According to my father, the human mind learns things by recognizing a pattern. Instead of explaining something that I don't understand clearly, I'm going to use (or misuse) some of what he told me about to explain where God comes from, or more accurately, where the need for God comes from.
Superstition exists on nearly every level. Even de facto atheists commit some mild form of superstitious practice every now and then. Think about it. The average person has had at least one lucky charm. A lucky pencil, or pair of underpants, for example.
We recognize or want to recognize a pattern where when a certain outcome is obtained whenever a seemingly useless item is being wielded (in this case, lucky pencil may have to do with the lucky pencil being more physically suited for a task than a regular one, so it is disqualified). I think it's the way our brain learns. By learning patterns through repetition.
This means that the human brain doesn't actually learn the true nature of things when learning through 'experience patterns'. Which changes the entire meaning of truth. Is there a metaphysical world? A layer so beyond imagination that most people either fail to even acknowledge the possibility of its existence or use a God with physical-bound characteristics to imagine it.
To me, it's all psychological. The whole idea of a meta physical world was conceptualized by a human mind. The metaphysical world was not something shown by empirical or objective studies. The metaphysical world, like God, is a human idea that has made itself immune to empirical/objective study.
It's just as unfair to propose that there is a tiny particle, so tiny that it cannot be physically detected, that floats around and dictates every action and reaction through supernatural means.
Let's put aside the small problem of language and communication in science and math and try out a thought experiment in which the variables are the existence of humans, the metaphysical world, and the physical world.
If there weren't any humans, we can safely presume the physical world would still exist. But the metaphysical world, without humans to explain and discuss it would probably just die, just as all ideas, just as God dies when humans die.
From this one-sided argument, I can conclude that truth IS a little overrated. People don't look for truth - for truth must mean the actual nature of things- they look for personal truths, which aren't actually true. Even my personal truth is not the truth. Sigh, this brings me back to that annoying, overused saying, "nothing is true, everything is permitted."
That doesn't mean I'm going to stop though. Only totally agnostic people (people who believe true truth can NEVER be obtained) give up, I hope I never fall into that group of people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Hey, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Evening. Hai. Just trace your blog from arif's. I like the arguments you bring out forth, and the way you put it. A major exposure for me. Sure did. But, theres something that has been intriguing me. I am also into physics, but there is something 'weird'. Things that I cant explain physically, either from the classical views of physics or the modern one. Prophecies. Do you believe in prophecies? I'll jot down the rest after you answer the question.
No, Asif, I don't believe in prophecies. Correlation does not imply causation, Coincidence is more reasonable than destiny, also, it's easier to recognize a pattern of prophecies that seem to come true than it is to acknowledge the sheer number of those that don't
Ok. Before I continue, I don't understand, about what do you mean by 'correlation does not imply causation'? On which context you are talking about? Of course you don't refer to science right? Because science depends on correlation to find causation. To me, correlation does not TOTALLY imply causation. About the prophecies. I've stumbled upon a few atheists before. I initiated discussions. I want to learn. About prophecy. There are cases that prophecies are happened to be true. But I do not refer this kind of prophecy as astrological prophecies or palm or tarot or whatever piece of pseudoscientific claims. It's a kind of prophecy that happens to be true. Accurately and still are not falsified by anyone. Yet. I want only an explanation. That can satisfy myself. Because atheists are known for their good skill in explaining something logically. Again, I just want to learn. Just a walk in my life. Purposeful life. It's going to be a long discussion.
I am sorry. I have to cut this comment into two. I'm posting from my phone. Haha. Ok. It's about Quran. An old book. 1430 years old. There's a prophecy that gravitates me to know about it deeper. About 14++ years ago. When the Romans were defeated by the Persians. A chapter named Rom was sent to Muhammad. The first three verses were very interesting. It said that Romans will win their pride back in a few years ahead. At the lowest land. Firstly I thought 'the lowest land' was a mere metaphorical phrase. But then, I noticed, the spot where the Romans defeated the Persians was the lowest land on Earth. I cant help myself amazed by these verses. Maybe I'm too exaggerating. But, perhaps you can put these into more logical elaborations. On how Quran, or more accurately an illiterate prophet that does not have any knowledge regarding geography, knew that the Romans will win in a few years ahead. At the exact spot the battle happened. And how he knew it was the lowest land on Earth, below the sea level.
Post a Comment