In a current thread, fretelöo says:

Does it? I don't want to go all Brian Cox, and I get that there's a subjective element to the claim, but I find it very puzzling. We have two rival accounts, godlessness and creation. The skinny version of godlessness:

A bunch of stuff happened.

The skinny of creation:

Something made everything.

Absurdly truncated as they are, neither seems to stand out as more compelling to me. Consider a longer version:

The universe... happened... about 14 billion years ago, either for reasons we don't yet understand or for no reason at all. The universe's happening resulted in the formation of elementary matter. The principles governing the universe caused matter to coalesce which, in keeping with those principles, created more complex matter. In time, and still in keeping with those principles, certain pieces of matter began to move by reason of causes which can be construed as self-originating. In further time, and still in keeping with those principles, certain of those pieces of matter became aware of their own existence. In yet further time, certain of those self-aware pieces of matter began to puzzle out the origin of this 'universe', whatever exactly it is. Updates on this story as we receive them.

Or alternatively:

The sole entity in existence constructed a thing we call 'the universe', which, by design of this entity, came to contain matter, then complex matter, then self-propelling matter, then self-aware matter, etc. There is a purpose to existence and communion with the Mind of this entity is that purpose. With the appropriate effort, said communion can be achieved after death. The End, except it's not really but it kind of may as well be.

As a caveat, I don't know fret very well and I'm sure the second paragraph there diverges from his personal theology in numerous instances. But that doesn't really matter, unless he has something really wowzer in there that's completely passed me by. The point is that in a vacuum, I honestly don't see how anyone could claim the first account is any less interesting than the second (or more or less any of its many variants).

Or to (hopefully) simplify, consider Flynn's Modified Watchmaker Argument: You find a watch in the desert. Are you more interested in the watch if it's a) Just a watch, or b) A watch that doesn't have a maker?

I hope it's clear that I'm discussing the universe as personal narrative, or, if you like, I'm not discussing the universe at all but personal conceptions of it. I'm heading out now and likely won't be in any condition to reply sensibly when I get back, but anyone who's interested, have a think about it and tell me what you think. Particularly interested in people who disagree, obviously, but I can't imagine any discussion getting particularly heated, so, y'know, everybody chill.

Heh.

That's why I said aesthetic. The problem is that once you try to put in too concrete terms, you get close to Tertullians Credo quia absurdum est. And that is a notion bound to explode or implode any discussion on the matter.

I guess the best I have to offer is a (very lame) counter example: You can marvel at a sunrise or give me a lecture on how the earth is changing its spatial relation towards a giant gas blob that is fusioning away and whose electromagnetic radiation is being fractured (is that the right word here?) by the differnent layers of blablabla. Both describe reality, yet I'd much rather live in a world of sunrises than one of gas blobs (by which I'm not saying that, say, mitosis is not a mindblowingly amazing process once one ponders how THAT is supposed to have come to be by evolution).

“I have a friend who's an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don't agree with very well. He'll hold up a flower and say "look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. Then he says "I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing," and I think that he's kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is ... I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it's not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there's also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.” - Richard Feynman

Amen Zumby ^^

This is where artist and I part ways.

"All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.” - Richard Feynman"

He's wrong of course. If you know how it works there's no sense of wonder. His questions are to do with scientific analysis not aesthetics. It's like a card trick. If you know how it's done then it loses its mystery.

Sure, when you don't know what science is... it is probably going to look ugly to you.

Anyways, to bring some class to this joint... let's get some poetry rolling, most notably my favorite poem in debates like these:

I met a genius on the train
today
about 6 years old,
he sat beside me
and as the train
ran down along the coast
we came to the ocean
and then he looked at me
and said,
it's not pretty.
I Met A Genius / Charles Bukowski

^^Not that he said anywhere (or necessarily meant) that losing its mystery makes it (appear) ugly.

Just to counter that I think you're wrong here. Knowing how something works may reduce the mystery but does not reduce the wonder. There's a beauty in how things that work.

And I'll even counter your card trick quote. Some of my favorite performances used to be Penn and Teller who would do magic and then reveal the magic. Seeing the cleverness and the craft in good magic is more interesting to me then the magic itself.

Also- there will never be an end to mystery. Discovering how one thing works doesn't mean there aren't further mechanisms deeper down to understand.

Fenyman is right... one can appreciate the aesthetic beauty like anyone. But to understand and appreciate what's going down at a deeper level is more profoundly beautiful then the aesthetic initial beauty.

I got home too late to get this in first, but I was going to basically say what kurto said. As someone who knows how many magic tricks are done, I have to say that I find them more exciting and awesome (not the kid version of the word, but actually inspiring awe) when I know the mechanics behind the illusions.

You can only deconstruct things once. Would you bother to watch over and over again once you know it's done by using identical twins one of whom is legless ?

I do, and I enjoy it every single time.

Um, of course I would. Take magic... knowing how a trick can be done doesn't destroy the appreciation for the craft. Watching people perform their craft with an understanding of their craft is, imo, more profound then an a person new to it.

Poker is actually a great analogy. The first time I watched the ESPN coverage of the WSOP it felt like I was watching magic. I didn't know enough about the game to deconstruct what they were doing.

Once I learned about poker I didn't lose interest in watching poker players - it made me appreciate more what was going on. And, how much more there was to learn and appreciate.

Regarding other things to deconstruct - Studying an elegent design can be a joy. Understanding something and appreciating it are two different things. A designer of an industrial product can marvel over the elegant design of a hinge...

And again... deconstructing one thing only leads to more things to deconstruct.

Seeing a beautiful flower is nice. Understanding the evolutionary mechanisms that allow a flower to bloom in the light of the sun and track the motion of the sun through the day is awesome.

Seeing how a parasite can alter an ant's mind to get the ant to put itself into position so that it will be eaten by a cow, so that the parasite's eggs will grow in the cow's liver... this is awe inspiring that can only come from deeper understanding.

sort of related- I've gotten into Japanese Crossword puzzles lately (also called Nonograms or Picross puzzles). My wife doesn't understand it. Why labor over a bunch of number clues. Even though one generally uses the same deductive means to solve each puzzle, I find them joyful. You have the satisfaction of solving something, you see pictures forming gradually out of filled in dots and the knowledge that countless dozens of deductions and clues all lead to one another to ultimately sove a puzzle... seen as a whole I find it artful. But part of the appreciation of that art is based on the understanding of how it all works. (I realize if you don't know what they are then you have no idea what I'm talking about)

ultimately though, I cannot express better what Fenyman said. If this is meaningful to you then you've not experienced something that many have... the appreciation and beauty in how things work, in how things are designed, in seeing how the universe works (and how it doesn't work, so to speak). How understanding things doesn't take away the beauty but simply adds an additional level of appreciation.


Geez.. I've been rambling again. Pardon.

Great video zumby!, so good. It is really moving with the music and all. It is interesting to hear him comment on his religious doubts and his scientific endeavors. Cool to hear comments from a different era.

Magic seems to be a common theme among skeptics, and I know we have a few among us (on both sides of the fence). I also loved it when I was young, and had a bunch of tricks and magic sets and I would put on a cheesy show for my family (but I didn't keep it up beyond that young age).

But some people don't want to know how a trick was done, it spoils it for them. All this goes to show is people have different interests in different things, some people want to know how everything works and are fascinated when they find out, others don't want to know anything and are content with what they see. Where you lay on that spectrum is going to indicate how inquisitive you are.

Who is it who says they know how the universe is done?

Scientist can get ya to the big bang. Theists take away more of the mystery by saying what caused that.

c) The maker.

There's far more wonder and awe in something highly technical than there is in something highly aesthetic (females excluded).

Ok, if we gonna pursue this - three points:

Terminology: The guy in the video goes within a few sentences from 'beauty' to 'they also have a beauty' to 'it's interresting' to 'leads to further questions' to 'it's nature and it's there' and 'we're exploring' to end up at 'we shouldn't try to predecide what it is we're trying to do' -- which is very far out in left field indeed. Something similar happens in many responses that take beauty and then insist that they can also appreciate a magic trick or find understanding some biological mechanism much more meaningful, awe-inspiring, spectacular or whatnot.
All of that may be true - but it is also very much besides the original point. The scientists friend talked about the beauty of a flower - so if you're adressing him, stick to aesthetic categories.

"Exclusivity": The guy in the video argues that a scientific understanding only adds to an aesthetic perception. True. But that would have argumentative force only insofar the artist also claimed that an aesthetic approach towards the world is the best/only one. Neither the artist says that (as far as we know from the quote), nor do I. In fact, in my opening post, clarifying the small quote from flynn, I said that most of nature is "mindblowingly amazing". So, to exaggerate a bit, most of what happens itt so far is that I say "I find a world with a god in it more aesthetically pleasing than one without it" and you reply with "But the fractal nature of romanesco broccoli just blows my mind!"

Charitable Interpretation: Whatever one thinks of the video, I think a charitable interpretation of what the artist probably meant to say is not that once you look under the hood of nature's things, all the beauty of it vanishes. That's absurd. A much more reasonable interpretation - and one the scientist doesn't adress, is something along the lines of "I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and by doing so you lose the aesthetic vocabulary to adress it's beauty" The artist sees a glowing red - and may find that beautiful. That same glowing red can be annalyzed as the reflection of a certain spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. The artist will claim that this description is not accessible to an aesthetic vocabulary anymore. And I'd agree.

This seems more like re-categorization than some deduction of what actually transpires; The people with vocabulary for beauty and the people with no vocabulary for beauty. There is no actual argument, merely a classification: If you belong to that group, you can't hold positive trait A... or in simpler terms, there is an implied assertion that the artist can't be a physicist and that the physicist can't be an artist.

Furthermore, the claimed reduction in vocabulary seems to me to actually be an expansion of vocabulary. That is quite a different thing.

It also flies against all the anecdotal evidence I hold from my time in academia. From reading this thread you'd think physicists were some caricatured bean-counter busy punching nature in on his calculator. The physicists I have had the pleasure of meeting (I was a realist student back in the day, so I have met a few) have all almost all been inquisitive and curious people, and I'm not lying if I say most of them held that special childlike "sense of wonder" and bursting appreciation of the world around them that some people are lucky enough to maintain throughout life.

grunching somewhat but have to disagree completely with this; learning magic skills ruined magic for me, i can't really stand watching it any more unless it's something really original, left-field, outrageous, inspiring, deliberately over-entertaining etc. etc. (very rare) whereas i used to just love watching quality card stuff and mentalism effects etc.

i think that's probably the reason i quit performing too, it just lost its magic (literally) and i felt like a bit of a charlatan.

also most tv magicians piss me off.

"The guy" in the video is Richard Feynman, just fyi.

Also, the video is just a complilation of quotes from interviews with him set to music, so I wouldn't worry about spending a lot of time analysing how he moves from one point to another.

More to the point, deep analysis on the semantics of 'beauty' just isn't going to be compelling to anyone who doesn't share your view that the "world is so boring" (without god). I can't speak for everyone, but I mostly just feel sorry for you and hope you grow to find the world as beautiful and wonderful as the rest of us do. If I were to speculate I suspect that those Christians who find inspiration in this video (e.g. Lemonzest) probably feel that God's creation is wonderful and interesting in its own right.

Ya, go on rockin'

So you would not find the world "so boring" if god didn't exist? Great, thanks for the retraction.