Religion
Related: About this forumThe Finite Nature of the Individual Does Not Limit Human Knowledge
Last edited Tue Apr 9, 2019, 01:26 PM - Edit history (1)
Individually, we human beings don't last long. We are born, we live and learn, and then we die. On a cosmic scale, we flash into existence and are gone as quickly. Even as a species, that is true. There is ample evidence of that that is repeated every minute of every day. That we die makes some people uncomfortable, so they have created concepts of a continuation of individual existence beyond death. There is absolutely no evidence to support such an idea.
The limited existence of a human individual has never troubled me. It does not trouble me at age 73, either. I will die, and that will be the end of my existence. In the meantime, I live, learn, experience, and emote. When I was young I thought I might be smart enough to be able to contribute some knowledge to the world during my existence. I discovered, though, that such a thing was not going to be. I'm not a scientist, a philosopher, a teacher, or anyone who will leave behind more than a few million written words that are unlikely to be read after I'm gone.
No matter. Others have contributed to human knowledge, and I've been enjoying learning from them all along. What we know is a collective thing. No individual knows everything. Instead, very clever human beings have added new information to our collective pool of knowledge. Nobody has solved every equation, nor has everyone had a moment of spectacular insight they were able to explain. A few, though, have had those insights and have shared them with us. Some of them are absolutely right, some are partially right, and some are, well, not right at all. Over time, we sort through them, retain the ones that are confirmed, and drop the ones that are falsified through further research.
Are there unknowable things? I don't know. I will never know, because I won't be here to learn about the new discoveries human beings make after I'm gone. There are certainly things I don't know now, and things nobody knows at this time. We have not been able to stand outside of the universe and look back on it and its history. We might be able to solve that problem, assuming we survive as a species long enough. Perhaps a new mathematics will describe the universe from outside of the universe. I won't know about that, because it will happen long after I am no more, if it happens at all.
Are there supernatural things? Deities? Humans can imagine such things, and often do. But, they lack any evidence of existence, so I discard them as purely imaginary. There is too much that does have evidence to spend any time studying that which does not. In my opinion, of course.
There is freedom in recognizing the limited existence of the individual human and of our species. There is no need to ponder what happens after death. That allows one to focus on what is and has evidence of being real. Nothing else matters, because each human individual exists only briefly. We learn from other humans, of our own generation and of generations past. Knowledge is collective and cumulative. Our knowledge also appears to accelerate over time. That is exciting, since we live in a time when that acceleration has been dramatic.
It is enough for me to learn as much as I can of what is known and what is being discovered. I need no more to be deliriously happy. Life is exciting, if only for that reason. There are other things, of course, like relationships with other human beings. But knowledge is where true joy can be found during our brief existence, it seems to me. Your experience might differ.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Just because we don't (and probably never will) know everything, doesn't mean that it's equally OK to believe anything. I.e., "You can't explain how the universe came into existence!" doesn't automatically mean "My god created it!" is equally valid.
MineralMan
(147,386 posts)Relying on a deus ex machina to explain what we do not yet know makes no sense at all. We can observe the universe, better and better all the time. We cannot observe gods at all. One has evidence of existence; the other has no evidence at all. The only logical conclusion is that those deities do not exist, but are simply imaginary things used to escape the work of exploration of what is real.
The equations are completely different.
Using a supernatural explanation is of no use whatsoever. Continuing to study the physical evidence the universe provides, on the other hand, leads us to more knowledge.
I know which one I prefer.
I have an old book about mineralogy in my library. Its publcation date is in the 1840s. It's full of incorrect information that has been replaced with better information, but it was a primary textbook in its day. The first sentence of the first chapter of that book is: "We are to study minerals." That sentence always struck me as central to the scientific method. "We are to study the universe." In detail and in general. Why? Because there it is. It exists. It is our home. It benefits us to learn about it, in practical and other ways.