It's perfectly possible to be a scientist and believer. They involve however, different orders of argument or, more accurately, experience.
I think most arguments for belief are built upon the idea of a first cause/first mover, and I think Tarian may be suggesting that first causes are only important to time-bound/time-generating creatures like ourselves. Existence may have been self-generating, or it may have always been and will always be. If we can't handle that, that's our problem not existence's. If I've got it right, I think that's a good argument.
What a wonderful bit of writing - seriously.
Not sure I agree with some of the "leanings" - but hey.
I absolutely get that scientists (and others) would like to understand "how" the Universe started.
BUT I see no reason to require a reason "why".
i.e. I do not hold with the religious need (apparently) for there to be some "purpose" for the Universe.
Why cannot the Universe just "be" ?
"
only important to time-bound creatures" hadn't occurred to me.
But maybe it requires a particular mind to imagine
not experiencing "time".
I don't think his supercomputers argument that we now actually have machines that can work out probabilities of other earth-like planets in a way that we, ourselves cannot, is persuasive to the science-skeptical believer or, at least, it takes us no further
The "supercomputers" theme is an observation.
As you imply, some machines observe more of the Universe - others work out the probabilities.
If "life" is a Billion to 1 outlier - but there are 100 Billion planets - then there may be 100 earth-like planets.
Surely such analysis provides impetus to actually look for life-supporting planets - rather than look inwards ?
Then I think you jumped to "multiverses".
If space is infinite, then it is axiomatic, more than probablistic, that there are an infinite number of other earths with an infinite number of other Shakespeare's writing an infinite number of Macbeths with an infinite number of same and different endings (and, of course, that strikes me as a bigger stretch than imagining a God-ordained universe in which we're a one off)
It seems highly unlikely that any of other "earths" in
our Universe would have a Shakespeare.
But some theorise that, with space and time being infinite, there are multiple Universes running in parallel.
We just have no means of connecting with them.
(
Not sure I find multiverses plausible.....)
Of course, Tarian may reply that space is not infinite, but I don't think that changes things for me.
Define "infinite".
This is not being rude. Even my Physics grad son struggles to find the words.
Where is the "edge" of the Universe ?
Where the last particles are ? (
Empty space has approx 10 atoms per cubic metre.)
But even if one could detect the last atoms....
Would we be physically prevented from going further ?
As I said before, I'm struck by where meaning and morality come from. I'm also struck by the realness, intensity and specificity of each of us as human personalities. I find evolutionary accounts - that both should be seen as functional to the species, and that those of us with stronger moral sensibilities reproduce more successfully than others, to be implausible, or at least, not enough. They may explain how, but not why.
I've already questioned why life requires "meaning" . Why not "just is" ?
As for "morality" and "moral sensibilities, surely "evolution" or its equivalent is entirely plausible.
Human history-telling may focus on "war" and "theft".
But history misses out billions of interactions based on co-operation and mutual benefit - and thus advancement.
Surely peaceful "realms" have been able to devote time and resources to improvement rather than destruction ?
(
acknowledging that weapons development also has positive spin-offs.)
As to the specifics of belief, I think in terms of whatever works for you and me and does not harm others.
Like most on here, I have very little time for dogma, evangelism or missionaries (and not just about the specifics of faith), but that's a whole different argument, and it is just as wrong to use criticisms of organized religion as hits on belief, as it is to use belief as an argument for any specific religion.
My mother told me a story a couple of year before she died. Dad was gone, I was over here, and she was at the start of a decline into dementia. She'd been to confession and after she'd gone through her sins she said to the priest, Father, I'm not sure about this -any of it- any more. He said to her, that's ok. Don't worry about it. I think well of that man. I'd go so far as to say, God bless him.
Surely "belief" can be distinguished from "religion" ?
"
Do no harm to others" is usually a libertarian position - and "belief" being passive should cause no harm.
So people are free to
believe whatever they like.
(
but might some be "wrong"....?)
But when "belief" prompts "actions".... ???
Sadly, too many religions have sought to convert people - by force.
Then they tell people how to behave, what to dress, to eat, to say, to believe.
It it because
religions discourage reason and individual thought that some (many ?) people have a problem with organised religion.
