Cosmology story

[tamara]

I ran into a lot of trouble in another forum over what I think is the secular conventional cosmology story. They were probably right..., it's not a story I go for and so I did not paint it in favorable light. I wonder if there is a way to make it fairer. This is what I wrote. I hope you can rip it to shreds and give me something better!
------
The universe was created by violent, chance-based, impersonal forces that don't care one whit about humans or anyone else. We are but fleeting moss on the surface of a doomed planet. Our lives are pointless and meaningless in the larger sense. Without brain activity, there is no conscious life, and so at death, we are snuffed out, and that's all there is to it. Our loved ones are gone forever, there is no real justice to be had, life itself will some day be all gone, and hoping for anything else is foolish.
------

[Supremor]

tamara said:

The universe was created by violent, chance-based, impersonal forces that don't care one whit about humans or anyone else.

Have you thought that this is infact a very meaningful statement. The idea of caring only comes about due to feeling and purpose, therefore is it not wrong to use emotive words to describe these forces.

tamara said:

Our lives are pointless and meaningless in the larger sense.

How do you define the 'larger sense'. If we are to talk about the universe as a whole then maybe we are meaningless, however if we use your other statement:-

tamara said:

Without brain activity, there is no conscious life

Then it would seem that we are the only thing that matters, and therefore things that we do do infact have immense importance.

[Yaw]

I think that your complaint, tamara, has less to do with the substance of the cosmology as science has uncovered to date, and more to do with its presentation. That is, religious cosmologies are always poetic in nature, which has an effect of inspiring even though the details are false from a factual standpoint. Scientific cosmology lacks the poetry.

Incidentally, this is an issue I have argued for on the former message board. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be aware of the mythical nature of the stories we tell (after all, we still use myth frequently -- American history is generally presented in a mythical sense), and tailoring them accordingly. It just requires some creativity.

For example, I recall reading in the Ottawa Citizen back in 2000 that the Inuit believe that when they die, he/she becomes a part of all life. Technically, this is true -- when you die, your body is decomposed and enters into the food web, where parts of you eventually end up being part of the plants and animals in the land around you. David Suzuki usually stops halfway through his lectures to tell his audience that the air they are now breathing has been breathed by every other person in the room. The Inuit belief is just a poetic way of expressing what actually occurs.

I'm not claiming to have a poetic way to present the science of how the universe was created. I just think it can, and should, be done.

[droskey]

How's this for poetic. According to the current model of cosmology, all of the heavier elemens (heavier than hydrogen) were created by stars and subsequently spread throught the cosmos by novae and supernovae as these stars reached the end of their lives. Consequently, we are all made of the stuff of stars.

I agree with Yaw, the presentation of the scientific can often be stale and leave a bad taste in ones mouth. However, this says nothing about the validity of the conclusions reached by the scientific theory.

I'd also like to address the issue about human life having meaning in an impersonal universe. If the universe is in fact impersonal, human life doesn't cease to have meaning. I think that the source of meaning is simply shifted from the "universe" to human beings.

[tamara]

That is, religious cosmologies are always poetic in nature, which has an effect of inspiring even though the details are false from a factual standpoint. Scientific cosmology lacks the poetry.

I think that it behooves to the scientists to come up with something better. If they don't care what effect their theories have on the human spirit, then something is wrong with the whole picture... I agree with you -- some creativity in telling the story would go a long way.

we are all made of the stuff of stars.

Absolutely. We are stardust... animated by the breath of God...

However, this says nothing about the validity of the conclusions reached by the scientific theory.

All we have is some pretty thin conjectures about the cosmos. Maybe in another 500 years they'll have a good theory, right now they don't. In any case, truth or falsity does not enter into it. The science is conjectural and will some day be replaced; the religious story is also conjectural, but going on hunches and tradition etc. I think it has its own advantages.

I agree that human life can have personal meaning. But personal meaning does not bridge the emptiness of the larger story.

[Maverick]

tamara said:

I agree that human life can have personal meaning. But personal meaning does not bridge the emptiness of the larger story.

I have heard you make reference to "the larger story" several times now (most of these probably on the AN boards). What is this "larger story" and why do you believe it is so empty?

[droskey]

tamara

All we have is some pretty thin conjectures about the cosmos. Maybe in another 500 years they'll have a good theory, right now they don't. In any case, truth or falsity does not enter into it. The science is conjectural and will some day be replaced; the religious story is also conjectural, but going on hunches and tradition etc. I think it has its own advantages.

I'm not certain which theories you are talking about here. While I agree that current theories will most likely be supplanted by better theories in the future, I wouldn't go so far as calling current cosmological theories conjecture. There are still plenty of unsolved mysteries, but the theories are converging and currently explain a number of phenomenae which presented difficulty before.

tamara

I think that it behooves to the scientists to come up with something better. If they don't care what effect their theories have on the human spirit, then something is wrong with the whole picture... I agree with you -- some creativity in telling the story would go a long way.

I assume that you mean that it behooves scientists to come up with a better method presenting theories. Of course, scientists can't just make stuff up ad hoc. Their theories have to agree with the best data currently available whether or not they like the result.

[KEvb0]

What is interesting to me is the idea that over the course of time, certain things may be repeated. Think about the incredible amount of atoms and all of the random combinations that they could fall into. When we have huge numbers of probability like this, eventually things begin repeating and we can even find patterns (chaos theory? i dunno).

So, there really is an argument for dejavu based on probability.

Hell, maybe you weren't even the first you? Maybe this world is just a slightly different version of one that happened (insert ridiculously huge amount of time here) ago. Although consequences would be different, the world itself would be fundamentally the same I think.

This stuff is really confusing I believe it's called Eternal Reoccurance and might have been an idea from Epicurianism. I gotta look this stuff up it's been a while...

[droskey]

Hi KEvb0. There was an interesting article in Scientific American on the idea of multiple universes. It was a few months back.

Cheers,
Dan

[dragonfly]

New Scientist ( 1 march 2003) has a rather brilliant article on page 9 titled "Back from the dead".The Front cover refers to this article with the emotive words "Resurrection the star that came back to life"

For a science article it is very poetic and wonderfully written. For example (QUOTE):" some stars simply refuse to go gentle into that good night.For a flamboyant minority nothing less than a dramatic return from the grave will do...." Brilliant stuff!

Usually I get quite depressed when I read articles on the cosmos,the universe etc but despite this my endless quest drives me to but I kind of felt energised with this one.

I agree basically with Jacapos comments on the meaning of human life but at the same time I totally relate to Tamaras take on it. (and I am obssessed with human mythology and folk-lore)and Yaw has some brilliant points! Maverick is a master at expressing his mind and despite myself I often find myself in agreement.....I think however wether theist or atheist, human beings largely find suffering difficult to place meaning to....we want fairness when it does not exist.Some lives are snuffed out before they really began without a moments pleasure or peace.This is disturbing however you look at.

However the truth is my greatest desire...what ever the reality and also wether that reality is obtainable to me .I am determined to make my place,accept it and create my own purpose regardless.I have been somewhat negative on this board and yet were you to meet me in real life you would also find someone capable of great joy and of expressing it.

Incidently Tamara what did they say on the other forum ?

[tamara]

Ack! This thread lives again!

Dragonfly, on the other board, I was accused to have spun a "gothy" story nobody believed in. But then, when I requested a story people did believe in, nobody was willing to come out and do it. The person who scoffed at the gothy story in the beginning later admitted that he did believe it after all, he just would have put it in better (more optimistic) terms. When I asked for those terms, he was not able to come thru.

You are right, reading secular cosmology is very depressing much of the time. That is why I level the charge against secularists that they ignore the damage to the human spirit their stories do, particularly in view of the fact that they are just feeble guesses (at least in cosmology they are).

[BaalShemRa]

Tamara,

"I think that it behooves to the scientists to come up with something better. If they don't care what effect their theories have on the human spirit, then something is wrong with the whole picture... I agree with you -- some creativity in telling the story would go a long way./


Better according to what standard?

If scientists cared more about the lyrical aspect of it than how rigorous their process is, astrophysics books wouldn't be any different from Genesis.


"If they don't care what effect their theories have on the human spirit"
What's the human spirit?


"The science is conjectural and will some day be replaced; the religious story is also conjectural, but going on hunches and tradition etc. I think it has its own advantages."
You could say that when comparing medicine ( which is conjuntural too ) to voodoo medicine. The main difference between the two, as you know, is that one can be refuted. Which one has the most verissimilitude?


"You are right, reading secular cosmology is very depressing much of the time."
Reading about wars and famines is too, so?


"That is why I level the charge against secularists that they ignore the damage to the human spirit their stories do"
Again with the fuzzy "human spirit" concept. It only "damages" people who want to read those stories.



Tell me if I got this right: You think that we don't have access to truth, so this means all factual propositions are cognitively equal. The most relevant difference between them is how it makes people feel in their heart when they hear the proposition.

Did I get something wrong? If so, what does make one conjecture superior to another? You seem to be applying Popper's ideas very selectively. Was he in favour of fuzzy-feely science being taught? Would you happen to be a post-modernist?


If I'm half righ, I have a delightful story to tell.