Thus God is irrational?for the reality of the universe is inherently irrational and meaningless; even if there exists a meaning or something sublime and superior such that a definition or a providence is indeed bestowed to the universe, it is, nonetheless, most certainly hidden away from the domain of pure reason. — Showmee
What do you mean? Don't we have, in various forms, "nothing is without reason." Does not the world and the universe appear soon enough to yield to reason where reason chooses to look?Thus, the universe, for humanity at least, is fundamentally irrational, — Showmee
English words: but what do they mean? What are you trying to say?eternally doomed to remain ignorant pertaining to the quiddity of the cosmos, which most probably is no-existent. — Showmee
Facts and values entirely unrelated? That seems extravagant. And so forth. I suggest, fwiw, you ask yourself what you are trying to say, and try to say it in four or six or seven well-crafted sentences, if even it takes that many. Else people like me (and the others of TPF) will be asking you for clarity, definitions, and meaning, and if you're lucky, explicitly.Anything that is not rational is labelled as irrational, and this categorisation is entirely unrelated to value judgments but only to factual properties. — Showmee
And this all encompassed and included in the opening words of the Creed, "We believe." And once you're clear on that, you can believe what you like, and what follows much like a game, of course with rules. Is it a game you wish to play?The Christological position asserts that the hypostasis of Christ encompasses both the divine nature of God and the human nature of man; thus, He is recognized as both the Son of God and the Son of Man. This doctrinal stance was officially adopted by the Church at the Council of Ephesus in 431. — Showmee
Human consciousness is dictated by rationality and value judgement, whence derived the essence of a human being—a rational being. A rational being does not merely desire an outcome, but rather judges this or that outcome ought to be desired, and therein lies the very distinction between a being qua rationality and being qua animality[1]. The latter simply accepts and obeys to its desires and instincts, and follows them faithfully wherever it is led to; whereas the former, a rational being, seeks additionally to justify and explain and search for reasons in everything it experiences and perceives, for it is bonded by its own creation, its own set of values that insists that whatsoever found in this world ought to be justifiable. For example, a beast would willingly sacrifice itself in exchange for the safety of its offspring simply because it adheres to the raw instinct of motherhood, but a human being—a rational mother—additionally develops an ethical system that would deem such an instinct as a necessity and would punish anyone who disobeys it.
However, no matter how firmly a conscious being asserts what the world ought to be, it remains a stranger snared in the chaotic cage of the cosmos, for the reality of the universe is inherently irrational and meaningless; even if there exists a meaning or something sublime and superior such that a definition or a providence is indeed bestowed to the universe, it is, nonetheless, most certainly hidden away from the domain of pure reason.
Thus, the universe, for humanity at least, is fundamentally irrational, since the faculty of reasoning is confined by its own rules and delimitations, eternally doomed to remain ignorant pertaining to the quiddity of the cosmos, which most probably is no-existent.
Indeed, this feeling of nostalgia, the rawest inclination to seek self-transcendence[2]as a means to escape the inevitable end—the total annihilation of consciousness—is embedded within the veins of humanity, whence gods were born to bear the burdens of humans' crave for eternity and reconciliation.
In a parallel to the dyophysitism[4]of Christ, our essence is likewise twofold. Despite the lofty heights of our intellectual capacities, our consciousness remains tethered to the primal aspects of natural impulses and bodily experiences. Therefore, we reside within the intersection of two realms, with one foot planted in the irrational world of objective reality, and the other in the rational path of subjective interpretation of reality and meaning creation.
4]The Christological position asserts that the hypostasis of Christ encompasses both the divine nature of God and the human nature of man; thus, He is recognized as both the Son of God and the Son of Man. This doctrinal stance was officially adopted by the Church at the Council of Ephesus in 431.
Thus God is irrational? — tim wood
What do you mean? Don't we have, in various forms, "nothing is without reason." Does not the world and the universe appear soon enough to yield to reason where reason chooses to look? — tim wood
English words: but what do they mean? What are you trying to say? — tim wood
Facts and values entirely unrelated? That seems extravagant. And so forth. I suggest, fwiw, you ask yourself what you are trying to say, and try to say it in four or six or seven well-crafted sentences, if even it takes that many. Else people like me (and the others of TPF) will be asking you for clarity, definitions, and meaning, and if you're lucky, explicitly. — tim wood
And this all encompassed and included in the opening words of the Creed, "We believe." And once you're clear on that, you can believe what you like, and what follows much like a game, of course with rules. Is it a game you wish to play? — tim wood
Then why or how do you presume to understand it/him/her/them? Or if you are merely expressing your regard, does not that fall under the, "We believe"?I would regard Him irrational in the sense that His essence is beyond the realm of human understanding, — Showmee
Henceforth, there remains only one question to be answered, and that is: does the meaningless disposition of reality necessarily lead to the negation of the worth of living? Should individuals universally reject the pursuit of purpose in a world devoid of values and instead prefer death? — Showmee
Life can be meaningful, but reality cannot. — Showmee
God is just an idea that seems to function as a foundation but without objective reality. — JuanZu
It seems to me that the fixation of New Atheism on fundementalism has to do with it being an easy target, and it's an easy target because it makes explicit claims about the types of facts that scientific inquiry is well adapted to explore. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I don't see how no transcendent meaning matters very much. Humans will always generate meaning and values and reasons for participating in life. The question 'is life worth living' is not an abstraction - the answer is found in what you do with your day. A nihilist may have a very rich and rewarding life and, ironically, a happier life than the theist, who may live in quaking fear of divine judgement and understands misery to be god's will.
Which leads to the question: "if the universe necessarily produces all this meaning and value, in what way is it meaningless and valueless?" — Count Timothy von Icarus
I mean, that's certainly a popular dogma, but I don't think it's by any means something that has been well demonstrated. Plenty of thinkers have thought they have discovered something quite the opposite, reason and purpose at work throughout the world. The "rock solid" foundations for the claim that the universe is essentially "meaningless and purposeless," seem to be to be grounded by the same epistemic methods that tend to ground religious beliefs — Count Timothy von Icarus
Fundementally irrational how? The world seems to operate in law-like ways that can be described rationally quite well. Indeed, this is often a key empirical fact cited as evidence for universal rationality or even purpose (e.g. the concept of Logos Spermatikos). — Count Timothy von Icarus
I also don't know how this would make the universe somehow lack quiddity. It still is what it is. Is this a claim about our epistemic ability to understand the essence of the universe, or a claim about a lack of essence simpliciter? — Count Timothy von Icarus
But the idea that religion is some sort of "cope," a flight from the terror of the "meaninglessness and purposelessness," of the universe seems to be somewhat an existentialist dogma. Why would this be the case for people who simply don't believe the existentialist claim the the meaninglessness of existence? If they have never believed that claim, then they will have had no motivation to generate such illusions in the first place. It seems to assume something like: "deep down, everyone knows our claim is true." However, I don't think this is the case at all, and empirically it seems hard to support in light of phenomena like suicide bombers. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Second, isn't science as good of a candidate of an objective description of the world as we have. But if scientific explanations are rational, often framed in mathematical terms, then why would we say objective reality is "irrational?" It seems to submit to rational explanations quite readily.
Objectivity only makes sense in the context of subjectivity in any case. It's the view of things with relevant biases removed. The claim then would be that removing all biases would also remove all rationality? But why should we accept that? — Count Timothy von Icarus
Terms like "exists," "is good," "is necessary," etc., when applied to God, are necessarily all forms of analogical predication, as opposed to the standard uniquivocal predication at work when we point to a real tree and say "this tree exists," or "this tree is green." We know of God's "goodness," or "necessity," through finite creatures' participation in an analogically similar, but lower instantiation of the property. — Count Timothy von Icarus
All we have is life, this is our reality. I don't think humans ever arrive at or know some external to self 'reality'. As you say, humans inhabit a world of their own making, a function of our experience, our cognitive apparatus and shared subjectivity. Do we need more than this? — Tom Storm
However, I would regard seeking an objective meaning as a natural impulse — Showmee
Right. And if humans generate meaning and value, and humans are part of the universe, then in an important way the universe generates meaning and value. It is clearly not completely hostile to the existence of such things. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Plus, if the Fine Tuning Problem and related issues give us reason to think the consciousness is not only in some way fundamental (irreducible) but also not contingent, then the "valuelessness," claim seems to run into further problems. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Which leads to the question: "if the universe necessarily produces all this meaning and value, in what way is it meaningless and valueless?" — Count Timothy von Icarus
I don't think humans ever arrive at or know some external to self 'reality'. As you say, humans inhabit a world of their own making, a function of our experience, our cognitive apparatus and shared subjectivity. Do we need more than this? — Tom Storm
Sure, but everything humans do is natural by definition. From mass murder to painting pictures of Krishna. — Tom Storm
So in short, your view is that we are to be content with dwelling within the subjective interpretation we as a species formulated, whilst simultaneously recognizing that the true/objective nature of the world is incomprehensible by not claiming neither the world has a meaning nor it’s devoid of meaning? — Showmee
On the other hand, does there exist a possibility such that consciousness has its own existence outside of nature, albeit the former has its root in the latter? — Showmee
It seems that this position supports the claim that the material world would cease to exist had human consciousness ended. — Showmee
Does it depend on individual consciousness (without me, the world may cease to be) or on the collective consciousness of humanity (without humans, the world may cease to be). — Showmee
However, religions and other beliefs, in terms of logic, are deductive conclusions (e.g. the Ontological Argument presumes the existence of God) without any valid empirical evidence to support their propositions (many times these systems even lack logical validity). On the other hand, nihilism is an inductive conclusion, derived from the observation that so far no belief or religion can adequately prove the existence of an objective meaning independent of the mind.
Nihilism is not a simple affirmation, it is a negation of other affirmations. This is the very reason I included also a weaker version of nihilism, claiming that "even if there exists a meaning or something sublime and superior such that a definition or a providence is indeed bestowed to the universe, it is, nonetheless, most certainly hidden away from the domain of pure reason."
Thus, demanding a religious person to prove the existence of God is not the same with demanding, say, an atheist to prove that God does not exist. It's like demanding a physicist to prove that a fifth fundamental force does not exist.
In fact, if we observe the history of physics, we find that scientists always faithfully followed the so called Occam's razor:" entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." Whilst I understand that physicists are able to utilize empirical measures to obtain their results, both physics and nihilism share the same notion that if X is not a logical necessity and cannot be proved empirically, then X can be eliminated from the system of knowledge. Therefore, if an objective meaning or purpose is not a hard necessity for the existence of us and of the world, and such meaning cannot be proved empirically, it follows that this world does not require any intrinsic meaning.
Quiddity is merely a nominalistic existence, a product of cognitive abilities. The essence of a rock for humans may be its hardness, but if we were stronger, say being able to smash rocks easily, its essence would consequently change too.
The universe is irrational in the sense that there exists no meaning. I don't see how the rational discoveries/descriptions of science has any connection with an intrinsic meaning.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.