Then let's deal with that. It's not like most religious people are anti-technological.Technology is seen to serve greed, delusion and hatred rather than put an end to them.
Then let's deal with that. It's not like most religious people are anti-technological.Technology is seen to serve greed, delusion and hatred rather than put an end to them.
If people commonly default to behaviours of greed, delusion and hatred, technology simply makes them more efficient monsters.how do you mean?
I think I'm going to let that sit as is. I'm not certain whether I agree or disagree.If people commonly default to behaviours of greed, delusion and hatred, technology simply makes them more efficient monsters.
If you don't have an answer for it, how do you propose to deal with it?Then let's deal with that. It's not like most religious people are anti-technological.
Separate issue, the ethics of technology. But we won't improve things unless we can be rational about where we are. And even if the world loses all it's technology, it still pays to value reason.If you don't have an answer for it, how do you propose to deal with it?
"OK, here it is... Just deal with not having an answer."
Is God Rational?
The tendency to understand "God" by physical laws, formulas,
equations using the Quantum Theory ( Physics) never will be ended.
Where are we, rationally speaking?Separate issue, the ethics of technology. But we won't improve things unless we can be rational about where we are. And even if the world loses all it's technology, it still pays to value reason.
So does that make God irrational, or does it make the desire
to (completely) understand god through examining the phenomenal world irrational?
I don't know where you are.Where are we, rationally speaking?
So why would a rational phenomena (one containing clear, necessary relationships of cause and effect) be incapable of establishing a connection with its cause (as evidenced by the links you previously supplied)?the phenomenal world cannot be irrational
Yet again, it appears you don't have the resources to deal with or improve anything.I don't know where you are.
Not sure what you're getting at. If improvement is possible it will most likely come from a rational understanding of physical and perhaps social forces. Science deals with not having an answer by using that as a starting point for inquiry. Faith deals with not having an answer by immediately making one up, even if its wrong.Yet again, it appears you don't have the resources to deal with or improve anything.
"OK, here it is... Just deal with not having an answer."
"But we won't improve things unless we can be rational about where we are."
Given that we (and every other living entity) exist in the universe and go about literally every moment fulfilling our needs (aka pursuing purpose), at what point do you say understanding purpose in the universe is irrational without sounding ridiculously selfish?Socratus is right. The u-verse only makes no sense if you think it was designed that way on purpose.
If you allude to the pursuit of purpose either being objectively irrational or subjectively selfish, you quite obviously don't have the necessary resources to answer anything or improve anything. Anything achieved in the name of technological advancement simply becomes a mindless distraction at best or a tool of self destruction at worst.Not sure what you're getting at. If improvement is possible it will most likely come from a rational understanding of physical and perhaps social forces. Science deals with not having an answer by using that as a starting point for inquiry. Faith deals with not having an answer by immediately making one up, even if its wrong.
A need is not a purpose, but regardless, a personal purpose is not universal purpose. The universe may indeed be filled with entitites that pursue purpose, but what's the purpose of entities that pursue purpose? It's certainly not here just for life to do it's thing, since we see that the apparently arbitrary trajectories of large rocks can destroy everything in an instant.Given that we (and every other living entity) exist in the universe and go about literally every moment fulfilling our needs (aka pursuing purpose), at what point do you say understanding purpose in the universe is irrational without sounding ridiculously selfish?
I have no issue with pursuing a subjective purpose of, for instance, improving society, but why do we need the illusion of universal purpose in order to do so?If you allude to the pursuit of purpose either being objectively irrational or subjectively selfish, you quite obviously don't have the necessary resources to answer anything or improve anything. Anything achieved in the name of technological advancement simply becomes a mindless distraction at best or a tool of self destruction at worst.
But perhaps that's due to inequality of wealth and resources? If everyone got everything they want, where is the room for greed?If people commonly default to behaviours of greed, delusion and hatred, technology simply makes them more efficient monsters.