I agree with pretty much everything you said up until you implied they ultimately return to some form of customized religious belief (still gave the thumbs up, tho). If they do that, it’s most likely because it’s of comfort to them on some level to have that rather than completely obliterate the foundation of their childhood. There’s certainly no logic to deciding something religious is responsible for reality when it’s obviously one of the many things we are unlikely to ever know the true reason for - mainly because it’s recursive: e.g. if “God” created all this, then how did God come to be? Then how did that come to be? Etc. Etc. Etc.
Morality is most certainly possible without any kind of religious foundation. Ask me how I know.
They don’t have to. That’s the beauty of it. Some never do. I don’t fault them for it and never will.
Agency implies choice. So any religion stating that god gave us agency is bound to respect that. It follows that anyone going against this fact or arguing that said agency precludes certain choices does not really understand what free will is, nor the true message being conveyed by their own faith. :)
All right, now let me to respond to the other stuff without that misunderstanding looming in the way. :P
If they do that, it’s most likely because it’s of comfort to them on some level to have that rather than _completely_ obliterate the foundation of their childhood. There’s certainly no logic to deciding something religious is responsible for reality when it’s obviously one of the many things we are unlikely to **_ever_** know the true reason for - mainly because it’s recursive: e.g. if “God” created all this, then how did God come to be? Then how did _that_ come to be? Etc. Etc. Etc.
Are you speaking of Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem? Sorry if that’s not the correct name. I call it the N+1 problem personally (long story), but the gist is that we can’t observe our universe in its entirety without looking from a higher dimension with at least one more axis.
I think that’s essentially the recursiveness you’re speaking of: we cannot study our reality because it requires a perspective/view point that’s located outside of it. Correct?
It’s all about perspective. If we can’t truly see from without, why not nudge the viewport from within a bit? :P
Creative work and literature (memes also count!) are a great medium for exploration in this regard. Like… look at that Robert J. Sawyer’s book “Calculating God” (he’s one of my absolute favourite authors because of that book and others) and the fire it lit under so many butts in some “intellectual” circles, just by exploring the unconventional and discussing something both sides of the argument aren’t comfortable with.
I love things like that. Things that require your brain to do some squats and warm up before reading the next chapter.
I agree with pretty much everything you said up until you implied they ultimately return to some form of customized religious belief (still gave the thumbs up, tho). If they do that, it’s most likely because it’s of comfort to them on some level to have that rather than completely obliterate the foundation of their childhood. There’s certainly no logic to deciding something religious is responsible for reality when it’s obviously one of the many things we are unlikely to ever know the true reason for - mainly because it’s recursive: e.g. if “God” created all this, then how did God come to be? Then how did that come to be? Etc. Etc. Etc.
Morality is most certainly possible without any kind of religious foundation. Ask me how I know.
They don’t have to. That’s the beauty of it. Some never do. I don’t fault them for it and never will.
Agency implies choice. So any religion stating that god gave us agency is bound to respect that. It follows that anyone going against this fact or arguing that said agency precludes certain choices does not really understand what free will is, nor the true message being conveyed by their own faith. :)
Fair enough - well said.
All right, now let me to respond to the other stuff without that misunderstanding looming in the way. :P
Are you speaking of Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem? Sorry if that’s not the correct name. I call it the N+1 problem personally (long story), but the gist is that we can’t observe our universe in its entirety without looking from a higher dimension with at least one more axis.
I think that’s essentially the recursiveness you’re speaking of: we cannot study our reality because it requires a perspective/view point that’s located outside of it. Correct?
Poetry used to provide an ‘external’ answer to Gödel, in that regard. Now I am not sure what, we’re stuck with memes I guess.
It’s all about perspective. If we can’t truly see from without, why not nudge the viewport from within a bit? :P
Creative work and literature (memes also count!) are a great medium for exploration in this regard. Like… look at that Robert J. Sawyer’s book “Calculating God” (he’s one of my absolute favourite authors because of that book and others) and the fire it lit under so many butts in some “intellectual” circles, just by exploring the unconventional and discussing something both sides of the argument aren’t comfortable with.
I love things like that. Things that require your brain to do some squats and warm up before reading the next chapter.