Thank you for this profound, provocative and enlightening post!! While it’s painful to accept our limitations and to face the hard stop that death may be, the tonic is the beauty and comfort of communicating and sharing perspectives, showing love and living in the moment. You achieved that and much more here - for this, you have my deepest gratitude.
This article is an elaborate god of the gaps argument. No matter how complex or floral the language it rests on two key assumptions:
1) The proponent believes they can know all possible scientific explanations and rule them out.
2) The proponent, having ruled out all scientific explanations, argues they can reach meaningful and falsifiable conclusions without using the scientific method.
For example:
""But these observations do not get us any closer to answering our most fundamental spiritual questions: what happened before the big bang and how did it all get there?"
Why is that fundamental? The assumed answer seems to be that there is a God that meaningfully interferes post the big bang. What evidence do we have of this? If this being doesn't actively interfere (i.e. a deistic God) what difference would there be between that and a non-existent God?
"Or is there some continuation, some afterlife or reincarnation?"
This a question science has answered. The answer is no. Lets do a hypothetical, you wrap your arms around my throat and squeeze hard enough that oxygen stops flowing to my brain. What happens if you do that for long enough? I lose conscious. Crucially, I would lose conscious _before_ dying. Whilst that doesn't prove the brain is entirely responsible for consciousness, it does demonstrate that the brain is essential for consciousness. Death is the brain ceasing to function, ergo death is the end of our consciousness.
This also renders Pascal's Wager meaningless but lets assume that there is someone judging us (despite, as far as I am aware, there being no evidence for this). Even then Pascal's Wager doesn't hold water. Pascal's Wager only makes sense if a) There is one knowable God or set of Gods and b) We can know what that being wants from us. There are thousands of religions with conflicting beliefs and practices. Adhering to any specific religion could anger this God by committing Blasphemy (Oops, you lost the wager because you picked the wrong religion). Maybe this God values rationality and anyone who believed in a God, without reason, would be viewed by this God as irrational and unworthy (Oops, you lost the wager because God was testing you by creating a universe that should have lead you to the opposite conclusion).
You make this point: "That is, demonstrate kindness and compassion to Humankind present and future; work to provide and care for oneself, loved ones, guests and occasionally others in need when possible; address conflicts as peacefully and cooperatively as possible. Approach this enthusiastically and passionately even, if you can conjure it. Why not?"
Why do you seem to assume that your God has values that match your own? The Ancient Greeks often portrayed Gods behaving like Humans (having sex, fighting, getting jealous etc.) Why? Probably because as human beings, they had difficulty envisioning beings who were extremely powerful, extremely long living and would have had massively different experiences and outlooks to human beings. If this God had your values and is powerful enough to create the universe, why do genocides, diseases and natural disasters occur? (Free will does not explain diseases, particularly genetic ones) If you had the ability to stop those things, wouldn't you?
"Whether or not we are compelled to have faith in free will or God viscerally, it is rational and logical to choose to have such faith. Or at least to try. Our choices are pretty binary in these matters." You seem to do this often in the article. That is one of many subtle but noticeable false dichotomies. How about using Skepticism as the founding of a complex and empathetic morality? By understanding that there is no moral law giver, no objective morality, one almost necessarily needs to question how to make moral decisions.
This can (though obviously not always) lead to Humanism or Utilitarianism. By predicating morality on a principle of do the least harm and the most good, one can continue to try and improve, rather than settling for dogma or just interpreting scripture to reinforce your existing beliefs.
I found this section particularly damning of your logical process:
"If there is no God and everything is so mechanical and explainable by formulae and number crunching, then how could we possibly have free will either? Aren’t we just then watching a movie with some extra sensations and an internal monologue? Sorry - that seems so _unappealing_ and not particularly rational either."
Something being unappealing has no influence on its rationality or truth. It is also another example of those subtle false dichotomies. Why would having an all powerful creator being be more conducive to free will? Would there be any real way to do something this creator being didn't want us to do? Just because there wouldn't be specific programming in the back ground of such a universe, doesn't mean it would be any different in practice.
Lets assume the universe doesn't have a God. Why would that prevent us having goodwill? Do you have any reason to gain say this hypothetical, other than the fact you don't like it? If you don't, that is just an appeal to consequences fallacy something that would be "...irrational...".
"These provide framework over the gaping voids science can never fill. They help us build solid, moral-spiritual structure that might otherwise be filled by the wobbly, flavor-of-the-moment garbage emanating from the impulses and self-interests of nihilism." This is another false dichotomy. Your assumption appears to a moron and racist's (Elon Musk) view of nihilism versus spirituality. You also seem to assume science has nothing to say on these topics.
Psychology explains a lot about how and why people make decisions (including things like confirmation bias). It explains why people benefit from religion (community, routine, a purpose) but in doing so it demonstrates that religion doesn't offer anything that can't be found else where. It doesn't require a belief in God for me to find meaning from my family, DnD and sport. It also doesn't require me to be a member of a church to have empathy for racially oppressed minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, people who are physically or mentally ill, victims of dictators and war. It just takes empathy, careful assessment of any belief, along with the willingness to accept that I will be wrong (and have been) sometimes.
Thank you for this profound, provocative and enlightening post!! While it’s painful to accept our limitations and to face the hard stop that death may be, the tonic is the beauty and comfort of communicating and sharing perspectives, showing love and living in the moment. You achieved that and much more here - for this, you have my deepest gratitude.
This article is an elaborate god of the gaps argument. No matter how complex or floral the language it rests on two key assumptions:
1) The proponent believes they can know all possible scientific explanations and rule them out.
2) The proponent, having ruled out all scientific explanations, argues they can reach meaningful and falsifiable conclusions without using the scientific method.
For example:
""But these observations do not get us any closer to answering our most fundamental spiritual questions: what happened before the big bang and how did it all get there?"
Why is that fundamental? The assumed answer seems to be that there is a God that meaningfully interferes post the big bang. What evidence do we have of this? If this being doesn't actively interfere (i.e. a deistic God) what difference would there be between that and a non-existent God?
"Or is there some continuation, some afterlife or reincarnation?"
This a question science has answered. The answer is no. Lets do a hypothetical, you wrap your arms around my throat and squeeze hard enough that oxygen stops flowing to my brain. What happens if you do that for long enough? I lose conscious. Crucially, I would lose conscious _before_ dying. Whilst that doesn't prove the brain is entirely responsible for consciousness, it does demonstrate that the brain is essential for consciousness. Death is the brain ceasing to function, ergo death is the end of our consciousness.
This also renders Pascal's Wager meaningless but lets assume that there is someone judging us (despite, as far as I am aware, there being no evidence for this). Even then Pascal's Wager doesn't hold water. Pascal's Wager only makes sense if a) There is one knowable God or set of Gods and b) We can know what that being wants from us. There are thousands of religions with conflicting beliefs and practices. Adhering to any specific religion could anger this God by committing Blasphemy (Oops, you lost the wager because you picked the wrong religion). Maybe this God values rationality and anyone who believed in a God, without reason, would be viewed by this God as irrational and unworthy (Oops, you lost the wager because God was testing you by creating a universe that should have lead you to the opposite conclusion).
You make this point: "That is, demonstrate kindness and compassion to Humankind present and future; work to provide and care for oneself, loved ones, guests and occasionally others in need when possible; address conflicts as peacefully and cooperatively as possible. Approach this enthusiastically and passionately even, if you can conjure it. Why not?"
Why do you seem to assume that your God has values that match your own? The Ancient Greeks often portrayed Gods behaving like Humans (having sex, fighting, getting jealous etc.) Why? Probably because as human beings, they had difficulty envisioning beings who were extremely powerful, extremely long living and would have had massively different experiences and outlooks to human beings. If this God had your values and is powerful enough to create the universe, why do genocides, diseases and natural disasters occur? (Free will does not explain diseases, particularly genetic ones) If you had the ability to stop those things, wouldn't you?
"Whether or not we are compelled to have faith in free will or God viscerally, it is rational and logical to choose to have such faith. Or at least to try. Our choices are pretty binary in these matters." You seem to do this often in the article. That is one of many subtle but noticeable false dichotomies. How about using Skepticism as the founding of a complex and empathetic morality? By understanding that there is no moral law giver, no objective morality, one almost necessarily needs to question how to make moral decisions.
This can (though obviously not always) lead to Humanism or Utilitarianism. By predicating morality on a principle of do the least harm and the most good, one can continue to try and improve, rather than settling for dogma or just interpreting scripture to reinforce your existing beliefs.
I found this section particularly damning of your logical process:
"If there is no God and everything is so mechanical and explainable by formulae and number crunching, then how could we possibly have free will either? Aren’t we just then watching a movie with some extra sensations and an internal monologue? Sorry - that seems so _unappealing_ and not particularly rational either."
Something being unappealing has no influence on its rationality or truth. It is also another example of those subtle false dichotomies. Why would having an all powerful creator being be more conducive to free will? Would there be any real way to do something this creator being didn't want us to do? Just because there wouldn't be specific programming in the back ground of such a universe, doesn't mean it would be any different in practice.
Lets assume the universe doesn't have a God. Why would that prevent us having goodwill? Do you have any reason to gain say this hypothetical, other than the fact you don't like it? If you don't, that is just an appeal to consequences fallacy something that would be "...irrational...".
"These provide framework over the gaping voids science can never fill. They help us build solid, moral-spiritual structure that might otherwise be filled by the wobbly, flavor-of-the-moment garbage emanating from the impulses and self-interests of nihilism." This is another false dichotomy. Your assumption appears to a moron and racist's (Elon Musk) view of nihilism versus spirituality. You also seem to assume science has nothing to say on these topics.
Psychology explains a lot about how and why people make decisions (including things like confirmation bias). It explains why people benefit from religion (community, routine, a purpose) but in doing so it demonstrates that religion doesn't offer anything that can't be found else where. It doesn't require a belief in God for me to find meaning from my family, DnD and sport. It also doesn't require me to be a member of a church to have empathy for racially oppressed minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, people who are physically or mentally ill, victims of dictators and war. It just takes empathy, careful assessment of any belief, along with the willingness to accept that I will be wrong (and have been) sometimes.