๐ณ๐ฑ
@Surasanji I dont see the need to do so here, if anything knowledge of science reinforces ones interest in the metaphysical, at least for me.
@freemo I'm an atheist myself, but I've come to the conclusion that there's people that need some kind of spirituality and some that don't. So I'd say this quote applies to the former type of persons.
@Surasanji I've never been a fan of focusing on the word god in any meaningful way.
@freemo @Surasanji @cm curious what your perspective is re: God (I'm a new member, but I promise I am not trolling just trying to get to know people)
@jonpemby I think god is the last thing people should talk about in religion. It shouldnt be a question of any value that enters anyones mind. As someone once put it, if god is everything then he is unknowable without knowing everything, therefore god would be the last thing you learn in an infinite existance.
@freemo @Surasanji @cm interesting perspective, but what is the point of religion if not the pursuit of knowledge of the divine?
@Surasanji @freemo In that regard, I'd probably describe myself as agnostic -- in the sense that if we cannot know, there is no point (for me) in thinking about it; I'm content to accept reality as it is.
@cm I wouldnt say it is a matter of need but rather logic simply being applied to different sets of personal evidece combined with differences in bias. How much is bias and how much is logic depends on the person.
@freemo "need" may be the wrong word, I'm having trouble even finding the right one in my native language. Maybe an example helps? I look at an ecosystem and think "that's nice how everything works together", and that's it for me. But for others, they see a deeper meaning. Not talking about creationist bible-thumpers here, but about people that I agree with on what we see and what the science behind it is.
@cm I think i see what you mean , the idea that something extrodinary must be an indication of something beyond randomnly emergent.
@freemo Yup, something like that. And I'm happy to accept that given the parameters and laws of physics etc, it just emerged that way, and acknowledge the beauty, but that's it for me.
@cm I know for me its the whole infinte recursion that gets me. Even if i follow physics back to its most basic elements I still need to ask things like "Why is the speed of light C and not some other value?"
@freemo I'm not enough of a physicist to know what I think about that question, but I have discussed the Big Bang with people, that we can't know what was before it. And I'm very interested to know why that is, but then I accept it and stop thinking about the "before".
@freemo I entirely agree with this. When you really get into logic and science, it points to our Creator.
@hashtaggrammar @freemo What really convinced me of this is the book Genetic Entropy. It shows how our genome is deteriorating due to mutations, and that there is nothing we can do about it (among other things). Someone would have to really refute that premise for me to believe otherwise.
@hashtaggrammar In many ways. If you take physics down to its fundemental constants then its hard to answer "why those numers", moreover if we didnt have exactly the right numbers the universe woudnt work, there would be no planets or orbits or life. Just as an example.
@freemo @hashtaggrammar Some people use the unfounded multiverse idea.
Life is a major one. Even the numbers don't work out for life coming on its own here.
@freemo It is possible to divorce one's knowledge from one's beliefs.