LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Blogs > Musings on technology, philosophy, and life in the corporate world
User Name
Password

Notices


Hi. I'm jon.404, a Unix/Linux/Database/Openstack/Kubernetes Administrator, AWS/GCP/Azure Engineer, mathematics enthusiast, and amateur philosopher. This is where I rant about that which upsets me, laugh about that which amuses me, and jabber about that which holds my interest most: *nix.
Rate this Entry

Repugnant, Indeed

Posted 09-17-2014 at 06:37 PM by rocket357
Updated 09-18-2014 at 06:37 PM by rocket357 (odds were off =))

"It is evident to everyone, that those things which are called the works of Nature, that is, the far greater part of the ideas or sensations perceived by us, are not produced by, or dependent on the wills of men. There is, therefore, some other spirit that causes them, since it is repugnant that they should subsist by themselves."

- George Berkeley "A Treatise concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge"


I would like to take a moment to consider this passage in detail. Berkeley is stating here an opinion that it is repugnant to believe Nature exists on its own. Repugnant, that is, meaning "extremely distasteful; unacceptable." This is understandable, given Berkeley's background as an ordained deacon of the Protestant Church in the early 1700's (among other titles he held during his lifetime).

It occurs to me that the basis of this passage is a worldview that blindly accepts a higher authority as a necessary cause. Given this worldview, it is absurd to believe that anything could exist outside of the necessary cause. Granted, we know vastly more about life now than we did in the 1700's, but I find it incredible that a man of Berkeley's intelligence failed to see past his belief.

Therefore, I would like to suggest an alternative understanding. I find it repugnant that someone would believe that the world is so complex that it had to be from design. I find it difficult to respect a thinker such as Berkeley who, though he was so adamant about exact understanding of linguistics, blatantly disregards alternative possibilities that oppose his ingrained worldview. Philosophy concerns seeking understanding, but this point seems to have evaded Berkeley.

Given a six minute period, I would like to ask you to shuffle a deck of cards and deal four hands such that one of the four players receives a royal flush. Let's say you can shuffle and deal once per minute, for simplicity. The pattern can't be done with six tries? You are (most probably) correct.

Now, perform the same test, only let the test run for three million minutes. For the sake of comparison, that is no longer six minutes...it is 5 years, 258 days, and 20 hours. During this time, you are not to sleep, eat, or do anything but shuffle and deal once per minute. What are the odds now?

You see, the world is an amazingly complex system. I will freely admit that. What I have difficulty with is seeing evidence that the world has been around for billions of years, and people who find it hard to believe that all of this came into being gradually. Event so, even if you believe in God, who are you to say that God didn't specifically utilize evolution as a means to bring about "creation"?

Think about that. Life has been on earth for 3 billion years, to our most accurate knowledge. The timespan that man has been on earth (let's say 6,000 years, to be fair), it such a brief, fleeting moment in the grand scheme of things. If 3 billion years were 24 hours, 6,000 years would be just over 10 seconds. Mankind, in all his glory, got here at 11:59:49 PM...just over ten seconds from midnight.

Think of the changes that mankind has undergone in 6,000 years. Think about 4,000 BCE and what kind of technology mankind had. Now look at your phone.

We've advanced that far in 6,000 years. Why can't life have advanced the way it has in 2,999,994,000 years? We have witnessed evolution at work in the mere 150 years since Darwin's day...imagine nearly 3 billion years of gradual change.

Who is the irrational unbeliever now?

If your belief is really true you should feel free to question it, because all answers you get back will reveal it to be truth.
Posted in Uncategorized
Views 1646 Comments 7
« Prev     Main     Next »
Total Comments 7

Comments

  1. Old Comment
    Repugnant really is a strong word. A Tupperware container with mold in it in the fridge is repugnant. I would not consider eating whatever is under the mold. That George, who developed the theory that the keyboard here that I am typing on is a figment of my imagination, finds the same theory applied to God "repugnant", meaning he would not even consider it, is interesting. I also find it funny because I'm CoE too.

    If nature, and by extrapolation, the world and then the universe were not designed, then our presence in the universe may also not be by design. If the alternative is that we are just expressions of chemical and electrical reactions until they stop then I can see why one might not want to explore that concept too deeply. If one makes the issue purely bilateral then the alternative could be MacBeth's lament.

    Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
    That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
    And then is heard no more. It is a tale
    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing.

    As someone who spent his life primarily thinking perhaps that was too unpleasant to consider.
    Posted 09-18-2014 at 02:48 PM by vmccord vmccord is offline
  2. Old Comment
    I love that quote, and I have used it a few times before, myself.

    And I believe you fully captured the irony I was implying. Here's this guy who says everything is a figment of our imagination, nothing is physically real, etc... And yet, the concept that none of this facade is organized is just too much for him to bear.

    I had to put the book down and think on that for a bit. It literally pained me to grasp the irony.
    Posted 09-18-2014 at 03:25 PM by rocket357 rocket357 is offline
  3. Old Comment
    Creative thinking being limited by pre-conceived ideas or religious belief is still common. As only two examples; Einstein and Darwin (Wallace has been forgotten) were both prevented in taking their theories to their conclusions, because doing so would have lead to the conclusion that a deity was not the cause. Both men refused to go that far and left their theories unfinished. Religious and philosophical views easily form unshakable foundations.

    Quote:
    Event so, even if you believe in God, who are you to say that God didn't specifically utilize evolution as a means to bring about "creation"?
    That is the pragmatic view adopted by the Catholic Church. "It is God's design." Of course, they ignore the discrepancy between the Bible's assertion that everything was created as is and the fact that almost all of the plants and animals during the Earth's lifetime have gone extinct. Not to mention that continents are continuously moving around.

    On a technical note; humans have been around for more than 100,000 years and the first state-level civilisation came into being about 7 1/2 thousand years ago.
    Posted 09-19-2014 at 04:31 PM by Randicus Draco Albus Randicus Draco Albus is offline
  4. Old Comment
    It's not just religion that people adopt early. It's all sorts of goofy things. Which is right? "Gesundheit" or "Bless you"?

    I once met a vacuum salesman who could predict which style of vacuums people would buy, upright or canister, based on what they had growing up and if they described the relationship with their mothers as good or not so good. If it was not so good, they would buy the opposite of what their mothers had. Else they bought the same style they had as a kid. All the talk about features and ease of use and suction power was rationalization for what "felt" right.
    Posted 09-19-2014 at 05:49 PM by vmccord vmccord is offline
  5. Old Comment
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Randicus Draco Albus View Comment
    Of course, they ignore the discrepancy between the Bible's assertion that everything was created as is and the fact that almost all of the plants and animals during the Earth's lifetime have gone extinct.
    That was a weak attempt at "reverse-apologetics". "Playing the devil's advocate", if you will. Thank you for calling me out on it.

    As for Darwin and Einstein, a quick study of medieval philosophy will confirm that the practice of going "uhh, perhaps I shouldn't say this" has been going on for *quite a while*.
    Posted 09-19-2014 at 07:04 PM by rocket357 rocket357 is offline
    Updated 09-19-2014 at 07:07 PM by rocket357
  6. Old Comment
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vmccord View Comment
    I once met a vacuum salesman who could predict which style of vacuums people would buy, upright or canister, based on what they had growing up and if they described the relationship with their mothers as good or not so good.
    Funny how that works. Quite a bit of our decision making as adults is based on:

    1) Do what parents did.
    2) Do opposite of what parents did.

    Unfortunately, people in *both* of these camps are being controlled by their past. Very few make it to:

    3) Do what you want.
    Posted 09-19-2014 at 07:09 PM by rocket357 rocket357 is offline
  7. Old Comment
    I'm still trying to escape my family of origin via my canister vacuum.
    Posted 09-22-2014 at 01:57 PM by vmccord vmccord is offline
 

  



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:10 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration