Cause and effect within science/philosophy/religion

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

In thinking about the world and its nature,
we can approach it a couple of different ways…
three such ways are science, theology and philosophy…
there are of course, more ways to approach any thinking
about the universe…

the thing about science is that it looks at, or tries to anyway,
look at the environment and events within that environment
without any sort of bias or assumptions… In the courtyard
of my condo complex, I can see a couple of trees…

I can look at those trees in a couple of different ways,
by science, TREE: is a perennial plant with a single,
elongated stem (trunk) that supports branches and leaves…

I can look at those trees within religion/theology…
god created those trees for the benefit of human beings…

I can look at those trees philosophically:
trees exists as part of a overall complex system of
life that is essential for the existence of both life
and human beings… trees can bring us comfort,
having value because they are used for objects that help us human
beings…

in looking at these three definitions, science can tell us the how
of tree’s but not the why of trees… the why comes from either/or
philosophy or theology…

Let us try an experiment, look at a tree… I am looking at one
right now… without any other method, tell me about that tree…
how do we explain the phenomenon of this tree… using science,
I can by close examination, tell us the how of the tree…
trees are a life form that is ground base, it has no motion or movement,
a single tree is a passive life form… it must wait for things to come to it,
rain, animals, birds, the sunlight…but at no point, scientifically,
can I go past or beyond my examination of tree’s by saying
trees exist because of god… for that information isn’t readily
available in an examination of that tree…scientifically,
I cannot go past what I can examine…I can state the how
but nothing more than that… I cannot come up with a why…

To state, theologically, that a tree was created by god, is to
go past or beyond what I can examine… it is information that
goes past or outside the information I can find in my examination
of the tree…it is, in a word, an assumption…
how do we give that tree context without getting into assumptions…
at no point can we, no matter how hard we try, we cannot
deduce god from the existence of a tree… the only way
we can deduce god from a tree is to make the initial assumption,
there is a god and that tree comes from god…but by just
looking at a tree, we cannot make the deduction of god from trees…
the assumption of god must already exists before we can conclude
that a tree was created by god…

Let us try another example, in looking at the world, our
experiences and events within our world/universe, how do we
deduce god from the world? or our experience or from events,
for example, a newly born child is born with a physical defect…
how are we to understand this event? if we begin with god,
then how are we to explain a child being born with a physical
defect as being from a ‘‘loving’’ god? or how do we explain
a random event, such as a bird flying into a airplanes engine
and bringing the plane down… how does that event get explained
by having a god?

So, in the end we are really dealing with epistemology…
which is how do we know what we know? I look at a tree,
and how would I know, know that that tree comes from god?
and how would I know that tree came from a natural cause…
the only way I can know that tree came from god is by
an assumption…

How do we explain or justify causes or events?
One hears of one or two year old babies dying from
cancer… How are we to explain this or justify this?
a loving god tortures an innocent baby… going back to
the Old Testament, we see, rather regularly, a violent,
vindictive, murderous god… recall that god tortures
Job, kills over 2 million people… on this basis, maybe we
can explain or justify god killing an innocent baby by
having cancer… by why? one hears that it’s all part
of gods plan… is god really that random to kill some babies
and not all babies? therein lies the problem with a god universe,
in that via god, it is really hard to justify many of the events that
happen in the universe… in looking at the universe, it is
clear that much of what happens is random chance…
and how do we explain or use god to explain random events?
and we come to the why, why must some people be tortured
by cancer and others are not? the problem with random events
that that there no rhyme or reason for so many of these events…
to plead that god was the cause of random, chance events, is to
say that god, on a regular basis, is random and deals with chance…
but to say, is it part of gods plan… is to hold that random events,
chance events are all of gods plan… well, that makes no sense…

It seems to me a much better fit to say that this world, this universe
is a chance, random universe that has probability within it that
says, shit happens for no reason other than chance or randomness…
and is often caused by such physical laws as entropy and gravity
and thermodynamics… that is much more honest than pretending
that there is a random god who willy-nilly causes babies to have
cancer or have birds bring down airplanes for no apparent reason…
to engage in god as being the cause of events, is to have a god
that is random and full of chance…

But there is a third path… and that path is philosophy…
not science or religion, but philosophy… and within philosophy
does exists the possibility for a random, chance universe…
philosophy does allow that events are random, and not
caused by god…for to have a god explanation, is to
invoke a randomness that is hard to explain within theology…
but randomness is a feature of our universe without a god…
we can explain a baby having cancer in a random universe…
or a bird bringing down an airplane…

look at a tree and what do you see? see anything other than a tree
is nothing more than assumption…
but this is not the final response…

Kropotkin

2

Isn’t motion and movement achieved through growth? Also, passive life form?

Trees communicate with each other through an underground network of fungi known as mycorrhizal networks, often referred to as the “wood-wide web”. This network connects the roots of trees, enabling them to exchange water, nutrients such as carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus, and chemical or hormonal signals. These interactions are not limited to trees of the same species; research shows that conifers and deciduous trees like Douglas fir and paper birch form mutually beneficial associations through these networks.

Communication occurs primarily through chemical, hormonal, and slow-pulsing electrical signals, which scientists are only beginning to understand. For example, when a tree is under stress—such as from insect attacks, drought, or disease—it can send distress signals through the network, prompting neighboring trees to respond by strengthening their defenses. In one documented case, a Douglas fir tree injured by insects sent chemical warnings to a nearby ponderosa pine, which then produced defensive enzymes in response.

The network also supports cooperation and altruism. Older, larger trees—often called “mother trees”—act as hubs in the network, sharing resources with younger saplings, especially those growing in shaded areas where photosynthesis is limited. These mother trees can even recognize and favor their kin, transferring more nutrients to related seedlings. In some cases, a dead tree stump has been kept alive for centuries by neighboring trees that continue to supply it with sugars and nutrients through the network.

While alarm and distress are the most commonly observed forms of communication, scientists speculate that trees may also exchange information during favorable conditions, though this remains unconfirmed. Some researchers have detected electrical signals in trees that resemble those in animal nervous systems, although plants do not possess neurons or brains. Additionally, evidence suggests that certain plants may emit and detect sounds, such as a 220 hertz crackling noise in roots, though the significance of this is still under investigation.

3

One of key concepts of being human, is this idea of
salvation… of being saved…and going to heaven is
‘‘proof’’ that one has been saved… but realistically,
how does one prove that being saved is even a needed idea?

Let us return to our tree example… look at a tree…
and how does that in any, way, shape or form, suggests
that human beings need to be saved? Or look at that
airplane crashed cause by a bird going into an engine,
how does that show us that we need to be saved?
or how does that baby with cancer, show us we must be
saved? for a baby is unable to demonstrate that it has been
saved by accepting Jesus? a unsaved baby, is one clearly doomed
to go to hell, the bible is clear about that… the only way to be saved
is to accept Jesus… and how is a baby, a couple of months old,
going to accept Jesus?
In looking at a tree or a rock, how does that tree or rock, suggests
that I need to be saved? It would take a rather long and wildly
creative explanation to connect a tree/or rock with being saved…

and we come to a concept that should make sense…
the best explanation for things is usually the one that is
the simplest.. instead of having a god, where we need to be saved,
how about this, there is no god and no reason to be saved…
in looking at a tree, what explanation serves us best in understanding
how a tree works? the simplest explanation…

To explain the universe in terms of a god, to be saved, to
go to heaven or hell, requires quite a bit of other explanations,
to explain the universe in terms of religion or theology, requires
quite a bit of other explanations to make it work…
but if we use Occam’s razor… the simplest explanation is
usually the correct one, then by removing the religious explanation,
then we reach the simplest explanation… that the universe is
a random universe… for this is the simplest explanation…
and it does, unlike a god universe, better explain what we see…
and that is the point, to explain objects and events, via the
easiest explanation…the simplest explanation…
by looking at a tree… what is the simplest explanation?
the theological explanation is convoluted and cannot explain
certain aspects of either trees or life…it is an incomplete
explanation… for how does it explain babies having cancer,
or birds going into engines? a random, chance universe is a
far better explanation of the universe than a god universe…
for to make a god universe work, one must add a bunch of
stuff to make it work…further explanations are needed in a
god universe to explain a tree or babies getting cancer… in
a no god universe, much fewer explanations are needed…

An example of this is this: I lost my hearing from a random,
chance event before I was even born… but now to explain
that hearing loss in a god universe, requires quite
a bit more explanation… or we can simply go with the
lazy way and say, god wills it… which explains nothing…

Or we can ask, why be saved? because god wills it?
that is a very weak explanation… Occam’s razor suggest
there is no reason in the universe to be saved… saved from what
and for what? From sin… another ‘‘explanation’’ that requires a
great deal of explanation to make sense… and even after an
‘‘explanation’’ it doesn’t really make sense… to be saved for what?
if doing something requires a long detailed explanation for it
to make sense, then why am I doing it?

In a no god universe, we don’t need detailed long explanations
to explain stuff… How would we explain the random, chance
stuff that happens in the universe? We don’t have to…
Shit happens… science explains the how, philosophy
explains the why, but sometimes, there is no why…
especially in a random, chance universe…in a random,
chance universe, there is no reason to be saved, no reason
to seek out further explanations for why the bird went into the
engine or why babies get cancer… shit happens…

the simplest explanation us usually the correct one…
why should we spend our lives trying to be saved, given
there is no evidence anywhere suggesting that being saved
is even a goal within existence… to assume existence is
about being saved, is to assume evidence not apparent to
me… by looking at a tree, do I or can I see that being saved
is the point in existence? it would take a great deal of further
explanation to make it make sense about how looking at a tree,
is justification enough to be saved?

the point is to explain what we see in front of us, every
single day… and a religious explanation for those events
in front of us leads us into confusion and despair because
those events then require, according to a religious viewpoint,
a great deal of further explanations to make sense within a religion…
to die of natural causes is to say entropy at work is a far simpler,
easier explanation than god did it… because why did god do that?
oh, god wills it… and that is no explanation at all… for god wills
it, to make sense requires a great deal of explanation beyond it…
but the concept of entropy does not require a great deal of
explanation…

So, how do you explain the things in front of you?
How would you explain the tree in front of you?
Via science or via religion or via philosophy?
The how vs the why…

Kropotkin

4

N: > Trees communicate with each other through an underground network of fungi known as mycorrhizal networks, often referred to as the “wood-wide web”. This network connects the roots of trees, enabling them to exchange water, nutrients such as carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus, and chemical or hormonal signals. These interactions are not limited to trees of the same species; research shows that conifers and deciduous trees like Douglas fir and paper birch form mutually beneficial associations through these networks.

Communication occurs primarily through chemical, hormonal, and slow-pulsing electrical signals, which scientists are only beginning to understand. For example, when a tree is under stress—such as from insect attacks, drought, or disease—it can send distress signals through the network, prompting neighboring trees to respond by strengthening their defenses. In one documented case, a Douglas fir tree injured by insects sent chemical warnings to a nearby ponderosa pine, which then produced defensive enzymes in response.

The network also supports cooperation and altruism. Older, larger trees—often called “mother trees”—act as hubs in the network, sharing resources with younger saplings, especially those growing in shaded areas where photosynthesis is limited. These mother trees can even recognize and favor their kin, transferring more nutrients to related seedlings. In some cases, a dead tree stump has been kept alive for centuries by neighboring trees that continue to supply it with sugars and nutrients through the network.

While alarm and distress are the most commonly observed forms of communication, scientists speculate that trees may also exchange information during favorable conditions, though this remains unconfirmed. Some researchers have detected electrical signals in trees that resemble those in animal nervous systems, although plants do not possess neurons or brains. Additionally, evidence suggests that certain plants may emit and detect sounds, such as a 220 hertz crackling noise in roots, though the significance of this is still under investigation.

K: but do you know this by just looking at a tree? No, of course not,
it takes extensive research to discover and explain this…and science
can tell us the how trees work, but not the why… and that is kinda my
point… it is not enough to work out the how, but also the why…
and science cannot get us to the why… why do trees exists…

we need to sort out the various aspects of existence,
and we can do so, explain stuff via science, via religion
or via philosophy… but the question becomes, why this
choice of explanation and not another…
Why pick science instead of religion or why pick philosophy
over religion?

Kropotkin

5

What if God doesn’t oversee every single thing that nature produces? What if God simply set the rules for an ordered Universe, and allowed everything to happen? Is God omniscient? Would He want to be?

If I created a Universe like that I would be more interested in finding out what happens all by itself, but hey, I’m not God so who knows.

6

Yes, why? Why not use all of them to form a larger picture? Why does there have to be one single explanation? Is that the case with anything?

7

Растения это не пассивная форма жизни. Есть и активные растения - мимоза, или мухоловка.

8

Борис, я это знаю, и именно об этом я говорил в той теме, откуда ты это взял. Деревья общаются посредством мицелия и предупреждают друг друга о потенциальных опасностях, это результат взаимовыгодного эволюционного симбиоза. Это тоже есть в посте.

9

Для цивилизации важна была не столько коммуникация, сколько способность двигать своими частями и производить триглицериды. Это и сделало возможным появление животных на Земле.

10

That is your Catholic misinformation, where Thomas
Aquinas had the theory that Limbo was a way to reconcile the doctrine of original sin, then there was a shift in emphasis where that Church
now strongly urges parents to baptize their infants as soon as possible as it is an ordinary means of salvation.

If you had read the Scriptures as you claim it clearly states:

“Suffer little children to come unto me… for of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:14)

Salvation requires a conscious choice and acceptance which infants and very young children are considered incapable of making this decision,

so they are not held accountable for sin in the same way adults are.