I wrote —
I think the ‘Multi-verse’ conjecture is a bogus exercise as there is NO basis for proliferating ‘Universes’ in order to overcome a purely human inability to comprehend the concept of ‘infinity’.
You replied —
Aw come on, 21stCenturion, do you mean to suggest that you do have the ability to “comprehend the concept of ‘infinity’?” On the possibility that you might so comprehend (though that certainly seems doubtful to me), I suspect “infinity” in your sense would just be a stand-in for God.
Seems I didn’t actually say anything that resembles your conclusions. I DO comprehend the definition of ‘infinity’ — that is no great accomplishment, I think. Whether I can, in my limited mind, grasp the significance or meaning of an expression like ‘an infinite number of Universes’ is questionable. I did NOT assert possession of such an insight.
Further, ‘infinity’ in ‘my’ sense has to do with an exercise in counting, nothing more. Nowhere did I imply some being / existence / personality / whatever that could reasonably be construed as ‘God’. That presumption originates with you.
You wrote —
Just who is it that (seemingly) claims to know future events (at least in general if not in each and every particular) and all the details of what is needed — “all possible combinations of matter, energy or whatever” — because they “...MUST somehow be permitted to occur, somehow, someplace, sometime.”
That person evidently has a most exalted, God-like view of things. Kinda reminds me of Laplace....
Laplace ? I assume you refer to “Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là” ( I did not need this hypothesis then ) ? I never went there, except, I suppose, to the extent that I made no appeal to the supernatural at any time to justify or explain myself.
I never asserted ‘an exalted God-like view of things’, as you so cheerfully provided me with. I humbly view myself as a bit too modest to claim such an exalted opinion or myself or my ‘notions’ as stated herein.
You conclude —
In the end, I gather we disagree about this: You believe that faith and reason are mutually exclusive; I do not.
Rather I believe they are necessary complementarities. Truthful human knowledge requires the light of both.
NOT my words, you’ll quickly realize —
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1
For once, you nailed me. I absolutely DO believe that faith and reason are absolutely incompatible — mutually exclusive, to use your terms. To that extent, you’re right, our ‘world views’ ARE ‘mutually incompatible’.
In my chosen profession ( engineering ) we would rightfully condemn someone who filters / modifies / corrupts data in order to fit a predetermined conclusion. It’s certainly NOT honest; it doesn’t change the underlying reality; and the results must, inevitably, produce failure. Passing reality through a lens of ‘faith’ and claiming the results are equivalent to the product of ‘reason’ looks a lot like that.
One Man’s Opinion
21stCenturion
You do not grasp my point, friend. Even you are "a man of faith" within the meaning of that term as I understand it. Every scientist or engineer who ever lived and thought is "a man of faith."
The scientist's faith is that the world is intelligible. If the scientist did not believe that, then all his science would be in vain; indeed, there could be no science at all. And the engineer faithfully believes in the complete adequacy of the mechanistic principles of his calling. If he doubted them, he would not be an engineer at all.
It seems to me that all human knowledge rests on faith at its very foundation. That is, without faith there is no spur towards knowledge, no scope for the operations of logic and reason, nothing for intelligence to work on. Without faith in something, there is really nothing at all for a man to do. He might just as well curl up in the fetal position and resign from the human race.
But this rarely happens for the very simple reason that every man believes in something, whether it is true or not. If he didn't, he wouldn't even be a man.
Yet evidently you have been trained to cast a cold eye on belief in God. This seems to pass as quite fashionable nowadays in certain circles.
And yet for countless millennia by now, belief in God has been universal to all mankind everywhere. Doctrinaire atheism is quite a contemporary phenomenon. And I note that where you find it, you find not only contempt for God, but also contempt for mankind in general — but especially that part of mankind that believes in God, and particularly the Christians among them.
But back to my opening comment, that every scientist must believe the world is intelligible or there couldn't be any science at all; science per se would be a pointless exercise if the fundamental intelligibility of the world was in doubt.
And yet I know of no scientist, offhand, who asks the question: Why is the world intelligible? What is it that embues it with intelligibility? From whence do its laws arise? And other questions of that kind — the answers to which cannot be found within the spacetime reality of ordinary existence and experience, of the direct sensory perception on which the scientific method ineluctably depends.
Science does not ask these questions. Indeed, such questions seem a bit above science's paygrade, given its utter dependence on sensory perception/observation/measurement which is its fundamental, even sacrosanct method.
I might add that there are plenty of "non-observables" of the greatest importance to human beings. Indeed, the ability of man to detect them is a sign of his categorical superiority to the lower animals.
But to not ask such questions doesn't mean the questions disappear. Plus by its own methods, science cannot disprove, or falsify the eternal Presence of God — the God Sir Isaac Newton called "The Lord of Life with His Creatures."
I just wish you guys would stop behaving like the Dog in the Manger.... The rule there being what the dog cannot eat himself must be denied to all other creatures for which it is the most suitable and nourishing fare.
Anyhoot, back to my claim that faith and reason are NOT mutually exclusive: If you were to scrupulously, honestly analyze your own thought processes, I think you would find I am right about this.
But hardly any person does that sort of thing nowadays.... Few people understand their own thinking. But then critical thinking is getting to be a lost art it seems.
Thanks so much for your reply, 21stCenturion!
Argument from authority is not logically valid but the data transferred in such a manner may be veridical or veriferous.
And this applies just as much to a T.A.'s frustrated hand-waving when asked about a derivation of the difference between heat capacity at constant pressure vs. constant volume, as it does to a frantic parent warning a child to get out of traffic, as it does to religion.
The scientific method is good for minimizing false positives, but it does so at the cost of allowing false negatives.
Cheers!