Praise science!

[jxavier]

You call ceasing to exist beautiful? Are you on crack?

Some of us would like to keep our consciousnesses intact thank you very much.

If we simply wink out of existence while our bodies rot in the ground, what would be the purpose of bettering ourselves dude?

With nothing to hope for we'd have no reason to be better persons and would have EVER REASON to misbehave and cause pain and suffering to those who don't deserve it (because since your not going to exist after death it doesn't matter what you do in life).

I feel you people who believe in simply ceasing to exist after rigor mortis are treading a dangerous line of justified immorality.

So let me get this straight... I think life after death is true objectivity, which you finally become part of the universe free of bias, of perspective, of everything negative and positive... and NOT a magical fairy tale where everything happy comes full circle created by weak, frail minded human beings riddled with fear.... and you think i'm on crack?

The fact that I only have THIS life.... the fact that the only chance at consciousness I'll get is right now, on this earth, makes me want to be the best person I can possibly be. In fact, because I don't think there is ANYTHING after death, I don't really think about living on earth as a "means to an end" kinda thing... I just think about my life... my trials, my roadblocks, my friends, my family, the people I love. Hope isn't a bad thing, I can hope that I get a career I want or that I'll find true love... but its logical fallacy to think that because I don't believe in life after death that I think hope is just futile and wrong and stupid.

I hear this argument all the time... "why should we be good if there are no rewards after death?"

Because we're not fucking psychopaths! Because we have things like emotions! Our brain has emotions that make us hurt, that make us cry, make us love, make us angry, make us happy... these would still be working no matter WHAT happens after death. Its how the mind works. its how we work. I sure don't believe in anything after death and I try to better myself every day, while at the same time trying my best to make the people around me happy. I consider myself a good person, or at least trying to be one. In fact, I don't know a SINGLE PERSON who is a lethargic or psychopathic mess because they don't believe in life after death. They're all good people, all trying to make this world a better place.

Its the people who think that this life is just a trial for the next one that worries me. Those are the people that become suicide bombers, who protest funerals of soldiers, who start wars. Look what their hope did to them.

 

[PurpleStyle]

Life without hope is no life to live whatsoever.



Death is a part of LIFE. It's part of the truth of our existence. It's only natural for people to want to HOPE for some kind of EXISTENCE after death in which we see old friends and family members that have gone past the veil before us.



Your forgetting that our beliefs FUEL OUR ACTIONS. Our own personal truths define who we are.

Way to completely ignore everything I said. Just how vacuous are you? :rolleyes

 

[Smoten]

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to life after death. You either believe in it or you don't. I'm of the personal belief that people will go to where ever they believe they will go when they die. We have no way of knowing until we get there, so why worry about it? People have the right to believe in what they believe in or whatever helps them get by. Whether you believe you'll eventually be just another rotting corpse in the ground for all eternity or you think you'll be reincarnated as a three-toed sloth in your next life time, you have the right to believe so.

Personally, I believe in life after death. If you don't, that's cool, I can understand it's just not your style.

 

[likeasong1]

So let me get this straight... I think life after death is true objectivity, which you finally become part of the universe free of bias, of perspective, of everything negative and positive... and NOT a magical fairy tale where everything happy comes full circle created by weak, frail minded human beings riddled with fear.... and you think i'm on crack?

What good is being one with the universe in the manner you describe without the consciousness to enjoy it? I think that's what Rox was getting at.

I don't believe having faith automatically puts me at odds with science. I enjoy science and find certain fields such as astronomy and Newtonian physics fascinating. Chemistry too.

What gets my goat is when people treat the big philosophical questions like "What is the meaning of life?" and such as irrelevant, frivolous, or even wrong questions to ask. When the human elements such as the thirst for justice or beauty, the love of music, or even the broader concept of love itself as pointless or think biology explains it all, that bothers me, because it closemindedly dismisses a huge facet of who we are. Biology gives a partial explanation, but not a full one. I don't think there's a need to do without either science or spirituality.

For myself, I enjoy life far too much to be atheist.

I don't come by here or post often enough to get involved in lengthy discussion, so I cannot promise replies to any rebuttal or issue you take with my post. Mash and I have discussed (read: beaten to death) this topic long ago. My opinions are on record here. I love God, and I love science. That does not make me a walking contradiction in terms or an outright hypocrite.

Thank you very much.

 

[jxavier]

If you can "enjoy it", its not true objectivity by definition.

The thirst for justice is altruism, its an evolutionary adaptation for the good of the species (and personally, I think the other things you mentioned are in the same category). Why should anything be any less beautiful if they become scientific theories?

The universe began over 13 billion years ago. Our sun is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the universe, and earth is even less. Life is a crazy, random accident that happened to occur. Think of all the failed experiments that life has had in other places of the universe. Think of the vast, empty space, the APPALLING passage of time, and innumerable failures of life to arise and sustain itself. We, for this short time, succeeded.

And a by-product of that success is all those things that we love. That music, the art, the people we love, those are just all products of the natural universe. Everything we do makes us part of reality, of nature, of existence. Its all real, its all here, and its all working.

Science isn't despondent of emotion or separate from beauty. All that stuff I just described... science seeks to understand it. Why should anything, given the context of our existence, be off-limits to understanding? When you decide to leave your house by the front door instead of the upstairs window... thats science. Science is our process for understanding this universe... why do people think it reduces the beauty of things to have it quantified? They were always quantifiable to begin with. Thats just nature. Nature is nature and facts are facts, and they will never change. All science does is make it understandable to human beings.

I'm kinda talking in circles, but I am very tired and DROWNING in homework. I love all of you!

 

[likeasong1]

If you can "enjoy it", its not true objectivity by definition.

I disagree, but I understand where you're coming from. I think the onuses of this life prevent a co-existence of objectivity and enjoyment. A minor example, you can like the color green at a certain electromagnetic frequency. That is objectively what it is, but you can still like/enjoy it. Something like that, but on a much larger scale.

The thirst for justice is altruism, its an evolutionary adaptation for the good of the species (and personally, I think the other things you mentioned are in the same category). Why should anything be any less beautiful if they become scientific theories?

It doesn't unless the purpose for finding out the science is to quell the beauty of it. Also, that's an evolutionary adaptation that took an incredible left turn somewhere to become something vastly different.

And a by-product of that success is all those things that we love. That music, the art, the people we love, those are just all products of the natural universe. Everything we do makes us part of reality, of nature, of existence. Its all real, its all here, and its all working.

But science doesn't explain all of it. Not every facet of it.

Science isn't despondent of emotion or separate from beauty.

Science is at its truest when it's as objective as possible. Per what you said, emotion or beauty in it compromises that objectivity. By your definition, science is at its best when it is despondent or separate. I disagree with that idea, but that seemed to be what you were saying.

why do people think it reduces the beauty of things to have it quantified?

I think that's because it takes a conscious effort to quantify those things, which has a dangerous tendency to become a matter of losing the forest for the trees. It doesn't always happen that way, and we can marvel in it to a degree, like the unbelievable number of atoms it takes to even have a mole, or the way in which a sculptor can carve so many sculptures of humans and no two are actually alike. But sometimes, people do it for the express purpose of being a buzzkill.

I'm kinda talking in circles, but I am very tired and DROWNING in homework. I love all of you!

Good luck with your homework!

 

[tklmaestro]

Death is a part of LIFE. It's part of the truth of our existence. It's only natural for people to want to HOPE for some kind of EXISTENCE after death in which we see old friends and family members that have gone past the veil before us..

Hi Rox, In your opinion what is the truth of our existence and what is your view of our existence after Physical death?...I just want to know, it sounds like you are a seeker like I am. 🙂

 

[jxavier]

When did that evolutionary adaptation take a left turn? How did it? What is it now? How can we possibly transcend the laws of nature and the laws of evolution?

Its very difficult to speak about the momentum of human progress and human nature in general because we're BIASED. We're speaking about ourselves, and the only things to compare it to our other humans, and other species. When we look at other species, we see the laws of nature and evolution acting in full force. But when we look at ourselves, its different. Why?

Because its not. Our brains, the electrical impulses that power them, are all products of evolution. The chemical reactions that give us all of those crazy emotions are still real. Sex still feels good even though I know the chemistry behind it. That doesn't change anything.

I can appreciate the true beauty of science, and even get emotional over it. As long as it doesn't change my actual process, then I can remain objective at the same time. If I'm marveling over ancient phytoliths found in a sediment analysis, it doesn't change my data. It doesn't change the facts. The only thing that is happening, is that I'm appreciating the wonders of the universe. That is just an appreciation of science. Science is human. It is mankinds way of knowing. Reverence doesn't change facts.

If someone is using science with the intention of ruining beauty, then they are an asshole. The purpose of science is not, and never will be to quell beauty and silence appreciation. It will only, ever be to understand the world. What happens around that isn't any of sciences fault or business. The buzzkill people aren't ruining the integrity of the scientific process anymore than a sociopath is ruining the integrity of my emotions (and if he is, then that means I probably have a personal problem). That is their issue.

Nature is nature. Facts are facts. Love is whatever the hell you think it is, but for me, its what I feel for all of you 🙂

I love debating, by the way. Thank you for giving me the opportunity for some mental masturbation.

 

[likeasong1]

When did that evolutionary adaptation take a left turn? How did it? What is it now? How can we possibly transcend the laws of nature and the laws of evolution?

The concepts of justice seem very different from what evolution would say, for example, when we place laws against self-destructive behavior. I believe you can be prosecuted for attempting suicide, if you fail. I don't think it's ever really pursued, but evolution would say it's the dismissal of the weakest of the species. Drug usage could be argued as being in line of evolution when it endangers other people, but for the most part, the despicable aspect of it is against the usage of the narcotic itself. Again, survival of fittest, all others cast off. Let them die, evolution would say. Also, evolution would say that vehicular manslaughter would be worse than, say, child molestation or even domestic abuse. But in our society, those two are considered the bottom of the barrel, even in the prison social system.

I don't know that we can so much transcend evolution law, at least not by ourselves; however, in the book Ishmael, the ape Ishmael suggests that humans have stunted our own evolution with our technological/industrial lifestyle. We are manipulating evolutionary law. HGH, anyone?

Its very difficult to speak about the momentum of human progress and human nature in general because we're BIASED. We're speaking about ourselves, and the only things to compare it to our other humans, and other species. When we look at other species, we see the laws of nature and evolution acting in full force. But when we look at ourselves, its different. Why?

Because we're biased. And this goes way beyond mere comparison to other species. When people praise science, it's not so much actual science, but the human's ability to understand and master scientific concepts. It's our own egoism again.

I love debating, by the way. Thank you for giving me the opportunity for some mental masturbation.

You're welcome. As do I.

 

[jxavier]

First thing... evolution is not necessarily survival of the "biggest and strongest". Evolution is just survival of "most likely to reproduce". Sometimes that entails the biggest and strongest, but other times it doesn't. When viewing it in this caliber, then our legality system surrounding failed suicide attempts are kinda... irrelevant to the natural selection theory.

And, it is argued (very well I might add) that drug usage is just another aspect of evolution, as drugs are sought for by minds that are prone for more evolutionarily novel ideas, pushing the envelope, if you will. Which, anyone who has studied evolution knows, is what pushes the success of the species (remember, success isn't who is stronger or faster, its who reproduces the most).

You do have a point about the vehicular manslaughter comment though. Since survival of the fittest is whoever reproduces the most, then rape would actually be "not so bad of a thing" if we based our societal views on a darwinian perspective. However, I don't think this voids my point...

Our (the reasonable public) perspective on rape is linked to our emotional connections with each other, which is linked to our societies structure, which is linked to altruism, which I believe became absolutely necessary to survive as early hominins. Or... maybe its not that linear...

I like to think of evolution like this... imagine a straight line. Then, imagine you trying to copy that straight line just free hand. Then, imagine someone else copying the line you drew, then someone else copying the line THEY drew, and so on until the line (or lines) that is drawn is so far away from the original that its hardly recognizable. Now, each "mistake" made to copy the original is essentially a random occurrence. We can think of those as natural disasters and things like that. So I guess my point is... for why we are the way we are... its an ACCIDENT 🙂
Well... part accident, part useful adaptation. But thats also the case for every single species. I bet, if I thought hard enough (which I don't want to do) I could find PLENTY of examples of animal species exhibiting traits that counteracted the law of evolution. Thats because, however, thats how evolution works. Not everything has to make sense. Mutations are random.
Thats why it appears we go against the grain. And it appears that we REALLY REALLY REALLY go against the grain, because there are a shit load of us. But thats because of agriculture ten thousand years ago (as I'm sure you remember the "mice in the cage" analogy made by Ishmael... by the way, read "The Story of B". Its amazing).

Alright... I've said too much. I'm eager to hear your response friend.

 

[likeasong1]

First thing... evolution is not necessarily survival of the "biggest and strongest". Evolution is just survival of "most likely to reproduce". Sometimes that entails the biggest and strongest, but other times it doesn't. When viewing it in this caliber, then our legality system surrounding failed suicide attempts are kinda... irrelevant to the natural selection theory.

Why?

And, it is argued (very well I might add) that drug usage is just another aspect of evolution, as drugs are sought for by minds that are prone for more evolutionarily novel ideas, pushing the envelope, if you will. Which, anyone who has studied evolution knows, is what pushes the success of the species (remember, success isn't who is stronger or faster, its who reproduces the most).

I don't agree with this at all. Keeping in line with this argument would justify drug-rave parties, since the altered state induced by the narcotics are certainly more likely to get us laid, but depending upon the effects of the drugs on the users' bodies, it can damage the reproductive system, if it's about survival of those most likely to reproduce, as you suggest. Also, it completely ignores the fact that sex for humans is more often recreational than procreational. Now, I'm aware that humans are not the only species that do engage in recreational sex, but I think that some distinction needs to be made between those most likely to reproduce, and those most likely to just fuck.

Also, by your suggestion, abortion would be not at all legal under a purely evolutionary sense since it's about being reproductive, and multiple abortions can damage a woman's uterus. Also contraception is against our evolutionary construct entirely.

You do have a point about the vehicular manslaughter comment though. Since survival of the fittest is whoever reproduces the most, then rape would actually be "not so bad of a thing" if we based our societal views on a darwinian perspective. However, I don't think this voids my point...

Our (the reasonable public) perspective on rape is linked to our emotional connections with each other, which is linked to our societies structure, which is linked to altruism, which I believe became absolutely necessary to survive as early hominins. Or... maybe its not that linear...

I would think evolution wouldn't care so much about actual emotional connections all that much. Certainly not to the degree that we have mental anguish compensations in court (be they based on actual medical, psychiatric treament or just plain punitive damages). Evolution doesn't really give two hoots about our cognitive abilities, beyond our ability to adapt to an environment, which goes back to what I said about the book Ishmael.

I like to think of evolution like this... imagine a straight line. Then, imagine you trying to copy that straight line just free hand. Then, imagine someone else copying the line you drew, then someone else copying the line THEY drew, and so on until the line (or lines) that is drawn is so far away from the original that its hardly recognizable. Now, each "mistake" made to copy the original is essentially a random occurrence. We can think of those as natural disasters and things like that. So I guess my point is... for why we are the way we are... its an ACCIDENT 🙂
Well... part accident, part useful adaptation. But thats also the case for every single species. I bet, if I thought hard enough (which I don't want to do) I could find PLENTY of examples of animal species exhibiting traits that counteracted the law of evolution. Thats because, however, thats how evolution works. Not everything has to make sense. Mutations are random.
Thats why it appears we go against the grain. And it appears that we REALLY REALLY REALLY go against the grain, because there are a shit load of us. But thats because of agriculture ten thousand years ago (as I'm sure you remember the "mice in the cage" analogy made by Ishmael... by the way, read "The Story of B". Its amazing).

It's a good analogy, but I don't think everything in it quite holds true. Mainly what doesn't ring true for me is the whole Accident thing. All facets of science combined, the possibility of accidents just doesn't exist. One might say that the notion of "accidents" is also a human altruism of sorts. Pure science (or sciencism) just doesn't allow for that. (Also, it only supports my personal belief that scientific law isn't even as binding a force upon the universe as Murphy's law. :lol: )

 

[jxavier]

Well... no. Haha.
Evolution isn't built into our heads. We're not wired to follow the laws of evolution. We merely just adjust to them as best we can, as "self-aware" beings. Its like building an airplane, you have to take multiple laws into account.
I suppose its getting slightly difficult to follow what you're saying... contraception is kinda... counter-evolution, but I don't know what purpose that serves for your argument (by the way, the definition I have earlier of evolution, when I said that "fittest" refers to "most likely to reproduce"... thats not MY definition. That is just... THE definition. Thats how it works. Thats what scientists have agreed upon).

A species doesn't have to live their own lives according to how it works, but something like evolution will still work, no matter how much we go against the grain. To use the airplane analogy again, just because we can fly doesn't mean we "beat" gravity, or that gravity doesn't apply to us anymore. We just understand gravity enough to be able to use it to our advantage. Gravity is still working when an airplane is flying, when a helium filled balloon is let go... if there was no gravity, the behavior of the balloon would be COMPLETELY different.

And I am HIGHLY grateful we weren't taking evolutionary laws into account when we made laws for our society, because it would be a TERRIFYING place to live.

I don't think I said evolution cares about our cognitive abilities, and if I did, then I didn't mean it. However, we wouldn't have our cognitive abilities without evolution. Thats what I was saying. That is what I have been saying. We, all of our thoughts and behaviors, everything we do, are all products of evolution. We didn't create this pocket of reality that is outside of it. Our species is just another species operating under the "trial and error" principle, just like evolution. And someday, our species is going to see the downside of evolution. And dude...

recreational fucking? Look at our population. Look at our growth, how... exponential it is!
Contraception exists, but like I stated earlier, its just something we thought of. It fits into the category of behaviors that all animals do they don't necessarily work for them in an evolutionary standpoint such as gay whales or suicidal tarsiers. It just appears so different and counter-examplish because there are LOADS of us.

And okay... accident was just an oversimplified way of saying, "lots of things happening to something to cause something else". Don't get smart 🙂

 

[jxavier]

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/ente...ple-do-more-drugs-because-of-evolution/18539/

And in regards to the drug comment... here's a link. Yeah, haha. Too lazy to type it all.

 

[likeasong1]

A species doesn't have to live their own lives according to how it works, but something like evolution will still work, no matter how much we go against the grain. To use the airplane analogy again, just because we can fly doesn't mean we "beat" gravity, or that gravity doesn't apply to us anymore. We just understand gravity enough to be able to use it to our advantage. Gravity is still working when an airplane is flying, when a helium filled balloon is let go... if there was no gravity, the behavior of the balloon would be COMPLETELY different.

And I am HIGHLY grateful we weren't taking evolutionary laws into account when we made laws for our society, because it would be a TERRIFYING place to live.

That all said, there's a huge difference which harms your analogy greatly: our attempts to "use [evolution] to our advantage" has resulted in things like HGH finding its way into our foods via the food chain.

recreational fucking? Look at our population. Look at our growth, how... exponential it is!
Contraception exists, but like I stated earlier, its just something we thought of. It fits into the category of behaviors that all animals do they don't necessarily work for them in an evolutionary standpoint such as gay whales or suicidal tarsiers. It just appears so different and counter-examplish because there are LOADS of us.

Actually the point of that was to say unlike certain other species that come into heat for the express purpose (although not necessarily consciously so) of procreation, that's not the case for humans (and a couple other species). To say that we are trying to propogate the species ignores flat-out what the vast majority of sex is for.

And okay... accident was just an oversimplified way of saying, "lots of things happening to something to cause something else". Don't get smart 🙂

I wasn't trying to be a smart-alec. You hinged a lot of that on "accidents". And if you're going to be absolutely resolute in your dismissal of spirituality (or religiousness, whatever), then there can be no such thing as "accidents" or "random". Everything MUST be explicable. The closest science allows to "accidents" is "latent effects", like a fire giving off smoke and making ashes when you only started it to have heat and light. I say the two are not mutually exclusive, and I live very happily with the idea of a world where God exists and science is still a pretty dominant part of making our daily lives work. Our self-consciousness wasn't an accident, but science doesn't adequately explain it, HOW we evolved to that level. What in our environment was the stimulus that forced the adaptation of higher consciousness levels, that didn't necessitate it in other species? And to write off any questions or ponderings of why (as opposed to how) regarding that sphere of our lives as altruistic or simply the result of chemical reactions at the synaptic level is as oversimplistic as the six-day creation story.

 

[Slaver123]

When we can break down every human reaction on a chemical level, what basis is there to say that a soul exists?

I don't believe that a soul of any sort exists. I find it infinitely more believable that every human emotion, and that in fact our entire personality is defined by the levels of chemicals in our brains. That's also how we define personality disorders; shortages and excesses of certain hormones/chemicals.

We haven't defined for discussion purpose what a "soul" is- how can we begin saying whether it exists or not?

I don't have a working definition for "soul" myself, yet I believe in it. I used to think it was the part that lived on after death, but now there's room enough in my 'beliefs' for the soul to be just as real even if it dies right along with the body. A limited existence is just as real as an immortal existence.

Maybe the "soul" is just a definition- "God" points to an organism (or even an A.I.) and declares "That's a person- so is that, and that, and that" etc. I consider "soul" to be the part that cannot be touched or harmed through physical means- that rules out the mind, cause the mind can be damaged by hurting the brain.

The big mistake is to judge the worth of a Sentient being by the presence or absence of a "soul". Maybe I don't have a soul (or spirit?) at all- it doesn't matter, it's still not right for anyone to commit some horrible atrocity against me just because I'm a 'soulless' primate. If humans never really had "souls" does that mean it was never wrong to own slaves? But that's how many peope justified slavery- Africans were once thought of as almost-animals, less than human (remember your American history- one slave legally counted as 2/3 of a person once!) What if it turns out they were really "soulless" after all- it's still just as wrong to enslave a human being!

 

[jxavier]

Not being necessitated in other species? I feel like you might as well ask why all animals don't have all adaptations that every other animal has. That was just a human adaptation, one that I wouldn't necessarily say was "necessitated", but was sprung (excuse my 'accident implying' language) about the same way any mutation is. If the environment is always changing--and it is (it has to be)--then no single mutation or adaptation is "necessitated", but just an occurrence that thrived because it worked well with the particular environment. I will concede, however, that mankind did grow the potential to thrive in quite a lot of environments around the world, but that just tells me that our particular adaptation let us. And as far as accidents go, it is just my way of saying "cause and effect" (which I had just explained).

And everything IS explicable. Every phenomena that we observe in nature has a mechanism behind it. Laws are guiding everything that happens in the universe, and science is our way of understanding those mechanisms. However, in order for science to exist, in order for us to understand ANYTHING, we must first make a "statement of ignorance", otherwise known as a "question". Before we learn, we must accept that we don't know. This is how we have come to understand everything we now know about the universe. 2000 years ago, we knew such a tiny fraction of what we know now, but they filled the gaps with "god did it". Since we've been learning more, god has seemed to get pushed further and further away. The question of consciousness is just another question. Its just another statement of ignorance we have to make before we can start the arduous process of trying to use science, use our logic-based reasoning to understand it, just like all those other things we didn't know that seemed oh so abstract and metaphysical before. In fact, I've seen a few models of the evolution of consciousness that really.... aren't half bad (i.e. Terrence Mckenna's "Stoned Ape" theory).

With all this in mind, I would argue that it is not overlysimplistic to dismiss the idea of god (something which has been said to be "impossible to prove or disprove" [or even define]) or spirituality (once again... impossible to prove or disprove/define) in our evolution, our creation, or our purpose (which may or may not even exist). To say that the road that led us here is governed by those same rules and laws and natural processes that governs everything else we observe, everyday, literally everywhere, is not only logically sound... but intellectually humble. Adding metaphysical ideas onto a reality which has been nothing but concrete in every other application is, in my opinion, counter-productive.

 

[likeasong1]

Not being necessitated in other species? I feel like you might as well ask why all animals don't have all adaptations that every other animal has.

Which isn't an invalid question either actually.

That was just a human adaptation, one that I wouldn't necessarily say was "necessitated", but was sprung (excuse my 'accident implying' language) about the same way any mutation is. If the environment is always changing--and it is (it has to be)--then no single mutation or adaptation is "necessitated", but just an occurrence that thrived because it worked well with the particular environment. I will concede, however, that mankind did grow the potential to thrive in quite a lot of environments around the world, but that just tells me that our particular adaptation let us. And as far as accidents go, it is just my way of saying "cause and effect" (which I had just explained).

Ok, that's a fair point. Certain mutations thriving because they benefit us. But that still doesn't answer all the questions. Just to use a basic example... the earth is almost 3/4ths water, yet life evolved to live on land. What changes in the environment occurred that allowed lungs and legs to appear?

And everything IS explicable. Every phenomena that we observe in nature has a mechanism behind it. Laws are guiding everything that happens in the universe, and science is our way of understanding those mechanisms. However, in order for science to exist, in order for us to understand ANYTHING, we must first make a "statement of ignorance", otherwise known as a "question". Before we learn, we must accept that we don't know. This is how we have come to understand everything we now know about the universe. 2000 years ago, we knew such a tiny fraction of what we know now, but they filled the gaps with "god did it". Since we've been learning more, god has seemed to get pushed further and further away. The question of consciousness is just another question. Its just another statement of ignorance we have to make before we can start the arduous process of trying to use science, use our logic-based reasoning to understand it, just like all those other things we didn't know that seemed oh so abstract and metaphysical before. In fact, I've seen a few models of the evolution of consciousness that really.... aren't half bad (i.e. Terrence Mckenna's "Stoned Ape" theory).

Not everything is explicable, because not everything has been fully explained. And the study of science didn't begin as a pushing God in the background thing. Quite the opposite. It wasn't until people like Huxley started gaining positions of power in the scientific community that disproving God even became anything close to a priority of science.

With all this in mind, I would argue that it is not overlysimplistic to dismiss the idea of god (something which has been said to be "impossible to prove or disprove" [or even define]) or spirituality (once again... impossible to prove or disprove/define) in our evolution, our creation, or our purpose (which may or may not even exist). To say that the road that led us here is governed by those same rules and laws and natural processes that governs everything else we observe, everyday, literally everywhere, is not only logically sound... but intellectually humble. Adding metaphysical ideas onto a reality which has been nothing but concrete in every other application is, in my opinion, counter-productive.

Except there's too much regarding self-consciousness, higher mental faculties, etc. to simply say evolution. Not too mention the potential weaknesses that lie in theories like m-theory. God can't be ruled out completely.

 

[jxavier]

Well, the answer to that question is environment. Life spread into different parts of the world, certain mutations caused certain species to live while others died off.

As far as the "ocean" question goes... I gotta say, I don't have all the answers man haha. But that doesn't mean there isn't one. The theory of evolution is worked out very well, and most of the supposed "holes" are just misunderstandings of what the scientists were saying. You're going to have to research that question yourself (DON'T go to answersingenesis.com), and I'll also do some reasearch too. And if there ISN'T an answer yet... all that means is that no one has come up with one yet. It doesn't mean there isn't a reasonable, logical answer thats consistent with other things in nature. Which brings me to my next point...

I'm thinking of "explicable" as, "things that CAN be explained". Not, "things that are explained". All we've seen in human history is the prevalence of science over superstition. Never, once, have we ever seen science as an unsatisfactory way of understanding the mechanisms of the universe, nor can you really "disprove" science. You can disprove scientific theories, but you can only do that with more science. A scientific theory has never been disproven by anything besides another scientific theory.

And they may not have been "the goal" of science, but that's what happened, nonetheless. From Gallileo to Isaac Newton, from Copernicus to Stephen Hawking, we've seen scientific theories directly contradict belief systems (and I know that Isaac Newton was religious, but his theories DID shed light on phenomena that was previously supposed to have been gods doing).

And to the last thing... why? Why is there "too much regarding self consciousness.... to simply say evolution"? Because its novel, unheard of, and distinct from all other species? Isn't that... EXACTLY what a mutation is? Isn't that exactly how a species thrives over another species in a particular environment? And why add the "simply" in front of it? Evolution is such a broad, beautiful, all-encompassing theory. It drives life... ALL life. Things don't live without it. I'm sure there is so much we still don't know about it, and everything it is capable of. Why should, based on nothing but our (very flawed) intuition, think that anything BUT evolution made us? Like i said awhile ago... a lot of what is keeping us from accepting the fact that we are just another species governed by the same laws... i.e. all our behavior and thoughts ARE just chemicals... is because we're biased. We are us. It may just appear that we're free, special, brilliant, all the like. But all we have to compare it to are other animals that we find. We can't really compare our so called "enlightenment" to other species with a higher consciousness, because, for now, we're it. And if, in the future, evolution takes consciousness even further, then doesn't that just prove my point?

And let me add something to "God can't be ruled out completely"... why have him there in the first place? It seems the biggest argument for gods existence is that he stands outside the human capacity to reason. God is part of a reality that can't be comprehended by human logic, and all that good stuff. But... what can't? If life were a matrix computer and all of our realities were just simulations, wouldn't the ACTUAL reality stand outside of our human cognition? And although there's no way to prove thats true... well... you also can't DISPROVE it. If you can't rule out god completely based on the fact that there are some things that we can't explain, for now, then you can't rule out, literally, an infinite number of possibilities of other realities. Of course, you can use people's "personal experiences" with god as a rebuttal to my claim, but what about peoples "personal experiences" with allah? Or krishna? or vishnu, or the great spirit, or with the matrix computer system, or the alien beings that are controlling our thoughts, or the paranoid schizophrenics delusions, or any of those emotional based responses? If most of those can be lumped into a category of "human tendency to see patterns where there are none", then what gives anybodies religion or spirituality REAL, ACTUAL, LEGITIMATE justification over another? Why do we HAVE to turn to god when there are unknowns? And if we do... why do we have to turn to the christian god? or the muslim god? or the native american god? or any god for that matter?

 

[likeasong1]

As far as the "ocean" question goes... I gotta say, I don't have all the answers man haha. But that doesn't mean there isn't one. The theory of evolution is worked out very well, and most of the supposed "holes" are just misunderstandings of what the scientists were saying. You're going to have to research that question yourself (DON'T go to answersingenesis.com), and I'll also do some reasearch too. And if there ISN'T an answer yet... all that means is that no one has come up with one yet. It doesn't mean there isn't a reasonable, logical answer thats consistent with other things in nature. Which brings me to my next point...

That is the point though. If there isn't a scientific explanation that we've discovered yet, you can't rule out God completely, and that's because the boast of science has become "we can uncover all." The statement "we'll find the answer eventually" or anything similar to that that points towards future learnings are, much like with religion, statements of faith. You're putting faith in science, and perhaps even moreso, humanity's ability to understand all of it. But it's still a faith of sorts, and not actual science.

And they may not have been "the goal" of science, but that's what happened, nonetheless. From Gallileo to Isaac Newton, from Copernicus to Stephen Hawking, we've seen scientific theories directly contradict belief systems (and I know that Isaac Newton was religious, but his theories DID shed light on phenomena that was previously supposed to have been gods doing).

And yet they don't disprove God, only man's understanding of Him. And like you said, Newton being religious, there have been and still are an abundance of scientists who are religious. I brought this up last time, too, but the Farraday Institute.

And to the last thing... why? Why is there "too much regarding self consciousness.... to simply say evolution"? Because its novel, unheard of, and distinct from all other species? Isn't that... EXACTLY what a mutation is? Isn't that exactly how a species thrives over another species in a particular environment? And why add the "simply" in front of it? Evolution is such a broad, beautiful, all-encompassing theory. It drives life... ALL life. Things don't live without it. I'm sure there is so much we still don't know about it, and everything it is capable of. Why should, based on nothing but our (very flawed) intuition, think that anything BUT evolution made us? Like i said awhile ago... a lot of what is keeping us from accepting the fact that we are just another species governed by the same laws... i.e. all our behavior and thoughts ARE just chemicals... is because we're biased. We are us. It may just appear that we're free, special, brilliant, all the like. But all we have to compare it to are other animals that we find. We can't really compare our so called "enlightenment" to other species with a higher consciousness, because, for now, we're it. And if, in the future, evolution takes consciousness even further, then doesn't that just prove my point?

Because self-consciousness goes waaaaay beyond the propogation of the species and survival of the individual. Art, music, language, etc. go so much further beyond what evolution would ordinarily dictate as necessary for those two goals--beyond desirable traits, primitive mating calls, and herd communication. And you yourself said evolution doesn't care much about our mental being, so that kind of goes against your idea that evolution would take consciousness further.

And let me add something to "God can't be ruled out completely"... why have him there in the first place?

False premise. The debate of His existence was in the picture long before you or I got here. We landed among it.

It seems the biggest argument for gods existence is that he stands outside the human capacity to reason. God is part of a reality that can't be comprehended by human logic, and all that good stuff. But... what can't? If life were a matrix computer and all of our realities were just simulations, wouldn't the ACTUAL reality stand outside of our human cognition?

And that's exactly where people whose "religion" is science have issue. Again, it's not enough to say there's a scientific explanation, the explanation must be discovered. And thus it becomes that it's not so much faith in science as it is a faith in mankind's abilities to figure it all out. You could even argue it's based on power, the power of man over the universe and its destiny. And that's a very 21st century analogy for what Plato would have suggested, and what C.S. Lewis even hinted at.

And although there's no way to prove thats true... well... you also can't DISPROVE it. If you can't rule out god completely based on the fact that there are some things that we can't explain, for now, then you can't rule out, literally, an infinite number of possibilities of other realities. Of course, you can use people's "personal experiences" with god as a rebuttal to my claim, but what about peoples "personal experiences" with allah? Or krishna? or vishnu, or the great spirit, or with the matrix computer system, or the alien beings that are controlling our thoughts, or the paranoid schizophrenics delusions, or any of those emotional based responses? If most of those can be lumped into a category of "human tendency to see patterns where there are none", then what gives anybodies religion or spirituality REAL, ACTUAL, LEGITIMATE justification over another? Why do we HAVE to turn to god when there are unknowns? And if we do... why do we have to turn to the christian god? or the muslim god? or the native american god? or any god for that matter?

Strawman. While I have been saying God, I didn't outright say the Christian God, though that is the one I believe in. But you can substitute any other deity believed in and you come to the same impasse, except for those deities created specifically to be subservient to science.

And that all actually strays a bit far from where we started. I think I came in when I was picking up where Rox (who I don't believe is Christian, but apparently has a spiritual side too, do you take issue with her being spiritual too, then?) took issue with your concept of oneness after death. I guess she's asking, you find greater comfort in the thought of being worm chow and nothing more, than the thought of a separation of consciousness (spirit, soul, katra, whatever you wish to call it) continuing to place without pain and suffering.

As for me, I'll say it again: science and faith are not de facto mutually exclusive. There's too much evidence of that in our everyday life here on earth to conclude that.