But if there is structure and order in the universe (and we perceive that there is), then there must be something universally "true" at the foundation of the order we perceive. Otherwise the world would be one way this instant, and something entirely different at the next instant. In short, the universe would be fundamentally chaotic. But if so, then why are things persistently the way they are, and not some other way?
Such a view requires denial of the universal order which we do perceive. Such a refusal to apperceive the obvious constitutes an "opinion" that rests on nothing but a refusal to recognize that truthful human knowledge is the product of engaging the real world by observation and experience. This is to acknowledge that there is a "givenness" to the universal system of which we are parts and participants. That givenness entails that the phenomenal universe (which we perceive to be ordered) and the human mind (which also possesses order by virtue of its capacity for logic and reasoning) can be brought into correspondence. This is the basis of all truthful knowledge. This is the basis of science.
Case in point: There are many fans of "eternal universe," "steady-state" or "boom-and-bust" cosmological models. These opinions are increasingly being undercut by physical observations of, e.g., the cosmic microwave background radiation, and the cosmic expansion, which point to a real beginning of space and time. Despite the accumulating evidence, many still cling to their preferred opinion that the universe is eternal, and/or steady-state, and/or boom-and-bust.
In effect, the holders of such views are attempting to make their own preferences the measure of what the universe is. All such views seem motivated by a deep distaste for, and desire to avoid the "origin problem," i.e., a universal beginning of space and time in a unique cosmic event. In other words, a creation event. They cling to their preferred opinion, despite the piling up of evidence that refutes it.
What is the value of an opinion (or as you put it, a "belief") that can be falsified on the basis of evidence, logic, and reason?
I'll probably have more to say about this shortly. But this will have to do for now.
Thank you so much for writing, dear kosta!
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die....
This metaphor (and it is a metaphor..) limits humans to Gods(who walks in the garden) views of reality(bible).. Unless humans want their own views of reality.. and they did and do.. so they form groups of opinion.. with variations..
So humans invented their own Gods and there are many of them.. with views just like their own or close to their own.. To wit; Cargo cults of every size shape and function.. a panoply of Cults..
Today; what is "the Good" and "the Evil".. is germane..
The good(truth) and the evil(wrongness) has expanded its scope..
We call it science and/or religion.. or the science of opinion..
There are a million Yarns in the big city.. with Gods to back them up..
Science fiction requires the Yarn to logical, reality does not require that..
Where do "I" stand in all this drama?...
Jesus came to make literally all religion obsolete.. AND Did..
And I honor his work...
Such a refusal to apperceive the obvious constitutes an "opinion" that rests on nothing but a refusal to recognize that truthful human knowledge is the product of engaging the real world by observation and experience.
To perceive reality as accurately as possible is ultimately a gift given by the Holy Spirit. So maybe it's not so much a "refusal" as an "inability."
But as you say, the only way we can really know if our beliefs are in accord with the truth of the universe is through experience. So when I read this article, I was surprised that Pythagoras said “The beginning is the half of the whole,” when all these years I thought my dad wrote that line. "Beginning is half done" was one of his favorite Dad-isms.
In spite of my father's plagiarism, following that maxim illustrates the truth of it. Beginning something is more than just a start. A plan has been formulated and the energy to undertake that plan propels it forward. Beginning is closing in on completion.
So in the long run our lives either prove the love of God, or they prove something else. Either men are happier, more secure, better grounded and fruitful believing we belong to the Triune Creator of heaven and earth and everything therein, or we're not. And experience shows me, we are.
What is the value of an opinion (or as you put it, a "belief") that can be falsified on the basis of evidence, logic, and reason?
Steady state cosmology was widely accepted until the measurements of cosmic microwave background radiation in the 1960's. From that time forward, the measurements consistently agree that the universe is expanding - and accelerating, btw.
That means that space/time is created as the universe expands. It doesn't pre-exist. There was a beginning of real space and real time.
Those who cling to a steady state physical cosmology are laughed to scorn, i.e. like flat-earthers.
That there was a beginning was the most theological statement ever to come out of modern science, i.e. "In the beginning..."
None of the physical cosmologies proposed since the 1960's have been able to defeat the fact of a beginning - not multi-verse, multi-world, ekpyrotic, cyclic, imaginary time, etc. Many such theories merely posit prior beginnings but they can never explain the beginning.
The physicists are quite aware of that fatal flaw and worse that to even theorize prior beginnings they must presuppose with no basis in logic that the physics of this universe would apply to a prior universe.
Bottom line, every physical cosmology relies on space and time for physical causation:
In the absence of time, events cannot occur.
Here's a mental exercise to see why that is so:
A space of zero dimensions is a point; one dimension, a line, two dimensions, a plane; three, a cube, etc.
That is the geometry of it. In zero dimensions, the mathematical point is indivisible.
It is not nothing. It is a spatial point. A singularity is not nothing.
In ex nihilo Creation, the dimensions are not merely zero, they are null, dimensions do not exist at all. There is no space and no time. Period.
There is no mathematical point, no volume, no content, no scalar quantities. Ex nihilo doesn’t exist in relationship to anything else; there is no thing.
In an existing physical space, each point (e.g. particle) can be parameterized by a quantity such as mass. The parameter (e.g. a specific quantity within the range of possible quantities) is in effect another descriptor or quasi-dimension that uniquely identifies the point within the space.
Moreover, if the quantity of the parameter changes for a point, then a time dimension is invoked. For example, at one moment the point value is “0” and the next it is “1”.
Wave propagation cannot occur in null dimensions nor can it occur in zero spatial dimensions, a mathematical point; a dimension of time is required for any fluctuation in a parameter value at a point.
Moreover, wave propagation must also have a spatial/temporal relation from cause point to effect point, i.e. physical causation.
For instance “0” at point nt causes “1” at point n+1t+1 which causes "0" at point n+1t+2 etc..
Obviously, physical wave propagation (e.g. big bang/inflationary model) cannot precede space/time and physical causality.
In the absence of time, events cannot occur.
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. - I Corinthians 2:11-12
For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. - Hebrews 4:12
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. - John 6:63
By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. - Psalms 33:6
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. [There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard. – Psalms 19:1-3
Very well put, from my perspective, too.
The "thesis seems to be that there is no such thing as truth; but even if there were, it would be unknowable in principle. Therefore, all there can be is opinion. And one man's opinion is just as good as any other man's." . . . wherever I've ran onto it, in my 63 years--most of them around college campuses where lots of budding Bertrand Russels love to pretend they are erudite, novel, brilliant and progressive in spouting such pontifications . . . such a perspective has always shown itself, to me, that it
IS, imho, a pretty clunky and transparent rationalization for a somewhat haughty, smug, self-deceived rebellion. I hope that's not true in Kosta's case. I just know it seems to be pervasively true for those spouting such a perspective.
I think the motivation and certainly the result is that the one claiming to hold such a perspective is pseudo-intellectually deluded into construing reality such that they FEEL at least partially FREED to create their own reality to their own inclinations . . . which, apart from the Blood and Cross of Jesus--means that whatever the special on sin is at that moment tends to become a convenient if not prime focus . . . at least a good percentage of the time.
The pleasures of the moment tend to win out over eternal life whenever there's insufficient foundation in truth and in an intimate RELATIONSHIP WITH HE WHO IS TRUTH.
And, sin--particularly unconfessed, unrepented sin results in some degree or another of death, deadliness, isolation, loneliness, angst, adriftness.
However, there, too, the delusion comes rushing to the aid on the silver trays from hell . . . since there's purportedly no knowable truth, the truth of consequences can be conveniently denied and ignored, too.
Trouble is . . . it's virtually impossible to live life that way.
CONSEQUENCES ACCRUE CONSTANTLY
Whether one wants to admit them or not.
The TRUTH is that if one tries to go through life constantly running red lights, the life will tend to be short.
The TRUTH is that if a bloke thinks it's great fun to be receiver of another guy's fairly cheap bodily fluids, a sad, diseased course of death will likely accrue . . . and the life will be at least 20 years shorter than it might have been otherwise.
The TRUTH is that if a heterosexual likes to collect and spread jollies far and wide, disease will knock persistently on that abode, as well.
The TRUTH is that if one pretends in relationships that there is no truth, no standard of conduct . . . particularly apart from the pleasure of the moment . . . then the relationships will be shallow and usually rather short-lived . . . with plenty of pain in the parting or insufficient substance to result in pain to begin with.
The TRUTH is that if one picks food out of the gutter in a drunken stupor and eats it . . . routinely . . . complications to life and the pursuit of happiness will accrue with gathering interest payback.
The TRUTH is that if one tries to relate to one's boss, co-workers and customers as though one's own opinion were all that counted in life, one's employment will tend to be short.
The inexorable TRUTH is that GOD IS NOT TO BE MOCKED. WHATSOEVER A MAN SOWS, THAT SHALL HE ALSO REAP.
It doesn't really matter whether one believes that such a universal law applies, operates, results in consequences, or not. The law works quite effectively regardless of anyone or anything's opinions about said law.
Fantasies can be fun and entertaining in a number of realms to a number of degrees about a number of things.
Fantasies about God and His laws and priorities tend to be costly when they don't match up with God's perspectives on HIS CREATED AND ADMINISTERED REALITIES.
If that were my thesis, that would be a foolish thesis indeed!
...but even if there were, it would be unknowable in principle.
That is correct simply because we (human beings) can never know the whole truth simply because we can never know all there is to know.
Therefore, all there can be is opinion. And one man's opinion is just as good as any other man's.
No, we also know some facts. Opinions come in where the facts are lacking.
But if there is structure and order in the universe (and we perceive that there is), then there must be something universally "true" at the foundation of the order we perceive.
Yes, that something is structure and order. We all agree on that.
Otherwise the world would be one way this instant, and something entirely different at the next instant.
Isn't that what happens when cataclysmic events take place?
In short, the universe would be fundamentally chaotic. But if so, then why are things persistently the way they are, and not some other way?
Perception of order does not say whence came the order. We simply don't know why.
Such a view requires denial of the universal order which we do perceive.
No it doesn't betty boop. It acknowledges the order without hypothesizing as to why or how. It accepts the fact that we are too limited to know everything. It is quite humbling.
Such a refusal to apperceive the obvious constitutes an "opinion" that rests on nothing but a refusal to recognize that truthful human knowledge is the product of engaging the real world by observation and experience.
A refusal to acknowledge order in the Universes would indeed constitute such a denial.
This is to acknowledge that there is a "givenness" to the universal system of which we are parts and participants. That givenness entails that the phenomenal universe (which we perceive to be ordered) and the human mind (which also possesses order by virtue of its capacity for logic and reasoning) can be brought into correspondence.
No argument there, betty boop.
This is the basis of all truthful knowledge. This is the basis of science.
This is the basis for all truthful knowledge within our capacities, which are limited in scope.
Case in point: There are many fans of "eternal universe," "steady-state" or "boom-and-bust" cosmological models. These opinions are increasingly being undercut by physical observations of, e.g., the cosmic microwave background radiation, and the cosmic expansion, which point to a real beginning of space and time. Despite the accumulating evidence, many still cling to their preferred opinion that the universe is eternal, and/or steady-state, and/or boom-and-bust.
Indeed, the Steady State die hards are no different than Flat Earth believers. Their models are not what the current evidence supports, although the Big Bag is approaching the periphery rather quickly as well.
In effect, the holders of such views are attempting to make their own preferences the measure of what the universe is.
True, but there is no guarantee that the holders of the Big bang are any closer to the truth either.
All such views seem motivated by a deep distaste for, and desire to avoid the "origin problem," i.e., a universal beginning of space and time in a unique cosmic event.
The problem with the "original problem" begins with the invocation of the "cause" which is not supported by any observed evidence and cannot be even defined.
In other words, a creation event. They cling to their preferred opinion, despite the piling up of evidence that refutes it.
Again, the creation event is in itself nothing to hand one's ego on. The creation event become problematic when one invokes "God" in it, and in particular one specific man-made god.
What is the value of an opinion (or as you put it, a "belief") that can be falsified on the basis of evidence, logic, and reason?
Beliefs tend to resist evidence to the contrary. They also accept as "fact" that which is by necessity imaginary. The "value" of such a belief has to do with the degree to which one's whole existence or life depends on it. If you invest all your hopes in one belief, if that belief is a sanctuary, discovering that it is false would be extremely threatening to one's psyche and the mind would tend to tenaciously hold on to it despite the evidence to the contrary. In other words, a denial.