say something valid about philosophy (what is a professional anyway? In Schopenhauer's view somebody who earns money by teaching it. Schopenhauer certainly was a professional in the sense of having a deep and comprehensive knowledge of the field).
A point with which I agree: Humans apparently have a deep desire to find some meaning in the world, ultimately related to themselves. Why does the Universe and man exist? Whatever Dawkins etc. say, their attempts to uncover that meaning will continue. - It is obvious to me, however, that religions are based on beliefs and that attempts to "prove" religious beliefs scientifically are futile (at least it seems to be so at this point in time). - And I agree with Dawkins that religions have often been misused with disastrous consequences. See my knol http://knol.google.c
Your example of the coelacanth is rather fishy. The fact that some very specific assumptions (in this case, that the coelacanth was extinct) turned out to be incorrect (and there are many other such examples) does not say anything at all about the validitity of the theory of evolution. Evidence for that theory is overwhelming (not however, the evidence for the central piece of Darwin's explanation, the overwhelming role of natural selection. See my knol http://knol.google.c
Nevertheless, their can be no doubt that natural selection is of very great importance, and it is quite possible that "progress" in evolution may be brought about by random mutations and selection, although in humans an additional factor comes into play, i,e, cultural evolution: learning and transmission of what has been learned to others. However, whether real progress in humans exists, is quite another question (Schopenhauer doubted it, and he was and is not the only one). Ultimately the answer to that question will be given by history. Often enough in evolution seemingly extremely successful groups (trilobites, dinosaurs) were wiped out, in evolutionary terms almost overnight.
In this context: Popper's idea that a scientific hypothesis must lend itself to being falsified is just that, his idea accepted by many, but it is not necessarily the last word on the problem.
Concerning all the scientists supposedly believing in God: I bet that very few of these will allow their belief to interfere with their scientific work.
Concerning the two hole experiment and Gödel's incompleteness theorem: I would be very careful in using these as evidence for any religious convictions.
Finally: You write
"The fact that many people are willing to commit suicide or sacrifice their lifes so as to uphold some "higher" / noble ideas (like honour or freedom of speech for example) directly indicates that something "more" than pure matter exists. If we were to seize existing the moment we died, then noone would care to sacrifice his life for a stranger or conduct altruistic actions whatsoever."
I think this is sheer nonsense. Altruistic behaviour can well be explained by evolutionary mechanisms. It is quite common among certain birds and mammals, for example. - Dawkins and Bertrand Russel, among others, are quite correct in claiming that altruistic and ethical behaviour is not the result of some religious belief. After all, none of these two were criminals, quite the contrary: Russell spent several months in jail during the fist world war for his political conviction: protesting loudly against British involvement in the war.
As far as altruistic behaviour is concerned, I do not agree totally with you. Even though we have seen many animal behaviours that can be characterized as "good", I have not yet seen any bahaviour that can be characterized as PURELY altruistic. Dawkins and other make a critical mistake when pondering on this issue: they confuse the good an animal does to another animal in order to gain something in the future, with the purely altruistic bahaviour of the kind "do something good without expecting ANYTHING AT ALL for reward". Looking forward to hearing from you again!
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
Chris Fellows
Invite as author
'Are you qualified to write about philosophy?'
Dilettantes! Dilettantes! – this is the derogatory cry those who apply themselves to art or science for the sake of gain raise against those who pursue it for love of it and pleasure in it. This derogation rests on their vulgar conviction that no one would take up a thing seriously unless prompted to it by want, hunger, or some other kind of greediness. The public has the same outlook and consequently holds the same opinion, which is the origin of its universal respect for the ‘professional’ and its distrust of the dilettante. The truth, however, is that to the dilettante the thing is the end, while to the professional as such it is the means; and only he who is directly interested in a thing and occupies himself with it from love of it, will pursue it with entire seriousness. It is from such as these, and not from wage earners, that the greatest things have always come.
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
You should agree that it has no validity as support for what you are protecting.
K
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
K
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
Marco
Invite as author
Stronger arguments countering Darwinist triumphalism
Distancing yourself from ex-nihilo creation would go some way in allowing more scientists to take you more seriously.
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
Why06
Invite as author
VEry InCiteFUlL!!
Logic is just as flawed as Faith because the come from the same origin; the human mind... So no matter what science can determine or what religion can claim the two will have to tolerate each other because they are currently the two most powerful ways of thinking man kind has invented, philosophy possibly being tertiary.
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
K
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
When you are ill you go to the doctor sort of thing. Or when you want a house designed you go to an architect.
K
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
K
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
almafuerte
Invite as author
B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T
You are offending the whole scientific community and anything that stands for what science is by posting this kind of crap.
Your god doesn't exist. There are no gods of any kind. Science has proven it. It has also proven that jesus, mohammed, and many other mythical creatures didn't really exist.
Deal with it, or stay out of my internet.
PS. It is not "my" God and it is not "your" Internet.
PS2. Next offensive comment will be deleted without prior warning.
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
You are insisting and using your relevant education as leverage to promote an unfounded ideology and give it a legitimate feel.
I sympathize with my friend almafuerte there because you are just complicating matters.
In sense that you are insulting our minds with the insistent promotion of fairy tales. And Jesus and Mohammed may well have been real people but your religions turned their lives into a complete fairy tale and that is after beating the crap out of the former (Jesus).
My mate almafuerte doesn't know you.
Actually Spiros is in it because of what he assumes to be legitimate ideology. He is not like idiots who just play on the liberties society allows to take the p.
Spiros has a genuine belief for religion and God.
K
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
Knowing that Spiros truly believes every word he is saying leads me to respect him, in a way. It's also sad to know that an intelligent and educated person can be a part of a cult like Christianity.
I think the whole issue here is in that word you used ... Believe. That word ... the source of so many delusions of the human mind.
Science is about understanding, and the best you can expect is to have a model that is plausible beyond reasonable doubt. Not refuted yet is all we have. And whether we like it or not, it's the way it is.
Believing in something means killing science. And that seems to be the issue here, Spiros believes many things, and he somewhere confuses believes for research conclusions.
Also, Interesting profile Kyriacos. Feel free to let me know when "Gifted" is published, sounds interesting.
Almafuerte
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
It is better that you listen to competent philosophers rather than making your own philosophy up as you go along.
K
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
So you are not in any way different, in that you are sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong.
Anyway I have a book coming out soon, which is a prequel to 'Gifted'.
I will let you know when it is published - it should be sometime by the end of the month or early next month.
I am in the process of finishing 'Gifted' which I want to publish by the end of the year.
K
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
Nietzsche was technically a Philologist, not a Philosopher, and you know what he thought about "true philosophers" ... I agree with him. Philosophy is nothing more than the very nature of human thought applied to itself. When humanity became self aware, Philosophy was born. The only bad thing for philosophy is having people NOT sticking their nose, as you like to say.
I don't have any formal education precisely because I hate elitism. Because nobody ever really understood Foucault, and they based modern Pedagogy on his writings, completely ignoring his thoughts and warnings on the misuse of power. Nobody understood Foucault's "Discipline and Power", and neither did you.
You said "It is better that you listen to competent philosophers rather than making your own philosophy up as you go along". That is simply the most horrible thing I have ever read. You are more dogmatic than Schopenhauer, and that is saying a lot. Regarding that, Walt Whitman had something to say about it in his oh so beautiful Song of Myself:
"You shall no longer take things at second or third hand, nor look through the eyes of the dead, nor feed on the spectres in books".
Almafuerte
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
I know that you have a basic ingredient in what it takes to make practical progress in the field (philosophy). And that is sincerity.
But don't start contradicting yourself after what you said about me on previous comment.
It takes decades to become consistent in thought and views. Most if almost all don't have the capacity to reach that level of progress. And lose it at first sign of things not going the way of preference.
Preference may not quite be certainty.
And actually the definition of philosophy is far from your own and Nietzsche's assumptions.
You get the true definition of philosophy in my book now published, titled; 'Religion, Politics and Psychology: An Invented Philosophy'.
You are on the right course. But I am afraid I haven't left many unanswered problems of philosophy - that is why I make the claims I do.
K
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
Spiros Kakos
My Philosophy Basis
First of all I do not claim that I know everything (noone can do that) and that is why I make a clear statement in the Knol that "I do not hold the key to ultimate knowledge".
Secondly most of my "training" in philosophy has come from the books I state as bibliography and references. You can also find some of the internet resources I use in the Philosophy Portal (at http://knol.google.c
Last but not least, this is just a knol writting my opinion for matters of great controversy. Arguments in favour or against specific things I write in the article are more than welcomed!
I wouldn't be able to walk into a hospital and play doctor, so how are you or any layman in a position to play the philosopher?
K
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
You didn't answer it bro you burped your petty opinion.
That is not quite the same as delivering an answer.
K
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
Kyriacos Kyprou
Invite as author
Reply to Comment below: 'Who has the "right" to write about science and religion'
If you tried to literally pretend you are a doctor or an architect you be arrested.
Don't pretend that you are a philosopher or that you are in anyway competent to write articles on the field. And you are so much overwhelmed by your own opinion you don't even have the decency to check out who exactly is contradicting your pretences to be in a position to tackle problems of philosophy.
My friend - get real. And religion and science are not ever compatible.
And you rely on people without any background on philosophy to tell you how brilliant your views are.
Why don't I agree somehow?
Maybe because I am not anyone off the street who just sees 'Chemical Engineer' and assumes that you also know what you are talking about when it comes to problems of philosophy.
Stick to 'Chemical Engineering' bro and stop sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong.
I am only trying to make this a world for everyone - what are you trying to do? Looking after number one.
Yourself and looking for view counts and comment hits.
All the best,
Kyriacos Kyprou,
author of 'gifted',
kkyprou@gmail.com
00357 99740980
I am not someone who pretends to be a doctor. Being a doctor requires a substantive background knowledge. I can understand that. However you should also understand that philosophy as a way of thinking about why we are here in the cosmos is free for everyone to exercise.
I will insist on urging you to comment on what I write and not on whether I have the "right" to write... :)
Keep knoling and have a nice afternoon!
PS. I choose NOT to answer insulting comments you make (see below) because my education does not allow me to. However keep in mind that future comments of that nature will not be taken into account litely and WILL be reported as offensive. Thanks again.
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
I am keen to see the intellect of the greatest mind ever to grace this earth actually at work. It does not seem to be fully engaged with the process of typing though that is possibly because you are eating breakfast, proof reading your book, doing the ironing and learning to juggle at the same time.
Everyone can have an opinion. What a good philosopher can do, if he believes their opinion to be wrong, is show them how they are mistaken. What he should not do is just tell them not to stick their nose in where they don't belong.
You, however, are not a good philosopher. At best you are as almafuerte says, a jumped up undergraduate who thinks because he has finished his first year reading list he now knows the answers to all life's questions. At worst, you haven't actually done the reading.
It is important to avoid the appeal to authority fallacy but where are you currently studying and to what level? It would be interesting to know who has taught you Neitzsche because your arrogance in this regard is somewhat astounding and I wonder with what justification.
A note about bad philosophers. Yes, there are a lot of them on the internet, but there are also high concentrations of them in academia. They slavish followers of the analytical school who are trying to reduce their profession into something that can be compartmentalised and fitted within the hours of nine and five. If, and I suspect this is the case, it is men like this (mainly men, not so many women fall into this category) who have imbued you with this snobbishness then I would advise you to look elsewhere for a broader view. If (And this also seems quite likely) it is merely your mother telling you how special you are that has led you to believe you possess a mind greater than Nietzsche then I strongly suggest you get out more.
All the best,
Ed
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
You're an idiot.
And maybe you like to list all the answers Nietzsche gave the world for us.
Don't leave any behind - all of them (don't let any slip sort of thing).
Share with the world all the answers Nietzsche delivered.
Say hi to your mum for me.
K
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
Spiros Kakos
Who has the "right" to write about science and religion
What is written will be judged by other readers and rated accordingly, based on a logical critique of the article.
Stating that "you are a chemical engineer so you do not have the right to write about philosophy" is not valid no matter how you see it. Arguments should be answered with arguments and not with void statements of "authority".
Then there are fields such as philosophy that are not protected by law and the layman can have a field day pretending they were born philosophers and that they have what it takes to take up the challenges of outstanding problems of relevant field.
Philosophy is a field of expertise and like any other academic field it has to be learned. The layman cannot pretend to be a philosopher or that he or her are in a position to board the challenge of outstanding problems of the field.
Otherwise why don't I don on a white overcloak and enter a hospital and begin to play the doctor.
K
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
Looking forward to having your comments on specific parts of the article and discuss them with you. Hope you publish your book soon so that I can have a look at it!
Thanks again!
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
Kyriacos Kyprou
Invite as author
Chemical Engineering and Philosophy
Or maybe I should start writing articles on 'Chemical Engineering'. But since I am not qualified how well would that go down.
Are you qualified to write about philosophy?
And what has religion got to do with science?
They are the direct opposites. One remains a belief while the other is a route towards rational awareness.
You should stick to 'Chemical Engineering' mate, because you are hardly cut out to play the philosopher you pretend to be.
Philosophy is not a free for all to proclaim to be experts in the field. Dream on sort of thing.
Kyriacos Kyprou,
author of 'gifted'.