Science is rigor and the fact that rigorous examination of the world and supposed evidence cannot find a way of supporting the idea of god, science supports atheism.
> “the brain is the end product of some mindless, unguided process.”
But not chaotic. The process of natural selection is pretty well understood and even experimentally proven. A scientist may not trust her mind, but she can trust the scientific method, because when applied correctly, it works around the weaknesses of the human mind. It provides a method of proving its conclusions false. Religion provides no such safety valve.
I agree, and thus I only critique rather than reject secular humanism. Chaos in a loose sense, though, would be found in the quantum underpinning of all events, and the inhuman enormity of the cosmos. The question, for me, is whether nature can be fully humanized with our conceptions, or whether in understanding anything, we inevitably simplify it, leaving a noumenal, inherently monstrous remainder.
>because the success of math in science can be deflated.
That was Einstein's first intutition too, and then he based the Entwurf on empirical data and induction because he too believed Twue Science must work like that. And the Entwurf was a disaster, and he had no choice but to abandon induction and do pure mathemathical deduction. This strangely worked out.
And this really really does look like guessing the source code of a simulated universe or the theistic equivalent (I think simulation and theism are largely the same ideas)
Science is rigor and the fact that rigorous examination of the world and supposed evidence cannot find a way of supporting the idea of god, science supports atheism.
> “the brain is the end product of some mindless, unguided process.”
But not chaotic. The process of natural selection is pretty well understood and even experimentally proven. A scientist may not trust her mind, but she can trust the scientific method, because when applied correctly, it works around the weaknesses of the human mind. It provides a method of proving its conclusions false. Religion provides no such safety valve.
I agree, and thus I only critique rather than reject secular humanism. Chaos in a loose sense, though, would be found in the quantum underpinning of all events, and the inhuman enormity of the cosmos. The question, for me, is whether nature can be fully humanized with our conceptions, or whether in understanding anything, we inevitably simplify it, leaving a noumenal, inherently monstrous remainder.
>because the success of math in science can be deflated.
That was Einstein's first intutition too, and then he based the Entwurf on empirical data and induction because he too believed Twue Science must work like that. And the Entwurf was a disaster, and he had no choice but to abandon induction and do pure mathemathical deduction. This strangely worked out.
And this really really does look like guessing the source code of a simulated universe or the theistic equivalent (I think simulation and theism are largely the same ideas)
A broken clock is right twice a day, and when you invent endless mathematical systems, one or two might prove useful. It's not so mysterious.