The philosophical conception of god in the age of reason and science.

Descriptive laws don't have a lawgiver, and the laws of nature are descriptive laws. They don't have a why.

That's right. They don't have a why. Many people can live without a why. And some cannot.

So, Kennethamy. Why is it that the Universe is lawful? Please try and keep your response to a paragraph.

So, why do people feel like they must have some sort of answer for the ultimate why questions? What's wrong with mystery?

Even if we thought the question was silly, wouldn't there still be some sort of wonder, some "why?" left unanswered for us?

But there are many why questions in science. Science is in the business of answering "why" questions (why does the sun shine, why does the earth go around it, etc). It just doesn't go for the ultimate why questions (why does the force of gravity exist, etc).

So, why do people feel like they must have some sort of answer for the ultimate why questions? What's wrong with mystery?

Yes, there is that funny belief that science answers only "how" questions, but not "why" questions. Taken literally, that is not true, since as you point out, science is in the business of providing explanations not just descriptions. Theoretical science especially. But what turns out the be meant by the slogan that science answers only "how" questions and not "why" questions is that science does not answer a particular type of why question, namely one that inquires into purpose. Science, they are saying, does not inquire into purpose. It can explain the "mechanism" by which X causes Y, but science cannot tell us the purpose for X causing Y. Science can tell us why planets orbit the Sun in ellipses rather than circles. It is because of the gravitation attraction of the Sun on the planets. That is fine. But science cannot tell us what is the purpose of planets orbiting in ellipses rather than circles. And that is what is meant by saying that science answer how but not why questions. What is meant is that science cannot answer question about purpose. And that is true, Save for the science of people (and perhaps animals) science cannot answer what is the purpose of planets moving in elliptical orbits around the Sun. But now the question that must arise is why it is that science does not even address that question, let alone answer it. Is it because the answer to the question will forever be concealed by science? Or is the answer rather that the question itself is inappropriate? There is no answer because there is no question. And why is there no question? Because the question assumes something for which there is no evidence, and thus, there is no reason to believe it is true. And what is that assumption? Obviously, that natural laws have a purpose which we can discover. Which brings us back to the distinction between prescriptive and descriptive laws. Prescriptive laws, man-made laws, have a purpose (or so one hopes!). But what reason is there to think that descriptive laws have a purpose? Only, it would seem that both are called, "laws". But that is a slim reed upon which to base a philosophy. Why are they both called "laws"? There are obviously causes that jeeprs has indicated. The idea that natural laws are like man-made laws is a pre-enlightenment notion, as jeeprs says. Where there is a law, there is a law-giver, is an assumption fueled by a theological perspective on the world. It was Galileo who finally pried the "why" of cause from the "why" of purpose (not that a purpose cannot also be a cause, but that is another story).

And he even kept it in one paragraph, as jeeprs requested.

Bravo!

Yes, and that's what spirituality is. An exploit of this. But the reasonable man knows not to approach infinite regress. The reasonable man understands when something is answered, that we should have justification for our beliefs, and that things can only be answered with the evidence at hand. Speculation is not explanation, it is speculation.

Yes, there is that funny belief that science answers only "how" questions, but not "why" questions. Taken literally, that is not true, since as you point out, science is in the business of providing explanations not just descriptions. Theoretical science especially. But what turns out the be meant by the slogan that science answers only "how" questions and not "why" questions is that science does not answer a particular type of why question, namely one that inquires into purpose. Science, they are saying, does not inquire into purpose. It can explain the "mechanism" by which X causes Y, but science cannot tell us the purpose for X causing Y. Science can tell us why planets orbit the Sun in ellipses rather than circles. It is because of the gravitation attraction of the Sun on the planets. That is fine. But science cannot tell us what is the purpose of planets orbiting in ellipses rather than circles. And that is what is meant by saying that science answer how but not why questions. What is meant is that science cannot answer question about purpose. And that is true, Save for the science of people (and perhaps animals) science cannot answer what is the purpose of planets moving in elliptical orbits around the Sun. But now the question that must arise is why it is that science does not even address that question, let alone answer it. Is it because the answer to the question will forever be concealed by science? Or is the answer rather that the question itself is inappropriate? There is no answer because there is no question. And why is there no question? Because the question assumes something for which there is no evidence, and thus, there is no reason to believe it is true. And what is that assumption? Obviously, that natural laws have a purpose which we can discover. Which brings us back to the distinction between prescriptive and descriptive laws. Prescriptive laws, man-made laws, have a purpose (or so one hopes!). But what reason is there to think that descriptive laws have a purpose? Only, it would seem that both are called, "laws". But that is a slim reed upon which to base a philosophy. Why are they both called "laws"? There are obviously causes that jeeprs has indicated. The idea that natural laws are like man-made laws is a pre-enlightenment notion, as jeeprs says. Where there is a law, there is a law-giver, is an assumption fueled by a theological perspective on the world. It was Galileo who finally pried the "why" of cause from the "why" of purpose (not that a purpose cannot also be a cause, but that is another story).

I don't think we need the abstractions, except as a way to point at the mystery, to point at the beauty of life that escapes our abstractions

Spirituality is a mood, and more than a mood, it's an irrational mindset.

But where's the mystery? That's exactly the problem - believing there is a mystery, when there is no mystery.

I'll grant you that. And this is why I have taken a different direction in regards to the spiritual tradition. I don't think we need the abstractions, except as a way to point at the mystery, to point at the beauty of life that escapes our abstractions. For me, a completely secular "religion" is possible in which "emotional hygiene" is combined with a logical presentation of the limits of logic. I still would argue that myth taken as myth is an enrichment of life.

But where's the mystery? That's exactly the problem - believing there is a mystery, when there is no mystery.

I agree. And that is the answer to one of the things that pushes people towards spiritualism, when they think that without taking that sort of thing as true there is less enjoyment of life. You can still enjoy the myth while knowing that it is a myth. A conjuror's tricks are enjoyable even though you know they are tricks. Fiction is enjoyable even though you know that those things didn't really happen. And it can point at the beauty of life. It can also point us in the wrong direction, but that's another story.

To what degree are love and pleasure "rational"?

To what degree is the enjoyment of the mystery rational?

Even if we grant that life and consciousness are an accident, a die-throw, does this reduce our experience of music? of the birth of our child? or our wedding day? Do you see where I am going? Life remains strange.

There used to be a TV series (or was it radio?) called, "I Love a Mystery". Its theme song was St, Saen's, Danse Macabre. Reconstructo would have adored it.

There used to be a TV series (or was it radio?) called, "I Love a Mystery". Its theme song was St, Saen's, Danse Macabre. Reconstructo would have adored it.

No degree. We must distinguish thinking from feeling. Feelings aren't rational or irrational. Thought is what is rational and irrational (And also actions, I suppose. But when one says, "You're acting irrationally", I imagine they mean, "Your thought process during that instance was irrational".)

Not just Reconstructo. This is an epidemic of massive proportions.

I don't know what that means. It's fine to be entertained by an action movie, if that's what you're asking me.

I'll grant you that. "Irrational" is usually a critique of thought. Maybe non-rational or in-effable/nonlingual would serve better.

---------- Post added 05-23-2010 at 10:32 PM ----------


Am I somehow in the enemy camp? How so?

Are you never the least bit shocked that you are alive? I mean I often don't notice it myself. I get caught up in the little tasks of life. But every once in a while....

You've given examples of situations in life. So what? Yes, some things in our lives can be beautiful, but what about that is mysterious? I'm not understanding.

There is no enemy camp.

Alright, so let us suppose some experiences are ineffable. Now what?