A Question of Beginnings (I)

December 27, 2011 at 00:19 | Posted in Everything | 12 Comments

I

The cause of something is often looked at as the highest thing knowable through the social-historical perspective. However, true philosophy seeks to understand teleology, or the final causes (goals) of things.

The forefront of the religious and scientific minds of today is the question of the ORIGINAL cause:  the creation of, not only earth, but the universe itself. Such a basic question, such a basic answer, and yet, the two groups are divided with no compromise in sight. An immaturity of sorts lines these arguments:  the Christian often hides behind a child-like ignorance which is supposedly necessary for faith (i.e., BLIND faith), and the scientist often hides behind the “inherent” absolutism of his field or the social world (memes like the “flying spaghetti monster” come from this source, and try to make a joke of religion in order to disprove it).

What is the truth in this matter?

The basic answer:  the beginning cannot be experienced, and it was not experienced, so the beginning does not historically exist. It is prehistory. And any prehistorical happening cannot be totally proven.

Thus any social-historical perspective should understand that the original cause of the universe (technically) lies outside of its field. The beginning of everything is a pointless conjecture that SHOULD have no effect on the mind of man.

The scientist wants the beginning to be a cold, harsh occurrence, simply to “disprove” the religious sentiment and prove its “absolute knowledge.” Whereas the religious folk want to prove that they have been given “absolute knowledge” by God by simply knowing that the cause of the world was…caused. They want to disprove each other by saying that the universe was caused.

This is folly of the worst kind. All creation theories set forth by science can be assimilated into religion (I am referring specifically to Christianity, here). All religious creation theories can be thought of as a guide to what we now know with science. Religion created science because religion was, after its primitive history of giving humanity “control” over nature, the search for the truth. Nietzsche says that this is what caused Christianity to kill its own god.

So now we “know” that the universe was caused; we have learnt this from both science and religion (religion was first in describing this, it set up the framework for science to work with).

Part II soon.

Advertisements

12 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. Ooh :3 okay, you’ve probably just given your viewpoint (you don’t care?) but do you have a belief in regards to how the universe was created?

    I wouldn’t say the universe has a goal, it seems its end/final cause (?) will be to slowly fade out of existence as stars go dim, then matter is eventually destroyed.

    Oh, and rather than being a “cold, harsh occurrence” the big bang would’ve actually been pretty hot. ;3 XD

  2. The big bang is something that could have happened in accordance with scientific fact or religious myth, so that’s what I would probably align myself with. Doing no personal research on it (yet) besides hearing Asimov blab about the universe in his guide to science, I can’t defend anything about it.

    I do care about the implications of this event, but I don’t care about it in terms of the fact that it happened. It happened, what more do we need to discuss? Must we have the huge debates about how God created the universe but the universe created itself but it was God NO IT WAS SCIENCE(!) NO GOD NO SCIENCE (wait who is talking at this point). You get the point, the beginning of the world is often exploited as a way to defend either religion or science when they should actually be compromising on this subject. The institutions agree but fail to see it.

    That final cause you mentioned is correct, though I have never heard of matter being destroyed.

    “Oh, and rather than being a “cold, harsh occurrence” the big bang would’ve actually been pretty hot.”

    I probably should have put down in some type of caveat that I meant, in terms of indifference, “cold and harsh,” haha.

    PS: This particular segment was supposed to be a more objective stance toward both parties, while the second part would be my opinion on how to solve the matter and what I believe in regards to “beginnings.”

  3. I see. :3 what I meant by “matter being destroyed” is kind of hard to explain and doesn’t really get the point across – I basically meant what this link talks about: http://exitmundi.nl/eternity.htm.

    “A proton, the particle you’ll find in the core of atoms, has an average lifetime of 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 years. Wait long enough, and it will suddenly vanish. Poof, gone.”

    It’s not a very technical explanation, but I didn’t think “fade away” was a better way to put it. After looking at the link again, the word “decay” was used, and that’s probably one of the best choices.

    It sounds like your next post will be interesting. :3

    -AKH

  4. I hope it’s interesting! Haha.

    From what I’ve learned (not much) about matter, I thought that it could never be destroyed (law of conservation), just transformed. Asimov said that the universe will end as a gaseous and diffuse form, I think this is also the belief of thermodynamics (energy is unusable and everything is chaotic).

    Of course this isn’t an “automatic” truth, I’m sure there is evidence for particle destruction, I’ve just never heard of that until now.

    I’ll try to find some time to finish the post, right now I’m trying to finish reading that same Spencer I just referenced.

  5. Cool :3 I’m not sure of the validity of what the link says, but it might tie-in at least a little to what you said (the universe will end in a gaseous and diffuse form according to Asimov/thermodynamics) – it at least implies the quantum vacuum will stay the same.

  6. Yeah, I’ve never heard of that either. I have not been initiated into Quantum Physics, but I want to learn about it at some points. All I know about are basic theories and experiments, like Schrodinger’s cat and the particle/wave thing with photons.

  7. *some point, don’t know why I pluralized that.

  8. Shrodingers hat

    you have a hat that is both worn and not worn at the same ti-*slapped*

    I wish I could post some kind of thought out reply to this, but I don’t understand much of the topic and my brain is still waking up so I can get to work without being a zombie. XD

    I’ll come back to this later…

  9. I know a little bit about quantum physics :3 like how some quantum particles (all quantum particles?) can be in two places at the same time. That particle/wave thing is that photons sometimes behave like particles and sometimes like waves, or like both at the same time, right?

  10. I am athiest, and for many reasons, actually; one of the reasons is because most people are born and raised into a certain religion not even questioning whether they should believe in what they’re taught. After branch and branch of worship throughout history religion has changed, and some religions have died out which is just amazing to me how a person and or society could be so commited to a certain form of worship yet, in a matter of generations, beliefs fade out almost as if they’re fashion statements. I mean not only was there not visible evidence of a creator in the first place, but who’s to say which religion is correct and which one isn’t? I’m not entirely sure what or who the early generations of humanity saw as god or omnipresent but I’m sure that no one worships them today in the present. Theories, stories, beliefs (whatever you want to call them) of a certain religion today even (ex. Christianity) have been ‘modified’ to fit the likings of man.. how many branches are there? Catholics, Baptists.. Mormons; IMO really religion seems to be easily stretched when there isn’t excactly solid, supportive evidence for any one of them.. on the other hand, we see know that science can be proved to exist.. it’s visible in front of us! Atoms, molecules, etc. And no it doesn’t mean that I’m in full support of the Big Bang theory either, because, as you’ve said- there really isn’t any way that you could prove it to be true.

  11. ASININE

    enjoy the first word of the new year :V

  12. AKH-

    “I know a little bit about quantum physics :3 like how some quantum particles (all quantum particles?) can be in two places at the same time. That particle/wave thing is that photons sometimes behave like particles and sometimes like waves, or like both at the same time, right?”

    Yeah it is. And then you have entanglement which means that some type of warp technology could be invented. But that one makes my head hurt…

    Sinister-

    Welcome back:

    “After branch and branch of worship throughout history religion has changed, and some religions have died out which is just amazing to me how a person and or society could be so commited to a certain form of worship yet, in a matter of generations, beliefs fade out almost as if they’re fashion statements.”

    You should look into “The Essence of Christianity” by Ludwig Feuerbach. He basically wrote that sentence in that book. It’s expansive and talks all about how religion has always been the worship of man himself, and it has evolved over time to unveil this truth more and more.

    “I’m not entirely sure what or who the early generations of humanity saw as god or omnipresent but I’m sure that no one worships them today in the present.”

    Probably some natural phenomenon, which they attributed supernatural powers. As man’s evolution progresses onward, though, gods more and more resemble humans, proving your (and Feuerbach’s) reasoning.

    “on the other hand, we see know that science can be proved to exist.. it’s visible in front of us! Atoms, molecules, etc.”

    Well, sort of. I don’t think we can actually see atoms; in fact the model for the atom has changed tons of times in the last hundred years. Quantum physics had them change the way electrons look in the model into a “cloud” around the nucleus because it is impossible to tell where they are. Science isn’t absolute, but it is certainly closer than religion to unveiling what makes this world tick. I still believe however that religion provided the general forms for science to work with, i.e. it gave science direction. And it gives (or gave) it purpose.

    “Shrodingers hat
    you have a hat that is both worn and not worn at the same ti-*slapped*”

    Only if the hat is made of a fusion of Axle and a muscular ha-
    Ok I’m done.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: