Intelligent Design
Jun. 29th, 2008 03:41 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xenophaneanOk, here's one which no-one's been able to adequately explain to me:
A person/thing wakes up in a universe. He/she/it doesn't understand, or know the universe, but does know three things (for absolutely certain, really knows, they're True, (rules of the universe, what one might call 'divine knowledge')):
1) That this is the only universe
2) That he/she/it is the only possible conscious being
3) That this is the only possible universe that he/she/it could have existed in.
Is said individual right to think that there is some sort of creator/ceative urge who wanted/required him/her/it in it?
I'm told that the answer is No. I'm prepared to accept that he/she/it just doesn't know, not enough info.
I'd really like to be convinced of Yes or No. But I'd also like get an explanation of what "not enough info" means in this case too.
A person/thing wakes up in a universe. He/she/it doesn't understand, or know the universe, but does know three things (for absolutely certain, really knows, they're True, (rules of the universe, what one might call 'divine knowledge')):
1) That this is the only universe
2) That he/she/it is the only possible conscious being
3) That this is the only possible universe that he/she/it could have existed in.
Is said individual right to think that there is some sort of creator/ceative urge who wanted/required him/her/it in it?
I'm told that the answer is No. I'm prepared to accept that he/she/it just doesn't know, not enough info.
I'd really like to be convinced of Yes or No. But I'd also like get an explanation of what "not enough info" means in this case too.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Intelligent Design
Date: 2009-10-07 12:29 pm (UTC)This person is anthropomorphizing (or whatever their equivalent is) their universe.
I'd suggest that their explanation for the state of their universe is one of myriad possible explanations, the correctness of which they can probably never know.
IMO, it's perfectly valid to use this explanation as a placeholder in a larger structure that allows them to understand their universe and their place in it, with the proviso that they do not make any extrapolations from this placeholder. I.e., no understanding should be derived from this placeholder belief that would come crashing to the ground were it to be replaced with any other possible explanation.
Therein, I feel lies both the greatest strength and weakness of belief as a tool for understanding.
That's my opinion on the matter. I know nothing about philosophy, so of course, it's probably wrong.