@mattbrowne Matt, Matt, Matt; your “something beyond” argument is, in essence, an appeal to ignorance, and a straw man to boot.
Its difficult to reply to your “criticisms” of Deutsch because you are commenting on what you imagine his theory to be (which, apparently, is some sort of arrogant overreaching) rather than what it actually is. As I’ve said before, Deutsch’s Theory of Everything isn’t about literally knowing everything; its about bring everything which is known into a more coherent, comprehensive, comprehensible system. Deutsch is talking about things like removing the artificial disciplinary boundaries which currently compartmentalize the four main strands of our knowledge in ways so as to remove the impediments to it’s advancement and consolidation.
Of course there are going to be horizons to our knowledge. That is not an argument against any intellectual enterprise. If it were, we wouldn’t know anything. Nor is it an invalidation of the usefulness of what we know. Just because you can imagine a fictional scenario in which another species or agency might have a better understanding of things than we do at present (oh, the shame), or that there is something “beyond” what we currently know does not reduce our present knowledge to pathetic arrogance.
Consider, for a moment, what might be possible. Suppose, for example, that the universe is organized according a single underlying principle, say, fractal geometry, which can be seen in everything from the distribution of galactic clusters all the way down to where classical phenomena break down at the quantum level, perhaps even including the computational processes which our biology uses to allow us to create consciousness? Should we chuck such an understanding simply because we can’t envision the whole cosmos all at once? Or because it breaks down when confronted with quantum weirdness (if it does)?
Suppose the Cosmos wasn’t “created” but is “eternal” in the sense of existing independently of any given timeline (as a “many worlds” cosmology would suggest). Suppose, for sake of argument, that the Cosmos is God, suffused throughout with an intelligence that permeates aspect of it’s structure—but without the all busy little supernatural beings of myth playing favorites and commanding immoral violence setting one group against another. Suppose, for example, that our consciousness is essential a fractal microcosm partaking in the “image and likeness” of the grand intelligent whole. That, to me, is a version of God that is plausible, benign, and worthy of belief, as opposed to a violence-saturated theistic conception, which is rife with irrationality and immorality.
What about moral signposts? The 10 Commandments? A good start for jump-starting a sense of morality in an unjust and savage humanity, but is this really the work of a theistic being, or is it the work of a law-giving priest king? “Don’t kill, covet or take what isn’t yours, or lie under oath. Respect your parents; rest once in a while.” Do you call these complete? If so, why would we need Jesus’ correctional injunction to Love Thy Neighbor, including Thine Enemy. But why stop there? Why not press on with secular philosophy, with Kant’s categorical imperative, or the enumeration of civil, political and human rights movement of the Enlightenment?
Of course science text books don’t tell us about whether nuclear reactions are good ideas or bad; but moral philosophy does. And, yes, Deutsch’s theory does have an answer: consult the relevant sub-discipline if you want a specific answer to a specific question. If you want moral guidance, do you look to the disgusting, shockingly immoral example of the Old Testament theism? Do we listen to the likes of Pat Roberson and Jerry Fallwell, saying that 9/11 and Katrina are God withdrawing his protection from the nation due to it’s “immorality”? Do you seriously offer that up as moral “guidance”?
On the other hand, looking at morality in natural context it becomes quite clearly that our most basic moral imperative is to survive. But not merely survive, but to evolve, something that the bulk of theistic believers seem resolutely opposed. But evolve toward what? Obviously, toward a more robust society where individual rights are maximized and potentials realized; a society in which, of necessity, good faith and human dignity are fundamental and undeniable. Indeed, a morality that is inclusive and proactive instead of punishing and coercive—a morality that includes a regard for the dignity and survival of other species, as a means of fostering the biological diversity and the robustness of life in the ecology we all depend upon.
Theistic morality is not only incomplete, it is immoral. Just look at the violent self-aggrandizing struggles for supremacy among theistic religions; their messianic, apocalyptic and violence-saturated messages; their preoccupation with the next life at the expense of neglecting this one. Theism is a manifestly inferior morality based on the whims of incomprehensible supernatural beings, who bribe and punish humanity in the most shocking of ways. The anti-scientific, anti-intellectual bent of theistic religion is a positive impediment to morality in the modern world. It isn’t worthy of belief.
Composing members:
0
Composing members:
0
