(Search Giant Spaghetti Monster on this forum if you’re in a mood for some really dumb satire.)
I am highly affended at your mockery of Him and His Noodly Appendage. How dare you blaspheme by asserting that He is bound to any size such as “Giant.” The Flying Spaghetti Monster may take any form he wishes, which means he can be any size he wishes, as any bonafide Pastafarian will tell you.
I didn’t mention super-nature; at this point it’s still moot. I’m wondering, what evidence do you have to support the statement that a consciousness of any kind caused causality? Why consciousness? What facts lead you to the conclusion that it was definitely consciousness and not something else, such as an egg-and-cress sandwich? (Search Giant Spaghetti Monster on this forum if you’re in a mood for some really dumb satire.) What evidence do you have that indicates that causality needed to be caused?
I’ve definitely realized that I know less than nothing about the origins of the physical universe (less than nothing because most of what I thought I “knew” turned out to be questionable if not downright false), so I try very hard to stick with propositions I have evidence for. Anything else gets slotted into the “wild imaginings” category instead of the “knowledge” category.
The primary proof that I have (which obviously is far from 100% proof of course) of caused causality is written about in Aquinas’ Shorter Summa, it is a combination of the way he interpreted God in Catholicism and the way Aristotle speculated why things were moved. Whatever would be the given cause of causality (since causality is not a material object, it’s origin is speculated to be a concept of action without matter, something which has not yet further been elaborated on, but could conform to some energy based phenomena) It is pretty much a given that causality dominates physics. But what I am specifically after is it’s origin, what was the first thing to exist that established causality by way of precedent. Perhaps causality is not specifically caused, but I have speculated that at some point it started and developed.
One of the things that I’ve found interesting in Objectivism is that causality and the universe sort of pick up the slack that is left in God’s absense. If indeed it is the case that the interaction of causality and material reality created man’s unique ability to contemplate on such a deep level, I am curious to know how and hope that at some point the sciences will bring forth more answers. One of the things that makes me a bit sad is that I visualize all of the accomplishments that will be made after I’m gone, and that I will not have any way of seeing or knowing them.
One of the risks in getting into metaphysical speculation and even issues of faith is that you run a heavy risk of being at error and you often have less to go on than you do when you are using logic to categorize phenomena that is right in front of your face. Aquinas often referred to theology (as opposed to blind religion, which was the way of the old tribes preceding civilizaiton) is that it is a science that utilizes the other sciences to predict the nature of things that are beyond the current scope of reason. Sometimes such speculations can be made to serve reason by preparing it for analysis of newer phenomena when we become capable of studying it. (an example being speculation on potential life forms that could exist on other planets that are inorganic, or more plainly not based on Carbon)
As to the Spagetti monster (which sounds like a humorous satire based on what I would call the “Creator Octopus” senario, sort of my own little satire poking fun at the multi-apendaged Hindu Gods), I will look it up. But one of the things to remember about Aquinas (whom is my inspiration on this) is that he did not allow for things contrary to reason to infect his view of God. He used reason to isolate what God could potentially be by a process of elimination, until all absurdities such as an “Egg and Cress Sandwich” or the alien “Zenu” of scientology were eliminated and one coherent theory of why man contemplates eternity and yet is made of a non-eternal body. For Aquinas reason and his faith never contradicted, for me it is taken a step further and reason becomes a tool to rule out the poisonous forms of faith, what I see as erronius forms of guilt mongering which exists in various religions, and to seek a clear path. Undoubtedly this unique position is why I made my way here, I have the highest reverence for reason, and likewise I fear nothing when I am among others whom share this reverence.
I am highly affended at your mockery . . .
This sounds vaguely dirty. What is “affended?”
Aquinas often referred to theology (as opposed to blind religion, which was the way of the old tribes preceding civilizaiton) is that it is a science that utilizes the other sciences to predict the nature of things that are beyond the current scope of reason. Sometimes such speculations can be made to serve reason by preparing it for analysis of newer phenomena when we become capable of studying it. (an example being speculation on potential life forms that could exist on other planets that are inorganic, or more plainly not based on Carbon)
So theology = the science of wild imaginings?
Sounds to me like a fantasy writer trying to allow his readers enough suspension of disbelief to get on with his book.
So theology = the science of wild imaginings?
Sounds to me like a fantasy writer trying to allow his readers enough suspension of disbelief to get on with his book.
hehe, to each his/her own, but I would refer to it as:
Theology = speculation of universal origin
and
speculation of universal origin = utilizing the power of abstraction through a combonation of mathematical principles and metaphysical axioms to conceptualize a beginning.
I don’t seek to avoid or even question reality, what I seek is to put it into order, starting with the axioms and building off of them into complex theory of universal phenomena. Each entity has onto itself a specific nature and thus an identity (A is A, 2+2=4, things are what they are) and what I seek is the full extent of that identity. What is the origin of it’s identity, how did it evolve into it’s current state, what surrounding phenomena may have affected or stimulated the process. Aquinas’ “Shorter Summa” has a better explanation of it than what I can provide at this time. I obviously won’t advertize Thomism on here since it is not within the guidelines of the forum, but at some point I may entertain a debate with whomever wishes to discuss this.
Ayn Rand and myself draw influences from the same philosopher, thus our views on most things are very similar. As a believer in the axiom of free will, I mirror her views on politics and do not consider government compulsion to be moral in any given senario. As a believer in an objective universe, I don’t subscribe to the Kantian principle of intuition (interchangeable with non-rational faith, which is not compatable with Thomism and has been rightly condemned in the Catholic Encyclopedia as erronius) or Plato’s obscure concept of a special means of “communicating” with a non-existing realm of ideas, which is basically a manifesto for the tyranny of intellectual elites. Consequently you will find that I am regularly launching polemics against most of the same enemies that all the Objectivists have.
To simply state how I define any concept of “faith” is as a speculation that is built off of reason (as opposed to an avoidance of it, which is where the term “blind faith” comes from). On the other hand, it is obviously not something that is scientifically demonstratable, at least not yet. Such theories as evolution, the big bang, or Aristotle’s concept of an eternal universe is not in contradiction with this viewpoint.
P.S. - Just to add an additional wrinkle, I am not a supporter of Intelligent Design. One of the weakest arguements that many theologians have come to argue is the idea that because something is complex that it just magically pops up from nothing. The arguement from incredulity is something that I never engage in, because it is akin to surrendering your rationality and defaulting your arguement out of the bounds of any further logical discussion.
Ayn Rand and myself draw influences from the same philosopher,…
I assume you mean Aquinas? A few months ago, I read the first 40 pages or so of Aquinas’s Summa Theologica. I was impressed by the style, but definitely not by the content. For a person of his times, I reckon it was a huge leap, to try to formulate an argument in such logical terms; also, I admire the honest way in which he puts forth opposing objections and then replies to them.
If I lived in his times, I would have considered his book worth a read. However, I stopped reading when I realized that it is essentially only of historical importance. The content was nothing that modern man need take seriously.
I assume you mean Aquinas? A few months ago, I read the first 40 pages or so of Aquinas’s Summa Theologica. I was impressed by the style, but definitely not by the content. For a person of his times, I reckon it was a huge leap, to try to formulate an argument in such logical terms; also, I admire the honest way in which he puts forth opposing objections and then replies to them.
If I lived in his times, I would have considered his book worth a read. However, I stopped reading when I realized that it is essentially only of historical importance. The content was nothing that modern man need take seriously.
Actually I was referring to Aristotle, whom the Catholic Church and particularly Aquinas refers to as “The Philosopher”. Aquinas did not refer to himself as a philosopher, and most literature dedicated him refer to him as “The Angelic Doctor” or more plainly, he was an important Theologian. Theology and Philosophy are not the same thing, and I try to make regular distinctions between the two, although occasionally I accidentally refer to Aquinas as a Philosopher, mostly because of his writings on the nature of man. The two can serve each other, especially when a person of reason makes speculations of entities not yet experienced by the sensations.
One of the declarations of the “Neo-Scholastic” movement in the Catholic Church, which models itself after Aquinas’ appeal to reason in arguing scripture, is that Aquinas’ movement must be adapted to the times. I myself am working on trying to make a much needed adaptation, which is to offer modifications to the current system of Catholic Ethics. Laissez Faire capitalism, in it’s pure non-interfered with form has proven to be the only benevolent system out there. People are allowed to prosper without plundering each other or nations making war with each other, freedom of communication between people is established, and acts of charity are strong because of the wealth built out of self-interest motivated business.
One of the parts of Catholic Ethics that is in dire need of changing is the supposed dichotomy between self-love and love of others, it doesn’t exist in a rational thinking society, and as a creed is more befitting of enemies of the church such as Comte and Saint-Simon, whom think that the means of benevolence and charity can magically fall from the sky like mana and yet simultaneously believe that God doesn’t exist. Adam Smith was a brilliant thinker who was way ahead of us in terms of solving the issue of human suffering, and his work “The Wealth of Nations” is one that I regularly study.