Ah! I'd misread those results! Now that I go back and look again, I should correct my previous statement: "Lastly, of all the results so far, the one that shocks - and displeases - me most is for "Is there underlying purpose in the universe?"
You are the only one who thinks there is a purpose to the universe, I see.
Well, so far and among this cohort, but certainly not 'the only one'. ;)
And also, if you're certain that it has a purpose, do you know what that purpose is and can you tell the all of the rest of us? And if you don't know what it is, then how can you be sure that it has a purpose?
On the surface, that seems like a very reasonable question, but appearances can be deceiving. Let's assume some means exists by way of which I (or others) could experience the purpose of Universe. Do you think I could convey that meaning through words and transmit it to another? Asking what the purpose of Universe is seems a lot like asking what love is. If you're silent and open to the experience, you stand a better chance of finding answers, but trying to confine that experience to words dooms us to misconstruals.
Like Buckminster Fuller and many others, I see teleology as a basic understanding rather than a matter of contention. It often seems like people try their best to avoid recognizing this underlying design... This might have something to do with the realization undercutting people's narcissism, and the ego doesn't typically go down without a fight.
Finally, it's interesting to note that many mathematicians have come to accept teleology through their experience of math and nature. For them, math doesn't refute teleology, it affirms it.
no subject
Well, so far and among this cohort, but certainly not 'the only one'. ;)
On the surface, that seems like a very reasonable question, but appearances can be deceiving. Let's assume some means exists by way of which I (or others) could experience the purpose of Universe. Do you think I could convey that meaning through words and transmit it to another? Asking what the purpose of Universe is seems a lot like asking what love is. If you're silent and open to the experience, you stand a better chance of finding answers, but trying to confine that experience to words dooms us to misconstruals.
Like Buckminster Fuller and many others, I see teleology as a basic understanding rather than a matter of contention. It often seems like people try their best to avoid recognizing this underlying design... This might have something to do with the realization undercutting people's narcissism, and the ego doesn't typically go down without a fight.
Finally, it's interesting to note that many mathematicians have come to accept teleology through their experience of math and nature. For them, math doesn't refute teleology, it affirms it.