Other Natural Religions

[Husky]

ADDED:

Quotes are still copy-pasted from goodreads.com/author/quotes/1410.Lawrence_M_Krauss



To further give the "other side" of the argument, the material that the article quoted in Inferno/Pagan's entry at the Rajeev2004 blog didn't provide (but which cryptochristo article made it seem like physicists were unanimous about the 'hand of some invisible creator entity' - the Flying Spaghetti Monster most likely - or even that they were contemporary physicists) -





Just before some new-ageist type declares this next to be a 'miracle' too, here is Krauss explaining why it is merely perfect timing ("now and only now") and hence still can be argued as coincidence:

“In 5 billion years, the expansion of the universe will have progressed to the point where all other galaxies will have receded beyond detection. Indeed, they will be receding faster than the speed of light, so detection will be impossible. Future civilizations will discover science and all its laws, and never know about other galaxies or the cosmic background radiation. They will inevitably come to the wrong conclusion about the universe......We live in a special time, the only time, where we can observationally verify that we live in a special time.”

― Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing

(Last I looked it up, people were still asking for verification/a recheck that the other galaxies are indeed accelerating away from us, but this seems to be the current consensus and has been since at least the late 90s/early 2000s - when I first heard of it - so am taking it for granted.)



I wonder if christoclass religions will be kooked up in that future time to declare that ours is the only galaxy and that we are therefore special and unique and that such uniqueness proves it was all a 'miracle' blablabla. And that the fact that many galaxies had existed in an earlier time (in our current era) was just a "conspiracy" of the atheists denying some monogawd. No such stupidity would surprise me.

“The real thing that physics tell us about the universe is that its big, rare event happens all the time — including life — and that doesn't mean it's special.”

― Lawrence M. Krauss

See, not special in the sense of 'unique'. Enough with cryptochristos and their new-agey parrots threatening that "physics proves" it's all a miracle-of-gawd. Commonplace occurrence. Wondrous, yes - like the birth of stars, also commonplace in our cosmic era - but no need to invoke gawd-type excuses when physics can explain everything without recourse to extra variables.



This is correct too for those who wish to call upon physics as 'evidence' of what are essentially unprovable theses:

“If we wish to draw philosophical conclusions about our own existence, our significance, and the significance of the universe itself, our conclusions should be based on empirical knowledge. A truly open mind means forcing our imaginations to conform to the evidence of reality, and not vice versa, whether or not we like the implications.”

― Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing

For those who wish to use scientific arguments to prove something or other about the invisible mono-gawd/who try to slyly argue for the monogawd:

“The universe is the way it is , whether we like it or not. The existence or nonexistence of a creator is independent of our desires . A world without God or purpose may seem harsh or pointless, but that alone doesn't require God to actually exist.”

― Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing

(Obviously)



And this one is for the dweeby Rajarants, who like to pretend to be scientific while they are new-agey pseudo-scientists:

“Metaphysical speculation is independent of the physical validity of the Big Bang itself and is irrelevant to our understanding of it.”

― Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing

There, tell Rajarant that, who played at being all "scientific" when he tried to divorce the Hindoo Gods from Vedanta for not being "scientific enough" for him (=his excuse for the fact that the Gods don't compute to him and probably have distanced themselves permanently from him for his verbal diarrhoea), even as he then tried to peddle Vedantic metaphysical speculations that appealed to him from his garb of pseudo-science. Dude should retire. Makes a mockery of proper science.



In general, if you're going to argue from the POV of science - i.e. if you're going to pretend to be scientific - then *be* scientific, not wishy washy new-agey, making exceptions and creating loopholes for your pet theories. And so, when arguing from the scientific POV, also don't don't Don't speak about the "purpose" of life or some such nonsense. Science has no evidence for any actual purpose [everything still seems coincidence to science], so don't propose untestable predicates. As far as science can tell - and it is the most reasonable argument based on what's known (doesn't mean it's true) - life is the product of coincidence and there is No Purpose. I'm going to have to agree that it is logically consistent within science (as far as we know) for Dawkins to say that such questions themselves - like "what is the purpose of life" - are inane, as they do not apply.



The atheist argument and that of all western physicists who don't subscribe to christo-new-ageisms is: find meaning in your own life. It doesn't matter if nothing has a purpose and life is but brief and then over forever. Make it worthwhile for yourself and for others. <- Atheist argument, and entirely justified, if you look at it from their POV.



And heathens can (and do) do at least as much, while still holding on to their perceptions that there is a larger meaning, that "Vedantic metaphysical speculations" are not devoid of the Gods (as per Vedantic texts themselves) - despite Rajarant's desperate desire for this (or Elst's repeated attempts to divorce important aspects of Hindoo religion from the Hindoo Gods) - and are moreover quite true and can be grasped not only intuitively by the heathens but can also be verified for themselves with their ritual practices. If anyone thinks it's a waste of time, then don't do it. This isn't a missionary religion, it doesn't require converts or even adherents. It lives and dies with the traditionalists. Aliens will never acquire it, and alienated will lose it for all time (as they should). Heathens follow heathenism because it is tradition - that is, verified by ancestors and hence worth pursuing, to thereby verify first-hand for oneself. The heathen Gods - Hindoo (and Taoist) certainly - CAN be known. You need but the traditional heathen perception and to practice your heathen rituals aright.



But the main point was: when you're arguing from within the scientific paradigm, do not bring in heathen reasonings and contemplations. And certainly not new-agey spin-offs.

And don't fall for those who do, especially when they argue for a "god creator"* - as these tend to be monogawd pushers.



ADDED:

(*Or subversions like new-agey pseudo-Vedantic NS Rajarant-type "metaphysical speculations", where NSR - eternally self-ejected from the Vedic religion hence from Vedanta too, naturally - wants to poach on Vedic insights, with the stated intention of divorcing these from the intrinsic theism, even as he hisses histrionicly at the Vedam itself, like a typical encroaching alien. Dude will turn science into a new-ageism - like he did with Vedanta - if given half a chance.)





The relevant bits are the blockquotes in this and the previous post and anything emphasised in colour or bold.