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

Dembski's "specified compexity" semiotics and teleology (both ad intra and ad extra)

Integral to Dembski's idea of specified complexity (SC) is the notion that something extrinsic to evolution is the source of the specification in how it develops. He compares SC to the message sent by space aliens in the movie "Contact." In that movie, earthbound scientists determine that radio waves originating in from somewhere in our galaxy are actually a signal being sent by space aliens. The scientists determine that these waves are a signal is the fact that they indicate prime numbers in a way that a random occurrence would not. What is interesting to me is the fact that Dembski relies upon an analogy with a sign rather than a machine. Like a machine, signs are produced by an intelligent being for the sake of something beyond themselves. Machines, if you will, have a meaning. Signs, if you will, produce knowledge. But the meaning/knowledge is in both cases something other than the machine/sign itself. Both signs and machines are purposeful or teleological...
Post a Comment
Read more

particular/universal event/rule

While listening to a recorded lecture on Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism, it occurred to me that every rule is in a way, a fact about the world. Think about baseball: from the p.o.v. of an individual player, a baseball rule is not a thing but a guide for acting and interpreting the actions of others.  But this rule, like the action it guides, is part of a concrete individual --i.e., part of an institution that has come into existence at a particular place and time, has endured and  may eventually go out of existence.  The baseball rule, as a feature of that individual, is likewise individual.  The term "baseball rule," on the one hand, links us to a unique cultural event; it can, on the other hand, name a certain type of being.  In this way, it transgresses the boundary between proper and common noun. If there were no such overlap, then we might be tempted to divide our ontology between a bunch of facts "out there" and a bunch of common nouns "in here....
Post a Comment
Read more

continuing the discussion with Tim in a new post

Hi Tim, I am posting my reply here, because the great blogmeister won't let me put it all in a comment. Me thinks I get your point: is it that we can name and chimps can't, so therefore we are of greater value than chimps? Naming is something above and beyond what a chimp can do, right? In other words, you are illustrating the point I am making (if I catch your drift). My argument is only a sketch, but I think adding the ability to name names, as it were, is still not enough to make the argument seem cogent. For one can still ask why we prefer being able to name over other skills had by animals but not by humans. The objector would demand a more convincing reason. The answer I have in mind is, to put it briefly, that there is something infinite about human beings in comparison with the subhuman. That "something" has to do with our ability to think of the meaning of the cosmos. Whereas one might say"He's got the whole world in His han...
2 comments
Read more