On Faith & Reason

[ToadBrother]

But it didn't exist yet...

It did at the moment of the Big Bang.

And every explosion has to have a cause. What caused the big bang? What set it off?

The Big Bang wasn't an explosion, and I continue to ask why you insist on apply causality to an event that created time. How can there even be a notion of causality without Time? As Stephen Hawking famously said, "Asking what happened before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole."

[GostHacked]

What are our parts?

At the very basic level? Atoms.

A figment of my imagination. Or perhaps I am a figment of yours? We are not trying to prove your body exists. We know it does. We are trying to prove what your awareness exists.

Awareness comes with growth, with knowledge.

Do you have a solid definition of you?

For the most part, yes, however I am constantly evolving that definition as time goes on.

He told me there was more productive ways to do it.

Good idea. We should always have some unknowns around to make us humble and give us direction. Something to keep ourselves occupied.

We've been on this planet for a very long time, and really only in the last couple hundred years of the human race's existance, are we begginning to understand things. And the more we know, the more we find out we don't know. Each question has an answer which brings up 10 other questions to answer. It never seems to end. Just when we think we got a grip on how it all works, we find something that sets everything on it's head and we have to readjust.

If god exists, it's a way more complex concept than we think we understand.

[Pliny]

It did at the moment of the Big Bang.

The start of time. Or was it the end of time? Same moment, after all.

The Big Bang wasn't an explosion, and I continue to ask why you insist on apply causality to an event that created time.

Yeah - man wasn't around then - Sheesh!

How can there even be a notion of causality without Time?

Just a "notion" I guess.

As Stephen Hawking famously said, "Asking what happened before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole."

Stephen Hawking gets confused alot. As usual he is mixing up time and space. Now if he would have said, "What happened at the beginning of time is like asking what happened at the end of time." It would have expressed a relevancy and could have been answered.

[Pliny]

Even if one has an intuitive grasp of relatvity and quantum mechanics, which only a handful of people in the world do, it is still almost impossible to fathom what was going on in the first second of the universe's existence. Trying to reason about it with an intuitive grasp of only basic everyday physics is futile.

Wow!

Trying to reason about it with a full grasp of everyday physics is futile.

[Pliny]

At the very basic level? Atoms.

And at a full level?

Awareness comes with growth, with knowledge.

We just have to be aware of what growth and knowledge we need t obe aware of, I suppose.

For the most part, yes, however I am constantly evolving that definition as time goes on.

A far superior answer than concluding - "I am an animal."

We've been on this planet for a very long time, and really only in the last couple hundred years of the human race's existance, are we begginning to understand things. And the more we know, the more we find out we don't know. Each question has an answer which brings up 10 other questions to answer. It never seems to end. Just when we think we got a grip on how it all works, we find something that sets everything on it's head and we have to readjust.

Oh for the good old days, ay? When we didn't have all these questions. We could just go fishing, shoot a game of pool, or go golfing. Now we have to go traveling off in space - cripes.

If god exists, it's a way more complex concept than we think we understand.

I don't want to think about it anymore. It's too complicated...or simple...or something. I think I'll just see if I can make something persist.

[cybercoma]

Well, first of all, there was no matter at the moment of the Big Bang. It was too dense and too hot for matter to exist. Fortunately, we do have the ol' matter-energy equivalency (E=MC^2) to explain how matter came into being.

But aside from that, as I said above, the very question may not even be sensible. There may have been nothing before the Big Bang. Since time itself came into existence along with the spacial dimensions (however many of those there may be), on the face of it, the question doesn't exactly seem appropriate. There is legitimate question here as to whether the laws of the universe would actually apply to the actual moment of the Big Bang itself. In other words, causation may be an artifact of the Big Bang as much as time, space, and everything else.

There's also the underlying confusion that many seem to have about what it is exactly that the Big Bang describes. In fact, Big Bang cosmology only explains the observable universe. Essentially, it states that the observable universe was once incredibly small, incredible hot and incredible dense. The Big Bang may have only effected one region of the cosmos, the part we can see (and presumably a lot of stuff beyond the horizon of the light cone we're in. There are models that state that the Big Bang was a localized event.

Of course, these aren't even really theories yet, being as they are essentially untestable, and I still fall back to my problem with metaverses and brane theory and such, in that I still am not sure there is any necessity for a "before the beginning" concept at all, that the fault is not in the explanation given, but rather in that the human mind has an awfully hard time imagining that there is something that could exist that has no cause. Well, actually many humans don't. They just dress it up and call it God and wave their hands and declare that that entity, who is ultimately just as unexplainable and foreign to our notions of causality, must have caused it all.

Man, this is a great post on many levels.

[GostHacked]

And at a full level?

Then I am the sum of all my parts.

We just have to be aware of what growth and knowledge we need to be aware of, I suppose.

And that is where logic and reasoning through science can help. Faith does not equal knowledge.

A far superior answer than concluding - "I am an animal."

I am an animal thought. We are part of the animal kingdom. It may not be the answer you are looking for, but it is an answer.

Oh for the good old days, ay? When we didn't have all these questions. We could just go fishing, shoot a game of pool, or go golfing. Now we have to go traveling off in space - cripes.

Space is the next frontier. We can really expand our knowledge of the universe once we start spreading out into the universe.

I don't want to think about it anymore. It's too complicated...or simple...or something. I think I'll just see if I can make something persist.

Don't worry that is why there are thousands of scientists and philosophers doing the work for us.

Edited October 22, 2011 by GostHacked

[Argus]

The Big Bang wasn't an explosion, and I continue to ask why you insist on apply causality to an event that created time. How can there even be a notion of causality without Time? As Stephen Hawking famously said, "Asking what happened before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole."

Stephen Hawking also said The problem of the origin of the universe, is a bit like the old question: Which came first, the chicken, or the egg. In other words, what agency created the universe. And what created that agency.

I think it's a normal party of our psyche to look for cause to the effect. In our experience, every effect has an underlying cause. Are you saying there was no underlying cause to the 'big bang'?

Edited October 23, 2011 by Argus

[ToadBrother]

Stephen Hawking also said The problem of the origin of the universe, is a bit like the old question: Which came first, the chicken, or the egg. In other words, what agency created the universe. And what created that agency.

I think it's a normal party of our psyche to look for cause to the effect. In our experience, every effect has an underlying cause. Are you saying there was no underlying cause to the 'big bang'?

I'm saying that I still believe that that is a possibility, that we may simply be trying to force our particular prejudice of how the universe works on the moment of creation. Causality makes no sense outside of Time, and if the Big Bang created Time and Space (in other words, there was no larger Time and Space), then causality was itself a product of the Big Bang, and thus cannot rationally be applied to the Big Bang itself, and renders the question "what caused it" utterly meaningless.

Note here, I'm not actually saying I'm right. The proper answer is, of course, "We don't know". It isn't "the universe is simply a brane in a much larger metaverse" or my "everything was caused by a quantum vacuum fluctuation" or "God made it". All three explanations are really just kinds of special pleading, the only advantage of mine is that it is probably the simplest, and doesn't have to create progenitor entities like a metaverse (which is a complicated way of saying "turtles all the way down") or some sort of Prime Mover.

The problem with metaverse/brane theories or invoking God is all you end up doing is pushing the question back. It might provide some sort of explanation (though the utility of these explanations, at least at the moment, is questionable), but simply begs the question "Okay, what caused the metaverse and/or God"? To say these are infinite entities seems as much handwaving as me saying "These entities are unnecessary", and at least, from a strictly logical point of view (which may or may not have anything to do with reality) I'm not violating Occam's razor by invoking apparently unnecessary entities, but rather are taking their attribute of being "uncaused" and simply applying it to the Universe.

[GostHacked]

Pretty damn good thread so far!! Really is a mind opener. I've learned a couple things as well.

[Michael Hardner]

I am learning a lot here too. I just realized that I have 'faith' in the posters here to explain things to me that I don't understand. I trust that their ideas are based on reason, but I don't know that for sure. I feel like a peasant sitting in a 15th century church, listening to their explanations.

My interest in this topic is to see when we use reason and when we use faith. From reading these posts, I think perhaps that I use reason when I can, and when I can't I have to use faith.

[GostHacked]

I am learning a lot here too. I just realized that I have 'faith' in the posters here to explain things to me that I don't understand. I trust that their ideas are based on reason, but I don't know that for sure. I feel like a peasant sitting in a 15th century church, listening to their explanations.

My interest in this topic is to see when we use reason and when we use faith. From reading these posts, I think perhaps that I use reason when I can, and when I can't I have to use faith.

For me I had faith in things that have proved to have a standing record. Like I can have faith in a friend picking me up at a certain time every day, because that friend has been doing it for a while and always on time.

[Michael Hardner]

For me I had faith in things that have proved to have a standing record. Like I can have faith in a friend picking me up at a certain time every day, because that friend has been doing it for a while and always on time.

If your friend told you that the world wasn't going to end tomorrow, and it didn't... then what ?

Trying to relate what you said into what made the medicine men and shaman so popular thousands of years ago.

[cybercoma]

The way we understand things has changed over time.

We went from thelogical revelation, to metaphysical reason, to scientific evaluation. The Shaman and Medicine Men were popular because that's the way people understood the universe. Why? Because the mysteries were revealed to these people through God(s) or Nature itself.

[Michael Hardner]

The way we understand things has changed over time.

We went from thelogical revelation, to metaphysical reason, to scientific evaluation. The Shaman and Medicine Men were popular because that's the way people understood the universe. Why? Because the mysteries were revealed to these people through God(s) or Nature itself.

But people still don't understand the universe, you see - they have faith in others who use reason to determine likely theories to explain parts of it. There is still reason in the mix.

[Bonam]

But people still don't understand the universe

But they have the option to learn to understand the aspects of the universe that affect them in any meaningful/tangible way. The laws of nature as applicable to everyday human experiences are extremely well characterized and tested. Furthermore, many of these laws can be easily tested using simple experiments that anyone curious enough to do so can carry out for themselves. Science has eliminated the necessity of faith when it comes to much of our daily lives.

That's why some religious organizations continue to push back the interpretations of their faith to try to apply to events and phenomenon that have not yet been utterly demystified by the scientific process. Such as creationists now talking about the Big Bang, among other examples. It feels nice to see it, the tendrils of religion slowly creeping farther and farther away, billions of light years away and billions of year back in time.

For me I had faith in things that have proved to have a standing record. Like I can have faith in a friend picking me up at a certain time every day, because that friend has been doing it for a while and always on time.

I'm not sure I'd call this "faith". More like "trust". They aren't the same thing. Moreover, your trust is based on empirical evidence, that your friend has been picking you up every day for a while, and has always been on time. That this friend will continue to pick you up punctually in the future if you two don't make any alterations to the arrangement is simply inductive reasoning.

[Michael Hardner]

But they have the option to learn to understand the aspects of the universe that affect them in any meaningful/tangible way. The laws of nature as applicable to everyday human experiences are extremely well characterized and tested. Furthermore, many of these laws can be easily tested using simple experiments that anyone curious enough to do so can carry out for themselves. Science has eliminated the necessity of faith when it comes to much of our daily lives.

That's why some religious organizations continue to push back the interpretations of their faith to try to apply to events and phenomenon that have not yet been utterly demystified by the scientific process. Such as creationists now talking about the Big Bang, among other examples. It feels nice to see it, the tendrils of religion slowly creeping farther and farther away, billions of light years away and billions of year back in time.

Reason is there, but understanding the universe still requires faith at some level as far as I can see. Not faith in God necessarily, but faith in people - which to me is the same thing: trusting the word of someone else.

I don't see religious organizations trying to push back anything. Rather, they are being pushed back by science. Even then, there will always be something that is unexplained.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm not sure I'd call this "faith". More like "trust". They aren't the same thing.

They kind of are the same thing, I think.

Faith is trust that what your people - your church, family, community - tells you about the universe is correct. It's trust in people, isn't it ? Let's discuss.

[Guest Manny]

People need to know more than just how things work. Even if we understand how things work, like electricity, that does not give us meaning.

[Michael Hardner]

People need to know more than just how things work. Even if we understand how things work, like electricity, that does not give us meaning.

Meaning, though, is something that we have to find ourselves using such things as faith, reason... also values. It's personal.

[Guest Manny]

I guess I mean that science gives us an explanation of the mechanical nature of how things function, but does not explain the WHY, in a human context.

[Bonam]

People need to know more than just how things work. Even if we understand how things work, like electricity, that does not give us meaning.

Why would you assume that the way electricity works, for example, has to have "meaning" in a "human context"?

For humans, the relevant thing about learning how electricity works is to understand how to harness it to create technologies that help us.

[dre]

Reason is there, but understanding the universe still requires faith at some level as far as I can see. Not faith in God necessarily, but faith in people - which to me is the same thing: trusting the word of someone else.

I don't see religious organizations trying to push back anything. Rather, they are being pushed back by science. Even then, there will always be something that is unexplained.

Reason is there, but understanding the universe still requires faith at some level as far as I can see.

Not if youre patient, and comfortable just admitting that you dont understand the universe completely. The only real faith required is faith that there are smart people working hard to further our understanding. A void in our knowledge can simply be a void. Theres no reason to fill it with folklore.

[Michael Hardner]

Not if youre patient, and comfortable just admitting that you dont understand the universe completely. The only real faith required is faith that there are smart people working hard to further our understanding. A void in our knowledge can simply be a void. Theres no reason to fill it with folklore.

Yes... the "only real faith" that you describe is faith as I see it.

[Shwa]

Yes... the "only real faith" that you describe is faith as I see it.

And thus faith is personal, reason is public.