• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Our gift to the Universe

Raithie

Raithie

atheist
I wrote a post about the lack of inherent meaning in the Universe, (Teenage Atheist: Our gift to the Universe) and I was wondering what some theists would think of it.

So, theists, do you agree that that the Universe is without an innate meaning? Do you disagree with anything I said in that post? I'm curious.
 
Reptillian

Reptillian

Hamburgler Extraordinaire
Have you read any philosophy? You sound like Pascal, the universe is more powerful than man, but reason gives man a purpose and power over the universe. I've always rather liked Aristotle's view that there are four different kinds of existence...form, material, purpose, and idea. I'm an agnostic and I know your question was directed toward theists, but I disagree with your view that the universe is without purpose. I think the universe should exemplify all different possible ways of existing.
 
Raithie

Raithie

atheist
Reptillian said:
Have you read any philosophy? You sound like Pascal, the universe is more powerful than man, but reason gives man a purpose and power over the universe. I've always rather liked Aristotle's view that there are four different kinds of existence...form, material, purpose, and idea. I'm an agnostic and I know your question was directed toward theists, but I disagree with your view that the universe is without purpose. I think the universe should exemplify all different possible ways of existing.
Click to expand...

Could you expand on the highlighted part? The post is referring to an inherent purpose. The universe just exists, there's no "deeper meaning" involved, other than physics & chemistry.
 
Reptillian

Reptillian

Hamburgler Extraordinaire
Raithie said:
Could you expand on the highlighted part? The post is referring to an inherent purpose. The universe just exists, there's no "deeper meaning" involved, other than physics & chemistry.
Click to expand...

What I mean, is that since the universe contains things that have purpose, it isn't necessarily unreasonable to speculate that the universe as a whole might have purpose. After all, our cells have the property of "life" and so do we as multicellular organisms. I can think of other examples of whole things which possess the properties of their constituents. The whole doesn't need to have the properties of its parts, but I don't think I can rule out the possibility that the universe has purpose. You're like a person who sees a work of art and appreciates the technique that went into creating it but doesn't appreciate its beauty. Seeing the world as just chemistry & physics is like hearing a musical composition and admiring mathematical theory behind the spacing between the notes but not enjoying it for the feelings that it evokes. Its like looking at Michelangelo's David and admiring the chiseling skill.

As a side note, there is this tendency toward reductionism in modern science. We assume that the properties of all objects can be understood in terms of their parts and the interactions of those parts. This way of thinking has served us well over the centuries and as a scientist I hold hope that the world can be understood in this way...however, I remain open to the possibility that the universe might even have properties which nothing composing it possess.
 
lunamoth

lunamoth

Will to love
The universe has no consciousness and so cannot appreciate a gift. It would be like giving a gift to a rock.

You can create meaning for yourself, but not for the universe.
 
Raithie

Raithie

atheist
lunamoth said:
The universe has no consciousness and so cannot appreciate a gift. It would be like giving a gift to a rock.

You can create meaning for yourself, but not for the universe.
Click to expand...

We are part of the universe.

Our existence is obviously not an actual gift, more of a metaphorical one. It's simply a way for the universe to know itself.

The thing I was interested in was to see if theists disagree with the lack of inherent meaning in the cosmos.
 
blackout

blackout

Violet.
"meaning" is found where there is Consciousness/Self Awareness/Intelligence.

Only in this context does 'meaning' seem to be inherent.

Tendency is inherent in all things,
as they are presently found.

It is the "finder" who then looks deeper into these tendencies for meaning.
 
Raithie

Raithie

atheist
Reptillian said:
What I mean, is that since the universe contains things that have purpose, it isn't necessarily unreasonable to speculate that the universe as a whole might have purpose. After all, our cells have the property of "life" and so do we as multicellular organisms. I can think of other examples of whole things which possess the properties of their constituents. The whole doesn't need to have the properties of its parts, but I don't think I can rule out the possibility that the universe has purpose.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't even agree that we have purpose. "Meaning" is a human construct. Biologically speaking, our only "meaning" is to reproduce, but that isn't even an actual meaning.
We can craft our own "meanings" from the things that we love and care about, but there's nothing inherent about it.

You're like a person who sees a work of art and appreciates the technique that went into creating it but doesn't appreciate its beauty. Seeing the world as just chemistry & physics is like hearing a musical composition and admiring mathematical theory behind the spacing between the notes but not enjoying it for the feelings that it evokes. Its like looking at Michelangelo's David and admiring the chiseling skill.
Click to expand...
No. I marvel at the Universe for what it is, not what I want it to be. I see it as being more beautiful for being so.

As a side note, there is this tendency toward reductionism in modern science. We assume that the properties of all objects can be understood in terms of their parts and the interactions of those parts. This way of thinking has served us well over the centuries and as a scientist I hold hope that the world can be understood in this way...however, I remain open to the possibility that the universe might even have properties which nothing composing it possess.
Click to expand...
Do you mean something simple interaction? Existing properties can combine and interact to create novel material.

Or are you referring to a mystical, binding force?
 
Reptillian

Reptillian

Hamburgler Extraordinaire
When I say that the universe contains things that have a purpose, I don't necessarily mean human beings or intelligences. The hammer and wrench in my tool box have a purpose. A merchant ship has a purpose, to transport goods. Birds have beaks that are shaped a variety of ways with the purpose of eating various kinds of food. I don't think you could completely understand those objects unless you were willing to admit that they had purpose. You say you admire the universe for what it is, not what you want it to be, but its seems to me that you want it to be purposeless and so see it as such. I submit that the universe may have a purpose and that we might guess that purpose by learning about the universe through science. After all, if I were an alien visitor trying to figure out what hammers are for, I could study their form/composition and hazard a guess.

Raithie said:
Do you mean something simple interaction? Existing properties can combine and interact to create novel material.

Or are you referring to a mystical, binding force?
Click to expand...

I'm certainly not refering to a mystical force. I'm saying that the modern stance of science is what you mention...that the world can be completely understood in terms of components and their interaction. I agree that new properties can emerge from components...temperature is the classic example and there are other properties as well. I was just pointing out that its possible that not all properties can be understood in terms of components or emergence. Perhaps purpose is an example of something being more than just the sum of its parts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top