SCIENCE ---
“SCIENCE OF GOD; REASON OF MORALITY”:
EXPERIMENT:
If the method of SCIENCE carries, or does not carry, potential to adduce every explicable or experienced concern, including concerns relating to moral choices and human purposefulness, then it should not be too much for students to ask scientists to please explain how that is, or is not, the case.
If some OTHER METHOD, such as of “intuitive experimentation in the mind,” carries, or does not carry, potential to adduce concerns that may otherwise be beyond explication by the method of science, including concerns relating to moral choices and human purposefulness, then it should not be too much for students to ask scientists to please explain how that is, or is not, the case.
And, if some other method, such as of “intuitive experimentation in the mind,” may only help implicate why or why not, how or how not, such intuition or empathy may facilitate reason to CHOOSE among choices that cannot be ignored, then it should not be too much for students to ask all persons of reason, intuition, or insight, including scientists, philosophers, and sagacious guides to teaching reasoned thought, to please explain how that is, is not, may be, or may not be, the case.
FALSIFIABILITY:
For one bent on relying only on “testable or falsifiable empiricism,” as opposed to circularity in metaphysics, try these thought experiments:
1) Try an “experiment in the mind,” to try to adduce that model of conception which affords most consistency while also most reducing that which must remain beyond completion with analysis in logic. “Test in the mind” each particular model of thought, to compare whether some perform better in respect of such aspirations than others, and whether only one, so far, performs better than all others.
2) Try an “experiment in physics,” to hypothesize that there is no ultimate “particle” (such as a Higgs Boson) by which mass is transferred to anything. Then, seek to falsify such hypothesis by trying to find an ultimate mass-transferring particle (or agency of physics). So long as no such a mass-transferring particle is found, does not the hypothesis remain “scientifically” unfalsified and plausible, i.e., that particles and mass do not, in any independent sense, exist, but seem only to exist as derivatives of a system of mathematical logic?
3) Try another “experiment in the mind” --- suppose a System Of Math could represent or reduce all of apparent physics to equations, accounting for all illusions of particles and mass as being, in “mathematical reality,” derivative of functioning operations of math. Then, would not such system still be incomplete, in respect of its incapacity to account for itself? Would not such system still be incomplete, in respect of its incapacity to account for that which completes and animates its own functionality?
META-AMBIGUITY:
Then, insofar as any such system must remain, when considered only in respect of itself, incomplete, should you intuit or believe that some “Meta-Something” (or “Nothing-Acting-As-Something”) must, or must not, complete it? Should you, or should you not, intuit or believe that such “Something-Nothing” remains so ambiguous to mortal logic as to defy mortal explanation, but not necessarily to defy mortal appreciation and functionally empathetic utility?
INTERACTIVE EMPATHY:
Then, ask yourself: Do you still intuit, feel, sense, believe, or empathize that there exists some practical form of moral purposefulness and meaning? Do you have any reason, in empiricism or philosophy, to “believe” that such “Something-Nothing” is not involved as your Source of moral meaningfulness? If not, why, merely in pride, refuse to join others in humble, mutual respect for such Meta-Source (i.e., “God”)? Should we, or should we not, gather in respect of such Meta-Source, to humbly try to receive empathetic intuition for how we should best appreciate both our individual freedom and our collective interaction with one another?
FREE WILL:
Holistically, Consciousness, in some aspects, may implicate unbounded or infinite degrees of freedom.
However, through our particular perspectives of Consciousness, each exercise of free will is constrained in respect of the synchronizing constraints ("momentum") of all particular perspectives of Consciousness that come to share in common a particular universe or system of mathematical functions.
As individuals, our free will makes sense only in respect of constraints upon our degrees of freedom. Our reasoned exercise of freedom necessitates a firm springboard of set parameters and a chosen frame of reference and purpose.
THE WORD:
Unless and until one has somehow come into consciousness with innate appreciation of what words, metaphors, signs, models, or patterns are, as such, how can their meanings, as such, be explained merely by resort to words, metaphors, signs, models, or patterns? Must not signs of some sort be appreciated contemporaneously with achieving consciousness?
Before allusion of “physics,” must there not first be The Word? Before the First Word could exist, must not Consciousness have existed, at least contemporaneously? Must not “The Word” be common to all perspectives of Consciousness? In respect, how should we refer to such Word, in any unitary aspect, if not as God?
“SCIENCE OF GOD; REASON OF MORALITY”:
EXPERIMENT:
If the method of SCIENCE carries, or does not carry, potential to adduce every explicable or experienced concern, including concerns relating to moral choices and human purposefulness, then it should not be too much for students to ask scientists to please explain how that is, or is not, the case.
If some OTHER METHOD, such as of “intuitive experimentation in the mind,” carries, or does not carry, potential to adduce concerns that may otherwise be beyond explication by the method of science, including concerns relating to moral choices and human purposefulness, then it should not be too much for students to ask scientists to please explain how that is, or is not, the case.
And, if some other method, such as of “intuitive experimentation in the mind,” may only help implicate why or why not, how or how not, such intuition or empathy may facilitate reason to CHOOSE among choices that cannot be ignored, then it should not be too much for students to ask all persons of reason, intuition, or insight, including scientists, philosophers, and sagacious guides to teaching reasoned thought, to please explain how that is, is not, may be, or may not be, the case.
FALSIFIABILITY:
For one bent on relying only on “testable or falsifiable empiricism,” as opposed to circularity in metaphysics, try these thought experiments:
1) Try an “experiment in the mind,” to try to adduce that model of conception which affords most consistency while also most reducing that which must remain beyond completion with analysis in logic. “Test in the mind” each particular model of thought, to compare whether some perform better in respect of such aspirations than others, and whether only one, so far, performs better than all others.
2) Try an “experiment in physics,” to hypothesize that there is no ultimate “particle” (such as a Higgs Boson) by which mass is transferred to anything. Then, seek to falsify such hypothesis by trying to find an ultimate mass-transferring particle (or agency of physics). So long as no such a mass-transferring particle is found, does not the hypothesis remain “scientifically” unfalsified and plausible, i.e., that particles and mass do not, in any independent sense, exist, but seem only to exist as derivatives of a system of mathematical logic?
3) Try another “experiment in the mind” --- suppose a System Of Math could represent or reduce all of apparent physics to equations, accounting for all illusions of particles and mass as being, in “mathematical reality,” derivative of functioning operations of math. Then, would not such system still be incomplete, in respect of its incapacity to account for itself? Would not such system still be incomplete, in respect of its incapacity to account for that which completes and animates its own functionality?
META-AMBIGUITY:
Then, insofar as any such system must remain, when considered only in respect of itself, incomplete, should you intuit or believe that some “Meta-Something” (or “Nothing-Acting-As-Something”) must, or must not, complete it? Should you, or should you not, intuit or believe that such “Something-Nothing” remains so ambiguous to mortal logic as to defy mortal explanation, but not necessarily to defy mortal appreciation and functionally empathetic utility?
INTERACTIVE EMPATHY:
Then, ask yourself: Do you still intuit, feel, sense, believe, or empathize that there exists some practical form of moral purposefulness and meaning? Do you have any reason, in empiricism or philosophy, to “believe” that such “Something-Nothing” is not involved as your Source of moral meaningfulness? If not, why, merely in pride, refuse to join others in humble, mutual respect for such Meta-Source (i.e., “God”)? Should we, or should we not, gather in respect of such Meta-Source, to humbly try to receive empathetic intuition for how we should best appreciate both our individual freedom and our collective interaction with one another?
FREE WILL:
Holistically, Consciousness, in some aspects, may implicate unbounded or infinite degrees of freedom.
However, through our particular perspectives of Consciousness, each exercise of free will is constrained in respect of the synchronizing constraints ("momentum") of all particular perspectives of Consciousness that come to share in common a particular universe or system of mathematical functions.
As individuals, our free will makes sense only in respect of constraints upon our degrees of freedom. Our reasoned exercise of freedom necessitates a firm springboard of set parameters and a chosen frame of reference and purpose.
THE WORD:
Unless and until one has somehow come into consciousness with innate appreciation of what words, metaphors, signs, models, or patterns are, as such, how can their meanings, as such, be explained merely by resort to words, metaphors, signs, models, or patterns? Must not signs of some sort be appreciated contemporaneously with achieving consciousness?
Before allusion of “physics,” must there not first be The Word? Before the First Word could exist, must not Consciousness have existed, at least contemporaneously? Must not “The Word” be common to all perspectives of Consciousness? In respect, how should we refer to such Word, in any unitary aspect, if not as God?
2 comments:
Michael Newdow’s Errand:
When inferred as a Meta-Source or Meta-Functionality, a Deity or God, in Itself, would seem to be “not nothing.” Rather, IT would seem to be only “like nothing” in respect of IT’s aspect for lacking amenability to our “physical,” objective, indifferent measurements. As if any mortal’s relation to God could be “indifferent”!
We, as inferior, mortal, particular expressions of such holistic Meta-Source, are simply not availed of indifferently objective means for measuring, fathoming, or plumbing IT. Rather, insofar as the Holism is more than the sum of its parts, IT is not within the objective comprehension of its parts, merely by taking their sum.
For purposes of objective, scientific pursuit to define laws of the mathematical system of parameters that delimits our appreciations of degrees of freedom, God may be “like nothing.”
For purposes of subjective, intuitive pursuit to appreciate the moral freedom availed to each of us within the mathematical system of parameters that delimits us, God may be more “like something.”
Apart from a mathematical system of parameters that delimits us, we find ourselves presented with all manner of moral choices and purposes, which we may approach from broad perspectives and subjects, such as: civics, politics, law, history, literature, art, sociology, psychology, biology (or philosophy) of emotion and of consciousness, and artificially emotive intelligence.
We are unable to comprehend or reduce such subjects to any determining system of mathematical equations. Necessarily, such subjects entail much more than the merely trivial or the mathematically defined. Any richly reasoned appreciation of such subjects entails far more than mere indifferent, objective, double-blind experimentation.
Scientists who wish not to surrender to irrelevance to important subjects beyond systems of indifferent mathematics or of closed truisms will need either to broaden their definition of the scientific method or to recognize the REASONABLENESS for some purposes to approaches not confined to the scientific method.
Simply put, that which is “reasonable” cannot always be imprisoned in methods of indifferent detachment or objective measurability.
God may be (“like nothing”) irrelevant to objective pursuits of measurable definitions of the system of algorithms that delimits our degrees of freedom.
But, God is (“like something”) most relevant to subjective subjects for guiding our pursuits of morally meaningful self-fulfillment.
It is only an errand for moral fools, like Michael Newdow, to try to “wall off” God to subjects of public civics, politics, law, history, literature, art, sociology, psychology, and biology (or philosophy) of “consciousness.” The devil’s absurdity is both licentious and ludicrous.
Pity, but do not underestimate, fools with errands.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/inauguration_2009_so_help_me_g.html:
G. Jackson:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
It occurred to me as I was reading the previous responses to this article, that in many ways, the web of laws that has sprung up around this one very clear cut statement is similar in structure to a web of lies.
******
Sort of reminds me of Three Card Monty.
Consider ---
HINDSIGHT RANDOMNESS: Proceeding from a perspective of objective hindsight, one may extend and widen one’s frame of reference until any particular event can be fitted as having been consistent with statistical randomness or probability. Even if an event were so rare that no frame of reference within our universe could possibly fit or cloak the event as having been consistent with random probability, one could always “fix” such a discrepancy in order to discount any source of Free Will (God) simply by imagining whatever number of universes as may be necessary in order to make the event appear to be a matter of “routine,” random occurrence.
THREE CARD MONTY: Thus, scientists and statisticians (often functioning as expert witnesses for lawyers) have learned how to be “useful” for re-orienting our language, sort of like “Three Card Monty,” to help us “re-frame” present perceptions of miracles of God empathy into hindsight appreciations of indifferent probabilities.
REDEEMING RESOLUTION: But, should not Holistic Consciousness (God) have means and power for leveraging and delegating expressions of free-will and choice-making in respect of various auxiliary algorithms? In other words, merely because math can always, in hindsight, be fitted from some perspective or frame of reference to make an event seem to have been routine, why should such trivial capacity of math be thought to make trivial the subjective choices of perspectives of Consciousness, in foresight? “God-as-something” is involved in our present, subjective choices; “God-as-nothing” is assessed in our hindsight, objective evaluations.
CONUNDRUM OF INDIFFERENCE: Were it any other way, God would be objectively and indifferently measurable to statistical analysis. But, how could we be able indifferently to measure a Super-Meta-Being who, in relation to us, is anything but “indifferent”?
AMBIGUITY OF GOD: That God functions metaphysically and ambiguously, as we transition from past to present to future, need hardly surprise us, as we go about our practical applications of logic.
SEMANTICS OF GOD: Regardless, even the most narrowly cranked and objectively obsessed of scientists has no choice but to wrestle with choices entailing judgments about morality (“ought-ness”). They can protest with imagined “atheism” until the cows come home. But, ultimately, so long as they participate in conscious choice-making among alternatives, such acts must unavoidably be reasoned or rationalized in respect of some meta-moral guidepost. And such guidepost will be beyond complete, objectively-measurable justification in any “scientific” sense. Therein find "God."
TEACHING THREE CARD MONTY: So, why do courts allow lawyers, Newdow, and ACLU sharks to get away with using Three Card Monty to establish secular religion based on "objective" re-framing of hindsight, but refuse to allow teachers to expose to their students how the trick may work differently in concerns about moral foresight?
Post a Comment