14
Oct
2012
Does Metaphysics Matter?
Suppose you started your day the way you always had the last 20 years, thinking that reality itself is the result of realizations of random variables, and that the only reason life is possible in this universe is that it is one of an infinite number of possible universes.
Then, at lunchtime, you somehow become convinced that there is only one universe, which had a definite beginning and which will have a definite end, and that every event in the history of this universe was designed by a conscious being who is telling a story.
Would that make you live your life differently? Or would this change in perspective be akin to your evolving views on dessert and music?
D) Not enough information to adequately answer.
Does knowing imply communication with said conscious being? Does knowing include knowledge of some end date of your life and/or the universe?
There is no presumption of knowing anything. Just that you would “think” with certainty.
IF I knew it was one out of an infinite number of gods
I would live my life more or less the same
IF I knew which god it was
I would live my life differently, I would read his scriptures, weigh up the pros and cons of pleasing him/her etc.
That is a very insightful question. I asked that myself in the past. But the answer came to me only after I realised that metaphysics cannot refute logic. It does not allow contradictions to exist. So the answer to the question is that it would have no effect on my life.
So glad you’re back. I was starting to have withdrawals…
Having had such an experience I can tell you my answer: wait a while and logic will return. Emotional reactions cannot tell you the secrets of the universe.
IMO, “random” does not do justice to the beauty of the cosmos, despite the fact that I am not a believer. Certain aspects of the history of the universe were inevitable.
But, I truly believe that the only way this really impacts a person is with respect to private perspectives on ethics, and the underlying motives attached to those perspectives.
Peter Surda and Ken B., you’re saying a creator God can exist only if one succumbs to illogic and emotion?
Actually reading your posts I think that’s your position Bob. Revelaed preference and all that. 🙂
I for one, and I think Peter, are saying they are good logical reasons for rejecting religion X for all known religions X. An emotional reaction at the beaurty of one particular tale and catena of beliefs does not provide evidence they make sense or are true.
Actually, I’m not. What I’m saying is that the existence of god has no effect on anything I consider true and/or important. It would not allow contradictions to exist, it would not refute the human action axiom, it would not invalidate the concepts of causality or scarcity, it would not grant the state the ability to perform economic calculation without the pricing mechanism, and so on. The existence of god has no effect on my decisions.
If I wanted to be provocative, I could just say that the existence of god is an empirical issue and I try to avoid those.
…there is only one universe, which had a definite beginning and which will have a definite end, and that every event in the history of this universe was designed by a conscious being who is telling a story.
That perfectly described the creative nothing that is the ego.
I doubt it, in how you’ve put it at least.
I imagine over time it should change your disposition to life, and that big picture change in disposition is going to filter down into how you act on a day to day basis. But on a day-to-day basis we aren’t interacting with any kind of deeper reality so I can’t imagine it would change all that much immediately or directly (and even when it does change things gradually and indirectly, the change is probably subtle).
“But on a day-to-day basis we aren’t interacting with any kind of deeper reality…”
Actually, on a day-to-day basis we *only* interact with deeper reality. However, we can become trapped in the illusion that our interactions aqre really with the shadows on the cave wall (maya, sarx, etc.). That state is called fallen, or samsaric existence, depending upon our tradition.
If we *only* interacted with “deeper reality”, there would be no illusions.
Since there are illusions, there is necessarily interaction with both “deep” and “shallow” reality.
Those who deny reality, and hold only one form of interaction as “deep”, thus making it a rigid concept under which egoists are to obey and praise, it becomes a moral obligation, where interacting differently is considered a “fall” by those who deny their own egoism.
Of course, there has only ever been both “rising” and “falling” interaction taking place, but we’re supposed to believe falling can be eradicated in some other non-empirical life.
Not if we’ve fallen into a samsaric shadow on the wall.
Nasty things those deep samsaric shadows. The’re like portable holes.
I guess it depends on what you mean by “interact”. I mean our conscious relational behavior is not with a deeper reality. Obviously whatever that deeper reality is, we’re interacting with it.
I’m not sure if I’d call the shadows “illusions”, necessarily. They’re all we really have to work with. As Oakeshott said, “shadows are not forgeries”.
I think it would most definitely change someone’s outlook. The level of which it is predicted to change one’s outlook will probably depend on the current view of the individual, but ultimately I think it will change it nonetheless.
In a debate between a Catholic and an athiest, the Catholic asked the athiest if he died and found God to be real what would he ask Him. The athiest gave a response, but also brought essentially the same question to the Catholic. If he found God to be non-existent then what would happen. The Catholic responded by saying that severe depression and thoughts of suicide may actually take over because he derived his purpose from God.
If we assume that there is no God, then our purpose in life is of our own creation, for there is no reason for our creation other than reproductive happenstance. There was no being to decide why we were created. We are lucky that a particular sperm found the egg and we existed. However, if it is the case that we have been created by a supreme being with a purpose for our creation then our ultimate purpose is no longer our’s but God’s. We exist with the knowledge that we were put here for a reason, and I think that will put us on a path to find that reason. I think that there will be a transition from beings who live for ourselves to beings who seek the creator’s purpose.
I’ll have the apple pie.
Does Metaphysics Matter?
Yes
http://i.imgur.com/2yzhn.png
Ah yes, Egoist doesn’t know the difference between physics and metaphysics. But what’s 4 letters among friends?
Oh come on, my comment doesn’t deserve that. I know the difference.
You said
You asked how one’s view about the universe affects one’s actions. I thought that poster was apropos.
Egoist wrote:
Oh come on, my comment doesn’t deserve that.
Wait… You link to a cartoon suggesting that atheists have a monopoly on science, and that religion only leads to killing teenage girls… And you are taking umbrage at me?