Skip to main content

you don't need to do cosmology to know how physically insignificant we are

Try flying at 30,000 feet and looking down.
Labels:

Comments

Unknown said…
When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him?

Again, I leave for a few days, and THQ has doubled!

I've never bought the idea that science taught us our physical insignificance. I think what happened is that in the 19th century, people moved to cities, and started to have that primordial fear before nature exclusively through science, and as a result falsely credited it for showing that man is small. Ever been to Death Valley?
12:04 PM
Leo White said…
I am ashamed to say it, but no--never been there. I guess I never got past the word "Death"... so that whatever anyone else might have told me after that wasn't going to motivate me to head in that direction.

Worthwhile point about city life and insignificance and viewing it through science... I think your entry is missing a word or two, but my take is that when we look at self through eyes of science, we can seem to be a glorified puddle of water plus other chemicals: looking at the ourselves through the eyes of cosmology, makes us look like an incredibly small puddle of water and other chemicals.

It would seem to me that since we're the only part of the universe that SEEMS to be looking at the universe... the greater the size of the universe, the greater the show that is being put on for us by God.

If your rich uncle took you to see a dog jump through a hoop, you might say "big whoop, but thanks anyways." But if your rich uncle took you to India to see the elephants parade in front of the Taj Mahal, etc., you would say, "Wow, awesome uncle: you must really want to make me feel special, and you did!" So the bigger and more beautiful/mysterious the universe is, the better the show God has put on for us.
Hey, I kinda like that... so much that I'll post it separately too.
10:49 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

P F Strawson's Freedom and Resentment: the argument laid out

Here is a summary and comments on the essay Freedom and Resentment by PF Strawson.  He makes some great points, and when he is wrong, it is in such a way as to clarify things a great deal.  My non-deterministic position is much better thanks to having read this.  I’ll summarize it in this post and respond in a later one. In a nutshell: PFS first argues that personal resentment that we may feel toward another for having failed to show goodwill toward us would have no problem coexisting with the conviction that determinism is true.  Moral disapprobation, as an analog to resentment, is likewise capable of coexisting with deterministic convictions. In fact, it would seem nearly impossible for a normally-constituted person (i.e., a non-sociopath) to leave behind the web of moral convictions, even if that person is a determinist.  In this way, by arguing that moral and determinist convictions can coexist in the same person, PFS undermines the libertarian argument ...
Post a Comment
Read more

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level.  No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies.  None of them thinks about the whole as such.  And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist).  None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well?  And why not parts of these parts, et...
6 comments
Read more

interesting article by Jimmy Akin on death before the Fall

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-animals-die-before-the-fall/ Akin below: Aquinas.... writes: In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state, have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals. But this is quite unreasonable. For the nature of animals was not changed by man's sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon. Nor does Bede's gloss on Genesis 1:30, say that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds, but to some. Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals  [ Summa Theologiae I:96:1 ad 2 ].  Aquinas thus holds that it was not  all  death that entered the world through man's sin, but human  death.
Post a Comment
Read more