Bill Pahl investigates:
Are we (human beings) central or not central (to the whole scheme of existence)?
Ideas
Scientists more often than not do not find humanity as central to the universe.
(Florian: Is this due to the fact, that "Sinn" purpose, meaning, "Wesen" being is excluded from scientific elaboration?)
Religious thinkers almost exclusively find humanity central to the universe. (Is this due to the fact, that "Sin" purpose, meaning, "Wesen" being is the core of spirituality?)
Typical statement: “Nature and the environment can do wonderfully well without us, but we cannot do without them.”
The difference is the deep dichotomy between rational truths and truths of faith, which has not been bridged since scholasticism.
Rudolf Steiner's aim in developing anthroposophy was to build a bridge between the natural sciences and the humanities, without having to abandon the certainty gained in the natural sciences in matters of the humanities.
Faith is not there to fill gaps in knowledge, but to move mountains.
Arguments for Centrality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle Claims that there are too much coincidences in a row that led to the status of the planet as home for human beings
Arguments against Centrality
Anthropic arrogance Claims that the Universe is designed for humans raise far more troubling questions than they can possibly answer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene Claims that we simply are a sophisticated machine and that genes are built for themselves to survive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Blue_Dot Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.
Arguments to Understand
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/27/technology-myth-of-human-centrality
Conclusions
People decide this question based on limited information, religion and scientific proof. The answer to this question for most people depends on this. People with limited information tend to see their centrality as primary. People are religious also tend to see their centrality as primary. People who rely on or use scientific methods do not see the human as central.
Related questions
How do you determine centrality?
- Is it possible to determine whether humans are central?
- Is the answer simply one way or the other? or is it more complicated?
- What do we mean by centrality?
- What do we mean by humans?
Is there life elsewhere in the universe?
Is there cognizance elsewhere in the universe?
What is the nature of being human?
- Is being human a privilege (the crown of creation, who subdues the Earth)?
- Is being human a responsibility?
Is it possible to separate human and Earth?
- If it is possible to separate them...
- Can humans live away from Earth, notably, in outer space?
- Could the Earth have developed further without humans arising there? What would those states look like?
- If it is not possible to separate them (everything on Earth is connected and mutually dependent)
- Does the Earth, with all the creatures it produces and sustains, have a mission in God's cosmic plan?
- What part of the mission is the human being to fulfill?
- What would be the consequences if the human part were not contributed?
- What part of the mission is the human being to fulfill?
- Does the Earth, with all the creatures it produces and sustains, have a mission in God's cosmic plan?
Sources