interesting. I would say it's the other way around - materialistic religion (most instantiations of religion) and spiritualistic science (how science is generally understood) are in direct competition as explanations of life on earth, not to mention the compass by which we navigate values and meaning. The naturalistic fallacy isn't much of an impediment to most practical people, who look to science as an effective path to understand reality, while religion ( often a series of fallacies in search of purpose) diminishes in importance, except amongst the fanatics who view religion as a set of vulgar terrestrial commands. — Tom Storm

Ironically, The Hebrew religion was materialistic, morally pragmatic, and this-worldly (no afterlife), so their explanations for existence & evolution were mostly naturalistic, except for the creation of something from nothing. However, the Christian religion was spiritualized, not by Jesus (human messiah), but by Paul, who preached the divine Christ myth to the Gentiles. I suspect that most ancient religions were likewise materialistic, except for their invisible Nature gods, who performed the natural functions that we now assign to invisible Energy. But Christians look forward to salvation from the bonds of Materialism. Even mostly naturalistic Buddhism anticipates a sort of impersonal salvation in non-self Nirvana.

Again, ironically, Quantum Theory does sound a lot like "spiritualistic science", with angelic Virtual Particles existing in immaterial (mathematical) quantum fields of un-real Potential, until manifested to human observers. But I suspect that most modern scientists, including quantum theorists, would object to the idea that they are playing the same game as religion : to reveal the divine purpose of temporal existence in a material world. In Classical Science, meaningful Teleology, or Positive Progress, was a no-no. But some science-based theorists today look forward to a future species salvation in a Technological Singularity. That's not necessarily a Naturalistic Fallacy, but a Cultural Optimism envisioning collective purpose, to aim at the stars. :smile:

Quantum Spirituality :
Could the great challenges of the world, and our lives, be solved through the wisdom of the past merged with the best science of today?
https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Spirituality-Amit-Goswami-Ph-d/dp/9353479339

I spent quite a few years in the company of theosophists, Buddhists, Gnostics, and assorted New Age devotees. What struck me was the complete lack of transformational power their beliefs had for them. They were as anxious, ambitious, jealous, substance dependent and vulgarly materialistic as any group of hedge fund managers. It's a rare person who can escape the need for metanarratives as a bulwark against fears of anonymity and meaninglessness. Perhaps the belief in the progress of science is a secular variant, but at least it pays off now and again. :wink:

:fire:

:up:

What struck me was the complete lack of transformational power their beliefs had for them. — Tom Storm

Beliefs and practices, in my experience.

:clap: :fire:

It's a rare person who can escape the need for metanarratives as a bulwark against fears of anonymity and meaninglessness. Perhaps the belief in the progress of science is a secular variant, but at least it pays off now and again. :wink: — Tom Storm

:100:

:

Ok. I'm open to the idea of universalism (Origen) like Spong and I'd be happy if it's true. It makes more sense and gives more hope to life. Hell makes no sense to atheist and maybe it shouldnt make sense to them. If my mind is stuck in atheism im not less moral either. Religion can make good people do bad things and bad people do good things. Thats what the new atheists dont talk about. Religion has enormous reformative power. Lawrence Krauss however said he would rather not exist if God were real. I think it's important to see things from the other perspective. Have a good night

I'm confident you won't agree but, IME, as a passion, or existential commitment, "hope" (i.e. magical / wishful / group thinking ~ make believe) is so much easier than courage (i.e. defiantly joyful living) in the face of adversity (facticity). Disbelief is, and has always been, defiant and never easy conformity like "belief in gods/God". After all, it's the crutch of religion that, in the medium-to-long-term, cripples "the human spirit" (i.e. catastrophizes our histories), even as its homilies pacify our near-term anxieties. To put away childish things for good once childhood ends, Gregory, takes (metaphysical) courage. :fire:

(NB: "Religious martyrs", by most sympathetic accounts, have always exhibited many acute symptoms of psychosis and are much more compulsively delusional than hopeful or courageous.)

I've answered all your questions already. That's enough — Gregory

One day, I hope you will run into the arms of atheism and we will be your man.
Free at last Gregory! Hallelujah! Free at last!

I never said we weren't part of it. I correctly said we are only a part of it and an infinitesimal part of it with barely a trillionth of a speck of influence on it — Lambert Strether

The universe is vast and complex but what does that matter without a creature such as us that can feel 'awe' and 'wonder' when we ponder it? We are also compelled to strive to figure out what, how and why it is. We are the only lifeform (we currently know of) that demonstrates such a tendency.
The significance of that may be 'primo' in the entire universe.
I have always ascribed significant value to Carl Sagan's great demotions and I will continue to do so but I also strongly disagree with your generalised significance rating for humankind.
We influence the universe more than any other lifeform does at present.
No extraterrestial lifeform or god society has been in contact with us yet, to prove that wrong.

I'm confident you won't agree but, IME, as a passion, or existential commitment, "hope" (i.e. magical / wishful / group thinking ~ make believe) is so much easier than courage (i.e. defiantly joyful living) in the face of adversity (facticity). Disbelief is, and has always been, defiant and never easy conformity like "belief in gods/God". After all, it's the crutch of religion that, in the medium-to- long-term, cripples "the human spirit" (i.e. catastrophizes our histories), even as its homilies pacify our near-term anxieties. To put away childish things for good once childhood ends, Gregory, takes (metaphysical) courage. :fire:

(NB: "Religious martyrs", by most sympathetic accounts, have always exhibited many acute symptoms of psychosis and are much more compulsively delusional than hopeful or courageous.) — 180 Proof

What draws people to religion? Is it just a verbal pledge of a safety net to catch a believer's fall? Religions tend to be factually barren and yet, people by the millions end up believing in one god or another and even diehard atheists sometimes admit to having doubts about their own beliefs or lack thereof. Scientists like Albert Einstein were deists; perhaps deism is nothing more than the dying embers of theism, the last gasp of breath one sucks in as one passes on.

Lawrence Krauss however said he would rather not exist if God were real. — Gregory

:clap: Well said Lawrence, for what would we truly be?
A mere entertainment. A purpose for a purposeless, ineffable omnipotent whose existence is completely contradictory

I'm confident you won't agree but, IME, as a passion, or existential commitment, "hope" (i.e. magical / wishful / group thinking ~ make believe) is so much easier than courage (i.e. defiantly joyful living) in the face of adversity (facticity). Disbelief is, and has always been, defiant and never easy conformity like "belief in gods/God". After all, it's the crutch of religion that, in the medium-to- long-term, cripples "the human spirit" (i.e. catastrophizes our histories), even as its homilies pacify our near-term anxieties. To put away childish things for good once childhood ends, Gregory, takes (metaphysical) courage — 180 Proof

:clap: Soooooooooooo true!

and we have Hitchens:
"What we have here, picked from no mean source, is a distillation of precisely what is twisted and immoral in the faith mentality. Its essential fanaticism, its consideration of the human being as raw material, and its fantasy of purity.

Once you assume a creator and a plan, it makes us objects, in a cruel experiment, whereby we are created sick and commanded to be well. I'll repeat that. Created sick, and then ordered to be well.

And over us to supervise this, is installed a celestial dictatorship; a kind of divine North Korea. Exigent, I would say, more than exigent, greedy for uncritical praise, from dawn until dusk. And swift to punish the original sins with which it so tenderly gifted us in the very first place. An eternal, unalterable, judge, jury and executioner, against whom, there could be no appeal. And who wasn't finished with you even when you died. However! Let no one say there's no cure! Salvation is offered! Redemption, indeed, is promised, at the low price, of the surrender of your critical faculties."

You will also know Hitchens razor:
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

We know what-all is wrong with faith, magical thinking, wishful thinking. We know what's wonderful about reason, logic, the scientific method. But as to practicalities:
If we look at institutions and compare success-rates, all we have to do is go to any town in North America and count churches and hospitals or clinics.

What you describe as “The abject failure of Christianity to break into India, expand, and continue Eastward” can be explained by comparison with the spectacular expansion of Western science throughout the world. Science offers objective truth; religion offers comforting fictions — Art48

But isn't one of major reasons (or even the major reason) Christianity has failed to catch on in India is because of the success/dominance of Hinduism in India (~80% of the population identifies as Hindu, vs something like 2-3% identifying as Christian)? So is it really a failure of religion when one religion is thwarted by a different religion?

And while I agree that religion (and certain varieties of Christianity in particular) has failed- whereas science has succeeded- at discerning factual/empirical truths about the natural world, I think its fairly obvious that this isn't the only objective of religion: in fact, Christianity's insistence on the importance of belief that certain propositions are true (that God exists, that Jesus of Nazareth was god incarnate, and that he was crucified and subsequently resurrected) is actually fairly unique- most religions don't put anywhere near as much emphasis on belief or truth, but are often more concerned with conduct, rites and rituals (i.e. particular ways of living), enforcing certain norms, and maintaining certain traditions and social hierarchies.

And on these counts, I think religion has been fairly successful, and continues to be successful (look at the portion of the global population that is religious, look at the number of countries that are explicitly or implicitly theocratic, i.e. having policy dictated to some extent by a particular religious tradition- take the US and abortion, for instance).

So religion has failed as an explanatory endeavor... but it remains quite successful as a social, cultural, and political force (which I find to be sort of terrifying, to be completely honest).

Jokes aside, I'd say there is order, but it's local and temporary; chaos, on the other hand, is both global and permanent and increasing, exponentially. Stars, our only hope, burn for billions of years, but they die eventually.
What chance does Enformy have against Entropy - it's a losin' battle and therein lies the rub, eh mi amigo? — Agent Smith

As far as I know, the special kind of order (Life & Mind) we humans experience on Earth is rare in the universe. But my personal concern is local, so I don't worry about the order, or lack thereof, in the un-inhabitable areas of the cosmos. Nevertheless, like the ancient Greeks and modern Einstein, I do marvel at the beautifully organized structure of the universe. Beautiful, compared to what? To mess, chaos, confusion, squalor, disorder, disarray, clutter, etc. To the effects of Entropy.

From a philosophical perspective though, my interest is universal & cosmic. And modern Cosmology has confirmed the intuition of the ancients, that the Cosmos is distinguished from Chaos in that it is precisely enformed : apparently structured to serve some overall purpose. I don't know what that ultimate goal might be, but the physics of the universe seems to be finely tuned to distinguish organization (Enformy) from dis-organization (Entropy). For example, Evolution seems to function like a computer program, to begin with a loosely-defined goal and to seek-out intermediate solutions leading toward resolution of that cosmic equation : A + B + C . . . . = X.

Like Einstein, I'd like to break the code of that cosmic computer program. Unfortunately. lacking Albert's genius, all I can do is construct crude philosophical approximations of the enigmatic machine that is cranking-out bits of information (energy ; matter) from which to construct a complete cosmic "miracle".
Was Albert a pollyanna, looking only at the bright side of the world? Or a pragmatist, who understood that "all things are relative". Relativity is the reference frame (attitude ; perspective) through which you see one side or another of Reality. So, we only see the part of the universe that happens to be framed within our personal perspective. If you are looking for reasons to despair, aim your frame at Entropy. "Aye, there's the rub." :smile:


“There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.”
"One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality."
― Albert Einstein

Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on the idea of reference frames. A reference frame is simply "where a person (or other observer) happens to be standing".
https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/relativity5.htm

Teleology :
Philosophical term derived from Greek: telos (end, goal, purpose, design, finality) and logos (reason, explanation). Philosophers, from Aristotle onward, assumed that everything in the world has a purpose and a place in the scheme of history. As a religious concept, it means that the world was designed by God for a specific reason, such as producing sentient beings to stroke His ego with worship & sacrifices.
1. In Enformationism theory, Evolution seems to be progressing from past to future in increments of Enformation. From the upward trend of increasing organization over time, we must conclude that the randomness of reality (Entropy) is offset by a constructive force (Enformy). This directional trajectory implies an ultimate goal or final state. What that end might be is unknown, but speculation abounds.
2. Teilhard de Chardin postulated that God created the world to evolve toward perfection, eventually to become god-like. He called that end-state the Omega Point.
3. In Chris Langan's CTMU theory, the term "unbounded Telesis" refers to the infinite creative power of God for "planned progress".
4. <<By "spirit" Montesquieu meant "causes" from which one could derive "laws" that govern [physics & societies] . . . The necessary relations derived from the nature of things.>> Shermer, The Moral Arc
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page20.html

Teleonomy :
Although evolution is obviously progressing in the direction of Time's Arrow, it is treated by Science as if it is wandering aimlessly in a field of possibilities limited only by natural laws and initial conditions. But philosophical observers over the centuries have inferred that evolution shows signs of rational design, purpose, and intention. Traditionally, that programmed progression has been called "Teleology" (future + reason), and was attributed to a divine agent.
   Teleonomy (purpose + law) is another way of describing the appearance of goal-directed progress in nature, but it is imagined to be more like the step-by-step computations of a computer than the capricious interventions of a deity. Since the Enformationism thesis portrays the Creator more like a computer programmer than the Genesis wizard who creates with magic words (creatio via fiat), "Teleonomy" may be the more appropriate term to describe the creative process of a non-intervening deity.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page20.html

I believe in God because it is a beautiful idea. It's not about being saved from anxiety. It is very philosophical

I spent quite a few years in the company of theosophists, Buddhists, Gnostics, and assorted New Age devotees. What struck me was the complete lack of transformational power their beliefs had for them. They were as anxious, ambitious, jealous, substance dependent and vulgarly materialistic as any group of hedge fund managers. It's a rare person who can escape the need for metanarratives as a bulwark against fears of anonymity and meaninglessness. Perhaps the belief in the progress of science is a secular variant, but at least it pays off now and again. :wink: — Tom Storm

I am currently reading the 2012 book by historian James D. Tabor, Paul & Jesus : How the Apostle transformed Christianity. The author presents his interpretation of Christianity as the religion of Paul instead of Jesus. Many years ago, I came to the same conclusion. The inspiring story that Jesus preached was itself a metanarrative*1 of second temple Judaism, as interpreted by the apocalyptic monks we know as the Essenes. But Paul basically spiritualized their worldly anticipation of the Kingdom of God, by transferring it to a heavenly dominion, instead of a return to the golden age of Solomon's reign. For those living under the exploitative oppression of Rome, even a retro-action could be viewed as progressive*2.

Understandably, after the death of their Priest-King Messiah, Jesus' disciples were dispirited & despondent. So Paul saw a new direction for reviving those old this-worldly prophecies, in a way that would give them new hope. Unfortunately, those here & now disciples, expected Jesus to physically rise from the grave, to rule a restored Jerusalem, rid of Romans. But when the annointed king didn't come back to walk the Earth in physical form, Paul reinterpreted the prophecies to foretell that the Lord would instead sit on a heavenly throne in a spirit body to rule the whole world, both Jews & Gentiles. That is about as Meta (above & beyond) as it gets. His metanarrative*3 was intended to re-inspire the hopes & dreams of the Jews, and also to broaden its application to include the Gentiles.

The narratives of Science have also been transformed by new ways of looking at the world. Those "fact-based" meta-narratives are what we call Paradigms (generally accepted worldviews). For example, Gallileo changed our understanding of the stars, from circulating angels or gods to mere lumps of matter following paths prescribed by what later came to be known as abstract Gravity. From that first step, Classical Science began to take a modern materialistic form, in place of the ancient Greek interpretation of astrophysics, in which the agents of change (forces ; energy) were assumed to be intentional, but now viewed as accidental movements of mindless matter. More recently, Quantum Theory began to chip away the materialistic foundation of classical Science. So physicists are again in need of a new paradigm or metanarrative*4 to inspire hope for progress*5. :smile:

1. Metanarrative :
An overarching account or interpretation of events and circumstances that provides a pattern or structure for people’s beliefs and gives meaning to their experiences.

*2. The brief rule of the 2nd century Maccabean kings after revolt against the Greek rulers, could have been interpreted as a "pay off" for their religious "science". Which probably gave the later revolutionaries hope that indomitably keeping the faith would again "pay off" against the Romans.

*3. What is the Biblical Metanarrative? :
The biblical metanarrative is the overall story-line ​by which we can understand the Bible as a whole.
https://www.postmodernpreaching.net/the-biblical-metanarrative.html

*4. Scientific Progress :
Science is often distinguished from other domains of human culture by its progressive nature: in contrast to art, religion, philosophy, morality, and politics, there exist clear standards or normative criteria for identifying improvements and advances in science.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-progress/

*5. Technological Progress :
The technological singularity—or simply the singularity—is a hypothetical future point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable changes to human civilization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

IS SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS REAL ?

https://mathscholar.org/2019/01/is-scientific-progress-real/

I believe in God because it is a beautiful idea. — Gregory

Understood. I disbelieve in "God" because it's nothing but "a beautiful idea" (like utopia ... paradise ... heaven ...) :death: :flower:

From a philosophical perspective though, my interest is universal & cosmic. And modern Cosmology has confirmed the intuition of the ancients, that the Cosmos is distinguished from Chaos in that it is precisely enformed : apparently structured to serve some overall purpose. I don't know what that ultimate goal might be, but the physics of the universe seems to be finely tuned to distinguish organization (Enformy) from dis-organization (Entropy). — Gnomon

Contrary to the pseudo-"philosophical perspective" above: as the universe develops from minimum disorder to maximum disorder on a (non-constant) gradient, any 'order' is a temporary, dissipative phase-state of disorder. The asymmetric direction of cosmological development does not indicate a "purpose" any more than an avalanche down a mountainside indicates its "purpose". To quote a Nobel laureate theoretical physicist:

The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless. — Steven Weinberg

Another esteemed, particle physicist and philosopher Victor J Stenger dismisses teleological pseudo-science like "Enformationism"...

The universe is not fine-tuned to us; we are fine-tuned to our particular universe. — The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning (2011)

We have yet to encounter an observable astronomical phenomenon that requires a supernatural element to be added to a model in order to describe the event...Observations in cosmology look just as they can be expected to look if there is no God. — God: The Failed Hypothesis (2007)

I’m not a theorist or system builder. You can find anything you want about the 'true' story of Islam or Christianity, etc, in a myriad of (often contradictory) books. These publishing phenomena are tendentious and mainly driven by commercial or ideological interests and for the most part don’t interest me. I have no need for the a god or messiah hypothesis however it is expressed. When it comes to the Jesus myth, it was clearly inflicted upon the world by the Roman Empire and enforced as an institutional truth by society for centuries. The specific details of the myth's development and its evolution don’t much matter.

I’m not a theorist or system builder. You can find anything you want about the 'true' story of Islam or Christianity, etc, in a myriad of (often contradictory) books. These publishing phenomena are tendentious and mainly driven by commercial or ideological interests and for the most part don’t interest me. I have no need for the a god or messiah hypothesis however it is expressed. When it comes to the Jesus myth, it was clearly inflicted upon the world by the Roman Empire and enforced as an institutional truth by society for centuries. The specific details of the myth's development and its evolution don’t much matter. — Tom Storm

The book referenced is a history book, not a religious treatise. Do you feel that the details of history "don't much matter"? Maybe you missed the intended point of the post in the midst of indirect contextual commentary*1. What I was getting around to though, is a response to your implied parallel between religious & scientific belief in Progress*2. Since Science inspires hope for Physical progress in controlling Nature, it has something in common with religions that preach reasons for hoping that Ethical progress -- to control human nature -- will follow from socio-cultural change.

We evaluate scientific progress by the leverage it gives humanity over the impartial forces of Nature, turning them to our own advantage. But putting such power in the hands of ethically-challenged humans can easily turn pro-gress into re-gress. For example, the Manhattan Project scientists, who gave us the tools to exploit nuclear power, later began to regret their role in unleashing such fraught forces upon a world lacking the necessary moral code to control god-like power*3.

Since the Enlightenment era, progressive Science has been deemed to require an open-minded amoral (factual) stance ; leaving ethical considerations to feckless (non-progressive) philosophers. Yet Science gives us tools that, like a hammer, can be used for both constructive and destructive purposes. Although religions often control human behavior via top-down coercive methods, the philosophical underpinnings*4 of those religions are intended to give us tools for self-control. With that in mind, I was merely expanding on what you intuitively implied : that Science & Philosophy should work hand in hand to advance the interests of humanity in an otherwise indifferent world. :smile:


*1. Context that was meaningful to me -- due to my religious background -- if not to you.

*2. " Perhaps the belief in the progress of science is a secular variant, but at least it pays off now and again" ___Tom Storm

*3. Oppenheimer's Regret :
"I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, 'Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.'"
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph241/anderson1/

*4. Including Agnosticism, Atheism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, New Age, etc . . .
https://www.josh.org/what-are-the-top-religious-philosophies/

The book referenced is a history book, not a religious treatise. Do you feel that the details of history "don't much matter"? — Gnomon

I know what it is. You don't think history is tendentious and subject to publishing fads? Interesting.

I thought I was clear - I am not much interested in people's pet theories about how this particular messiah myth was tweaked/distorted over time.

We evaluate scientific progress by the leverage it gives humanity over the impartial forces of Nature, turning them to our own advantage. But putting such power in the hands of ethically-challenged humans can easily turn pro-gress into re-gress. For example, the Manhattan Project scientists, who gave us the tools to exploit nuclear power, later began to regret their role in unleashing such fraught forces upon a world lacking the necessary moral code to control god-like power*3. — Gnomon

So what? You don't think putting god/s into the hands of your 'ethically-challenged humans' hasn't also been a magnificent scourge - from holy wars to stacking the Supreme Court? The original power of mass destruction was religion.

I thought I was clear - I am not much interested in people's pet theories about how this particular messiah myth was tweaked/distorted over time. — Tom Storm

I apologize for bothering you with my personal interest in the "details" of a myth that was the foundation of my worldview in my youth. Although I no longer believe the myth, I am not hostile to current believers, including my own family. Instead, I understand how compelling such a fundamental narrative can be to those faced with a puzzling and sometimes threatening world. :smile:

What draws people to religion? Is it just a verbal pledge of a safety net to catch a believer's fall? Religions tend to be factually barren and yet, people by the millions end up believing in one god or another and even diehard atheists sometimes admit to having doubts about their own beliefs or lack thereof. Scientists like Albert Einstein were deists; perhaps deism is nothing more than the dying embers of theism, the last gasp of breath one sucks in as one passes on. — Agent Smith

What "draws" people against religious philosophies, that have no power to enslave their holders in a particular authoritarian system? Since you have become the designated go-between for the vs Gnomon controversy, I'll take this opportunity to respond to his latest polemical diatribe without actually engaging in dialog. You seem to think that the BothAnd philosophy requires such intercommunication, but I prefer not to get involved in political squabbles.

I do think Deism may be the skeletal remains of religious belief for some people. But, as a rational philosophical stance, it lacks the emotional vibe that "draws" people to religion. My position is a kind of Deism, specifically PanEnDeism. But even that may be too close to religious belief for 180wooboo to abide. So, what "draws" people to Philosophy instead of religion? Certainly not the need for a "crutch" or "safety net". Perhaps instead, the "draw" is insatiable curiosity, as Einstein noted in his case.

In his counter-attack to my post above 180alcoholcontent, made a series of assertions -- not arguments -- supported by quotes from authoritative sources. My post observed that "the Cosmos is distinguished from Chaos in that it is precisely enformed : apparently structured to serve some overall purpose. I don't know what that ultimate goal might be, but the physics of the universe seems to be finely tuned to distinguish organization (Enformy) from dis-organization (Entropy)". To that, he responded :

ENTROPY

"Contrary to the pseudo-"philosophical perspective" above: as the universe develops from minimum disorder to maximum[ disorder on a (non-constant) gradient, any 'order' is a temporary, dissipative phase-state of disorder. The asymmetric direction of cosmological development does not indicate a "purpose" any more than an avalanche down a mountainside indicates its "purpose". To quote a Nobel laureate theoretical physicist: The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless". — Steven Weinberg

1. His reversed reference to "minimum disorder" at the Big Bang betrays his prejudice toward Entropy as the dominant dis-organizing principle of the universe. To the contrary, if the universe developed from a state of "minimum disorder" that means it was maximally organized. If so, the philosophical question, that Atheists avoid like the plague, is how did the initial Singularity get organized enough to create a world from scratch? As the link below says, we can distinguish between dissipative (entropy) "natural" and "cultural" (enformy) processes by noting the arrow of Entropy. Which points away from Order (max energy) toward Disorder (max Entropy). Likewise, we can discern Natural processes from Super-natural in the same manner. For example, how did the Singularity get organized into "minimum disorder / max order" prior to the BB? I don't know, but I can guess. 180 is entitled to a personal opinion that the world is a "hostile" place; but I respectfully disagree.
To quote a Nobel laureate theoretical physicist :
"One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality". ___Einstein

Entropy: the disorder of the universe
On the other hand, entropy is also how humans distinguish between natural and man-made structures. If you saw a pile of logs neatly stacked up on the ground, you would probably think that a human—more specifically, a lumberjack—had done it. But why? Because nature tends to push things to become more disordered. A neat pile of logs is not disordered, but randomly strewn-out logs are. Our brains are able to make a distinction between what is and what isn’t natural based on how random it appears.
https://thestrand.ca/entropy-the-disorder-of-the-universe/
(i.e. how Purposeful it appears)

A dissipative structure is a form of organization (order), which means that the entropy (disorder) of the system concerned is not maximum.
https://global4cast.org/2019/06/dissipative-structures-explained-part-3-modern-thermodynamics/

COMPREHENSIBILITY

2. Compare Weinberg's negative attitude to Einstein's more positive view. Which is more authoritative?

"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible" ___Einstein

"You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton's theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. ___Einstein

TELEOLOGY

3. I had a brief dialog with Stenger many years ago, and he did indeed dismiss my musings about directionality of evolution. But then, he was a physicist, not an evolutionary biologist. So, the Darwinian Teleology was not apparent to him.

Ironically, it was Science, not Religion, that revealed the teleological tendencies of the natural world -- that it is evolving in a positive direction. Most traditional religions have always assumed a steady-state universe that either stays the same forever, or simply goes around in circles. But agnostic or godless scientists determined that the evidence from Biology, Geology, and Paleontology indicates that many small random changes add-up to progressive evolution toward increasing order and complexity -- at least in the corner of the cosmos we can study in detail.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page29.html

Why did evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane quip that "teleology is like a mistress to a biologist : he cannot live without her, but he's unwilling to be seen with her in public."? Why is the notion of directional progression in evolution so repellant to mainstream scientists?
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page25.html

Even Darwin himself admitted, regarding “blind chance or necessity”, that “I am compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree  analogous to that of man and I deserve to be called a theist”. Perhaps not a biblical Theist, but an enlightenment Deist. Even theistic botanist, Asa Grey, noted that, “Darwinian teleology has the special advantage of accounting for the imperfections and failures as well as for successes”. And that is also the case for the Intelligent Evolution corollary to the thesis of Enformationism.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page14.html

Note : see my post above for application of the term "Teleonomy" (future + reason) in place of "Teleology" burdened by its historical connection to Theology.

FINE TUNING

180 quoted Stenger : "The universe is not fine-tuned to us; we are fine-tuned to our particular universe." So, you can choose which theoretical physicist you find to be more authoritative.

4. In the foreword, prominent physicist John Archibald Wheeler summarized the philosophical meaning of this scientific data : “It is not only that man is adapted to the universe . . .”, as implied by Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, but that, “the universe is adapted to man.” He goes on to assert the “central point of the anthropic principle”, that “a life-giving factor lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world.” He made that assertion, despite knowing that “design” is a dirty word in the vocabulary of most scientists. The authors mention several key assumptions, (see side-notes left), that also apply to the Enformationism thesis. Yet, Wheeler goes further out on a limb to contend that, “This amazing prediction looks like being some day testable and therefore would seem to count as ‘falsifiable’ in the sense of Karl Popper”. He may be best known for his provocative “It from Bit” hypothesis, that everything in the material world is created from the immaterial essence that we now know as “Information”. Which is the core concept of my own philosophical worldview.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html

SUPERNATURAL ELEMENT

5. Although I didn't mention a supernatural God, he again quoted Stenger : "We have yet to encounter an observable astronomical phenomenon that requires a supernatural element to be added to a model in order to describe the event...Observations in cosmology look just as they can be expected to look if there is no God." Compare that Atheistic assertion to Einstein's Deistic attitude.

“We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations". ___Albert Einstein

"It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in nature." __Albert Einstein

END OF DUELING PHYSICISTS

I apologize for bothering you with my personal interest in the "details" of a myth that was the foundation of my worldview in my youth. — Gnomon

This sounds a little passive aggressive - did you intend it this way?

I was brought up in the Baptist tradition so I think I understand.

You seem to like exploring elaborate explanations for everything. I don't. I am not engaged in the mad scramble to make sense of all things as 1) I am not a scholar or expert and 2) I generally reject the premise that humans can attain any kind of absolute truth or ultimate reality. I also leave theology, neuroscience and physics to qualified theologians, neuroscientists and physicists. Ultimately how I conduct my life is unlikely to be effected by any armchair theorising in those areas.

@Agent Smith :yawn:

My position [Enformationism, BothAnd, Meta-Physics] is a kind of Deism, specifically PanEnDeism. — Gnomon

So, by this concept, nature – the universe / multiverse – is merely the physical aspect of a greater, non-physical entity (deity, creator, process) aka "Enformer" ... and yet, Gnomon, there is not any evidence for or sound argument demonstrating that in order for nature to be intelligible, and explicable, nature requires a non-physical entity ("Enformer") of which to be a part. I do not discern any substantive differences between (neo-Aristotlean) "Enformationism" and (neo'-Thomistic) "Intelligent Design", but I remain open to being persuaded to reconsider this unfavorable comparison.

I get the gist of your Enformationism and I for one would gladly subscribe to your channel and I believe I am.

@180 Proof, for my money, has one gripe against your theory viz. the fact that it seems impossible to retain design (Enformy, teleology, etc.) without a designer implicit. So thought you try valiantly to distance yourself from religion, it comes off as incoherent at best or deception at worst.

Another thing, please take this as constructive criticism, your theory relies on controversy (dueling physicists) rather than solid facts - its home is in the darkness of our ignorance rather than the light of our knowledge. Given your caliber, I'm expecting a first class response from you.

Don't hold your breath, amigo. :smirk:

Don't hold your breath, amigo. :smirk: — 180 Proof

:smile:

Pepe (Asterix in Spain)

This sounds a little passive aggressive - did you intend it this way? — Tom Storm

No. I typically apologize when my "exploring elaborate explanations " pushes someone's buttons, and they take offense. That's not "passive aggressive" but merely respectful politeness that is necessary to maintain calm rational dialog on a controversial forum.

What I do intend is to do what philosophers do : "inquiry into fundamental questions". Studying "settled" questions of science, may produce simple explanations, such as E=MC^2. But exploring unsettled, and unsettling, questions of philosophy, often requires "elaborate explanations". So, if you prefer simple or facile explanations, Classical Science can provide them : Isaac Newton -- His third law states that for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction. But many of the fundamental & existential questions of Classical Philosophy remain unsettled after 2500 years of exploration and elaboration. :smile:


What is the work of a philosopher? :
Philosophy encourages critical and systematic inquiry into fundamental questions of right and wrong, truth and falsehood, the meaning of life, and the nature of reality, knowledge and society.
https://philosophy.as.uky.edu/where-can-philosophy-take-me

Philosophical Questions :
Philosophy raises questions that address fundamental issues and beliefs and which require complex thinking rather than empirical research to answer. . . .
“Philosophy attempts to clarify and illuminate unsettled, controversial issues that are so generic that no scientific discipline is equipped to deal with them” (Lipman, 1988, p. 91).
https://www.encyclopedia.com/education/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/philosophical-questions-their-nature-and-function