If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. ... The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination
Source: Bertrand Russell: Why I am not a Christian, 1927.
More info.: https://russell-j.com/beginner/GOD-01.HTM
* a brief comment
It is often said that humankind has made great progress by acquiring language -- especially written language. The ability to use language is certainly a major advantage, but at the same time, there is a danger that we ourselves may be manipulated by language. When we accept the conceptual frameworks that language presents to us without question, we often end up following the "patterns of thought" that language creates, rather than seeing reality as it truly is.
For example, expressions such as "everything has a cause" or "every event must have a beginning" sound plausible at first glance. Yet it is far from certain that such formulations accurately reflect the real structure of the world.
Cosmology provides a typical case. The idea that the universe began with the Big Bang is the standard view today, but we still have no definitive answer to what, if anything, existed "before" the beginning -- indeed, it remains unclear whether the very notion of "before" can meaningfully apply. Inflation, the extremely rapid expansion said to have occurred shortly after the Big Bang, is also a leading theory, but the kind of energy state from which it arose is still unknown. Moreover, because a unified physical theory has yet to be established, we cannot say with precision how the relation expressed in E = mc2 (read: "E equals m c squared") applies in this domain. In short, the images we naturally form from words such as "beginning" or "cause" do not necessarily correspond to the actual structure of the universe.
This danger -- of having our thinking guided by linguistic forms -- appears not only in science but also in everyday life. In political contexts in particular, the stronger and more forceful the wording, the more likely it is to be accepted without careful scrutiny.
Consider, for example:
"Once you decide to do something, you must see it through without giving up midway." (An implicit message of duty and compulsion)
Komeito: "When we say we'll do something, we'll carry it through!" (same implication)
Prime Minister Takaichi: "I will work, and work, and work relentlessly!" (an "absolute command" stripped of purpose, necessity, or limiting conditions)
Sanseito:"Japan First!" (a binary opposition of "Japanese vs. non-Japanese")
These slogans leave a strong impression because of their sound, yet they present absolute imperatives and simplistic oppositions while omitting any explanation of what is to be done, why, or under what conditions. The "resonance" created by the language draws our thinking along with it, and examination of substance or validity is pushed aside.
Ultimately, language grants us rich possibilities for thought, but it also has the power to narrow our thinking. For that very reason, we must constantly remain aware of how language itself slices up reality and imposes certain frameworks upon us.
 ラッセル関係電子書籍一覧 |
ラッセル関係電子書籍一覧
#Bertrand_Russell