What's it all about...............Alfie

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

That's a pretty good summing-up. "Seems to be progressing" I would quibble with, though. Changing, certainly. But the phrase implies complexification, and that is perhaps a naïve perception, which is still imbued with humanity's well-known bias for considering itself "superior".

Tip top post for me. Combine the two posts and it's very hard to argue against.

[Jack Knave]

That's a pretty good summing-up. "Seems to be progressing" I would quibble with, though. Changing, certainly. But the phrase implies complexification, and that is perhaps a naïve perception, which is still imbued with humanity's well-known bias for considering itself "superior".

Depends on the way you see consciousness. That, in my view, is becoming more complex or intricate; compared to say the way we were 100,000 or so plus years ago, judging by artefacts/art and brain size and its composition or structure. Complexity can be viewed in two ways though 1) as some 'stuff' being arranged in a more complex way but fundamentally not moving to the next 'level' or 2) to be understood as moving to a more advance 'level'.

We evolved, and split from our chimp relatives' line, from an ape like creature some 6 million years ago. You seem to be implying that we are on a par with the chimps, no more advanced or evolved? Just the same 'stuff', that makes up both, that has been arranged in a more complex way, nothing else?

I agree, it is difficult to define and assess.

[Bubbles]

For me, learning and experiencing life. My loved ones.
A journey of experience.

Seeing what people can achieve. ( especially when others in like circumstances would have given up).
Little acts of kindness.

Trying to make others think about things, by contributing my thoughts.

Looking up at the stars, and wondering what's really out there. ( and realising how little I know)

Experiencing something awesome like a total eclipse of the sun, being aware of the movement of planets. ( OK , Sun , moon and Earth)

Things that remind me how small and unimportant I am against the awesome universe and apparent age of things. I'm just a little flickering light of life in a huge universe, snuffed out like millions before me.

Waves beating rhythm against the shore and realising the dinosaurs probably listened to the same sound on a different shore, different time.

Looking at the beauty of flowers, pansies love the little faces. 

Little things really.

That's before we get to the concept of God.

[Brownie]

Rose:  pansies love the little faces

They also speak highly of you Rose  .

Seriously, that was a charming and encouraging post.

[floo]

For me, learning and experiencing life. My loved ones.
A journey of experience.

Seeing what people can achieve. ( especially when others in like circumstances would have given up).
Little acts of kindness.

Trying to make others think about things, by contributing my thoughts.

Looking up at the stars, and wondering what's really out there. ( and realising how little I know)

Experiencing something awesome like a total eclipse of the sun, being aware of the movement of planets. ( OK , Sun , moon and Earth)

Things that remind me how small and unimportant I am against the awesome universe and apparent age of things. I'm just a little flickering light of life in a huge universe, snuffed out like millions before me.

Waves beating rhythm against the shore and realising the dinosaurs probably listened to the same sound on a different shore, different time.

Looking at the beauty of flowers, pansies love the little faces. 

Little things really.

That's before we get to the concept of God.

The concept of the Biblical god isn't pleasing, unlike the rest of the things you mention.

[Bubbles]

The concept of the Biblical god isn't pleasing, unlike the rest of the things you mention.

I wasn't necessarily referring to the concept of the biblical God, Floo.

Just whether there was some intelligence or purpose behind the universe we are unaware of. It was a very wide concept of God.

 

[torridon]

I wasn't necessarily referring to the concept of the biblical God, Floo.

Just whether there was some intelligence or purpose behind the universe we are unaware of. It was a very wide concept of God.

 

Maybe it doesn't make sense to talk of purpose behind, or beyond, the universe.  Purpose is something meaningful within a scheme of things.  OK, maybe our observed universe is not the whole deal, maybe it is part of a multiverse, in which case there is arguably space to declare our universe meaningful, but that is really just shifting the goal posts. It would just become pointless to talk of the purpose of the multiverse. The fact that we like to ponder why questions is a characteristic of our species, just as we are so tuned up to see faces that we see them where they don't exist, we are also tuned up to see intentionality, and we think we see it where it doesn't exist. At some point, perhaps we should stop asking 'why' and accept that stuff just is.

[Hope]

At some point, perhaps we should stop asking 'why' and accept that stuff just is.

Or we ought to stop simply accepting that 'stuff just is' and begin asking the 'why' question more.

[Hope]

The concept of the Biblical god isn't pleasing, ... .

Could you expand this comment, Floo?

[torridon]

Or we ought to stop simply accepting that 'stuff just is' and begin asking the 'why' question more.

But with no data to go on, that inevitably ends up being pure speculation.

[ekim]

Or we ought to stop simply accepting that 'stuff just is' and begin asking the 'why' question more.

Or to accept what is and to continue asking how better to relate to it.

[Bramble]

Or we ought to stop simply accepting that 'stuff just is' and begin asking the 'why' question more.

Why? 

[Hope]

Or to accept what is and to continue asking how better to relate to it.

Why would we want to accept 'what is'?  Surely we want to improve things, which involves asking questions such as 'why' things aren't working as effectively /efficiently as they could.

[Hope]

But with no data to go on, that inevitably ends up being pure speculation.

Does it?  I always thought that life and experience was part of the data with which society improves or investigates why improvements are needed.  Isn't that what public inquiries and other such things are all about?

[torridon]

Does it?  I always thought that life and experience was part of the data with which society improves or investigates why improvements are needed.  Isn't that what public inquiries and other such things are all about?

We are talking at cross purposes, I think Hope.  My comment, that you responded to, was about something behind, or beyond our universe.  That is, by definition, unknowable.

[Jack Knave]

Or we ought to stop simply accepting that 'stuff just is' and begin asking the 'why' question more.

'why' ??

[Hope]

We are talking at cross purposes, I think Hope.  My comment, that you responded to, was about something behind, or beyond our universe.  That is, by definition, unknowable.

I'm not sure I'm speaking at cross-purposes.  Why do you think that this "something behind, or beyond our universe" (a comment that is, in itself, somewhat nonsensical because something behind something isn't necessarily beyond it) is, by definition, unknowable? 

[torridon]

I'm not sure I'm speaking at cross-purposes.  Why do you think that this "something behind, or beyond our universe" (a comment that is, in itself, somewhat nonsensical because something behind something isn't necessarily beyond it) is, by definition, unknowable?

That's implied in the definition of 'universe'.  The universe is everything that is, as far as we can tell.  If we discover something outwith the bounds of the known universe, then that just expands the definition to include it.  We cannot know of anything outside the universe, by definition.

[Sassy]

I think it is high time to go back to the question that propelled us to Religionethics in the first place......................What is IT......ALL about?

Of course I realise that not all may have been called to that question .........that there are gate keepers who think we should not bother with such a question and gate it.

And others who think there is no It or no all that the world is just pieces with no unification possible.

What then is people's position on the question....."what is it all about"?

It is about Truth for me... It is about loving God and not fearing in the wrong way as people teach.
A clear message from Christ is that God is love. All things really revolve about living Gods way rather than our own which hurts others.

You have to know God to live his way enter Jesus.

[ekim]

Why would we want to accept 'what is'?  Surely we want to improve things, which involves asking questions such as 'why' things aren't working as effectively /efficiently as they could.

Another way of looking at it is to 'improve' yourself so that you better live in harmony with 'what is' rather than constantly seeking to change 'what is' based upon self centred judgements.  A verse from the Tao Te Ching:
Man tries to improve the Earth,
He always fails.
The Earth is a natural harmony,
It cannot be improved upon.
Try to change it and you spoil it.
Try to possess it and you lose it.
Some things are fast some are slow;
At times living is easy, at times hard;
At times there is strength, at times weakness
There is a time to flourish, and a time for decline.
Therefore the Wise do not impose upon the Earth,
They avoid extremes, extravagance and self indulgence.

[wigginhall]

A further thought about world-views and suchlike, that I don't choose these things in myself.  In other words, the way I see the world is not determined by me.   I suppose I can change it in various ways, e.g. by doing yoga or something, but then did I create the wish to change?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Or we ought to stop simply accepting that 'stuff just is' and begin asking the 'why' question more.

No, because that would be just another of the various fallacies on which you rely for your premises - in this case, the fallacy of begging the question. A "why" question entails purpose - "for what reason did X do Y?" The question is null though until and unless you can demonstrate an "X" in the first place to care about and to determine that purpose.

And of course we don't "simply accept that stuff "just is"" in any case. That's why we have something called science in order to work out how phenomena occur and to develop new and useful technologies that harness that knowledge.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hope,

No, because that would be just another of the various fallacies on which you rely for your premises - in this case, the fallacy of begging the question. A "why" question entails purpose - "for what reason did X do Y?" The question is null though until and unless you can demonstrate an "X" in the first place to care about and to determine that purpose.

This is mere assertion.
I think also your stock of acceptable questions will include why questions.

A question like why something and not nothing does not suggest an 'X'. That is just IMHO religious paranoia and theophobia on your part.

I realise this thread has been dormant but such naked expressions of intellectual Dalekism ''Your question is null...your question is null'' needs to be exposed.