#science religion and philosophy

[thebeesareback]

I'm fascinated by the way scientists interact with religion. On one hand you have Sir David Attenborough, who said "I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy". On the other hand, you have JBS Haldane who remarked "the Creator must be inordinately fond of beetles: the earth is home to some 30 million different species of them." I appreciate the diversity

[geometrymatters]

The geometry of the Borromean Rings

Borromean rings are a captivating geometric structure composed of three interlinked rings. What makes them unique is their interdependency; if any one ring is removed, the entire structure collapses. This fascinating property, known as "Brunnian" linkage, means that no two rings are directly linked, yet all three are inseparable as a group. This intricate dance of unity and fragility offers a profound insight into the nature of interconnected systems, both in mathematics and beyond.

Borromean Rings and Mathematical Knots

Borromean rings also find a significant place in the study of mathematical knots, a field dedicated to understanding how loops and tangles can be organized and categorized. The intricate relationship among the rings provides a rich visual and conceptual tool for mathematicians. Knot theorists use these rings to explore properties of space, topology, and the ways in which complex systems can be both resilient and fragile. The visual representation of Borromean rings in knot theory not only aids in mathematical comprehension but also enhances our appreciation of their symmetrical beauty and profound interconnectedness.

Symbolism and Divinity in Borromean Rings

Throughout history, Borromean rings have been imbued with symbolic significance, often associated with divinity and the concept of the trinity. In Christianity, they serve as a powerful visual metaphor for the Holy Trinity – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit – illustrating how three distinct entities can form a single, inseparable divine essence. This symbol is not confined to Christianity alone; many other cultures and religions see the interconnected rings as representations of unity, interdependence, and the intricate balance of the cosmos.

Borromean Rings as a Metaphor for Illusory Reality

Beyond their mathematical and symbolic significance, Borromean rings offer a profound metaphor for the nature of reality itself. They illustrate how interconnectedness can create the illusion of a solid, stable structure. This resonates with philosophical and spiritual notions that reality, as perceived, is a complex web of interdependent elements, each contributing to an overarching illusion of solidity and permanence. In this way, the Borromean rings challenge us to reconsider the nature of existence and the interconnectedness of all things.

[kafkasapartment]

Like a casual and relatable first lecture you might get in an introduction to philosophy and religion course.

[a-typical]

Part of the reason that children are afraid of the dark may be that, in our entire evolutionary history up until just a moment ago, they never slept alone. Instead, they nestled safely, protected by an adult, usually Mum. In the enlightened west we stick them alone in a dark room, say goodnight, and have difficulty understanding why they're sometimes upset. It makes good evolutionary sense for children to have fantasies of scary monsters. In a world stalked by lions and hyenas, such fantasies help prevent defenceless toddlers from wandering too far from their guardians. How can this safety machinery be effective for a vigorous, curious young animal unless it delivers industrial strength terror? Those who are not afraid of monsters tend not to leave descendants.

— The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark - Carl Sagan (1996)

[that-one-girls-blog-posts]

Nothing worse than getting into a new subject and having no one to discuss it with

[nando161mando]

[hexagr]

Lately, I've been reading about Sumer, Egypt, Assyria, Asia, Greece, and various early human civilizations. In the past, the general notion of 'religion' once entwined art, science, and ethics. That is to say that religion has, by and large, been a quasi-unifying way of viewing nature as one dynamic, connected thing.

Modernity seems to have abstractly tried to separate these ideas and isolate them into their own realms, as if they exist independently of one another.

This is kind of ironic. Because today we know from both physics and plain observation that ideas and things are interconnected. Denying this is absurd.

Knowledge itself, like great art and science, is often forged through great adversity. This is counter-intuitively good. One can get an understanding of a culture from how its inhabitants view both its ancestors and the hard-earned knowledge that's been passed down from generation to generation. Or, failing that, inquiring about where, exactly, it gets its knowledge from.

And physical and spiritual traits tend to be entwined, too (medical issues aside). One tends to accompany the other. For example, traits at a spiritual and metaphysical level get reflected at the object level. Thus, we can observe that the morals or values of a culture are sometimes reflected in the outward appearances, behaviors, and artistic creations of the people. Many of these principles are surprisingly generalizable.

A culture is the sum of this and more. Categories of things like these can reveal how a culture organizes itself. How it reproduces itself—not just sexually but memetically. It's customs and practices. How it records itself, thinks of itself, and artistically expresses itself. And what it permits and forbids.

Religion is like culture. And culture is almost indistinguishable from religion.

The main difference, I think, is that religion is encompassing in the sense that it has functionally served as a container for science, art, and itself for much of history.

In this way, religion is like an overarching organic structure that has served various functions in structuring ideas as well as social order.

Furthermore, every culture and subculture is a sort of quasi-religion, even if it doesn't explicitly identify as one.

Some claim that we have transcended religion, that we have eclipsed the past, and that we have left even our primitive shadows behind. But I don't think this is true at all.

It's religion all the way down. We still worship; we still play primal games; and we still play with fire and blood, albeit in different ways. It's just today that we're a primitive culture of Simians with computers. Some might say we are savage robots.

Others assert we are more highly evolved and know more today than ever before. And maybe, in some ways, we do know more. But in some other ways, it seems we have forgotten many of the obvious things that we once knew.

*This post is not a claim that religion is intrinsically good. It's an observation that religion, in the context of antiquity, was organic—and that in the spirit of functionalism, it served a purpose—that it was once (and still is, to some extent) a container for many things. But knowledge, science, ethics, and so on are collectively dynamic and evolving things. And we can all agree that nobody would want to live in a universe where people are put to death for wearing the wrong clothes or some other frivolous triviality. To say that humanity was completely better off at some point in the ancient past is blasphemy against human progress.

[liberatingreality]

The enemy of science is not religion. Religion comes in endless shapes and forms… The true enemy is the substitution of thought, reflection, and curiosity with dogma.

Frans De Waal

[disgruntledexplainer]

i love how physicists have picked up the "free will versus determinism" argument that Catholics and Calvinists have been having for centuries, only to end up just as bogged down as the theologians were because of the incompatibility of quantum mechanics and general relativity.

[noosphe-re]

Is Natural Science finally committed to materialism? There is no doubt that the theories of science constitute trustworthy knowledge, because they are verifiable and enable us to predict and control the events of Nature. But we must not forget that what is called science is not a single systematic view of Reality. It is a mass of sectional views of Reality - fragments of a total experience which do not seem to fit together. Natural Science deals with matter, with life, and with mind; but the moment you ask the question how matter, life, and mind are mutually related, you begin to see the sectional character of the various sciences that deal with them and the inability of these sciences, taken singly, to furnish a complete answer to your question. In fact, the various natural sciences are like so many vultures falling on the dead body of Nature, and each running away with a piece of its flesh. Nature as the subject of science is a highly artificial affair, and this artificiality is the result of that selective process to which science must subject her in the interests of precision. The moment you put the subject of science in the total of human experience it begins to disclose a different character.

Muhammad Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam

[ruth-t]

Spirit feels, ego thinks.

How could feelings ever be

wrong when they were

meant to be felt?

[anglerflsh]

can you believe he's a history major

[starrsualideas]

What if people believe that God will save them, but in reality, He won't, and humanity must take responsibility for saving itself? Could it be that we're egotistical in assuming He cares specifically about us when there are countless other planets in the universe?

Humanity’s Illusion of Divine Rescue: A Call for Self-Reliance in a Vast Universe

The belief in a higher power, particularly one that intervenes in human affairs, has been a central tenet in many religious and philosophical traditions throughout history. People have often turned to God in times of need, placing their faith in the idea that divine intervention will save them from the struggles and challenges of life. However, what if this belief is misguided? What if, in the grand scale of the universe, Earth is just one of countless planets, and humanity's assumption that God cares specifically about us is nothing more than an expression of our own ego? This essay explores the possibility that God might not intervene to save humanity and that humans must take full responsibility for their own salvation. By examining themes of human responsibility, the ego of anthropocentrism, the philosophical implications of divine distance, and the need for humility in the face of a vast universe, we can better understand the role of self-reliance in the human experience.

Human Responsibility Over Divine Intervention

The idea that humans must save themselves is deeply connected to the concept of personal and collective responsibility. Throughout history, many religious traditions have emphasized the need for humans to work in partnership with God to bring about salvation or to create a better world. However, in many cases, this partnership has been interpreted as humans relying on divine intervention to solve their problems. This belief can be comforting, as it allows individuals to feel that a higher power is watching over them and will ultimately make things right.

However, the concept of divine intervention is challenged by the reality that humans often face struggles and challenges without any apparent divine assistance. Wars, natural disasters, pandemics, and social injustices persist despite prayers and pleas for divine rescue. This suggests that humans cannot depend on God to solve their problems and must instead take full responsibility for their own actions and the consequences they bring about. Rather than waiting for a higher power to intervene, humans must work together to address the pressing issues of the world, such as climate change, inequality, and global conflicts.

This shift from reliance on divine intervention to human responsibility emphasizes the importance of agency. If humans are to save themselves, they must be active participants in shaping their own future. This requires individuals and communities to take responsibility for their decisions, actions, and the impact they have on the world around them. The notion that humans must save themselves challenges the passive mindset that often accompanies religious faith and calls for a proactive approach to solving the world’s problems.

The Ego and the Anthropocentric View of the Universe

At the heart of this issue is the human ego and the tendency to view the world—and the universe—through an anthropocentric lens. Anthropocentrism is the belief that humans are the most important entity in the universe and that everything, including God, revolves around us. This perspective has shaped much of human thought and culture for millennia, leading people to assume that Earth and humanity are at the center of God’s plan.

However, as our understanding of the universe expands, this assumption becomes increasingly difficult to justify. The discovery of countless other planets, stars, and galaxies has shown that Earth is just one small part of a vast, possibly infinite, universe. In this context, it seems egotistical to assume that God would focus all of His attention on one planet or one species. The idea that Earth is the center of divine concern is not only self-centered but also diminishes the vastness and complexity of the universe that God, if He exists, may care for.

By recognizing the possibility that Earth is just one of many planets, humans are forced to confront their own insignificance in the grand scheme of things. This realization can be humbling, as it challenges the long-held belief that humanity is special or chosen. Instead of assuming that God will save us because we are important, we must acknowledge that we are just one part of a much larger cosmic puzzle. This shift in perspective encourages humility and a broader, more inclusive understanding of the universe.

Philosophical Implications of Divine Distance

The idea that God might not save humanity raises important philosophical questions about the nature of divine care and involvement in the world. Traditionally, many religious believers have viewed God as a personal, caring being who is intimately involved in human affairs. This belief is rooted in the idea that God created humans in His image and cares deeply about their well-being.

However, what if God’s care is not as personal as we have imagined? What if, instead of being focused on the affairs of one planet or species, God’s concern spans the entire universe? This perspective aligns with the deistic view of God, which suggests that God created the universe but does not intervene in its day-to-day workings. In this scenario, God might be more like a distant creator who set the universe in motion and allows it to unfold according to natural laws.

This concept of divine distance challenges the traditional belief in a personal God who intervenes in human affairs. It raises the possibility that humans must navigate their own challenges and find their own solutions without expecting divine rescue. Rather than viewing this as a loss of faith, it can be seen as an opportunity for humans to exercise their free will and take full responsibility for their actions. In this view, God’s role is not to save us but to give us the tools and the autonomy to save ourselves.

Human Self-Reliance and the Need for Humility

If humanity cannot rely on divine intervention, then self-reliance becomes essential. Self-reliance is not only about individual empowerment but also about collective responsibility. As a species, humans must work together to address global challenges and create a sustainable future. This requires a shift in mindset from waiting for divine salvation to actively participating in the betterment of the world.

At the same time, the recognition of humanity’s place in the universe calls for humility. The vastness of the cosmos and the likelihood of other planets, life forms, and civilizations remind us that we are not the center of existence. This humility can be a powerful motivator for taking responsibility for our planet and each other, recognizing that we are part of something much larger than ourselves.

Humility also encourages a more ethical approach to human life. If we are not the center of divine attention, then we must focus on how we treat each other and the world around us. The notion that humans must save themselves reinforces the need for ethical behavior, empathy, and cooperation. It challenges the ego-driven belief that we are special or chosen and instead promotes a sense of shared responsibility for the well-being of all.

Conclusion: Embracing Human Responsibility in a Vast Universe

The idea that God might not save humanity and that we must save ourselves offers a profound shift in perspective. It challenges long-held beliefs about divine intervention and human importance in the universe, calling for greater self-reliance, humility, and ethical responsibility. By recognizing that we are just one of countless planets in a vast universe, we can move beyond the ego-driven assumption that God’s focus is solely on us. Instead, we must embrace our role as stewards of our own destiny, working together to address the challenges of our world. In doing so, we become the agents of our own salvation, shaping a future that reflects our collective responsibility and potential.

[kafkasapartment]

“Or that “the lives of Oliver Cromwell (1599–1658) and René Descartes (1596–1650) synced almost perfectly with each other, despite the one being the dogmatically Puritan figurehead of the English Civil War, and the other the father of modern, rationalist philosophy by giving doubt to a central role in the pursuit of truth”?

[a-typical]

Some people consider science arrogant - especially when it purports to contradict beliefs of long standing or when it introduces bizarre concepts that seem contradictory to common sense; like an earthquake that rattles our faith in the very ground we're standing on, challenging our accustomed beliefs, shaking the doctrines we have grown to rely upon, can be profoundly disturbing.

Nevertheless, I maintain that science is part and parcel humility. Scientists do not seek to impose their needs and wants on Nature, but instead humbly interrogate Nature and take seriously what they find. We are aware that revered scientists have been wrong. We understand human imperfection. We insist on independent and - to the extent possible - quantitative verification of proposed tenets of belief. We are constantly prodding, challenging, seeking contradictions or small, persistent residual errors, proposing alternative explanations, encouraging heresy. We give our highest rewards to those who convincingly disprove established beliefs.

— The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark - Carl Sagan (1996)

[khaanahbadoshiyaan]

the more you know, the less you can claim to know