Anthropocentric Universe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Qoeleth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Q

Qoeleth

Guest
I wish to raise a question about the idea that humanity is the ‘centre’ of the Universe. Would this be understood as:
  • The universe is simple a theatre or backdrop for the working out of human salvation (but then, why is it so vast in time and space?)
  • Human beings are the ‘centre’, but only in a kind of relativistic sense (i.e. from the humans point of view, of course we are the centre- but objectively it may be different. But since we can only take a human point of view, we must stick with that, though it may not be objectively sustainable).
Now, for those who feel that humanity is not the centre of the Universe, but simply a race of organisms on a relatively small piece of rock in space- isn’t the necessary implication of this that nothing we do matters at all in the infinite scheme of things. So, radical hedonism, suicide, genocide, anything, becomes equally viable, as everything is equally meaningless.

Or, is it that the idea of a ‘centre’ of the Universe is just a human construct- and since we constructed it, we are entitled to assign it to ourselves?

If we do not factor in God, it would seem impossible to believe that humanity is, objectively, the centre of the universe. But it could still be sustained as a necessary subjective belief. On the other hand, if we do factor in God as a creator, it equally does not necessarily seem to prove that it must be an anthropocentric universe.

I am aware the question can be answered with reference to Genesis- but can we reach a conclusion philosophically?
 
I am aware the question can be answered with reference to Genesis- but can we reach a conclusion philosophically?
Click to expand...
No, and the confusion in post #1 shows why.

First, we must accept that God created the universe. Then we realize that since he needs nothing outside himself, there would be no reason to create the universe except as a stage for man’s life, since God in his gererosity chose to give us existence.

Without accepting that God created the universe, man becomes nothing but a temporary phenomenon in a meaningless universe. ( This we know is impossible, but it shows that philosophy without God doesn’t reach much truth. )
 
empther said:
No, and the confusion in post #1 shows why.

First, we must accept that God created the universe. Then we realize that since he needs nothing outside himself, there would be no reason to create the universe except as a stage for man’s life, since God in his gererosity chose to give us existence.

Without accepting that God created the universe, man becomes nothing but a temporary phenomenon in a meaningless universe. ( This we know is impossible, but it shows that philosophy without God doesn’t reach much truth. )
Click to expand...
You say “we” (whomever you may be speaking for) “must” accept that God created the universe. I agree that God created all, but there is no “we” and “must” about such statements.

Let’s assume God created the universe- does it follow that humanity is the pinnacle/goal/justification of the Universe?

Do you hold that all the universe is simply a stage for man? If so, why?
 
Qoeleth said:
I wish to raise a question about the idea that humanity is the ‘centre’ of the Universe. Would this be understood as:
  • The universe is simple a theatre or backdrop for the working out of human salvation (but then, why is it so vast in time and space?)
  • Human beings are the ‘centre’, but only in a kind of relativistic sense (i.e. from the humans point of view, of course we are the centre- but objectively it may be different. But since we can only take a human point of view, we must stick with that, though it may not be objectively sustainable).
Now, for those who feel that humanity is not the centre of the Universe, but simply a race of organisms on a relatively small piece of rock in space- isn’t the necessary implication of this that nothing we do matters at all in the infinite scheme of things. So, radical hedonism, suicide, genocide, anything, becomes equally viable, as everything is equally meaningless.

Or, is it that the idea of a ‘centre’ of the Universe is just a human construct- and since we constructed it, we are entitled to assign it to ourselves?

If we do not factor in God, it would seem impossible to believe that humanity is, objectively, the centre of the universe. But it could still be sustained as a necessary subjective belief. On the other hand, if we do factor in God as a creator, it equally does not necessarily seem to prove that it must be an anthropocentric universe.

I am aware the question can be answered with reference to Genesis- but can we reach a conclusion philosophically?
Click to expand...
Well, what is the human being? An accidental composite of matter who is able to say “I think, therefore I am?” Or a form of matter, which is to say the human has a final cause? If the human being is a rational soul and if we observe a moderate platonic theory of form concerning the form of being, then rationality is the highest degree of being in the physical sense. If matter exists for form, then the physical worlds exists for humans. I would like to see a demonstration of the opposite, which would be a Stoic stance, before making any demonstrations of my own.
 
TS_Aquinas said:
Well, what is the human being? An accidental composite of matter who is able to say “I think, therefore I am?” Or a form of matter, which is to say the human has a final cause? If the human being is a rational soul and if we observe a moderate platonic theory of form concerning the form of being, then rationality is the highest degree of being in the physical sense. If matter exists for form, then the physical worlds exists for humans. I would like to see a demonstration of the opposite, which would be a Stoic stance, before making any demonstrations of my own.
Click to expand...
Well, I think the Stoic stance is actually not all that different to a moderate Platonic position. Both Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius talk about the reasoning principle in man as kinship to (the) God(s).

For the Stoics, there is an over-riding Reason, of which sparks are enclosed with the human person. But they remain undogmatic with reference to the immortality of the soul/reason. Whether it is dissolved, or returns to the Godhead is uncertain is something Aurelius is ambivalent about, but Epictetus seems more Platonic/Christian. Since reason is what defines human being qua human, then it the held to be the only part which is the ‘true self’.

If we hold reason to be the perfection of being (and, from a human point of view, this would seem natural), it goes along way to establishing humanity as being the pinnacle of the universe.

But it is always an unproven assumption to think that reason is best developed in man. Indeed, how would we react to a non-human race who were ten times as intelligent as us? Since we could not understand their reasons, their goals, the values, we would think them unreasonable.

Imagine if a dog considered itself as reasonable- gathering food, sleeping, copulating. Now, to the dog, humans, with their work in factories, their wars, the collecting warehouses of indeible useless substances (gold) would seem totally unreasonable.

To argue, though, an atomist or Epicurean stance- matter is in a state of perpetual flux. Mind cannot continue apart from body- as we know when we are asleep, or unconscious. If mind disappears when we are unconscious, surely it must cease to exist in death. Lucretius argues that the mind is corporeal, since it feels the pain of the body, and its existence depends upon the body. So, mind is a property or phenonen in some matter, but what is special about it?

There seems no particular reason to assume that humans are central- things happen in the remote Heavens and under the sea, which have no impact on human beings, and seem to be completely indifferent to us, as we are to them.

Imagine if we said it is not reason which is the perfection of being- but duration. Since perfect being is eternal, those things which last longest could be though to come closest to the perfection of being- rocks, pyramids.

Surely the onus of proof is on those who maintain that humans are pinnacle of the Universe?

(I believe they are, by the way, but just want to explore the reasoning behind it- or whether it is just a necessary assumption made by humans)

I
 
Qoeleth said:
I wish to raise a question about the idea that humanity is the ‘centre’ of the Universe. Would this be understood as:
  • The universe is simple a theatre or backdrop for the working out of human salvation (but then, why is it so vast in time and space?)
  • Human beings are the ‘centre’, but only in a kind of relativistic sense (i.e. from the humans point of view, of course we are the centre- but objectively it may be different. But since we can only take a human point of view, we must stick with that, though it may not be objectively sustainable).
Now, for those who feel that humanity is not the centre of the Universe, but simply a race of organisms on a relatively small piece of rock in space- isn’t the necessary implication of this that nothing we do matters at all in the infinite scheme of things. So, radical hedonism, suicide, genocide, anything, becomes equally viable, as everything is equally meaningless.

Or, is it that the idea of a ‘centre’ of the Universe is just a human construct- and since we constructed it, we are entitled to assign it to ourselves?

If we do not factor in God, it would seem impossible to believe that humanity is, objectively, the centre of the universe. But it could still be sustained as a necessary subjective belief. On the other hand, if we do factor in God as a creator, it equally does not necessarily seem to prove that it must be an anthropocentric universe.

I am aware the question can be answered with reference to Genesis- but can we reach a conclusion philosophically?
Click to expand...
On one level, we cannot be the “centre” of the universe, the primary purpose for its existence. Because the universe is so vast, relative to our human lives, in space and in time, this seems like an inordinate investment in one species on a fairly small planet in an average solar system in an unremarkable galaxy.

On another level, how can we be anything but the centre of our own lives? We are obliged to exist amongst others of our own species, and other species who depend upon us and upon whom we depend in our turn. If we are seeking meaning and morality, we don’t have to look for it in the whole cosmos - we have quite enough to be going on with here and now, negotiating our relationships with our fellow earth-inhabitants.

To claim that our lives have no meaning because the ultimate purpose of the universe was not to give rise to us, to provide a stage for our human dramas, is to miss the point - and is, I feel, arrogance acting in reverse. It is essentially a claim that our experiences not only don’t matter to the universe, but should not matter to us. It might be meaningless in the context of the deep time of the universe for us to murder, rape and steal - or conversely, to love, nurture and create - but quite evidently it matters a great deal in the context of our finite human lives. It’s all a matter of perspective.

By the same token, if the whole history of the universe - and the future of the universe after the human species dies out - are all just for us, that is to claim that a great deal of time was spent merely waiting for our arrival, and that a vast amount of space will never know the “benefit” of giving rise to our existence. Really, who do we think we are?
 
It’s also a matter of definition and perspective.
The “centre” of the universe could mean the actual middle point (physically speaking), or it could mean the focal, or most important, point.
Colloquially, you might say something like, “My children are the centre of my life.” No person with any social skills would challenge you on whether or not you had measured the “centre” of your life. The point would be taken.
For earth (and humanity) to be the middle point of the universe would be unlikely, and dependent on the vagaries of physics and space.
From a Christian religious perspective, it seems reasonable that earth and humanity are the focal point (the centre) of the universe, as all of God’s designs seem to be focused on the creation, maintenance and outcome of the human experience.
That assumes a God who has “nothing else going on”–that we, and nothing else in the universe, are the sole focus of His attention. I personally find that unbelievable.

(and, biblically, when the Kingdom is finally established on earth–the new heaven and the new earth, and all that–won’t that effectively BE the establishment of the earth as the centre of the universe, if God is living on earth?)
 
I wish to raise a question about the idea that humanity is the ‘centre’ of the Universe. Would this be understood as:
  • The universe is simple a theatre or backdrop for the working out of human salvation (but then, why is it so vast in time and space?)
  • Human beings are the ‘centre’, but only in a kind of relativistic sense (i.e. from the humans point of view, of course we are the centre- but objectively it may be different. But since we can only take a human point of view, we must stick with that, though it may not be objectively sustainable).
    …
    …
    If we do not factor in God, it would seem impossible to believe that humanity is, objectively, the centre of the universe. But it could still be sustained as a necessary subjective belief. On the other hand, if we do factor in God as a creator, it equally does not necessarily seem to prove that it must be an anthropocentric universe.
Click to expand...
I do not think it would be reasonable, in any case, to say humans are “the centre of the universe” at all.

For, if we are the product of random chance, then we are meaningless, and no thing except the literal, “geographic” centre of the universe (which is terra incognita to us at the moment) is the centre of the universe.

And, if we are the product of God, the intelligent designer who loves us, we can be sure we are not the centre of the universe, for it is quite clear God is the centre. As it says in Genesis:
Genesis 1:1 (NKJV):
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Click to expand...
The universe is not a backdrop for human affairs. That is altogether an all-too humanist view of things. It is the canvas for God to paint what He wishes onto it.
 
Qoeleth said:
  • Human beings are the ‘centre’, but only in a kind of relativistic sense (i.e. from the humans point of view, of course we are the centre- but objectively it may be different. But since we can only take a human point of view, we must stick with that, though it may not be objectively sustainable).
Click to expand...
I won’t be much help in the Catholic philosophy arena, but I can help you here. The answer is that there is no literal center of the universe. Think of it this way: where is the center of the surface of the earth? One could say that it is any point, because the earth goes out an equal distance in all directions. However, as anyone can plainly see there is no center of the surface of the earth. The universe is the same, but in three dimensions instead of two - it extends equally in all directions from any point, and like the earth, if you start going in one direction and never stop you’ll eventually end up in the same place you started.
Now, for those who feel that humanity is not the centre of the Universe, but simply a race of organisms on a relatively small piece of rock in space- isn’t the necessary implication of this that nothing we do matters at all in the infinite scheme of things. So, radical hedonism, suicide, genocide, anything, becomes equally viable, as everything is equally meaningless.
Click to expand...
In the grand scheme of things, of course it’s meaningless. But who cares about the grand scheme of things? In the grand scheme of things it doesn’t matter that I worked out today - 10 years from now it will literally make no difference at all, but I did it anyway because it is good for me and I like it. Same thing with pretty much everything. If I help a poor person get a job, they’ll be better off for a while, but eventually they’ll die and they’ll be in the exact same condition that they would have been in had I not helped them. Does that stop me? No. Would it stop you? Of course not. If someone was to say “don’t help people since they’re just going to die anyway” you would rightly call that person rotten to the core.

Another quick example: if I gave you $100, would you say it’s worthless because it’s not $infinity? It’s the same with life - I’ll probably live 80 or so years, and that’s got to be enough for me because it’s all I have. My life isn’t valueless though just because it’s finite.

Basically, what I’m getting at is that things don’t have to last forever to have value. They have the value that we give them, and that has to be enough because it’s all we’ve got.
Or, is it that the idea of a ‘centre’ of the Universe is just a human construct- and since we constructed it, we are entitled to assign it to ourselves?
 
Converging lines of evidence are showing the earth to be located in a special place. Galaxies are located in concentric rings around the earth.

The size of man is in the center of the smallest distances and largest.

Creation teaches us that man of utmost importance to God.
 
Poseidon said:
I won’t be much help in the Catholic philosophy arena, but I can help you here. The answer is that there is no literal center of the universe. Think of it this way: where is the center of the surface of the earth? One could say that it is any point, because the earth goes out an equal distance in all directions. However, as anyone can plainly see there is no center of the surface of the earth. The universe is the same, but in three dimensions instead of two - it extends equally in all directions from any point, and like the earth, if you start going in one direction and never stop you’ll eventually end up in the same place you started.

In the grand scheme of things, of course it’s meaningless. But who cares about the grand scheme of things? In the grand scheme of things it doesn’t matter that I worked out today - 10 years from now it will literally make no difference at all, but I did it anyway because it is good for me and I like it. Same thing with pretty much everything. If I help a poor person get a job, they’ll be better off for a while, but eventually they’ll die and they’ll be in the exact same condition that they would have been in had I not helped them. Does that stop me? No. Would it stop you? Of course not. If someone was to say “don’t help people since they’re just going to die anyway” you would rightly call that person rotten to the core.

Another quick example: if I gave you $100, would you say it’s worthless because it’s not $infinity? It’s the same with life - I’ll probably live 80 or so years, and that’s got to be enough for me because it’s all I have. My life isn’t valueless though just because it’s finite.

Basically, what I’m getting at is that things don’t have to last forever to have value. They have the value that we give them, and that has to be enough because it’s all we’ve got.
Or, is it that the idea of a ‘centre’ of the Universe is just a human construct- and since we constructed it, we are entitled to assign it to ourselves?
Click to expand...
Science has ruled out heliocentrism, the two left standing are acentrism and geocentrism. Acentrism says it can be any spot, so it does not rule out the earth.
 
buffalo said:
Converging lines of evidence are showing the earth to be located in a special place. Galaxies are located in concentric rings around the earth.

The size of man is in the center of the smallest distances and largest.

Creation teaches us that man of utmost importance to God.
Click to expand...
Care to post some references for this? I’ve never heard anything saying that, and I’ve heard plenty to the contrary, so I’m curious to know what your sources are.:confused:
 
buffalo said:
Science has ruled out heliocentrism, the two left standing are acentrism and geocentrism. Acentrism says it can be any spot, so it does not rule out the earth.
Click to expand...
Nope. There’s no physical point that is the center of the universe.

universetoday.com/36653/center-of-the-universe/
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html
astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html

I can post more sources if you’d like, but hopefully this is enough.
 
Sair said:
To claim that our lives have no meaning because the ultimate purpose of the universe was not to give rise to us, to provide a stage for our human dramas, is to miss the point - and is, I feel, arrogance acting in reverse. It is essentially a claim that our experiences not only don’t matter to the universe, but should not matter to us. It might be meaningless in the context of the deep time of the universe for us to murder, rape and steal - or conversely, to love, nurture and create - but quite evidently it matters a great deal in the context of our finite human lives. It’s all a matter of perspective.
Click to expand...
But it seems part of being human to take a more-than-human perspective. I mean, we can say our lives have meaning from our perspective easily, but somehow, humans want to know that there is a transcendental or objective significance- at least in the form of eternal life.

Otherwise, if our lives only matter from our own perspective, why not suicide as soon as we feel the game is not worth the effort?

If the human race matters only to itself, it is like a person playing a pointless game of solitaire, which has ultimate no consequences or purposes. Or cooking a meal for no one to eat. Or writing a book which no one will read. Nothing has any value but as a pass time, for killing the time between birth and death. And if death is going to come sooner or later, why not let it come sooner?

If there is no ultimate purpose to humanity, what other criteria for continuing existence can there be apart from whether pleasure outweighs pain? Isn’t it just like playing a video game, with a score that doesn’t matter outside of the game itself. What’s the point?
 
Qoeleth said:
But it seems part of being human to take a more-than-human perspective. I mean, we can say our lives have meaning from our perspective easily, but somehow, humans want to know that there is a transcendental or objective significance- at least in the form of eternal life.
Click to expand...
We might want this, but we can want a lot of things that we don’t and can’t have - we might want world peace, but unless every human on the planet is simultaneously working towards this goal, we won’t get it.
Otherwise, if our lives only matter from our own perspective, why not suicide as soon as we feel the game is not worth the effort?
Click to expand...
If the human race matters only to itself, it is like a person playing a pointless game of solitaire, which has ultimate no consequences or purposes. Or cooking a meal for no one to eat. Or writing a book which no one will read. Nothing has any value but as a pass time, for killing the time between birth and death. And if death is going to come sooner or later, why not let it come sooner?
Click to expand...
If there is no ultimate purpose to humanity, what other criteria for continuing existence can there be apart from whether pleasure outweighs pain? Isn’t it just like playing a video game, with a score that doesn’t matter outside of the game itself. What’s the point?
Click to expand...
This is what I mean about arrogance in reverse. Why is ultimate, objective, cosmic significance the only significance worth wanting? We might feel like we are isolated and alone and that therefore nothing we do matters, but that is because we start off imagining ourselves to be bigger than we are. It’s a bit like saying, “If I can’t be famous and an object of adulation to every single one of the 7 billion people on the planet, I might as well off myself.” A moment’s reflection reveals this to be utterly absurd. If I write a book that five people read and enjoy, I have done something significant, made an impact beyond myself. If I give a friend a painting I have done that will hang in their house and only ever be seen by them and their family and friends, I have done something significant. It doesn’t matter that it won’t hang in a gallery and be seen by hundreds of people every day.

In any case, I don’t think the belief in an afterlife stems so much from a desire for significance and purpose as from an inability or unwillingness to make peace with the notion that our consciousness probably won’t last beyond our own death. After all, if we’re just biding our time, kicking our heels here in our earthly lives, what exactly will we be doing in the afterlife that has any greater importance? Biding our time for all eternity? Doesn’t sound like such an attractive prospect to me…
 
  1. The universe is not anthropocentric because it doesn’t revolve around us, either literally and metaphorically.
  2. There is no evidence that the universe exists solely for us.
  3. Even if there were no other rational beings it wouldn’t be evidence that the universe exists solely for us because it could exist for non-human forms of life.
  4. Even if there were no other non-human forms of life it wouldn’t be evidence that the universe exists solely for us because it could exist as a beautiful work of art.
  5. The universe is a rational system because it is orderly, intelligible and predictable.
  6. The universe is also a rational system because it sustains rational existence.
  7. Therefore the universe is not anthropocentric but ratiocentric.
 
buffalo said:
Scientists: Earth May Exist in Giant Cosmic Bubble

Read more: foxnews.com/story/0,2933,430943,00.html#ixzz1yFr9arIc

Statistics of redshift periodicities

Privileged Planet
Click to expand...
Interesting stuff! I wasn’t able to watch the video though - Chinese internet likes to block things. It’s neat to think about, but until more evidence comes out I’m going to continue to accept the prevailing cosmological model, dark energy. Still, who knows? If earth does happen to be in a special spot in the universe that would be crazy, and I’m not sure what that would mean for us (I would not, however, jump to the conclusion that earth in a bubble = God exists :p).
 
Poseidon said:
Interesting stuff! I wasn’t able to watch the video though - Chinese internet likes to block things. It’s neat to think about, but until more evidence comes out I’m going to continue to accept the prevailing cosmological model, dark energy. Still, who knows? If earth does happen to be in a special spot in the universe that would be crazy, and I’m not sure what that would mean for us (I would not, however, jump to the conclusion that earth in a bubble = God exists :p).
Click to expand...
The video is really good.

Take at look at the resource page here for more.
 
Sair said:
We might want this, but we can want a lot of things that we don’t and can’t have - we might want world peace, but unless every human on the planet is simultaneously working towards this goal, we won’t get it.

This is what I mean about arrogance in reverse. Why is ultimate, objective, cosmic significance the only significance worth wanting? We might feel like we are isolated and alone and that therefore nothing we do matters, but that is because we start off imagining ourselves to be bigger than we are. It’s a bit like saying, “If I can’t be famous and an object of adulation to every single one of the 7 billion people on the planet, I might as well off myself.” A moment’s reflection reveals this to be utterly absurd. If I write a book that five people read and enjoy, I have done something significant, made an impact beyond myself. If I give a friend a painting I have done that will hang in their house and only ever be seen by them and their family and friends, I have done something significant. It doesn’t matter that it won’t hang in a gallery and be seen by hundreds of people every day.

In any case, I don’t think the belief in an afterlife stems so much from a desire for significance and purpose as from an inability or unwillingness to make peace with the notion that our consciousness probably won’t last beyond our own death. After all, if we’re just biding our time, kicking our heels here in our earthly lives, what exactly will we be doing in the afterlife that has any greater importance? Biding our time for all eternity? Doesn’t sound like such an attractive prospect to me…
Click to expand...
You are right- it doesn’t matter whether the work one does helps one person, or a thousand. So, it is looking by towards the other that meaning is gained.

I agree, biding time for eternity would not be great. But hopefully that’s not what eternal life is.

Still, humans have this capacity to assume a transcendental point of view- to seek for ‘objective’, ‘universal’ meaning. Maybe it is just a vanity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top