Sunday, October 2, 2016

The unknown vs a story

Why do we humans prefer a story which is likely false to an unknown? Religion is full of "stories" that are false, and the true answer is unknown. Creation of earth, and man for example. We now "know" bits and pieces of the process that occurred over the last 14 billion years of earth, and the last 2 million of sapiens existence. There are many theories, and bits of evidence. Somehow all the evidence must fit into our history. There is linguistic evidence and DMA, mitochondrial DNA, and geological evidence, all of which may require a bit of interpretation. So now we know that all creation stories have a bit of fiction and trace of truth in them. We all evolved in Africa, and have come out in waves. Evolution has continued, and mixing of the various waves have occurred. Evolution continues today.

So back to the dealing with unknown vs story. How is evolution, natural weather and geological events, cosmological events, and bits of history all strung together to create stories much different beyond the length of the story and what parts we know to be facts. Time is one thing that is lost in story. When the earth was young has little meaning until we put years or some measure of time on it. Until religion started to measure time, 2000 years ago in the middle east, 5400 year ago in the MetsoAmerica region, life went on, year after year, with no record, no consideration that we should count the years. Which year was not important until writing, record keeping, and history became valued. It just was not important enough to do in a big way. That is not to say that it was not done, as years of reign of each dynasty in China, but this was not universal. The week is older than the year, four cycles of 7, and then some correction days at the dark of the moon until it all started over at the new moon. Then came the study of the year, marking the equinox, longest and shortest days, which do not match with weeks, they are different processes, as are the days. Each system is learned, and replaces a story with a more real story, yet the human mind needs a story of some kind.

We humans are born with fear and anxiety. We need chemical stimulus to overcome these in the form of opioids, dopamine, serotonin, and other feel good chemicals. We have difficulty with unknown; they just raise fear and anxiety, until we get trained to unknowns. This all fits with the triune brain, genetic reptile, emotional instinctive, and rational developed brain parts. So story vs unknown, story is the first reaction, with story correction until something representing reality emerges. But there is still no god to be found with all we know. That hypothesis just finds less and less to be applied to.

That is likely the best way to describe a god anyway, as a hypothesis of the unknown. As information and understanding or nature occurs, that which depends on god reduces, and we now see that contributed to god as the natural progression toward the limit of no god, period. As a wild human with no knowledge, the hypothesis of a god is rational, and as we learn and carry that knowledge to the next generation, we approach the realization that a god hypothesis is just not necessary or possible any more. Oh well, itewajda.

So what does this indicate? Story was the hypothesis of the time. We state it, and look for evidence to support it or refute it. As it is impossible to disprove something supernatural, yet we know there is only natural, we need to accept the something that approach value asymptotically has a limit in that value. in other words, single absence of proof of existence is not proof of non existence, but many are like a value of a diminishing sequence, and the limit of zero can be safely assumed.

This is one logos statement, that the supernatural cannot exist in a natural world. I do not require the god hypothesis; aka there is no god, and no supernatural after death events.    


No comments: