Kamakailan lamang, Nagbigay ako ng isang talk sa mga particle at mga pakikipag-ugnayan sa mga kamag-aral ang aking anak na babae ni sino ay pagpaplano sa isang paglalakbay sa Desy, Germany at nais na magkaroon ng isang ideya ng kung ano ito ay lahat ng tungkol sa. Tulad ng aking unang makipag-usap ng ganitong uri, Ako ay isang bit kinakabahan dahil hindi ko alam kung ano ang antas, at background, ang dapat kong peg ang makipag-usap sa. Hindi ko nais upang gawin itong masyadong basic, na kung saan Akala ko ay magiging isang basura ng oras. Hindi rin Gusto kong gawin itong masyadong teknikal, na kung saan din ay gawin itong walang silbi sa ibang paraan.
Animals have different sensory capabilities compared to us humans. Cats, halimbawa, can hear up to 60kHz, while the highest note we have ever heard was about 20kHz. Tila, we could hear that high a note only in our childhood. Kaya, if we are trying to pull a fast one on a cat with the best hifi multi-channel, Dolby-whatever recording of a mouse, we will fail pathetically. It won’t be fooled because it lives in a different sensory world, while sharing the same physical world as ours. There is a humongous difference between the sensory and physical worlds.
Malayang kalooban ay isang problema. Kung ang lahat sa atin ay pisikal na machine, pagsunod sa mga batas ng pisika, at pagkatapos ang lahat ng aming mga paggalaw at mental na estado ay sanhi ng mga kaganapan na naganap nang mas maaga. Anong sanhi ay ganap na tinutukoy sa pamamagitan ng ang sanhi. Kaya kahit anong ginagawa namin ngayon at sa susunod na minuto ay ang lahat ng pre-ordained sa pamamagitan antecedent events at mga sanhi, at wala kaming kontrol sa ito. Paano maaari naming pagkatapos ay may libreng kalooban? Ang katotohanan na ako ay sumusulat ito nota sa malayang kalooban — ay ito lubos at ganap na natutukoy sa pamamagitan ng mga kaganapan mula sa oras napakatanda? Iyan ay hindi tunog karapatan.
It is a sensible question: What does it feel like to be a bat? Although we can never really know the answer (because we can never be bats), we know that there is an answer. It feels like something to be a bat. Mahusay, at least we think it does. We think bats have malay and conscious feelings. Sa kabilang banda, it is not a sensible question to ask what it feels like to be brick or a table. It doesn’t feel like anything to be an inanimate object.
Ang isang pagsasabwatan teorya nananatiling isang teorya at kumpay para crackpots hanggang sa ito ay hinipan malawak na bukas. Sa puntong iyon, ang crackpots naging award winning na mamamahayag at mga lider na itinuring na pambansang bayani maging sociopathic kriminal. Tulad ay ang pabagu-bago ng popular na opinyon, at sa gayon ito ay kasama ang 9/11 pagsasabwatan kapag ito ay nagiging malawak na kilala (kung ito ay kailanman) na ito ay isang pagsasabwatan.
The atheist-theist debate boils down to a simple question — Did humans discover God? O, did we invent Him? The difference between discovering and inventing is the similar to the one between believing and knowing. Theist believe that there was a God to be discovered. Atheists “alam” that we humans invented the concept of God. Belief and knowledge differ only slightly — knowledge is merely a very very strong belief. A belief is considered knowledge when it fits in nicely with a larger worldview, which is very much like how a hypothesis in physics becomes a theory. While a theory (such as Quantum Mechanics, halimbawa) is considered to be knowledge (or the way the physical world really is), it is best not to forget the its lowly origin as a mere hypothesis. My focus in this post is the possible origin of the God hypothesis.
Personal, one of the main reasons I started taking the conspiracy theories about 9/11 seriously is the ardor and certainty of the so-called debunkers. They are so sure of their views and so ready with their explanations that they seem rehearsed, coached or even incentivized. Looking at the fire-induced, symmetric, and free-fall collapse of WTC7, how can anyone with any level of scientific background be so certain? The best a debunker could say would be something like, “Oo, the free-fall and the symmetry aspects of the collapse do look quite strange. But the official explanation seems plausible. Hindi bababa sa, it is more plausible than a wild conspiracy by the government to kill 3000 of our own citizens.” But that is not at all the way they put it. They laugh at the conspiracy theories, make emotional statements about the technical claims, and ignore the questions that they cannot explain away. They toe the official line even when it is clearly unscientific. They try to attack the credibility of the conspiracy camp despite the obvious fact that it has the support of many seasoned professionals, like architects, physics teachers, structural engineers and university professors.
The only recourse an atheist can have against this argument based on personal experience is that the believer is either is misrepresenting his experience or is mistaken about it. I am not willing to pursue that line of argument. I know that I am undermining my own stance here, but I would like to give the theist camp some more ammunition for this particular argument, and make it more formal.
In the first post in this series, we saw that 7 World Trade Center building was the smoking gun of a possible conspiracy behind the 9/11 attack. The manner in which it collapsed and the way the collapse was investigated are strong indications of a conspiracy and a cover up. Gayunpaman, when I first heard of the conspiracy theory in any serious form, the first question I asked myself was why – what possible motive could any person or organization have to commit mass murder at this scale? I honestly couldn’t see any, and as long as you don’t see one, you cannot take these conspiracy theories seriously. Oo naman, if you buy the official story that the conspiracy actually originated in Afghanistan among terrorist monsters, you don’t need to look for any rational motives.
I have a reason for delaying this post on the fifth and last argument for God by Dr. William Lane Craig. It holds more potency than immediately obvious. While it is easy to write it off because it is a subjective, experiential argument, the lack of credence we attribute to subjectivity is in itself a result of our similarly subjective acceptance of what we consider objective reason and rationality. I hope that this point will become clearer as you read this post and the next one.