My rational empirical self operates by forming a hypothesis and then gathering empirical data to either support of refute the idea. This usually results in some type of conclusion on whether or not the hypothesis has merit and should pursued or else discarded as a false premise. I find this very utilitarian in daily life.
While this other pattern begins with some firm basic assumptions about the nature of reality. These are not supported by empirical evidence although so far they have neither been refuted by empirical data. This pattern of thoughts relate more to my apparent emotional needs. The most basic assumption that fuels its philosophy is that this reality has an overall purpose and thus my life is meaningful in some significant way.
I have an emotional need for a purposeful universe. This need results in further basic assumptions. For there to be a purpose there must be some type of organizing intelligence to the universe. My rational self says the odds appear to be 50/50, either there is or there is not. My emotional self thus chooses to believe the intelligence exists. This of course is a rationalization resulting from the premise it is unacceptable for me to believe there is no reason for things to exist.
Of course, my empirical nature says show me. Most metaphysical explanations seem to only reflect our current ignorance. These explanations had the same logic through out history. We did not understand the destructive force of lightning so it must mean there is an angry god directing it. It seems many beliefs today follow this same pattern of logic. When we don't understand something we invent a theological explanation.
My conflict is that I have discovered no empirical evidence supporting actions that defy the basic laws of physics. Even though you can't prove a negative it would be quite satisfying to have empirical evidence supporting my current theological beliefs.
Thus you have my conflict.
No comments:
Post a Comment