Stephen Hawking: God did not create the universe

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yes, it is or one doesn't live a life worth living.

Why? Why does that make a life worth living?

[Thor]

Originally Posted by alltherage

Jeeze this thread took a turn for the nasty... who would have thought?

Your definition of nasty must differ from mine. All I see here is a thoughtful conversation of differing ideas.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Why? Why does that make a life worth living?

Socrates said that the unexamined life was not worth living. Well, maybe the examined life is worth living, but it might also drive you to suicide.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by peter12

Socrates said that the unexamined life was not worth living. Well, maybe the examined life is worth living, but it might also drive you to suicide.

Ignorance is bliss?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

Ignorance is bliss?

No, no. Socrates is saying that to be ignorant is to be not human.

The second part was a joke that I stole from Saul Bellow meaning that when one engages in rigorous examination, you not like everything that you find.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by peter12

Socrates said that the unexamined life was not worth living. Well, maybe the examined life is worth living, but it might also drive you to suicide.

And therefore to examine your life is to study philosophy?

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by Thor

Your definition of nasty must differ from mine. All I see here is a thoughtful conversation of differing ideas.

Originally Posted by algernon

Pendejo12 is training to be a politician.
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullspittle.

Originally Posted by Reaper

Because arguments with people who are full of sh1t are never satisfying for most as it simply involves the poopbag spewing blather in vain attempts to be right. Even if you are right the poopbag will never admit it and you end up being subjected to more of their bufoonery.

I was commenting on these.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Burninator

And therefore to examine your life is to study philosophy?

No, probably one of the best ways, but definitely not the only one. Those who live philosophically are probably living best though. Hard to judge though.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by peter12

No, probably one of the best ways, but definitely not the only one. Those who live philosophically are probably living best though. Hard to judge though.

Define 'living best'.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Would it be fair to point to the spate of self-help atheist books written to sell millions of copies to the masses?

That some books exist doesn't substantiate the claim that science is being cheapened and degraded, or that complicated questions are being tossed aside.

Unless I guess you define having a different answer to the complicated questions than the one you hold (but never seem to get around to share) as tossing aside the complicated questions.

Be more specific.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

That some books exist doesn't substantiate the claim that science is being cheapened and degraded, or that complicated questions are being tossed aside.

Unless I guess you define having a different answer to the complicated questions than the one you hold (but never seem to get around to share) as tossing aside the complicated questions.

Be more specific.

Well, to be more specific, it's clear to me that two things are happening. One is that pure science is becoming more esoteric and drawn away from a true conversation about knowledge with the humanities. This is probably partially due to the postmodern view of science that has been rife in the humanities the past few decades. Second, the void is being filled by popular science which is mainly obsessed with technology etc...

As for my view of complex questions, they are discussed on here all the time, I just don't like the answers.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, to be more specific, it's clear to me that two things are happening. One is that pure science is becoming more esoteric and drawn away from a true conversation about knowledge with the humanities. This is probably partially due to the postmodern view of science that has been rife in the humanities the past few decades.

I don't know what you are saying here, but it isn't a specific example of a book cheapening and degrading science or tossing aside a complex question, you just restated your claim with different words.

What specific content in any of these books cheapen and degrade science and in what fashion? By specific I mean a specific claim or concept or thought or chapter in one of these books.

Originally Posted by peter12

Second, the void is being filled by popular science which is mainly obsessed with technology etc...

Science and technology are two different things. And if someone is filling a void with something, that's the fault of the someone, not the thing being used to fill the void.

Originally Posted by peter12

As for my view of complex questions, they are discussed on here all the time, I just don't like the answers.

I think you should start a blog, no expectations of discussion then.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by peter12

Would it be fair to point to the spate of self-help atheist books written to sell millions of copies to the masses?

I can agree with that.

Originally Posted by peter12

It's progressive to acknowledge that any sort of change almost inevitably happens for the better. I'd point to Dawkins and his self-created faith in the moral Zeitgeist. I'm not saying that you consciously do that, but pointing to years of "necessary interpretation" begs the question as to whether that interpretation has been the inevitability of good examination of the questions at hand or merely driven forward on a certain political agenda.

That's interesting, and I suppose in those terms you could then classify my perspective as "progressive". However, it begs the following:

1) In speaking of the "inevitability of good examination" I will refer back to Leo Tolstoy's three questions: the most important time is here and now; the most important person is the one with whom you are; the most important affair is to do him good. I tend to think that because the "present" is really all there is, that it is somewhat inevitable that our hermeneutics will prioritize present needs. When I say that interpretation is necessary, it is from an acknowledgement that present need will always affect meaning. I expect that there is a good deal of interpretation that is not rigorous, but doesn't that standard itself presume something of an ideal that begs the notion of progress?

2) If one does not believe that he has the power to effect change towards an end or result that he believes to be beneficial, how can one hope to participate in the evolution of humanity? For good or for ill, we seem to require some sort of conceptualization of "progress" in order to get things done. In my own field I don't necessarily believe that my handling of ancient literature is any better than any one before me, it is merely different. But I do so under the conviction that the application of my knowledge and skill will have some positive effect. Whether or not it does will be for future generations to judge, but because I cannot predict that outcome, I must do what I do in the imperfect recognition that it is the best as far as I can tell.

Does that make any sense? Perhaps I am not as optimistic as you are in our ability to break free from our circumstances.

Originally Posted by peter12

Human is about reasserting humanity's preeminence as the arbiters of the good life. Historically, it did this with a keen eye and respect for the opponents of humanism, namely theological perspectives. Heck, the whole thing is complicated I will admit, but humanism started with a common belief in man's ability to be united by reason. I don't see that much anymore, more of a belief that the great prophets of secularism will continue to develop revelation to the masses in the form of scientific knowledge and that will be good for most of us.

Let's be honest. I will admit that science and technology have not necessarily provided for more beneficial moral and cultural consequences, but through the wielding of science and technology we do find ourselves in a point in time of tremendous affluence that I do not believe the collective will would deny is more beneficial. It begs the question of romantic notions of past philosophers, and how they might evaluate our present circumstances. Granted, their definition of the "good life" was often not material, but I am not convinced that there is a being alive who would be entirely immune to the intoxication of our material excess. How much does being properly nourished, having a surplus of leisure time and activities, unprecedented levels and range of communication and travel affect ones perspective of the "good life"? How much different would Socrates' contemplation have been over a pint of ice-cream or after a bicycle ride?

Originally Posted by peter12

In regards to the last part, I'm not a theist. I'm just defending it very obliquely.

Whatever. My main objection is to the gross mischaracterization of secular humanism as a "religion".

[peter12]

1) In speaking of the "inevitability of good examination" I will refer back to Leo Tolstoy's three questions: the most important time is here and now; the most important person is the one with whom you are; the most important affair is to do him good. I tend to think that because the "present" is really all there is, that it is somewhat inevitable that our hermeneutics will prioritize present needs. When I say that interpretation is necessary, it is from an acknowledgement that present need will always affect meaning. I expect that there is a good deal of interpretation that is not rigorous, but doesn't that standard itself presume something of an ideal that begs the notion of progress?

I'll raise your foreign intellectual with one of my own. Hannah Arendt, a German, thinks moderns consider their injection in time to be akin to a stone in a river. We exist within time, not as part of it. Inevitably we will be swept downstream. To many of us, progress is inevitable and nothing that human beings can do, even when meeting present priorities, can overcome the ongoing rush of time.

Time is really like light and humanity is really like a prism that can refract the light. But when light enters a prism, it explodes violently in an unpredictable array of colours. History is the same. Humans can and should act to change things, but we shouldn't be overcome by the hubris of our own actions so that we actually think we can guide time. Nor should we accept the inevitable marching forward of history.

2) If one does not believe that he has the power to effect change towards an end or result that he believes to be beneficial, how can one hope to participate in the evolution of humanity? For good or for ill, we seem to require some sort of conceptualization of "progress" in order to get things done. In my own field I don't necessarily believe that my handling of ancient literature is any better than any one before me, it is merely different. But I do so under the conviction that the application of my knowledge and skill will have some positive effect. Whether or not it does will be for future generations to judge, but because I cannot predict that outcome, I must do what I do in the imperfect recognition that it is the best as far as I can tell.

What is the evolution of humanity? How does one measure cultural evolution? It's possible. Certainly, we can take steps to civilize ourselves, but let's not fall for the modern lie that secular, humanist societies are better than all which are not. That's the same thinking that has led our civilization down to genocide time and time again.

We have the present. You are right. It's an eternal present stretching back through the generations. Humans are an odd mix of reason and nature, yet we have the gift to understand our circumstances and try to overcome them. This is only a generational process and if we lose the self-awareness of the context of the predecessors, we stand to lose everything.

Let's be honest. I will admit that science and technology have not necessarily provided for more beneficial moral and cultural consequences, but through the wielding of science and technology we do find ourselves in a point in time of tremendous affluence that I do not believe the collective will would deny is more beneficial. It begs the question of romantic notions of past philosophers, and how they might evaluate our present circumstances. Granted, their definition of the "good life" was often not material, but I am not convinced that there is a being alive who would be entirely immune to the intoxication of our material excess. How much does being properly nourished, having a surplus of leisure time and activities, unprecedented levels and range of communication and travel affect ones perspective of the "good life"? How much different would Socrates' contemplation have been over a pint of ice-cream or after a bicycle ride?

Yes, I agree with this. We have the frightening technical ability to do almost whatever we wish with the course of human history and this planet. There are two ways that humans seek mastery over their circumstances previous to the technical age. One was immortality, the result of remembered deeds. This is the public world, one formed by words and action.

Then there is eternity, the path of philosophical contemplation of higher things. This is the life of death since you cut yourself off from the public sphere and the validation you gain from having your words heard by your fellow humans.

In regards to both, I believe that technology has, in modern's eyes, surpassed the realm of the public sphere. Solutions are left to human agency, but to the technocracy. In regards to Socrates and bike rides, I don't think that these universals change and that the contemplative life, has more or less, always remained the same.

[Reggie Dunlop]

I think it would be kinda cool to set Stephen Hawking's voice synthesizer to Autotune.

[return to the red]

wow, this last page made me realize that I'm an unedumacated fool.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by return to the red

wow, this last page made me realize that I'm an unedumacated fool.

No, you just don't have Asperger's.

[return to the red]

Originally Posted by peter12

No, you just don't have Asperger's.

again you lost me

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by return to the red

again you lost me

Autism Light

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by return to the red

wow, this last page made me realize that I'm an unedumacated fool.

And that I would definitely get my ass kicked in scrabble.