Quick question for the skeptics...

[Chesterton]

Gaia. Allah. Brahma. Etc.

Which?

 

[TillICollapse]

Which?

Pick any of them. Or all of them. Or other ones, for example.

 

[Chesterton]

 

[TillICollapse]

I'm not understanding your seeming confusion. Are you being obtuse or are you genuinely confused, or .... ?

 

[Chesterton]

I'm not understanding your seeming confusion. Are you being obtuse or are you genuinely confused, or .... ?

You basically asked me if I'd endorse "some other supernatural entity", which is vague. I'd just like to know what I'm being asked to endorse.

 

[TillICollapse]

You basically asked me if I'd endorse "some other supernatural entity", which is vague. I'd just like to know what I'm being asked to endorse.

Okay, which ones would you *not* endorse that you can think of ? It's not about endorsing the entity, rather the IDEA that someone is teaching "Goddidt" similarly.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Atheist version: "physicsdidit"

You are being obtuse.

Let's say that a child asks: "why is the sky blue?" Instead of being told "physicsdidit", a child will be told that molecules in the air scatter blue light more than red light, and so the sky appears blue. The child's question will be rewarded with a real explanation for the phenomenon instead of a quick bromide that answers nothing ("magicdidit") and shuts off a mind.

That is the point being made by "Goddidit".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I have read the thread and still dont know how to spell Goddidit (sp?)

 

[Eudaimonist]

I have read the thread and still dont know how to spell Goddidit (sp?)

You've got it right.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Wasnt (or isnt) "God" (and religion) a locus where ideas can accumulate over time? Like Einstein, religious leaders were trying to know the mind of God, i.e. have insight into reality. For example, a lot of logic debating was done by priests in the Middle Ages, and Mendel, the father of modern genetics, was a monk. So dont think you have made a clean break once and for all....

 

[Chesterton]

Okay, which ones would you *not* endorse that you can think of ? It's not about endorsing the entity, rather the IDEA that someone is teaching "Goddidt" similarly.

Philosophically I'm okay with anyone teaching "Goddidit" similarly. I'm also okay with someone honestly saying "I don't know" (being agnostic). I'm not okay with ideas that don't seem to be thorough enough, such as most pagan gods, because if a minor "god" made the sky blue, I still want to know how the minor god came to be.

 

[Chesterton]

You are being obtuse.

Let's say that a child asks: "why is the sky blue?" Instead of being told "physicsdidit", a child will be told that molecules in the air scatter blue light more than red light, and so the sky appears blue. The child's question will be rewarded with a real explanation for the phenomenon instead of a quick bromide that answers nothing ("magicdidit") and shuts off a mind.

That is the point being made by "Goddidit".


eudaimonia,

Mark

And why do molecules scatter blue more than red? And when you answer you're asked "why" about the answer. (Children are natural born philosophers.) You've obviously never engaged in the infamous, endless "why" conversation with a child.
Louis CK - Why? (on parenting, kids, and questions) - YouTube

 

[quatona]

And why do molecules scatter blue more than red? And when you answer you're asked "why" about the answer. (Children are natural born philosophers.) You've obviously never engaged in the infamous, endless "why" conversation with a child.

Yes, I have been. Then again, there was me thinking this was the philosophy forum and not a kindergarten.

 

[quatona]

Not to mention that children (those "natural born philosophers") in their "why?" period will even respond to "God did it" with a "Why??".

 

[Chesterton]

Yes, I have been. Then again, there was me thinking this was the philosophy forum and not a kindergarten.

Why?

Not to mention that children (those "natural born philosophers") in their "why?" period will even respond to "God did it" with a "Why??".

Why?

 

[TillICollapse]

Philosophically I'm okay with anyone teaching "Goddidit" similarly. I'm also okay with someone honestly saying "I don't know" (being agnostic). I'm not okay with ideas that don't seem to be thorough enough, such as most pagan gods, because if a minor "god" made the sky blue, I still want to know how the minor god came to be.

I could explore this further, but thanks for answering at this point.

 

[quatona]

Why?

Why not?

Why?

When?

 

[Sectio Aurea]

And I do endorse the idea "Goddidit". If a child asks his parent why the sky is blue, a parent who says "Goddidit" is correct.

A parent who gives a child the explanation of "goddidit" for phenomena that can be explained is not worthy of being a parent.

 

[Eudaimonist]

And why do molecules scatter blue more than red? And when you answer you're asked "why" about the answer. (Children are natural born philosophers.) You've obviously never engaged in the infamous, endless "why" conversation with a child.

Even my scientist father got tired of answering my questions. I remember asking him once what would happen if snow was naturally black (I had it in mind that its melting temperature might be higher), and he never answered that one. I understand that there can be limits.

However, it really is the job of the parents to at least answer some of those questions, or at least get their children a book or URL that does. It might be okay if a Christian parent would at least launch into a discussion of the fine points of Thomas Aquinas's views on the natural world now and then. That would be far preferable to "Goddidit".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chesterton]

A parent who gives a child the explanation of "goddidit" for phenomena that can be explained is not worthy of being a parent.

Even my scientist father got tired of answering my questions. I remember asking him once what would happen if snow was naturally black (I had it in mind that its melting temperature might be higher), and he never answered that one. I understand that there can be limits.

However, it really is the job of the parents to at least answer some of those questions, or at least get their children a book or URL that does. It might be okay if a Christian parent would at least launch into a discussion of the fine points of Thomas Aquinas's views on the natural world now and then. That would be far preferable to "Goddidit".


eudaimonia,

Mark

I guess I wasn't clear. I was not saying that a parent should not give the best actual facts about things as they can, and that it's okay to just say "Goddidit" about details of the natural world. I was just pointing out that those scientific-type questions lead to more questions, which eventually lead back to cosmology, and when you get back there you come to a dead end where you can say only a few things, which may only amount to opinions, and "Goddidit" is a legitimate opinion to hold and/or to teach a child.