avevale_intelligencer (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
avevale_intelligencer) wrote2011-02-21 08:44 am
avevale_intelligencer) wrote2011-02-21 08:44 am
Early morning thought before I start in on the housework
Prompted by this quote, relaed by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
earth_wizard.
There are two kinds of things we can do, exemplified by washing up and learning a poem. Washing up is always necessary and always there; it doesn't end, it goes on, and even if you use paper plates and plastic cutlery there'll always be something that needs cleaning. Washing up is infinite.
Learning a poem, on the other hand, involves starting at the beginning, memorising each line in its relation to the others, till you get to the end, and there stopping. Once it's done it's done, and as long as you refresh your memory every so often you won't need to do it again. Learning a poem, learning anything, is finite.
But if every time you went back to the book there were a hundred more lines to learn, you'd soon give up in despair.
It's tempting to see this belief (that the task of learning how the universe works is unending) as a desperate grab by some secular scientists at some kind of mysticism. They don't have room in their probably finite universe for an infinite god, so they figure something has to be infinite here. Why not the quest for knowledge? So far it's been a series of Chinese boxes, each one containing a smaller one; why shouldn't that literally go on for ever? Pattern under the chaos, chaos under the pattern, alternating into eternity, and always more to learn. As if, every time you turned up for your driving lesson, there was a new knob or a new pedal or a new lever in the car that you had to learn about before you could take your test, and you knew there always would be, every single time.
I'm quite convinced we haven't cracked the secrets of the universe yet. The task of science is nowhere near complete, and any scientist who says so is mistaken, I think. But that the task is completable--that it is finite--that has to be true, or else there is no point or purpose to learning anything. Understanding must be attainable, or we might as well go and do the dishes. At least they'll be done for a little while.
And speaking of which.
earth_wizard.There are two kinds of things we can do, exemplified by washing up and learning a poem. Washing up is always necessary and always there; it doesn't end, it goes on, and even if you use paper plates and plastic cutlery there'll always be something that needs cleaning. Washing up is infinite.
Learning a poem, on the other hand, involves starting at the beginning, memorising each line in its relation to the others, till you get to the end, and there stopping. Once it's done it's done, and as long as you refresh your memory every so often you won't need to do it again. Learning a poem, learning anything, is finite.
But if every time you went back to the book there were a hundred more lines to learn, you'd soon give up in despair.
It's tempting to see this belief (that the task of learning how the universe works is unending) as a desperate grab by some secular scientists at some kind of mysticism. They don't have room in their probably finite universe for an infinite god, so they figure something has to be infinite here. Why not the quest for knowledge? So far it's been a series of Chinese boxes, each one containing a smaller one; why shouldn't that literally go on for ever? Pattern under the chaos, chaos under the pattern, alternating into eternity, and always more to learn. As if, every time you turned up for your driving lesson, there was a new knob or a new pedal or a new lever in the car that you had to learn about before you could take your test, and you knew there always would be, every single time.
I'm quite convinced we haven't cracked the secrets of the universe yet. The task of science is nowhere near complete, and any scientist who says so is mistaken, I think. But that the task is completable--that it is finite--that has to be true, or else there is no point or purpose to learning anything. Understanding must be attainable, or we might as well go and do the dishes. At least they'll be done for a little while.
And speaking of which.
no subject
Ah! There I think we have the crux of the matter, and of my disagreement.
Option 1: "Aim for a height of 5 metres. We know from past experience that you'll achieve something in the range of 4.5 to 5.5 metres"
Option 2: "Aim for a height of 9 metres. We know from past experience that you'll probably achieve around 6 to 7 metres".
Option 3: "Aim for a height of infinity! It's impossible to reach it, of course, but experience has shown this is the only way anyone has ever achieved a height greater than 10 metres... and who knows, you might be the first person in the world to achieve 11!"
Which option would you choose?
And as ever, back to the gospel: It's a switch from the old way of judging moral rectitude - "As long as I meet the minimum standard of behaviour, as specified by the law, I'm OK (Corollary: But if I fail, I'm buggered!)" - to the new way - "forget about the minimum standard, it's a total red herring; I want (and God wants me) to achieve the highest level of goodness I'm capable of! Therefore I will take as a role model no less a person than Jesus Christ, the human incarnation of God, because even though a sin-infected mortal like me can't possibly ever attain his standard of goodness - can never *be* Jesus - I know that only by setting my sights on the target of his perfection (and failing, and then learning from my failure, and trying again, repeatedly) will I ever become the best *me* that I can be."
no subject
no subject
"A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a Heaven for?"