Image via WikipediaI find atheists to be in an interesting predicament since I'm sure only one of two things are possible:
1. There is a theory of everything. (In the scientific sense.)
In this case, even though there is no reason a meaningless universe should be set-up just right to be understood by rational beings inside and out, this just happens to be the case. (Oh how wonderfully convenient for us! :)) Or as Einstein famously said:
"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible"Einstein was right, and this is the ultimate coincidence problem. In physics, coincidence problems are ones where we find that, for whatever reason, we exist in a special situation in the universe. One that just happens to be suited for our needs. Physicists don't like these and so they are considered problems.
Well, then why do we find ourselves coincidentally in a meaningless universe that just happens to be so well suited for rational beings to understand inside and out? Why is it so well suited to be understood completely through man-made constructs we call scientific theories?
2. There is not a theory of everything. (In the scientific sense.)
In this case science cannot explain everything in the universe. People, like Hawking, trying to understand how the universe works fundamentally using science alone are doing so in vein. (And I am 100% pro-science, but if it cannot explain everything I have to admit it becomes limited in scope.)
People refer to problems with "god of the gaps" arguments with the assumption that all gaps will one day be closed by science. However, if there is not a theory of everything (in the scientific sense) then there will always be a gap a mile wide! (I'm not saying God necessarily goes there, only that the gap exists.) And since the gap is real, as the universe is real and science cannot explain all of it, this means something beyond science, or something that transcends science, is ultimately required to have a full understanding of our universe.
3. What I don't want to hear:
A. "This is just and attempt to prove Christianity." I've said nothing of Christianity. This coincidence problem would be independent of what religions, if any, walked the earth. Don't try to sneak around the problem by attacking religion. That would be a strawman argument.
B. "You have abused the meaning of Catch-22, this isn't technically what the word means." I realize this. This is a blog not a dictionary and I chose the word that for whatever reason I enjoyed the best.
C. "What are you trying to prove?" That being an atheist, you find yourself in an interesting predicament. On one hand the universe is devoid of meaning and yet it just happens to be "set up" for rational beings to understand inside and out. (Again, how wonderfully convenient for us humans! :)) And on the other, if it cannot be understood inside and out using rational thought than using science to understand the whole universe on a fundamental level is pointless, and there will always be a "gap a mile wide" that something beyond or transcending science must fill. (Again, I did not say it is the Christian God... I did not say what it was except it is something beyond/transcending science.)
Ultimately, I am just trying to echo Einstein saying "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible" and find it odd that atheists are not equally perplexed by all this as much as he was.
I second almost every word in this post. I don't know why are you being so defensive while your reason makes absolute sense (yes, the third point kind of sounds like you are apologizing for being rational:) )
ReplyDeletejust to add my 2 cents, the way I see this is that atheism is a positive claim just like any religion. Agnosticism (saying that there may or may not be a creator, I just don't care or I have no way of knowing) is not a positive claim. But atheism (saying that there IS NO creator) seems to me a positive claim in a sense that it begs the question of why is the universe is the way it is which will lead to the dilemma that you pointed out in this post. For all I care, the answer to this question would be non falsifiable, just like any religion.
"Let's assume, for sake of argument, that the universe is ultimately meaningless, without purpose and has no reason to care or cater to the needs of rational beings. People who believe this I will refer to as atheists."
ReplyDeleteWell, I will call people who believe that "chairs."
"In this case science cannot explain everything in the universe."
All informed people know this already.
"And since the gap is real, as the universe is real and science cannot explain all of it, this means something beyond science, or something that transcends science, is ultimately required to have a full understanding of our universe."
You can't validly conclude that. Mere lack of knowledge does not show that there is *necessarily* anything else.
Hossam,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your words. Yes, I admit I may have been too defensive.
Brian Westley,
I also appreciate your feedback. Next time I will use "chair". :) But I have a question for you, if the set of real things not covered by science is not the empty set, how is there not a "gap"?
JS,
ReplyDeleteIt is all relative! Comprehensiblility of one is utter nonsense to other and vice versa. If you could only explain what a worm thinks while it is going down a fish's throat, and what does a fish thinks - like, only a small bugger! Got to find many!! - or what?
Not only do you walk on thin ice, but also, swords under the ice!!
What religion do you practice?
Are you an atheist?
We have been here before: ...what if Universe does not care whether you comprehend it or not!
Stop being a worm going down the fish's throat, trying to figure out all the changes happening so suddenly...
A- If we can comprehend the Universe, God must exist.
ReplyDeleteB- If we cannot comprehend the Universe, God must exist.
Either A or B is true, therefore God exists.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI will try to avoid being the worm you describe. I am sorry I fall into this trap.
Stan,
I like your proof. :)
Stan,
ReplyDeleteWhat if neither A nor B are not correct? What about we comprehend the Universe but god does not exist, and many, many other variants of your premises...
I really think most of you PhD got to go and take couple of courses in philosophy of logical systems... If I were to be Dean of Physics dept, I would require all Grad students to take that course and they all must make a presentation to undergrads!
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI am all for making physics students take some philosophy/logic courses. And yes, they should be able to explain themselves to undergrads.
JS,
ReplyDeleteSince you have walked on cracking thin ice, I believe you are badly conflicted with your religion and your studies... The fundamental premise of science is that all that is in front of me is knowable (if you like: kingdom of God is in front of you, and men do not see it!)...
Only unknown is how long would it take...
Anon,
ReplyDeleteI also think all grad students should study the subtlety of tongue in cheek humor. =:)
Again, here, not sure what is up with Anonymous. Seems to be a touchy issue for him/her (him I'm assuming). Not sure why we can't rationally discuss this without demeaning others.
ReplyDeleteAAAAAHHHHHH, Joseph you're killing me with these posts! I need to get my
ReplyDeletehomework done, but I can't resist. Okay, here I go.
I'm gonna address the comments so far first:
Re Hossam. Be careful with your characterization of atheism. Most atheists I know DO NOT assert there is no God. In fact, a casual glance at true atheists will reveal that they are VERY particular. To most, atheism is a lack of belief in God, not a positive assertion he does not exist. That would fall under your definition of agnostic.
Now for the post:
Ultimately, Joseph, this is a matter of perspective. I mean no offense, but the truth is, you are unable to see it from the POV of the atheist, and therein lies your misunderstanding.
1. I question your definition of atheists, mostly because atheists technically, do not believe in God, not necessarily that there is no meaning for the universe. Most atheists believe that meaning in the universe is created by us. Seems like a perfectly reasonable view to me.
2. In your case 1, your argument appeals to our inherent OCD tendency to find patterns in the noise. To the atheist, we exist because of the universe. A parallel can be drawn to evolution. To an orthodox religious individual, evolution is absurd because it is absurd to believe something as complicated as us could be haphazardly pieced together, and that life could have begun randomly from some sludge. To those who believe in evolution, we exist because of the randomness, and at least so far, are the culmination of 4 billion years of work done by nature.
To your question as to why we find ourselves coincidentally in a meaningless universe, I have no idea. How do you know it is so well suited to be understood completely through man-made constructs we call scientific theories? What is your feedback mechanism for this assesment? What are you comparing to? You have no other universe with which to compare ease of understanding by man-made theories. For all we know we could light years beyond the understanding in a parallel universe.
3. In your case 2, science cannot explain everything, that's a no-brainer! Science can never answer why. Why? Because as you pointed out in your last religious/scientific article, science is built on modus tollens, which is deductive and hence cannot answer subjective questions without presupposed axioms. Conversely, religions try to answer why but, at least to me, the means of this knowledge is HIGHLY suspect and, in most cases throughout history, completely unreliable.
I'm not a fan of the "god of the gaps" argument as history, at least so far, has shown that science fills those gaps. So at least based on the past, I have no reason to conclude that this will be different in the future. In any case, I do in fact, actually hope/believe there is something that transcends science (and this was, ultimately, Einstein's view of God). Einstein saw God as more of an energy, or order to the universe. I like that view point.
4. "That being an atheist, you find yourself in an interesting predicament." I find this statement extremely strange. Do you not find that religious folks are in at least as bad, or more likely, worse a predicament? The predicaments for most theologies of which I am aware make the predicament of an atheist look inviting! An omniscient vs. omnipotent god? A god who commands thousands of people slain after giving a commandment to not kill? A god who permits calamaties, injustice, and suffering of all kind to run wild? Or, with regard to the universe, a god who apparently can defy the known laws (which previously in your post you validated) of the universe but has to simultaneously be obedient to laws (at least in Mormonism)? Or how about a god who seems to give some pure in heart to believe that a particular religion is the one and only true religion, but to others, also pure in heart, he ostensibly gives nothing?
ReplyDeleteFor me personally, despite my hope/belief in the God of my choice, I personally find that any view other than the atheist view has lots more 'splainin to do that atheists! Ultimately, I find religion useful as a construct that helps us create meaning in our lives. Science does not do that. BTW, I'm trying to avoid your #3 - attacking religion. But when you've specifically drawn a parallel to atheists, it's hard not contrast it with the apparently opposing view.
Here's another way to look at it. Imagine you could erase your childhood, your culture, your religion, your education, etc. You were just dropped here, on earth, but with all the faculties you posess as an adult. What conclusions would you draw? Would you naturally assume there is some benevolent anthropomorphic beings in the heavens (or other dimension or whatever)? Would you conclude that this being affects your life on earth? Would you conclude causation at all? Methinks this would be a very different discussion if we really had the capacity to view the world through an objective lens rather than through the lens of our culture/childhood/relgion/education etc.
Joseph,
ReplyDeleteAn intriguing topic. I like it.
"in physics, coincidence problems are ones where we find that, for whatever reason, we exist in a special situation in the universe. One that just happens to be suited for our needs."
- Both believers and atheists should not be surprised to find themselves in a fine tuned universe that is suitable for organic life because if the universe were not suited for life, we would not be here. To sort of borrow Descartes' dictum, "I think therefore the universe is suited for my needs." If we are here, the universe could be no other way, regardless of whether God exists or not.
To marvel that the universe is fine tuned (has meaning) for human existence is the anthropic argument, which I don't really accept as a legitimate argument for divine design. “See here! Deuterium would not exist if the difference between the masses of a neutron and a proton were just slightly displaced from its actual value. And Because the mass of the electron is less than the neutron-proton mass difference, a free neutron can decay into a proton, electron, and anti-neutrino. If the mass of the electron were just a bit larger, the neutron would be stable and most of the protons and electrons in the early universe would have combined to form neutrons, leaving little hydrogen to act as the main component and fuel of stars. There is a Creator!”
Just some thoughts.
Perhaps I should add something to this conversation being the only member of this blog that actually majored in philosophy.
ReplyDelete[This is mostly directed at Anon. Because I don't know if you are one or legion I will assume you are one. (Wow! I made two obscure philosophical references and one religious one in the same sentence! That must be record.]
"It is all relative!"
For many years this statement has been used but recently it has taken the meaning of "I don't agree with you so I will say 'It is all relative!' and somehow that makes your argument invalid without me having to do any work." This statement is a classic case of a "cop-out" and was one of the catch phrases of the Sophists who were the "original" anti-philosophers, which means their purpose was to stop the "Great Conversation" and not to progress it. Thus the usage of the term, "It's all relative" is inherently dishonest because it is used as a statement purporting to add additional insight and knowledge to the conversation, but its intent is to kill the conversation thereby limiting understanding and knowledge.
"Comprehensiblility of one is utter nonsense to other and vice versa."
I could write pages on the incomprehensibility of this statement, but I will only do a brief summary. Essentially what this statement is saying is that the thoughts and self-awareness of one being might not be comprehensible to another. And because of the possible incomprehensibility of one's thoughts by another sentient being the understanding and comprehension of everyone is somehow invalid. In other words, because there is some chance that my thoughts are incomprehensible to another thinking being, my thoughts are not really comprehension but are just "random noise" that cannot accurately reflect the reality of the universe. This way of thinking may be a fun way of amusing people in a philosophy department, but every single philosopher proves it wrong when they leave the building and catch a bus to go home (like I am going to do in a few minutes...shucks, I missed my bus, I guess I have a few more minutes). The mere fact that I can do that proves that we can comprehend the world and that our thoughts are valid reflection of the reality of the world. So in as much as one's thoughts accurately reflect reality their comprehension cannot be nonsense, unlike most of philosophy.
(My bus is coming...I will comment more later)
jmb275,
ReplyDeleteLike always I really appreciate your comments.
It is fine to question my definition of an atheist. But I am referring to people who meet that criteria and I will let you decide if such people are atheists are not.
"How do you know it is so well suited to be understood completely through man-made constructs we call scientific theories?"
I don't know that it is. But it either is or isn't. Those are the only two options *regardless* of my childhood. Nowhere am I invoking my world view or past history. There is either a rational theory of everything, or there isn't.
If there is a rational theory that explains a un-rational meaningless universe I find that strange. (As did Einstein.) If there is no rational theory then science can never cover everything.
So I am missing where I am making an assumption based on my culture or upbringing.
Dave C.,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your thoughts. I am not a fan of anthropic arguments as ultimate answers either because you may be missing something important if you close your case after making them without looking further.
Why is there a sun in the middle of the solar system? "Because if it wasn't there we would not be here" would miss a whole lot of interesting physics.
Quantumleap42,
ReplyDeleteWhen you said "My bus is coming..." at first I thought you were speaking figuratively about a bus of a comment coming to run us over. :) Well, as you are a physics and a philosophy major I appreciate your comment.
Thanks Dave C, you articulated better what I was trying to say about evolution.
ReplyDeleteRe QuantumLeap42
"The mere fact that I can do that proves that we can comprehend the world and that our thoughts are valid reflection of the reality of the world."
Well, I'm no philosopher, but it would seem to me it would be more accurate to say: "The mere fact that I can do that proves that we can comprehend the world through the lens of our experience, and that our thoughts are a reflection of the reality of the world as we see it."
I guess I don't understand how one arrives at a stronger conclusion without some inductive reasoning (which I accept as valid, but it is still inductive). Seems to me validity is quite the value judgment. Also, the fact that so many comprehend the world differently either says there are multiple worlds being comprehended, or that our comprehension might not be valid. I'm not on the relativist bandwagon per se, but it seems there is "truth" there as well. At least the data suggest it? Please teach me, I'm a pathetic philosopher.
Re Joseph
ReplyDeleteAh, sorry, wasn't intending to attack childhood/culture. It's impossible for us, even if we're not invoking it, to get outside our experiences. That's all.
"But I am referring to people who meet that criteria and I will let you decide if such people are atheists are not."
I guess that's fine, but it then seems disingenuous to call them atheists as that is not what an atheist is in colloquial vernacular. I personally have not met anyone who has asserted that the universe is meaningless, or anyone who has denied the possibility that there is something that transcends science that explains our universe. In fact, the atheists I know are open minded to the possibility of that. Maybe not Hawking. What I have not met is very many religious folks open to the possibility that there is nothing.
"If there is a rational theory that explains a un-rational meaningless universe I find that strange. (As did Einstein.) If there is no rational theory then science can never cover everything."
Okay, I see this. I guess, as you've defined "atheist" I see the conundrum, but I think we likely need another term for what you've described as "atheist." Choosing that particular word has framed the argument in a religious/atheist context and will likely be approached in that way.
jmb275,
ReplyDeleteI can see I that I may have bee unfair to atheists by defining the term in this way. I do apologize.
Dave C.
ReplyDelete"I think therefore the universe is suited for my needs."
Here is my issue with that statement. True, the universe needs to be suited for our needs for us to exist.
*But this does not mean*, the fact that we exist and therefore on a basic level the universe is suited for us, that the universe must fundamentally obey rational law. Why can't an un-rational universe produce life out of a statistical fluctuation? But if this is the case, how can that life ever justify saying rational science must therefore explain the rest of it?
And if rational science somehow can, to me that is incredible! But if it can't, better hope we find something more better than science if we want to know the truth of the whole of it.
"*But this does not mean*, the fact that we exist and therefore on a basic level the universe is suited for us, that the universe must fundamentally obey rational law. Why can't an un-rational universe produce life out of a statistical fluctuation? But if this is the case, how can that life ever justify saying rational science must therefore explain the rest of it? "
ReplyDeleteI guess, according to my understanding, the latter is exactly what we have. I challenge anyone, ever in science to demonstrate to me that any mathematical equation PERFECTLY describes a physical phenomenon. It doesn't exist. Our mathematics, our rational laws, are an approximation. Even an appeal to probability is just a modeling technique. So I guess I wouldn't fall in either camp. I would say there may be a rational approximation for the universe that appears to fit it fairly well, but that because we never can account for all the noise in the system, there may be a transcendent mechanism for explaining the universe.
Actually, as a sidenote, this has always been an issue for me with scientists. I feel like they are quick to point out the "laws" of the universe, while the engineers have to figure out how to deal with the part of the world that the "law" doesn't actually cover. But I still love y'all.
jmb275 ,
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate that last comment because I am sure that being an engineer it is helpful it conclude our "laws" may just be approximations to the real deal. Yes, we have to be careful saying scientific laws describes the universe perfectly. But I think scientists who believe in a theory of everything deep down do believe it really is a perfect explanation.
At this point, I ask such people to ask themselves why they do not find it odd a meaningless universe happens to completely obey rational ideas.
jmb275
ReplyDeleteyou said "Be careful with your characterization of atheism. Most atheists I know DO NOT assert there is no God. In fact, a casual glance at true atheists will reveal that they are VERY particular. To most, atheism is a lack of belief in God, not a positive assertion he does not exist. That would fall under your definition of agnostic."
First off, thank you for addressing my comment. I do not wish to debate definitions rather than arguments. My argument applies to those who assert the non-existence of God, whether those are atheists or not. Now, according to your definition (which I will be adopting for the rest of my discussion to avoid confusion), I don't see a difference between atheists and agnostics. I hope you can inform me about this.
you said "I personally have not met anyone who has asserted that the universe is meaningless, or anyone who has denied the possibility that there is something that transcends science that explains our universe. In fact, the atheists I know are open minded to the possibility of that. Maybe not Hawking. What I have not met is very many religious folks open to the possibility that there is nothing."
True, but I don't see how this could be surprising. Religious people have positive reasons/arguments to believe in the existence of God. These reasons would differ from one religion to another but at the end of the day it is very logical that they would not be "open to the possibility that there is nothing", they thought about and they have reasons to think otherwise. Atheists (according to your definition) on the other hand do not have a positive argument. They could have gone through most of the arguments of religious people and still not convinced or they just could have not cared enough to bother (which in my experience is the dominant case). In either cases they don't have a positive argument for the non-existence of God. therefore it's perfectly logical for them to be open minded for the possibility of the existence of God.
"But I have a question for you, if the set of real things not covered by science is not the empty set, how is there not a "gap"?"
ReplyDeleteIt's a gap in knowledge, sure. But you went beyond that:
"there will always be a "gap a mile wide" that something beyond or transcending science must fill."
As a counterexample, since the moon is tidal-locked with the earth, we only see one side of the moon, and for centuries, science could not describe the far side of the moon. This doesn't mean the far side of the moon is beyond science or "transcends" science (whatever you mean by that loaded word), it only means that particular corner of knowledge wasn't known. Today, of course, we know what the far side of the moon looks like, and it wasn't beyond science, and it didn't require transcending science.
There is no "must fill;" you are not considering the possibility that there will always be gaps a mile wide that *nothing* can fill. You are attempting to create something out of a gap of knowledge; gods are the typical knowledge-gap fillers, but ignorance is no justification to make a god out of whole cloth.
Brian Westley,
ReplyDeleteWell in that case your moon example would not be an example of "real things not covered by science " as I meant could never be covered by science. Sorry I did nit make that clear.
If there are real things impossible for science to ever account for. If that set is not empty what should we make of the contents?
"At this point, I ask such people to ask themselves why they do not find it odd a meaningless universe happens to completely obey rational ideas."
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm wondering what does rational mean. Does that fact that, given enough time, polka dotted elephants *will* appear out of nothing in our Universe seem rational? Does matter appearing and disappearing randomly seem rational? It may be predictable according to our laws, but is that rational? If rational means events have some meaning, then saying our Universe is rational is just an arbitrary statement. Who assigns meaning to these events? If rational means our laws can predict certain probabilities of events happening, then wouldn't every Universe, following its own laws, be rational?
Re Hossam:
ReplyDelete"I don't see a difference between atheists and agnostics. I hope you can inform me about this."
Well, not being an atheist, I'm not entirely sure of the difference myself. My observation (after reading the thoughts of several atheists on this topic) is that it is simply a matter of which label you choose to ascribe to yourself.
"True, but I don't see how this could be surprising. Religious people have positive reasons/arguments to believe in the existence of God. These reasons would differ from one religion to another but at the end of the day it is very logical that they would not be "open to the possibility that there is nothing", they thought about and they have reasons to think otherwise."
You're absolutely right. It's not surprising at all. I didn't word it very well, but my point was that many religious people are convinced their reasons/arguments are the correct ones. To the atheist/agnostic, since they do not assert a positive argument, are open to the idea that there could be, but that perhaps there is not a compelling argument yet.
My experience with atheists is different than yours I suppose (though I will confess to being in academia so the people I'm surrounded by are thinkers). All the atheists I know are atheists precisely because they care so much. In fact, they cared enough to thoroughly examine the arguments and found them unacceptable (most people grow up in a particular religion or tradition, though that may be changing) often going through a difficult "faith crisis" along the way.
Not sure if you're a religious person, but if atheists know you're a religious person they will often play the "I don't care" card to avoid confrontation with religious people. At least that's my experience. I had to really pry into one atheist (who became a dear friend) to get him to really open up about his lack of belief.
Of course I realize I only have a subset of people to work with here, so...
Stan,
ReplyDeleteExcellent points. I would actually like to hear Quantumleap42's definition of rational as he did do that whole philosophy thing. I'd give what I think is the right definition but he could probably say it more correct.
I will say that Stan's response (in addition to putting forth a good example of the "noise" in language and discussion ;-) ) is exactly why topics like this are so hard to put into categories, talk about, and come to consensus about. The post laid out some clear categories, and definitions, but the responses are indicating that the categories/definitions are inadequate. But to Joseph's credit, I think that's always the case with this type of discussion.
ReplyDeleteI like to talk about it, but it's so hard to articulate, understand, and draw conclusions.
jmb275,
ReplyDeleteWell said.
jmb275
ReplyDelete"Not sure if you're a religious person, but if atheists know you're a religious person they will often play the "I don't care" card to avoid confrontation with religious people."
Right. It's also very easy to develop into an emotional conversation. That's why I'm usually very reluctant to open those type of discussions. Hats up for Joseph for doing it :)
And BTW, yes I am religious. Particularly Muslim.
jmb275,
ReplyDeleteYou are way too sensitive! Let JS answer what I have asked. If you like comment on this:
The fundamental premise of science is that all that is in front of me is knowable (if you like: kingdom of God is in front of you, and men do not see it!)...
Only unknown is how long would it take...
QL42 - you are pasing my simple statement which was well "comprehended" by JS, until you decided to start writing a book on it... By the way, you have arm-waved but bus did not stop etc., which is waste of everybody's time.
I think over 30 comments in less than a day supports my statement. Same is true of Universe. Tell me what a worm thinks as it is floating down the throat of a fish? We will deal with a fish next...
"Well in that case your moon example would not be an example of "real things not covered by science " as I meant could never be covered by science. Sorry I did nit make that clear."
ReplyDeleteWell, you have no basis to know what could *never* be covered by science.
"If there are real things impossible for science to ever account for. If that set is not empty what should we make of the contents?"
That the contents are unknown. If you claim to know something about that set, you'll have to show how, you can't just make up stuff.
Brian Westley,
ReplyDeleteYour posts are on the mark.
I have been kinder in asking to JS to articulate the conflict between faith and science. What I have not understood is why almost all scientists somewhere in their career have a delusion about god so bad that they invoke science proving it, without every providing a method, procedure that can be duplicated by others.
Hossam - so how is Muslim god different from other gods? If you take this bate, you are doomed!
OK, I'm home and I can continue.
ReplyDelete"what if Universe does not care whether you comprehend it or not!"
This statement is rather ironic because if the universe "cared" about anything, then the universe itself would be sentient and thus it would have the capability to comprehend itself, thus making the universe comprehensible. But I don't think that this is what was implied by that statement. So rather than relying on "what ifs" we can learn from experience that we can comprehend some aspect of the universe and the question is whether or not we can understand all of the universe or just some subset of the universe. The fundamental assumption of science (i.e. the Galilean principle) is that anything that is true for one part of the universe is true for all parts of the universe. Thus we assume that because we can comprehend one small part of the universe we assume that we can understand all of it. That is, we assume that reality is comprehensible because we can actually comprehend it, meaning we can think about it in such as way that we can predict what we have not yet seen. If we then continue on with this way of thinking we quickly come to the realization that the inherent definition of the universe (or reality) is what is comprehensible. Thus it makes no sense to talk about the universe, or parts of it, being incomprehensible (or whether or not it cares that we can comprehend it), because if there exists anything that is incomprehensible then even if we came across it would not matter because we would not even realize that we don't comprehend it (if we can sense it then by definition we can comprehend it, because the fundamental assumption that we make in our lives is that what we observe is comprehensible, which means we can assume that there is consistency and regularity in the world. This means that if we buy some cereal to eat and we put it on our shelf then we expect it to remain there, and if we go looking for it and do not find it we assume that it was taken and moved somewhere else. We do not assume that it vanished into nothingness. Just like assume that our car will be outside when we go to use it, and if it is not we assume that it was stolen, not that the universe suddenly and without warning decided to wink our car out of existence. To believe otherwise is the definition of insanity.). Thus it is because the universe has regularity, that is, it is comprehensible and consistent, that we have been able to develop the civilization that we now have. Which means I can get on my computer and check to see if my bus is coming and know that if I leave my office then by the time I get to the bus stop I can know that the bus will not have winked out of existence. It may have blown up, or vaporized or been hit by a meteor, or even a gaggle of strange quarks, but it will not cease to exist. And it is that regularity that allows us to comprehend the universe and to live, and to eat and to look at green grass and color with crayons and everything else that we do.
"Stop being a worm going down the fish's throat"
That's called a slippery slope ;-)
Dave C. and Joe, yeah I don't like anthropic arguments either because the "proof" comes from assuming the thing you are trying to prove to be true. It's like, assuming A, if A then B. If B then C, if C then A. Therefore A, QED.
ReplyDeletejmb275,
"The mere fact that I can do that proves that we can comprehend the world through the lens of our experience, and that our thoughts are a reflection of the reality of the world as we see it."
The problem with saying it that way is that you actually start sounding like a philosopher, and that means something has gone terribly wrong. Think of it like this, the only difference between my statement and yours is that yours affirms that we each have our own experience. That is true, but we do not have to modify our statements to express what should be self-evident. I know that this is a woefully inadequate explanation, but to fully explain it would take quite some time (it took me 4 years of studying philosophy to understand this concept so don't expect me condense it into a few lines and have it answer all possible points). So to give it a shot, let me explain it like this: By modifying the statement to emphasize the fact that our knowledge is dependent on our personal experiences, while this is true and is very important, in modern philosophy that has come to mean, "It's all relative." (see my first comment) Which is to say, "There is no exterior reality to our own minds." Thus while you modified the statement with the intent of pointing out the obvious, that we all learn by our own experience, the problem with making this emphasis is that in the current philosophical climate that is understood to be an endorsement of relativism, which is a rejection of personal accountability in terms of morality, and in terms of epistemology it is a statement that knowledge is relative to the knower, meaning there is no point in saying someone is "wrong" in their thinking. This way of thinking is great for students, who want to spout out any kind of drivel and get a good grade for it (this happens in all Philosophy and Sociology departments). So while I agree that your statement is more accurate, its just that in the current philosophical climate, it is WAY too easy to misunderstand it, and to take it as an endorsement of extreme relativism. I hope that makes sense.
One more comment (I promise!...at least for a few more minutes):
ReplyDeleteThis is a good example of the problem with most of Philosophy, from Abstruse Goose:
http://abstrusegoose.com/276
Brian Westley,
ReplyDeleteNo one is making anything up. Sets are either empty or they are not. This is just a mathematical fact and is true about all sets. I don't presume to know for this particular set. I'll I'm saying is the set is either empty or it is not.
If it is empty leads to one crazy idea, and if it is not empty then there are true things about the universe that cannot be covered by science. It is that simple.
Quantumleap42 ,
ReplyDeleteIs there a standard definition of what it means to be rational philosophers use?
Brian Westley,
ReplyDeleteActually, I enjoy your comments, and keep them coming if I am missing something important.
Anonymous,
You have fallen into the trap that thinking this post constitutes a proof of God. I tried to make it clear that it is nothing of the sort. It is an observation that it is bizarre that an irrational meaningless universe would turn out be be best understood rationally. Nowhere does God become proven in such an observation.
QL2,
ReplyDeleteUniverse is sentient! We are all products of the Universe. Like in our bodies all the darn freeloaders living on it! I hope we are sentient beings, and the Universe who created us, must be so! (There, JS, the biggest darn god one could ever define!)
So you see, it is all relative - the comprehensibility that is. You are seeking absolute knowledge in a probabilistic phenomenal existance...
On your example of cereal box: the harder part is that darn box is still there, it is the cereal that has vanished! (worms again?!)
I never fished so I don't know whether a fish's throat is a slippery slope! (May be the worm was thinking it was going to catch a fish?)
Anonymous ,
ReplyDeleteI do find your claim that the universe is sentient interesting. It would be cool if you were right. :)
"No one is making anything up. Sets are either empty or they are not. This is just a mathematical fact and is true about all sets. I don't presume to know for this particular set. I'll I'm saying is the set is either empty or it is not."
ReplyDeleteAssuming you meant to type "All I'm saying is the set is either empty or it is not," that is clearly NOT TRUE. That is NOT WHAT YOU CLAIMED EARLIER. STOP LYING.
HERE is something you ADDED:
"And on the other, if it cannot be understood inside and out using rational thought than using science to understand the whole universe on a fundamental level is pointless, and there will always be a "gap a mile wide" that something beyond or transcending science must fill."
You are CLAIMING something "beyond or transcending science" MUST FILL these gaps in knowledge. This is MORE than just saying gaps in knowledge exist.
But you are not an honest debater, so it's pointless to continue.
Brian Westley,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate you articulating what is on your mind. I'm sure you are very passionate about this subject
But I assure you if you reread the original post you will find my #1 amounts to the set being empty and #2 is the set is non-empty. I haven't changed anything. Nowhere am I lying. (Just maybe mis-understood or bad at communicating.)
Brian Westley,
ReplyDeleteOh, I think I see your hang up. You are having a hard time seeing that if, for sake of argument, something true was not able to be explained by science then it would require something more than science to explain it.
It turns out this is what logicians call a tautology. For more information on tautologies are I suggest you start here. Basically I am saying: if a is true... than a is true. (if x is true and cannot be explained by science than ... x cannot be explained by science so if you want explanation you need something else.) See a => a.
Let me know if this is still confusing.
Anonymous
ReplyDelete"Hossam - so how is Muslim god different from other gods? If you take this bate, you are doomed! "
Am I ?
Well, this is irrelevant to the topic and to any comment I have made, and I don't want to hijack this discussion to speak about islamic theology. But most of all, it is your attitude that makes me lose any interest in discussing this issue with you.
I should interject at this point, and it is *my* fault first and formost for writing a post at so closely related to religious topics, but if anyone intentionally offends anyone else's religious/non-religious beliefs the comment will be deleted with zero tolerance.
ReplyDeleteIf one is just asking an honest polite question to get more knowledge to better understand, that is one thing. If if I sense the intent was to offend the comment will be removed.
Given the passionate nature of these topics I think things have been okay but if religion or non-religion becomes mocked in hurtful ways I will have to delete.
Bye the way, I've been on some blogs where by comment #50 things are sooooo out of hand so I thank you all the discourse has not gotten out of control. I really do appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteJS, http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1788 shows that Richard Dawkins is scared of this argument and is using the internet to reach out for help to answer. I want to quote from this articles if I may "we do need a solid rebuttal to the idea that a rational universe implies a creator.
ReplyDeleteUse the comment space below to present your rebuttal. Let's try and be clear and concise, as if this were to be used in a debate." So there.
Jimmy Phelps,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the link.
JS,
ReplyDeleteYou responded: You have fallen into the trap that thinking this post constitutes a proof of God. I tried to make it clear that it is nothing of the sort. It is an observation that it is bizarre that an irrational meaningless universe would turn out be be best understood rationally. Nowhere does God become proven in such an observation.
The problem here is your claim of "an irrational menaingless universe", because, it is unprovable. Unfortunately, the same applies to god: one can claim it an irrational meaningless figment of human imagination, somehow allows us to behave rationally, even if driven by fear of wrath.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThank you for thoughts.
Hossam,
ReplyDeleteYou are correct that we do not need to discuss Islamic theology, for that matter, any other theology. We have enough problems with god alone here, and I have not capitalized letter g.
However, if you would have said that you do not know if god of Islam is the same or not with gods of other faiths, it would have been most appropriate.
Anonymous
ReplyDeleteYou said "However, if you would have said that you do not know if god of Islam is the same or not with gods of other faiths, it would have been most appropriate."
I am enjoying the discussion so far and I do not want to be a reason in terminating it. You are teasing me to go off topic and reply your question. Although I dislike your attitude for dragging the discussion off topic, you have asked a legitimate question and I will reply it. Having that said, I would totally understand if the moderators decided to erase my comment for being way off topic.
The concept of god in Islam is that god is all knowing, everlasting, and most importantly not resembling anything in his creation. picturing an image or a symbol for god or confining him in his creation is strictly prohibited in Islam. Consequently, incarnation which is essential in Christianity and Hinduism, is regarded as idolatry and one of the most sinful acts in Islam. The reason behind this from the Islamic perspective is that incarnation (confining god to a part of his creation) is self contradictory according to the concept of god in Islam. i.e. attributing contradictory concepts to god (everlasting and mortal, all knowing and has limited knowledge, self sustainable and needy, etc...). I hope this answers your question.
I apologize to all members for being dragged off topic.
Hossam,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the comment as it cleared up some questions I had concerning why no pictures or symbols are to be made.
"So while I agree that your statement is more accurate, its just that in the current philosophical climate, it is WAY too easy to misunderstand it, and to take it as an endorsement of extreme relativism. I hope that makes sense."
ReplyDeleteYour explanation makes complete sense. I understand what you're getting at. It's a fine line to walk as clearly there is truth in the ideas of relativism, yet I totally see that extreme relativism is absurd. The message I'm getting from you is that philosophers don't like paradox (which makes completely sense).
Re Hossam
ReplyDeleteHossam, thank you for your participation. Don't be scared off, we hope to be friendly to all religions. I have many Muslim friends and I think highly of them. In fact, I'm currently reading the Quran.
Re Anonymous
Perhaps it would help if you were more clear in your position. I keep trying to understand where you're coming from and I just can't. It's not that I want to shoehorn you in to a category, I just don't understand what you're saying. To be honest, your sentences are a bit incomprehensible to me. I find, personally, that I am able to have more fruitful discussions by validating the parts of people's arguments with which I do agree, then politely explaining why I do not agree. Statements phrased as absolutes (despite our abhorrence for extreme relativism) generally don't go very far usually because they invalidate the experiences of others.
Joe -- "Is there a standard definition of what it means to be rational philosophers use?"
ReplyDeleteMe -- "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ... Ha.... no."
Quantumleap42,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate reality of your insight. I can understand that it is all too correct. :)
jmb275,
ReplyDeleteAgain you went on arm waving. Just ask what do you not understand and I will clarify.
It would also help if you would not think comments as an essay contest.
Hossam,
ReplyDeleteHave you ever read Bhagvat Gita? There is a chapter on God desctibing Himself for the mortals' comprehension. Read and tell me how your mundane definition of god of Islam differs. Frankly, you do not understand god of Islam, which is the same that is written up in Bible.
jmb275,
In one of my comments (not under this topic) I had said that as humans evolve as a tribal society while migrating, a meme, like god, became necessary to control the masses by creating an all powerful entity that will benefit you if you behave, or you give up your "free will" and "choice". Read up primitive mythology and you will learn of young man and maiden being sacrificed while in copulation to bring better harvest.
This is for Hossam: any god that advocates merciless killings of nonbeliever is not a god, but a meme, designed to control a tribe for better harvest.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not trying to offend here but if you are making the point that you believe what is described in the Bhagvat Gita is superior to other texts you *really* need to do so without a condescending tone.
Re Anonymous
ReplyDelete"Frankly, you do not understand god of Islam, which is the same that is written up in Bible."
This is what I mean. Do you know what an internet Troll is? I'm going to assume you do. This kind of behavior is typical of trolls, who ubiquitously get banned from blogs all over. Statements like these do nothing to further discussion, they merely marginalize and make you look bad. No one wants to talk to a troll.
You can come to the blog, hard hitting, asking all sorts of sundry philosophical, religious, and scientific questions appearing to all that you know what you're talking about (and maybe you are that brilliant in the areas of Islam, Christianity, science, engineering, primitive mythology, etc.). But at the end of the day, you leave feeling superior because no one could answer your questions to your satisfaction (which is usually impossible anyway for the average troll), all while everyone else is annoyed because of the seeming impossibility of you seeing beyond your own nose.
The thing is, when you actually state an opinion, I find myself nodding in agreement with much of it. But you have not engaged Joseph or anyone else here at all. You have put forth questions that no one wants to answer because they already know from your attitude (and you've demonstrated it) that you will dismiss it.
In any case, I do find that very often religion and god are memes used to control the masses, as are governments, schools, and sports teams. And yes, I actually have read some primitive mythology, particularly Joseph Campbell's work, so I'm aware of those stories.
Sorry for the essay, I prefer to be easily understood.
jmb275,
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said below:
In any case, I do find that very often religion and god are memes used to control the masses, as are governments, schools, and sports teams.
Re: Joseph Campbell's work. A fairly verbose but very enligtening. I presume you have read Inner Reaches of Outer Space. In which, Campbell proposes we need "new myths", and frankly, if we do not purge the old myths there is no way for new "more rational" myths that may last for a century or two.
Toward that end, I consider God (see G capital) manifest to each of us within our comprehension of incomprehensibility. As such all lesser gods (of Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc), are our creation. I hope this helps.
Anonymous
ReplyDelete"Frankly, you do not understand god of Islam, which is the same that is written up in Bible."
It is not my aim in this discussion to preach that any concept of God is superior to another (or non at all). However, to say that they all are the same is oversimplification at best, and plain ignorance at worst.
I'll try to demonstrate this with the simplest terms I can use.
The concept of God in Islam is described in the most concise way in the Qur'an, Chapter Ikhlas :
"Say (to the prophet) He is God the one and only, He is God the absolute, He begets none, nor is he begotten, and there is nothing (in his creation) like unto Him)."
Now I am not an expert in Christianity nor have I obtained any formal education about it. But I think the concept of God in Christianity can best be described by John 1-14 "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father. " and by the Nicene Creed "And [we believe] in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father … ." I am not sure if this best describes the Christian concept. I am open for corrections.
Again, I am not preaching that any concept is superior to any other (or none). But if you still find them the same, I don't think I can describe it easier than that.
You said "This is for Hossam: any god that advocates merciless killings of nonbeliever is not a god, but a meme, designed to control a tribe for better harvest. "
Although I don't know what a meme is (I suppose it's a bad thing), I agree with you.
Re Anonymous
ReplyDeleteMuch better, thank you!
"In which, Campbell proposes we need "new myths""
We're way off topic, but it's a good discussion. I have read Campbell propose the need for new myths but I haven't read that particular work of his so I've not heard him call for the destruction of old myths.
"Toward that end, I consider God (see G capital) manifest to each of us within our comprehension of incomprehensibility. As such all lesser gods (of Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc), are our creation."
I agree that God is within our comprehension of incomprehensibility (which is very much what Einstein was getting at, as Joseph said). I do also think, however, that the proposed "lesser gods" can help us on our hero journey if we will allow ourselves to learn and grow in the process. You might look into James Fowler's work on Stages of Faith.
In any case, this is most definitely not a religious blog (though I love to discuss religion), so we're way off course. Thank you for the discussion Anonymous, I hope you will continue to provide insight into the questions raised on this blog.
Hossam,
ReplyDeleteYou observed: "Say (to the prophet) He is God the one and only, He is God the absolute, He begets none, nor is he begotten, and there is nothing (in his creation) like unto Him)."
This is what Lord Krishna said in Bhagvat Gita, except you have to change it to first person "I" from "Him".
"meme', if I recall correctly, is an idea or concept that like a virus goes from mind to mind... It can be how to solve a math equation, build a structure, etc. to all that is religion and gods.
jmb275,
ReplyDeleteI am happy that I did make some sense. Campbell advocates we need new myths, but he does not say to destroy the old myths. My recollection is that he proposes recasting old myths to some thing new... or reinterpretation of old myths.
After nearly 20 years of readings, I concluded that each recast still carries the old baggage and pathos that puts us back into warring tribes modes, so it is my (and more then likely many others) that we need new myths. If you look at our Constitution, it is an attempt at New Myths: i.e. life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Here is my further take: we do science to know all there is; and concept (or halluciation) of and about god is real, whether rational or not. That means, that a scientific inquiry is warrented... JS, see I have always walked on thin ice with swords above and below.
Anonymous
ReplyDeleteFirst off, you did not back up your claim of "...god of Islam, which is the same that is written up in Bible." after the quotes I've given. Which is disappointing.
Second, are you really arguing that the Islamic and Hindu concepts of God are identical ?! I wonder how many muslims or hindus on earth would agree with you. I mean even if you haven't seen any muslim or hindu in your life, a 10 minutes googling would prove you wrong. But my guess is that you do have a decent knowledge about both religions, you just chose to oversimplify things in order to come to this conclusion for whatever reason. Well, be my guest. I am fine with that.
Anyway, this is as far as I can get in discussing theology on this post. I think it's for the benefit of all contributors that we stay on topic. I didn't want to go there in the first place.
People can only describe the aspects of nature that do follow fundamental mathematical axioms. Anything that exists in nature that doesn't obey a set of axioms that we have so far established would be an exception in need of being studied some more, and thereby a revision of the axioms (if possible). I don't know if it is possible to axiomize all the processes of nature however, such as when nature seems to behave unpredictably within the already established axioms. Given the commonly accepted laws of nature, for instance, there are some things that will never be known due to quantum uncertainties and also due to indeterminate matrices whereby there are infinitely many possible outcomes yet only one real outcome occurs.
ReplyDeleteQuantum_Flux,
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a good point. Quantum uncertainties do throw in extra problems if you want a theory of *everything*. Unfortunately, all fundamental theories from here on out may only be in terms of quantum probabilities, and these probabilities in certain theories can do some crazy stuff. :)
Hossam,
ReplyDeleteI do not subscribe to the god concept of muslim or hindu cultures, so they are 'memes" for the crowd control.
And, yes, there are many parallels among many 'memes' that define gods, there has to be, Darwin demands it! And, coexistence of muslims and hindus prove it. It is the distortions (contaminations or mutations) of these memes that leads to killings...
Hossam,
ReplyDeleteRead up old testament, and Jewish history and scriptures from Abraham on, he did not worship idols either...
Quantumleap42 or anyone who fits the bill,
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of quantum uncertainties and the relation to theories of everything, I have heard philosophers are fascinated by the indeterminacy of science because of quantum uncertainties and wonder what they really think. And maybe something on the whole relation of this to freewill etc...
Could make an interesting blog post for anyone who knows the matter.
::golf clap for Anonymous for a great comment::
ReplyDelete"My recollection is that he proposes recasting old myths to some thing new... or reinterpretation of old myths."
Yes, that sounds very familiar, and I'm a fan of recasting old myths. The fact that the myths are still around (in various incarnations) is evidence of their power to affect human life. The myth of a virgin birth is very powerful and has been told for eons.
"After nearly 20 years of readings, I concluded that each recast still carries the old baggage and pathos that puts us back into warring tribes modes, so it is my (and more then likely many others) that we need new myths."
Yes, sadly I agree. However, I also am not convinced that if the old myths were replaced that there would be less warring. We would just war with each other over something else. I am intensely interested in the status that the "Green revolution" has obtained and where it will go from here. It has become a moral issue, and many "war" (in some sense of that word) over adherence to it. To a more poignant example, the U.S. literally wars over our ideals (myths) in the Constitution. I'm not so sure we're on the right side of that line.
One of my favorite books of all time is "The Happiness Hypothesis" by Jonathan Haidt. I think it's important to give credit to religion where it is due, and for me it plays a role in my life. But I think it needs to remain in its proper place as well, and organized religions have a tendency to dislocate it from its proper place.
jmb275,
ReplyDeleteThe basic premise is that old myths do not support our tech/comm driven 24/7 life with instant routinized and capsulazied knowledge.
Putting a new layer on old myth (recast) is also unrealistic, as the old meanings resurface and preachers do that every Sunday, and so do imams and swamis and gurus and etc.
Virgin birth myth is pretty universal and predates biblical accounts. There is even a website that advocates that was accomplished by aliens...
We need new myths, they will fall short and may lead to wars. Actually, wars are not really caused by myths but the mutations of them. Even the US constitution (I think of it as a new myth) has been subverted to support wars that have been sanctioned by highest priestly cast - the supreme court.
But we got to try, otherwise, we are doomed to fight old myths with the latest technologies and we already see the results of them. The warriers on both sides are winning and they are recruiting more and more for more destruction.
"Putting a new layer on old myth (recast) is also unrealistic, as the old meanings resurface and preachers do that every Sunday, and so do imams and swamis and gurus and etc."
ReplyDeleteIt's true, they do. But note also that this has much less to do with the myth itself but our insistence on how we look at them. Part of the power of a myth is its ability to convey complex information, moral truths, etc. in a seemingly implausible, yet not completely absurd idea.
This is an area I wish I knew more about. I like some of the work Karen Armstrong does in talking about God, myth, religion, etc. I think she maintains a good balance.
"Actually, wars are not really caused by myths but the mutations of them."
Exactly my thoughts.
"But we got to try, otherwise, we are doomed to fight old myths with the latest technologies and we already see the results of them."
You're right. Personally, having worked through many of my own issues in my religion/community, I try to make a difference by affecting my religious community. One of the best ways to do that is to be a part of the community so they know I'm on their side, but want them to know that I see things differently. In other words, I think folks like Dawkins just further divide, while people like Karen Armstrong actually peacefully unite and create understanding.
I believe bridges are built when people understand one another, not by rigorous proofs, confrontational evidentiary claims, etc. When we challenge each other in a confrontational way we divide. But when we seek to understand we are not seen as a threat but an accomplice to further understanding even if our views differ.
Jmb275,
ReplyDeleteThanks to JS, I am now Ancient1!
Armstrong likes everything sugarcoated so we can swallow expired myths and pathos. Just as we do not practice sacrificial myths of our pagan past, we need to move forward from the myths and pathos of desert gods and their minions. Dawkins advocates just that, but abruptly. His position is that humans can live ethically and morally without the pathos of old myths. I agree with him and also with Sam Harris on that. Both of them may seem abrupt, but they are not.
Myths can be replaced, can not be recast. Maoism can be considered as a religion and it replaced many myths of old China. Same with Lenin. Believe it or not, we are trying to do that in Afghanistan, and you see the resistance for our adventures.
To return to the OPs topic...
ReplyDeleteI'd start by rereading chapter 4 of "The God Delusion".
Directly discusses this issue from gaps to anthropic principles.
David,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the tip.