Thanking god. Is it really appropriate?

[RyanLeeParis]

Well, you thank people (I would assume you do) when they give you something. It could be something as small as a new watch. Now, would you thank the one who gave you your family and the entire universe you experience every day? There's nothing wrong with it. In fact, it's pretty much the correct thing to do.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You may be a scientist but you completely misunderstand your work and education. The predictions made by scientific models predict physical behaviours, not existences.

Theories can predict either, or both.

Scientific models model the behaviour of the objects of nature, its all about what is going on around us, we don't have to prove that what is studied exists, or guess about the things that exist beyond what is studied.

I wish them luck with the Higgs boson. From an analysis of theory Higgs thinks it would be neat if he can find the bosons, but he is making this exptrapolation from theory, and classically these kinds of intutitions don't pan out...

Yes, because the predicted existences of Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, black holes, gravitational lensing, etc, never panned out...

And since when were mathematical derivations 'intuitions'?

 

[-Vincent-]

Theories can predict either, or both.


Yes, because the predicted existences of Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, black holes, gravitational lensing, etc, never panned out...

And since when were mathematical derivations 'intuitions'?

Logic can not be used as a crystal ball to see all of reality. Our science is based on experience, logic is only a documentation tool.

Einstein said that the true gift is intuition, and logic is merely a servant. He said that people of his time were worshiping the servant and ignoring the gift.

All, axioms, permises, true ideas etc.. are given through intuition. There are no logical schemes to povide new axioms or theorems.

It is a well know phenomenon that all new mathematics comes from young students who have creative intuition. The old professors lose the ability to find any new idea. They spend years with writing deductive proofs and develop powerful abilities with logic, which the young mathematician don't have. The young mathematicains ordinarily can not write the proofs for mathematics that they discover, the old professors do that work.

Logic simply is not a method of prediction. Logic is all about logical process, it is a consistent method of description of observed phenomenon.

The observations are foremost in importance, science rests completely on the observations of the world. Pick any logic you wish to write the description, if your logic gives a comprehensive description, you're in the money...

And, logic is nothing more than that. If you believe it is anything else you don't know logic...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Logic can not be used as a crystal ball to see all of reality.

Agreed.

Our science is based on experience, logic is only a documentation tool.

Logic is used to take raw data and derive new and more interesting conclusions. All physical theories use logic to derive their conclusions from premises. Einstein's mass-energy relation, Heisenberg's uncertainty principles, the various laws of thermodynamics, etc: all are derived from premises using logic. Without logic, we could never say that the entropy of a closed system will tend to a maximum (a very powerful statement indeed).

Einstein said that the true gift is intuition, and logic is merely a servant. He said that people of his time were worshiping the servant and ignoring the gift.

All, axioms, permises true ideas etc.. are given through intuition. There are no logical schemes to povide new axioms or theorems.

Axioms, no. Theorems, yes. Pythagoras' theorem, for instance, is wholly mathematical.

It is a well know phenomenon that all new mathematics comes from young students who have creative intuition. The old professors lose the ability to find any new idea. They spend years with writing deductive proofs and develop powerful abilities with logic, which the young mathematician don't have. The young mathematicains ordinarily can not write the proofs for mathematics that they discover, the old professors do that work.

Logic simply is not a method of prediction. Logic is all about logical process, it is a consistent method of description of observed phenomenon.

And it is that description that allows us to make predictions.

But please, make a scientific prediction without using logic.

The observations are foremost in importance, science rests completely on the observations of the world. Pick any logic you wish to write the description, if your logic gives a comprehensive description, you're in the money...

And, logic is nothing more than that. If you believe it is anything else you don't know logic...

Your view of logic is far too narrow. It is, in its most general form, the means by which we derive conclusions from premises in such a way that, if our premises are true, then our conclusions must be true as well.

 

[Blackmarch]

First of all I think it's well to understand that thanking is a form of gratitude aimed at some entity.

From MSN encarta dictionary:

thank (past and past participle thanked, present participle thank·ing, 3rd person present singular thanks)
transitive verb

Definition:

1. express gratitude: to express feelings of gratitude to somebody or be grateful to somebody

"We'd like to thank you for a wonderful evening."

"Thank goodness you got here in time."
​

The reason this has come up is that in innumerable news items we often read how people are thankful to god they survived some terrible incident others suffered, or thank god they missed the incident altogether. What this implies is that if it wasn't for god's intervention on their behalf they would have suffered the incident. So the question is, why would god intervene on their behalf? If god is truly a fair god then I can only imagine he intervened because they merited it, and he didn't intervene on the behalf of others because they didn't merit it. So god was acting purely by some standard he had set up. If he hadn't been then his action would have been no different than flipping a coin to decide who would suffer and who wouldn't, which, being nothing more than the outcome of dumb luck, would hardly merit a "thank you." You might be grateful your name came up heads rather than tales, but this had nothing to do with any conscious decision of god.

So, god saved person X because he came up to some standard of god's. Now, who's to be commended for coming up to this standard? God? If so, than those who suffered have every right to blame god for not being given the same benefit as X. God would be blamable for any and all misery that befell people. If god is not to be commended for a person coming up to his standard then why should he receive any thanks when one does so? If a person measures up to god's standard and therefore benefits by his measurement then the entire commendation belongs to that person. He should be thankful to himself, not god.

Unless god applies a benefit across the board, to absolutely everyone, I fail to see why he deserves anyone's thanks in particular cases.

Got any suggestions?

how does one know if God intervened or not (or to be more accurate how does one know how much God has involved himself with any event)? Has anyone been in a situation that could not possibly get any worse? (if so perhaps they might not have a reason to give thanks). As to why god would save person X from physical harm in this life would be for God's own reasons rather than any set standard.

As for giving thanks it's probably because more because we do not usually know where God's involvement starts and ends in any given event.

As for why God deserves thanks, probably for every benefit one gets in the end can be traced back to God.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

As for why God deserves thanks, probably for every benefit one gets in the end can be traced back to God.

But so, by that logic, can every detriment. The mother thanks God for her child's miraculous recovery, but was the illness itself not God's hand?

Indeed, even if God did have a hand in the child's recovery, I would not deem him worthy of thanks if he didn't save all children suffering from similar or worse afflictions.

I breifly thought of analogising this with a doctor, so it would seem that I'm saying that we shouldn't thank a doctor unless he saves everyone. Obviously, this analogy is flawed in the most crucial way: the doctor is not God. He can't save everyone, and those he saves come at a cost to himself (time, effort, money, risk of contamination, etc). God, on the other hand, requires no time or money to save everyone, so it's apples and oranges.

(Wow, did I just debate with myself? )

 

[Blackmarch]

But so, by that logic, can every detriment. The mother thanks God for her child's miraculous recovery, but was the illness itself not God's hand?

indeed, but which was greater?
the cure or the illness, or to have the child at all?

Indeed, even if God did have a hand in the child's recovery, I would not deem him worthy of thanks if he didn't save all children suffering from similar or worse afflictions.

that's fine. that's only a call you can make.

I breifly thought of analogising this with a doctor, so it would seem that I'm saying that we shouldn't thank a doctor unless he saves everyone. Obviously, this analogy is flawed in the most crucial way: the doctor is not God. He can't save everyone, and those he saves come at a cost to himself (time, effort, money, risk of contamination, etc). God, on the other hand, requires no time or money to save everyone, so it's apples and oranges.

(Wow, did I just debate with myself? )

Lol I think you just did. It may be apples and oranges... but both are fruit
the other part of the equation that is rarely touched upon is that everyone will be resurrected.- "As in Adam all die, all shall be made alive"
and with this second life there will not be illness or death as we know it.

 

[Tikiman06]

Doesn't it seem odd for an all-powerful being to create an entire race of intelligent life just so that they would praise and thank him? It sounds rather vain to me. I think that we should be grateful (if we were created by God) but our purpose is not to be constantly thanking God. I believe that would be annoying.