Hoops Has Turned Agnostic/Atheist

[_zeezrom]

Here was my greatest challenge as a college student:

1. Getting used to having a single, unique answer for the problems I solved.
2. Being thrust into a world in which not a single answer would ever be found.

Moving from #1 to #2 was painful for me.

Much of my scientific world revolves around #1, mostly because I deal with applied math and science.

Here is another thought I had today: Could it be that living a life in search of proofs and singular answers, we end up too serious and limited? I was thinking about how important fantasy is to me and mine and how a life devoid of such would be hell. I was also thinking about how challenging it is to build great fantasy. It can certainly be more difficult than building bridges.

[_Morley]

As to the first part, I would think that was self evident. The most intelligent species on the planet (namely, us) is clearly the most successful. Intelligence allows organisms of otherwise inferior strength/speed/general dangerousness to outwit predators, find more food, and thrive.

How are you defining success? Humans are not the most numerous, nor have we been around the longest.

We are the species most likely to destroy ourselves. Many other species would probably survive said destruction.

Even in our species, high intelligence doesn't always impart an evolutionary advantage. Would you disagree?

[_Dantana]

This is going to come down to needing a new thread, and someone smarter than me championing my side.

When looking at "The hard problem of consciousness"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_probl ... sciousness

it would seem the battle lines are drawn, and it is not a slam dunk win for materialism.

The only thing I can do is look to people who can comprehend it better than I. and trust their judgement.

In bouncing around chasing wiki links relating to consciousness, I came across: "Cosmic Consciousness"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_consciousness

"The numbers of people who make use of the concept of cosmic consciousness introduced by Bucke in 1901 is even lengthier. This list includes Albert Einstein"...

As long as there are smart people with 'Idealist' theories, and materialism doesn't introduce irrefutable evidence, and we keep Deity out of the equation, it's much more satisfying to keep the bow pointed toward Idealism.....for the way my brain is wired anyway.

[_Dantana]

Even in our species, high intelligence doesn't always impart an evolutionary advantage. Would you disagree?

I wouldn't

[_moksha]

Isn't art even easier to explain than science? By orders of magnitude, even?

Not if you are dealing with words like découpage and chiaroscuro.

To my mind, both art and science are 'laboratories' for asking questions about the world we live in and our experience of it, and in that sense are much closer than your OP suggested.

The truth of this is magnified when you realize that garlic powder was not even available for the primordial organic soup in which life was created.

[_Hoops]

While I don't think that art is an argument FOR god (which is sort of what your OP was implying),

I agree. But I also think art CAN be an argument for God as it explains a lot. And, yes, that was the point of the OP.

I do find that the human imagination is probably the closest thing to "the divine" that I recognize.

Agreed as well. And I would add there seems to be some sort of need, something uniquely human, about the desire to create. Which fits nicely with a Creator.

My disappointment was more with other posters' understanding of art as easily explainable or reducible to the visual and so on.

Fortunately, that wasn't me.

To my mind, both art and science are 'laboratories' for asking questions about the world we live in and our experience of it, and in that sense are much closer than your OP suggested.

I would agree here also. But there would seem to be (without taking a formal poll) a consensus here that where science can explain something, there's no room for God. And, I might add again, that the desire to know HOW is at least a reflection of a Deity and at most a uniquely Christian motivation. Of course, I'm not saying that scientists are Christian, or are compelled to be Christian, but I am saying that the desire to know is a gift given by a Giver.

[_Hoops]

The truth of this is magnified when you realize that garlic powder was not even available for the primordial organic soup in which life was created.

More evidence of a compassionate Creator.

[_Bond James Bond]

Let's agree on something for once. Atheists will accept religious art as excellent in all cases if theists will accept evolution as fact and not dispute the teaching of the same as fact to children in all schools.

[_Molok]

is this what you think I'm doing or are you referring to other people on the thread?

You. So far.

don't try to start a fight with me Hoops.

[_Aristotle Smith]

While I don't think that art is an argument FOR god (which is sort of what your OP was implying), I do find that the human imagination is probably the closest thing to "the divine" that I recognize.

My disappointment was more with other posters' understanding of art as easily explainable or reducible to the visual and so on. To my mind, both art and science are 'laboratories' for asking questions about the world we live in and our experience of it, and in that sense are much closer than your OP suggested.

I do think that art has unique power in pointing towards God, at least for some people. Peter Hitchens said that it was art that lead him away from atheism to Christianity. He also said he thinks that music and poetry also has this power for him.

I agree that seeing art as easily explainable is disappointing, but it's also completely predictable. So much of modern psychology, cognitive science, A.I., etc explicitly posits that human consciousness is absolutely explainable in terms of biological properties. Couple that with a confidence in science that is all out proportion to current capabilities and knowledge and of course people are going to think that art is easily explained. Look no further than people like Ray Kurzweil who thinks that he plays jazz with computer avatars.