User:Piotrniz/sandbox

plan przypisow:

- przy Einsteinie: Hawking - Dawkins wg wiki - rozwazyc wiecej fizykow i Dawkinsa - Blackmore wg wiki? - Nietzsche o nauce pozbawiajacej swiat ukrytej celowosci (ok, mam pozbierane; tu prawie gotowy arg.Dawkinsa, tylko bez mowy o prawdopodobienstwie, chociaz moze nawet gdzies..) - Hawking duzo o boundary conditions, moze cos pasuje - Leibniz h.przedust. za http://peenef2.republika.pl/hasla/h/harmoniaprz.html od "leibnizjańska teoria", może się znajdzie - ROZWAZYC TYTUL, w ogole moze by jakos inaczej, poczytac zrodla np. amerykanskie, moze zintegrowac z tamtym - przepraszam za napisanie, w dod. malo oryg.jak wszystko, ale dzien i noc od dawna tygodniami mecza mnie takimi tematami. Niechetnie wchodze na te rzeczy, ale powinna byc swiadomosc istnienia takiej argumentacji. Drecza mnie do tego st., ze wystawiam, moze o to chodzi, by publicznosc rozumiala - mozna dodac See also: tutaj i do islamu

do historii dorzucic takze debate "zycie - koniecznosc czy przypadek" (stanowiska, ze bardzo rzadkie we wszechswiecie). Przyklady konkretnych argumentacji (prace "demaskatorskie")

--

Arguments from naturalism are a class of arguments against truthfulness or importance of religious dogma which pretend to be invariable and reflecting an eternal truth. They involve proving the presence of natural causes or effects of a belief and can be used to a varying extent both by the irreligious and by theologians, possibly also reformers of religion. The two implied assumptions of such arguments are as follows:


 * 1) The universe is an interconnected causal system (mostly deterministic), likely also subject to evolutionary processes, and has been ruled by the same laws of nature since very long ago.
 * 2) It is claimed that other realities than ours exist, such as God, the underworld, the kingdom of heaven, etc., which are totally independent entities (a relation of subordination can be considered: these worlds are above ours). The truth about them can in fact be arbitrary (see e.g. the Atheist's Wager) and one could easily imagine innumerable possibilities in these topics.

The independence of external worlds has to be stressed and honesty must be employed to avoid concepts like the influence of our various transient and psychologically caused beliefs on the shape and modus operandi of external realities, because such opposite causation is beyond the scope of these arguments. They instead consider to what extent what people invent can be called a reflection of external independent (even eternal) truths.

Arguments assuming evolution
If it is agreed that the universe or Earth evolves, or at least in certain matters it does, then the argument will include the following assumptions common to all evolution:


 * At the time the evolution began there was almost no information but the principles driving it. The initial state of it could perhaps be expressed as one or two characters of a certain alphabet (or in any other way known in information science), along with the principles of translation.
 * The evolution is the inflation of information, because it stands for increasing complexity, but the principles driving it are very simple and encoded in just a few laws of nature (hence the "naturalism"). Perhaps its simplicity and development could be compared to substituting single characters by two-character series in each pass, according to a table (a state machine as described in the theory of control). Alternatively, growth of a genome can be considered. Regardless of the appropriateness of these particular comparisions in case of natural selection of e.g. memes, the key fact to note here is that the principles are constant (most likely very simple and tied to physics) and the evolution lasts in time representing growth of information.
 * Again, there is no "set-up" for future states in the initial stage of the evolution or even "before Big Bang". It is said that the property of its specific causality which involves suppression of bad chances and enhancing of the good exclude all ideas of simple translation, where something already present in the beginning just "hatches an egg" and becomes big. At most, ready instances of evolutionary products (such as genes or beliefs) might be put in its way like in Intelligent Design theories, but this is subject to scientific verification.
 * Therefore, a lot of information (such as possibly our numerous views on the topics of religion and morality) is produced from very simple information available in the beginning (see also the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit, the Richard Dawkins' form of the version described in this section).
 * Objections that the laws of nature or of the selection are (perhaps as the "spirit of the process") the divinity itself are the easier to refute the clearer the actual development of the universe is seen, along with its turning of simplier surfaces of evolution into the more complex ones, farther from the physics itself (compare e.g. the alphabet argument above).

One should note that the evolution this version speaks about can be of any type, including e.g. the physical growth of the universe in the reality of initial indeterminism, the biological evolution, the evolution of concepts, ideas, or memes.

One should also note that, as in all evolution, there can happen single events contrary or conforming to its course (as in the theory of intelligent design), but its direction from a certain point of view (e.g. domination of the biosphere) is still determined by the principles (either of the physical evolution, i.e. expanding and cooling, or of the biological evolution, or the evolution of memes, for instance). In case of evolution of ideas amongst intelligent beings, the state of society of the time must apparently be considered.

Arguments without evolution
There are other versions of these arguments from natural origin, which do not depend on evolutionism, instead assuming just causal interconnections in the world (possibly even with some flaws in the chain due to single big-scale indeterministic events). So here the principles are assumed and the "initial" state is disregarded.

The key thing can be summarized as:


 * As everything is interconnected, if one thing was otherwise, everything would have to be otherwise, backwards and forward.

Conclusions
Einstein once said: "How much choice did God have in constructing the universe?"


 * Assuming the version with evolution, it can be compared to choosing the very simple initial state of the universe (like two letters of an alphabet forming its first contents) and the principles of translation – whereas the result is perhaps very far from it and quite complex. If, in mathematical terms, the development of the universe can be called chaotic with regard to its laws of evolution or nature, then small changes to these boundary conditions would produce extremely different effects billions years later, with most of options for the final state being impossible to achieve. This follows from the big amount of information, i.e. possibilities, in the end and very small in the beginning (so a bijection is very impossible: many roads to the final are missing).
 * Assuming simple causalistic view of history, we see in it a very complex product of some laws of nature. There is possibly a place for just one intent (or theleology) in the whole history of the world, so that the creation is made just to make this thing or moment of time appear. Should one try to alter anything more in history, everything would then causally disappear (in both directions) and another version of history would take place, negating the previously chosen one (where the former intent was fulfilled). The lack of theleology (or intent in history) then follows, again, from the same reasoning as in previous paragraph, i.e. apparently gross difference in ethropy (or amount of information) between the laws of nature and their product in space and time.

Following this line of thought, one comes to a key conclusion that the probability of the arbitrary truth about other worlds naturally appearing in this world is infinitesimal (following from the gross "not being a bijection" which was mentioned above). In most cases (like infinity or almost infinity vs 1) it turns out to be impossible to create a world that would develop naturally to correspond to an eternally invariable external truth.

Use
Arguments from naturalism can be used to defend irreligious standpoints against various teachings about the afterlife, notions of eternal moral codes resulting in different afterlife, and various teachings of churches, or even to refute the latter. They can also be used to a lesser extent by reformed (protestant) theology. Everywhere where strict religious dogma can be traced to myths or a kind of social evolution, arguments from naturalism will refute them. There arise questions such as, for instance, whether it is possible that the view of Christ in the gospels has not been falsified by a kind of worldly evolution.

Although typical arguments do not cover the cases of influence of the earthly world upon the external one (a kind of God's sympathy for people, resulting in copying of their will), some authors still point even in these cases at psychological origins of all such thoughts about purported other worlds or at lack of unity amongst them (both in time and amidst different people) which makes it impossible to see one common truth in them. Objections have also been raised that such notions leave God as subordinate to humans and thus largely indifferent to morality. Arguments from secular efficiency can possibly still be used with regard to such worldviews.

In history of philosophy
Such arguments against truths of religions are perhaps as old as scientific attitude towards the world, but in contemporary European countries it was not before the Enlightenment that thinkers started to take this path of thought. Here, religious explanations were opposed to natural or scientific explanations, i.e. finding of common causes. The philosophers of Enlightenment commonly occupied themselves with questions such as the origin of ideas and mythology in religion; and also it was the 17th and 18th century when the ancient idea of deism – of a God who had just created the universe but later did not intervene much – became (re)formulated and even popular in Europe. When opposing the apparently natural causes to the "superstitial" religious thinking it was observed that the latter often contained an "intent" behind the analysed event. So lack of intents, i.e. non-theleology, became identified with science.

In the 19th century the biggest contribution to this way of thinking of religion was the birth of darwinism, the theory of evolution of species. The theory was later understood in a broader way by philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche to include human society and its development (in this view, various nations or groups of people were gaining power and developing their views and philosophies due to natural reasons; it was suggested that also the morality can be understood this way). Einstein's question of "how much choice did God have when creating the universe?" is of the first half of the 20th century, although the idea of "fatality" of world's course is as old as the Enlightenment and, earlier, the Antiquity. Finally in the 2nd half of the 20th and in the 21st century authors such as Susan Blackmore and Richard Dawkins suggested that some widespread ideas arising in different folks and ancient cultures, possibly traceable to myths, can be considered results of the evolution of memes – entities analogical to genes but of mental nature, also subject to natural selection. Thus, the argument can be used in its evolution-aware form with regard to e.g. theology as an evolving science and associated teachings to assert their earthly (and not external) origin.

Criticisms
A common criticism is that the argument assumes naturalistic development of religious views and passes over the problem of relevation, essential in theology. However, the argument can still be defended against such criticisms by showing that relevations, as single exceptions to general rules, can be treated as "chances" or "random changes" in the flow of a kind of evolution (e.g., a social one) and thus their extension or suppression is entirely dependent on the driving forces in charge of the evolution. Even without evolution, human will and intelligence – also in a social context – can be deemed filtering and directing factors when dealing with events random to them.

Various arguments can still be raised against the allegedly natural origin of this or that view in particular or against its being a result of rational and cumulating development.