Pascal's philosophical wager?

[randall patrick]

Adolph Grunbaum in "The Psuedo-Problem of Creation in Physical Cosmology":


"....if literally everything---including the universe as a whole----has a [Divine] cause to which it owes.....its very existence, it becomes imperative to ask for the cause of God's....existence. Why should He be the uncaused cause?

"At this point, the argument is sometimes abandoned in favor of claiming that creation out of nothing 'passes all understanding' and that scientific theories of cosmogeny leave much to be desired in the way of providing answers to well-conceived questions. To this I say: If the creation hypothesis is indeed beyond human understanding, then it cannot even be meaningfully taken on faith without evidence, and it becomes completely hopeless to try to give a causual argument for it. After all, if the hypotheses itself is beyond human understanding, then even the person who is willing to believe it on faith admits that he or she does not know what is to be believed. Our human species may well be limited by intrinsic intellectual horizons of some sort, just as theoretical physics, for example, cannot be understood by dogs. Yet the fact remains that one can meaningfully believe only a calim whose content one understands, even if one is willing to believe without evidence on sheer faith. If the belief-content is incomprehensible, what is it that is being believed?

"Therefore, if creation out of nothing [ex nihilo] is beyond human understanding, then the hypothesis that it occured cannot explain anything.......[It] seems to me that if something literally passes all understanding, then nothing at all can be said or thought about it by humans. As Wittgrenstein said: Whereof one cannot speak, therefore one must be silent. Dogs for example do not bark about relativity theory. Thus, any supposed hypothesis that literally passes all understanding is simply meaningless to us, and it certainly should not inspire a feeling of awe. To stand in awe before an admittedly incomprehesible hypothesis is to exhibit a totally misplaced intellectual humility."



First, of course, most will acknowledge it is not irrational to want answers to what are construed to be "well-conceived questions". And wondering why and how anything exists at all is well-conceived, in my view, because we are a part of it. We exist. But we exist only in the context of larger and larger contexts. And these we can grasp and understand [at least up to a point]. We exist as individuals in a social, political, economic, cultural and historical context. And this exists in the biological context of human evolution. Human evolution, in turn, exists in the context of the evolution of life on earth. Life on earth exists in the context of the evolution of the solar system. The solar sytem exists in the context of the evolution of the Milky Way galaxy which exists in the context of the evolution of the universe which exists in the context of....of what?

Now, just as there are people who do not understand why others pursue philosophy----"why waste time contemplating things we can never understand?"----there are philosophers who see no point in pursuing metaphysical imponderables. And for much same reason: What's the point? We can't possibly know these things so spend time pondering things that may well be within our reach.

It's a personal thing, of course. Rooted in dasein. Some folks are utterly drawn to and fascinated by the biggest of the Big Questions and others could not possibly care less. So be it.

But for me [who is someone blown away by the staggering enormity of the gap between what we think we know and what we don't even know we don't know] it is not a question of being "inspired to feel awe" before things so unimaginably mysterious. There is, instead, a practical aspect behind "the wonder of it all" as well.

And this revolves around death and oblivion. In other words, because we are essentially ignorant about why what came before us exists at all, we are also essentially ignorant about what will come after we cease to exist at all. Exist in the manner in which we understand existence as the embodied "I".

I am not a religious person. I do not believe in God or in the view that my immortal soul will rest in Heaven for eternity. But because we know so little ontologcially about before......we know just as little ontologically about after. So, I figure in a cosmos this enigmatic, impenetrable, esoteric, mystifying and paradoxical what comes after we die may be something rather than nothing. It is the longest of shots, sure, but it's not like anyone has really come up with anything better.

A cosmological "me"? Consider it the philosophical equivalent of Pascal's wager.
Or Spinoza's? or Kant's? Or Buddha's?

RP

[Dadoo]

randall p.- that was a great read. Very interesting stuff, indeed.

To be brief, I first agree with all of your posites and insights.
I am confident that what we have here in this very universe is the only cause and the cause of all others.
I also do not strictly believe in either birth nor death. I have observed that I am only witness to these scenarios of beginning and ending. I, as witness, in the middle, as it were, have no notions of life-before-birth nor life-after-death. I cannot bear witness to anything but life perennial. It would seem mad for me to believe in anything other than this life as eternal and unbroken, until further evidence is placed directly into this conciousness' experience.
The mystery is not lost in this way, to be sure.
The analytical are somewhat assuaged as well.

Take care,
Dadoo

[Rave7pt0]

I don't think it's a long shot. The answers are right there to be had, if only we open our eyes to them. The answers I've gotten are more confusing than the ignorance that came before, but it's progress at least. In so far as what I do know, death is nothing but some doors opening in the mind and others closing.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Randall Patrick.

If you have an open mind, just.. bare with me here and visit the site I will link. read a few of the stories, say about 10, and some of the info they have on the site.. Food for thought.

I bring this up, because it gives one something to consider about the where we were before we got here and where we are going. Do I believe all of it... no. But some I think has merit for future consideration and ties into your questions I think.

http://www.near-death.com/

[jeffl]

This is much better than the previous.

Quote by: randall patrick Adolph Grunbaum in "The Psuedo-Problem of Creation in Physical Cosmology": "...To this I say: If the creation hypothesis is indeed beyond human understanding, then it cannot even be meaningfully taken on faith without evidence, and it becomes completely hopeless to try to give a causual argument for it.

I agree with this 100%

[It] seems to me that if something literally passes all understanding, then nothing at all can be said or thought about it by humans.

A minor difference here explodes into everything. I would change '...nothing at all can be said or thought ABOUT it' to 'said or thought OF it.' About it, truth(s) abound(s). It's like you can see the face of Christ in the light of the Father through an indescribable little hole called meaning, in what is an otherwise air tight semantic structure.

We can't possibly know these things so spend time pondering things that may well be within our reach.

I agree, and that's why science is so important, as well as the scriptural record.

Rooted in dasein.

I've got 'dasein' and 'dharma' as kind of the same thing. Ego gets in the way of that, and i think that's why the spiritual road is the right one. It is incomprehensible to an individual human, i think; but to humans in community it is possible if the individuals can let their egos die.

So, I figure in a cosmos this enigmatic, impenetrable, esoteric, mystifying and paradoxical what comes after we die may be something rather than nothing.

This fits good with the hindu stuff; and i think your reasoning is sound.

Thanks for your efforts, RP.

[Lilith]

Quote by: randall patrick And this revolves around death and oblivion. In other words, because we are essentially ignorant about why what came before us exists at all, we are also essentially ignorant about what will come after we cease to exist at all. Exist in the manner in which we understand existence as the embodied "I".

That's a cool statement. Since we don't know from where we came. We don't know where we are going. I believe it's the soul that is part of the bigger whole, it's the soul that "is made in the image of..." not the physical body. That's where I believe that we mess up, mistankly thinking it is the physical body that looks like *God*, when it's the soul, and none of us know what a soul look likes. Except maybe energy, but isin't that what everything in exisitence essentially is, energy?

[jeffl]

Quote by: Lilith That's where I believe that we mess up, mistankly thinking it is the physical body that looks like *God*, when it's the soul, and none of us know what a soul look likes. Except maybe energy, but isin't that what everything in exisitence essentially is, energy?

This is exactly right, i think.

Some good grounded efforts at describing the indescribable are kabbalah, semantics (could i say cognitive semantics?), and neuro(glial)psychology.