• DarkSpectrum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Ironically, an individual who uses language to identify with and articulate a particular sub-category of human belief systems (i.e. atheism), is attempting to impose order in an indescribable universe.

    • an_onanist@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      It depends on your definitions. Religion puts nonexistent intentionality into the system by adding a diety. Science explains the existing system using the language of mathematics.

      • DarkSpectrum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Except science doesn’t explain the existing system. Science is the process of converting observations into language and indentifying reliable repeating patterns. It does not explain why.

      • DarkSpectrum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Any description of existence would:

        • be based on a limited perspective and at best incomplete,
        • be in the form of language which is only a representation of the real thing,
        • only describe the mechanics of existence and would not answer the essential ‘why’.

        Existence is indescribable. The best description of life would be a non-verbal and direct felt experience, not words. Language providedes structured communication between perceptions, in other words: control and order.

        • Halasham@dormi.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Why are we assuming there is a why to the universe? Most of us don’t look at natural phenomena and truly wonder why. We may use that word erroneously but what is being wondered is “how”.