Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This popped up on my Twitter feed this morning and it is so true. So much of faith is about trying to make life fair or just or comprehensible (as far as the believer is concerned anyway), but the reality is that just like when you optimize for X you are inherently de-optimizing for Y, when you make life more "fair" for X you are invariably making it less "fair" for Y. There is no way for everything to be optimal or "fair" for everyone all the time (even ultimately!), and theism is a great big denial of this reality. It claims to provide, through prayer, the afterlife and similar mechanisms, some kind of balance and equity and justice and fairness, and a means to attain them (or more usually, just pine in hopefully for them).
The realization below will be seen by most theists as depressing, even nihilistic. What they fail to understand is that when you look at reality through rose colored glasses, you still have to carry the burden of knowing at some level that it's all BS, and of life continuing to inexorably unfold just the same as ever, constantly pushing back against your wall of denial. I have found that I handle misfortune and tragedy and even mere inconvenience far better than I used to, because I don't reflexively have to respond to these things with the perennial question, "why me"? Now I ask, "why not me"? -- and I move on. By comparison to what I used to be, I feel like a Zen master ;-)
The reverse problem of Evil. This is just what we would expect if there was no god with sense of justice and compassion somewhat like ours, but there was only a never -ending competition to eat, survive and reproduce.
Evolution is not necessarily nice, but is it, surely, true.
A lot of believers might find that very chilly and uncomforting, but the fact is that it is irrational to reject facts because they are not nice and prefer a cosy fantasy that makes you feel warm and fuzzy.
That's not to say one have no right to do so, but then one cannot claim that it makes rational sense, much less insist that it be taught in the classroom.
Not sure I understand what you are saying. Maximizing "fair" for x changing "fair" for y? Doesn't make sense. "Good" for x changing "good" for y, I can see that. But the whole concept of "fair" is about the relationship between good for x and good for y, and bad for x and bad for y, and for everyone a thru z who is related to the situation.
?????
BTW, not sure what you mean by evolution. Are you referring to observed facts, or some folks' suppositions about history?
Also, Richard Dawkins' observation is ridiculous. We should not expect ANYTHING without design or purpose. We (most especially including Dawkins) are not smart enough to expect the universe even WITH purpose or design, much less without. It also, of course, follows that we don't know much about the design or the purpose.
Not sure I understand what you are saying. Maximizing "fair" for x changing "fair" for y? Doesn't make sense. "Good" for x changing "good" for y, I can see that. But the whole concept of "fair" is about the relationship between good for x and good for y, and bad for x and bad for y, and for everyone a thru z who is related to the situation.
?????
The problem with a world that is fair for some means that it isn't as fair for others as they would like. I'm not entirely sure about that one myself, but that's what it means.
Quote:
BTW, not sure what you mean by evolution. Are you referring to observed facts, or some folks' suppositions about history?
In cases where we don't have the means to see what is happening at this instant of time, then it means (apart from the correct technical usage of the biological development of life through natural selection) it will mean the reliable reconstruction of what happened in the past using the sort of forensic methods that stand up in a court of law when reconstructing crime scenes.
Quote:
Also, Richard Dawkins' observation is ridiculous. We should not expect ANYTHING without design or purpose. We (most especially including Dawkins) are not smart enough to expect the universe even WITH purpose or design, much less without. It also, of course, follows that we don't know much about the design or the purpose.
In terms of limited human expectations, imperfect human perception and parochial human imagination, yes. Indeed, that was what saddled us with a flat earth, a dome with the heavenly bodies dangling from it and a huge invisible human that made everything. And of course 'designed' it all.
It is the testing of such hypotheses and finding that they do not fit the facts that has brought us to reconsider such 'ridiculous' ideas as there not being a designer let alone a purpose and to face the probability that the order we see is emergent from the innate behaviour of matter and is not the result of anyone planning it all out beforehand. And, it follows, that there is no particular purpose in it all.
Which is just as well, because it means that we are free to follow what matters to us and we are not constrained by some Plan imposed from above.
Not sure I understand what you are saying. Maximizing "fair" for x changing "fair" for y? Doesn't make sense. "Good" for x changing "good" for y, I can see that. But the whole concept of "fair" is about the relationship between good for x and good for y, and bad for x and bad for y, and for everyone a thru z who is related to the situation.
?????
It's pretty simple, really. There is no way to make life fair, just or comfortable for everyone. "One man's paradise is another's poison". Even the Bible says that it rains on the just and the unjust alike. One man prays for sunshine for his picnic, while a farmer down the road prays for rain for his crops -- to pick a random example. Or for another -- imagine a world in which a few people are given billions of dollars for doing nothing of value, perhaps for simply being born into a certain family, while others work hard at multiple jobs and still live hand-to-mouth, if not in poverty. Oh, wait ... that's the America we live in!
But that is not my essential point. My essential point is that the universe we live in clearly does not comport itself with a universe designed for our benefit and safety and comfort. It is consistent with "nature, red in tooth and claw", and with complete indifference for the beings within it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Call
BTW, not sure what you mean by evolution. Are you referring to observed facts, or some folks' suppositions about history?
I didn't say anything about evolution, nor was it mentioned in the Dawkins quote. Perhaps you are referring to Arequipa's response?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Call
Also, Richard Dawkins' observation is ridiculous. We should not expect ANYTHING without design or purpose. We (most especially including Dawkins) are not smart enough to expect the universe even WITH purpose or design, much less without. It also, of course, follows that we don't know much about the design or the purpose.
What is ridiculous is ruling out anything but a predetermined conclusion. We should observe what exists and follow the evidence where it leads us, even if that is away from what we would prefer would be true.
There is no reason to presuppose either randomness or design. There may be randomness or design to be observed and noted and investigated and perhaps even substantiated, but never assumed.
I have found it helpful to beware of the word MUST in my thinking, as in there MUST be a reason, or a purpose, or a design, or "something more". It's like when someone says they "can't stand" something or someone -- usually ignoring the fact that many other people can and do stand the exact same thing. They actually CAN stand it, they just don't want to. Similarly, it's not that the evidence points to a designed universe, it's just that you want it to.
Benefit? Safety? Comfort? We were talking about fair.
You are correct about the location of the original evolution comment.
There is plenty of reason to presume randomness AND design, one in one case, one in another. If you don't at least tentatively presume something, you won't have a hypothesis to test. That's OK, if you don't believe in science and/or don't want to learn anything.
Sorry for the sci-fi analogy: ...if a star goes supernova and a sentient race is annihilated, is the star wrong for going supernova?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
