The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Sorry if I restate anybody's arguments, but I've already read 5 pages of ignorant bullshit and couldn't stand to read any more without having my say.
First off, while science has enabled us to harm the environment, it's the nature of all living things, not just humans, to want to expend as little effort as possible to get the most benefit. There a plenty of people who know that it isn't wise to harm the environment, but there are many more people who are either completely ignorant or don't care. We could easily use science to only do the right thing, but human emotions can make us act in illogical ways.
So, basically, science isn't some awful thing that's causing us to harm living things. The nature of living things is to try and live as comfortably as possible. Humans aren't unique in this; we're simply the species with the best capability to carry out our desires. I am 100% certain that any other possible intelligent species would act in the exact same way we have. It really wouldn't even have to be an intelligent species; any species that became dominant would continue to act in its own self-interest, and those species that aren't intelligent wouldn't have any ability to recognize what its done.
If you decry both science and religion, why are you acting as if the environment is some sort of thing that we should live in harmony with? Nature is cruel, and I don't think we should have to live in suffering. That includes suffering that humanity inflicts upon itself. Instead of returning back to basics, we should put safeguards and regulations into place that force humanity as a whole to do what is in its best interest for the long term.
Why should we go back to a primitive society when life is much more difficult and suffering more pervasive? Why should we allow all those precious animals to suffer that way? Wouldn't it be better to inflict some kind of global euthanasia to end all suffering on Earth? No one and no thing would have to suffer ever again, and the Earth could carry on for the rest of its existence without pesky living things bothering it.
Hexmage-PA on
0
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
[Wouldn't it be objectively [/] true though that murder is wrong within a society like the United States though, or most if not all other societies?
I don't know how you are using the terms "objectively," "true," or "wrong."
You're gonna have to expand on this for me to see your point, if there is one besides semantics. We have definitions for these words, I use words according to what they mean.
Now you're just being evasive, unless you really think that they only have one meaning. I could see your statement being interpreted in the following way
1) All societies have morals, and since many people believe them, they are sociological facts.
2) Since people interact with society, and societies are built on cultural traditions, which themselves are built upon certain historical propositions, of which comprise morals, people interact with morals.
3) There are laws which forbid murder, and thus murder is always transgression of the law.
4) Societies have ideals, and morals are ideals; people, generally, have the same ideals as their society; thus, people within a society share morals.
in addition to many others.
Not being evasive really, on purpose at least.
Something along the lines of 1) and 3) is what I was thinking about.
Then let me get the pissy comment out of the way first: since you can't even articulate what you mean, and since you say that it is something between 1) and 3), which to my mind are both wildly different and speak of very different areas of interest, I suggest that you don't say that you "use words according to what they mean."
Ok, there we go
let me tackle 3 first. A law forbids one from acting in a certain way. It is restrictive. "If you commit X, you will be punished. It is not exhortatory. The Law does not say the way one should act -- rather, it says that certain actions are restricted, and will warrant punishment if one commits the acts. Laws are often formulated upon the morals that a society holds, but that does not prove the existence of morals, nor does acting in accordance with the law make one moral. Morals are exhortatory -- they tell a person how they ought act. That murder is itself morally wrong is not because people have a right to life nor because it is gives pain the loved ones of the murdered, but because there is a hortatory moral commandment "thou ought not kill" which constitutes the fabric of the natural law of the universe or whatever enlightenment metaphor you want to adhere to.
and as for one -- if many societies believe in morals and that makes the morals themselves objectively true, does that make the existence of god true, since many societies believe in him?
So, poldy, are you trying to argue that Honk's statement is somehow untrue? If so, what is your arguements that it is somehow not true? Otherwise... I am so confused what you two are trying to accomplish.
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited June 2009
I should have been faster to edit my post into something less stupid, I'm sorry for that. I can agree pretty much with what Qingu said, it's along the lines of how I've been thinking about this. You do have good points about the subject and I'm beginning to understand the statement 'Atheists who say they have moral are hypocrites', which was what I was curious about in the first place. As for a rebuttal to your points, I don't have one. I'd be happy to use a term other than 'moral' to describe myself.
Honk on
PSN: Honkalot
0
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
So, poldy, are you trying to argue that Honk's statement is somehow untrue? If so, what is your arguements that it is somehow not true? Otherwise... I am so confused what you two are trying to accomplish.
are you arguing that because there is no big father in the sky, that all life is meaningless, that morality and ethics and principle all derive from God, and without God there is no such thing as morality or ethics or principle?
help me out here i don't really understand what you guys are saying
The bolded part yes, the underlined part, hell no.
Life IS meaningless. Without a divine creator to instill some kind of purpose in it, what you have is random chemical reactions and random mutations giving up what we today call life. The fact that it exists is through pure random chance, and serves no purpose other than to continue its own existance as long as it can.
As for morality/ethics, though, I think that you can have those based on a variety of things OTHER THAN a god. The simplest is simple projection: do not so to other people things that you do not what other people to do to you. Ultimately these morals are futile, maybe, but that is no different from anything else in the rest of reality.
So what you're saying is that you're stupid* and like to be stupid
have I summed things up
*well perhaps the technical term is 'nihilistic'
I think it's funny how many atheists look down on nihilism.
It's like, they're willing to accept that there is no larger purpose for the worse, but they still refuse to follow that through to its logical conclusion.
What, that we should go back to a hunter-gatherer society?
No, of course not.
That, too, would be entirely worthless.
It just amuses me how many people refuse to recognize the ultimate futility of reality. I see so many atheists so fervently fighting to "save" people, an I just don't understand what they are trying to save them from. We're all ultimately doomed to the same fate of non-existence no matter what we believe.
Yeah, why would we bother wanting the short time we have here to be fucking pleasant? Hey, if we're doomed to nothingness anyway, maybe we should turn this into hell on earth? That's your "logical" conclusion?
What's pleasant for you may not be for others.
Maybe for some one else they find it pleasant to believe that god exists.
So what if they are wrong? They like thinking that, and it is ultimately irrelevant what they think, so why put so much effort in trying to correct them?
are you arguing that because there is no big father in the sky, that all life is meaningless, that morality and ethics and principle all derive from God, and without God there is no such thing as morality or ethics or principle?
help me out here i don't really understand what you guys are saying
The bolded part yes, the underlined part, hell no.
Life IS meaningless. Without a divine creator to instill some kind of purpose in it, what you have is random chemical reactions and random mutations giving up what we today call life. The fact that it exists is through pure random chance, and serves no purpose other than to continue its own existance as long as it can.
As for morality/ethics, though, I think that you can have those based on a variety of things OTHER THAN a god. The simplest is simple projection: do not so to other people things that you do not what other people to do to you. Ultimately these morals are futile, maybe, but that is no different from anything else in the rest of reality.
existence is reason enough for me. the fascination of having this infinitively small time span compared to infinity, to be a person, feel, love, wonder.. that is reason "enough".
It's cute how religious people seem to feel the need to try to make atheists feel inferior. I'm an atheist, and I am fascinated with life, its consequences, and its details. I give myself purpose.
Life IS meaningless. Without a divine creator to instill some kind of purpose in it, what you have is random chemical reactions and random mutations giving up what we today call life.
Natural selection isn't random. Randomness is a part of it, but it's fueled by selection.
The fact that it exists is through pure random chance, and serves no purpose other than to continue its own existance as long as it can.
That depends on your interpretation.
Evolution certainly seems like it has a direction to me. Organisms which are better able to recognize patterns in the world survive better. This fact alone leads to the development of things like eyes, nervous systems, and consciousness. Technology is an outgrowth of biological evolution. It is the universe becoming aware of itself.
If you don't think that's beautiful and meaningful and amazing, I don't know what your problem is. I certainly don't understand how a Mesopotamian legend about a sky god molding humans out of clay to work as slaves in his garden provides a better sense of purpose.
Ultimately these morals are futile, maybe, but that is no different from anything else in the rest of reality.
How are morals futile? Without morals, we wouldn't have society. Without society, we wouldn't have computers, spaceships, or art.
Why does a divine creator instill meaning any more then me making an ant farm and telling them what to do would give them such?
it would be able the same ammount of meaning.
If an ant farm just randomly popped in to existance, then it would have less of a purpose than if you bought an ant farm because you liekd watching ants, though.
Why does a divine creator instill meaning any more then me making an ant farm and telling them what to do would give them such?
I think most people feel that things which are created have a purpose, and that things which come about arbitrarily or randomly do not.
Which is quite a leap.
It is entirely possible that if we were created, that we were created just because, or as practice or on a dare, or for a Omnipotent Science Fair entry or any number of possible reasons that do not imbue any meaningful purpose onto us.
Why does a divine creator instill meaning any more then me making an ant farm and telling them what to do would give them such?
it would be able the same ammount of meaning.
If an ant farm just randomly popped in to existance, then it would have less of a purpose than if you bought an ant farm because you liekd watching ants, though.
I think that everything is relative. This is illustrated nicely by ants. A boot coming down on an ant just ended its life, yet from our perspective, that step was just one of many on the way to a movie. The same exact action carried vastly different meanings for the parties involved.
To further the metaphor, lets say that I dump a bucket of water over an ant colony. To me, I just spilled some water, and I'll be doing something else in a few minutes. To those ants, however, I just changed their lives forever. The paths that they created are gone. The tunnels they spent hours digging are flooded. The majority of their population is dead. The same exact action held hugely different consequences for me and for the ants.
This is why I hate religion and science. To me, they both seem like futile attempts to explain things that we cannot grasp in the slightest. Why even try to explain it? Why even try to understand it? Lets say the ants spend years analyzing what exactly happened, creating different belief systems and scientific explanations because of it, and by some miracle they come to the conclusion that someone just spilled some water. What did they accomplish? How do you think they feel, knowing that what they've dedicated their lives to was just an accident? That what they've crafted their existence into is meaningless?
As a side note, I absolutely hate it when people are atheists because "Oh, I don't believe what I can't see." That logic is so flawed. Do you believe that there is a Nile river? Yes? Have you ever seen it? Oh, only pictures? Well, we all know pictures can be fabricated, so how do you know its really there? We all use faith, whether we like it or not.
So, D&D, do I stand alone in my hate for both religion and science? Is there a title for that? Either way, do you agree/disagree with what I've said?
EDIT: I apologize for any incoherency. Its late, just ask and I'll clear anything up if doesn't make sense/isn't explained properly.
I think you are confusing science with philosophy. Science never has been very good at explaining the philisophical "why" and that's not really what the scientific method is designed to do. It's more about figuring out what "is" and how it all works.
Your point as far as philosophy/religion being largely bullshit does have some merit though, as both have relative meaning that vary from individual to individual. Despite that, philosophy is absolutely essential to provide some kind of generally agreed upon "moral structure" for human civilization, unless you want to live in brutal anarchy. What is generally agreed upon is of course relative, and has varied widely through the ages.
Darkchampion3d on
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
Why does a divine creator instill meaning any more then me making an ant farm and telling them what to do would give them such?
I think most people feel that things which are created have a purpose, and that things which come about arbitrarily or randomly do not.
Here's a fun thought experiment: define "creation."
Most artists (and scientists) see creativity as an essentially randomly generated process of selection—that is, closer to "discovery" than the traditional Christian understanding of "creation ex nihilo."
The creative act itself is a sort of evolutionary process.
Life IS meaningless. Without a divine creator to instill some kind of purpose in it, what you have is random chemical reactions and random mutations giving up what we today call life.
Natural selection isn't random. Randomness is a part of it, but it's fueled by selection.
The fact that it exists is through pure random chance, and serves no purpose other than to continue its own existance as long as it can.
That depends on your interpretation.
Evolution certainly seems like it has a direction to me. Organisms which are better able to recognize patterns in the world survive better. This fact alone leads to the development of things like eyes, nervous systems, and consciousness. Technology is an outgrowth of biological evolution. It is the universe becoming aware of itself.
If you don't think that's beautiful and meaningful and amazing, I don't know what your problem is. I certainly don't understand how a Mesopotamian legend about a sky god molding humans out of clay to work as slaves in his garden provides a better sense of purpose.
Ultimately these morals are futile, maybe, but that is no different from anything else in the rest of reality.
How are morals futile? Without morals, we wouldn't have society. Without society, we wouldn't have computers, spaceships, or art.
I think it would be smarter to avoid trying to draw more detailed explanations from people who throw out such sweeping and meaningless statements.
existence is reason enough for me. the fascination of having this infinitively small time span compared to infinity, to be a person, feel, love, wonder.. that is reason "enough"
Why does a divine creator instill meaning any more then me making an ant farm and telling them what to do would give them such?
it would be able the same ammount of meaning.
If an ant farm just randomly popped in to existance, then it would have less of a purpose than if you bought an ant farm because you liekd watching ants, though.
To you maybe
the ants wouldn't give a shit
why do I care what the ants think?
Evander on
0
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Why does a divine creator instill meaning any more then me making an ant farm and telling them what to do would give them such?
I think most people feel that things which are created have a purpose, and that things which come about arbitrarily or randomly do not.
Here's a fun thought experiment: define "creation."
Most artists (and scientists) see creativity as an essentially randomly generated process of selection—that is, closer to "discovery" than the traditional Christian understanding of "creation ex nihilo."
The creative act itself is a sort of evolutionary process.
i think the "creation = meaning" argument is bogus in general
I think you are confusing science with philosophy. Science never has been very good at explaining the philisophical "why" and that's not really what the scientific method is designed to do. It's more about figuring out what "is" and how it all works.
Semantics. Science can certainly answer why questions:
• Why is the sky blue?
• Why are there so many different kinds of animals?
•*Why do people behave altruistically?
• Why does light behave like both a particle and a wave?
Any "why" question that religion purports to answer, science can answer better.
Also, I disagree with your artificial division between science and philosophy.
Why does a divine creator instill meaning any more then me making an ant farm and telling them what to do would give them such?
I think most people feel that things which are created have a purpose, and that things which come about arbitrarily or randomly do not.
The afterlife. With that, there is purpose for what we do here and someone who created us with some sort of purpose in mind. It also helps/helped for us to understand how things were and are around us when science isn't/wasn't able to. It is inherent in people to fear what they don't know, and fear most what they can't know. Not all people of course, but most people.
If we die and then we're nothing more then worm food people can tend to have a bleak outlook on life.
Also, if you feel that there is a big guy in the sky watching out for you and he has a plan for you, it takes a lot of pressure off of you with the sense that in the end it will all work out. Also, eternal paradise is quite appealing.
How are morals futile? Without morals, we wouldn't have society. Without society, we wouldn't have computers, spaceships, or art.
And some day all of that will be gone.
"I am Ozymandias, king of kings. Look on my works ye mighty, and despair."
Y'know?
I'm not arguing that we SHOULDN'T do those things. We might as well do something while we're here.
But ultimately, on an infinite timeline, space exploration has just as much of a lasting impact as praying to God does.
Unclear. Look at the extent human beings have changed the face of the Earth only in a 50 year timespan. Our technology may well fundamentally change the universe, especially if you believe in the Singularity.
But ultimately, on an infinite timeline, space exploration has just as much of a lasting impact as praying to God does.
Why give the "infinite timeline" any importance then? Why frame things in terms that render our existence "meaningless" when you can just as easily frame things in terms that don't?
But ultimately, on an infinite timeline, space exploration has just as much of a lasting impact as praying to God does.
Why give the "infinite timeline" any importance then? Why frame things in terms that render our existence "meaningless" when you can just as easily frame things in terms that don't?
Why does a divine creator instill meaning any more then me making an ant farm and telling them what to do would give them such?
I think most people feel that things which are created have a purpose, and that things which come about arbitrarily or randomly do not.
Here's a fun thought experiment: define "creation."
Most artists (and scientists) see creativity as an essentially randomly generated process of selection—that is, closer to "discovery" than the traditional Christian understanding of "creation ex nihilo."
The creative act itself is a sort of evolutionary process.
i think the "creation = meaning" argument is bogus in general
the point is that WITHOUT creation, then there is no entity with the authority to have given any purpose to existence/life.
I'm trying to stray away from the term "meaning" here, because it can be a bit broad. Things can be interpretted to mean all kinds of things. I am talking about an INHERENT meaning, a purpose towards which existence is intended to move.
People who believe in religions tend to believe that we were created to serve god. We weren't created to serve anything, though. Our entire existence is pure random chance. Hence, we have no purpose.
Add to that the fact that eventually we will be gone, as will everything that we have created. Eventually the entire Universe will either contract back to a singularity, destroying us all, or else it will expand to the point where it can no longer support life. Possibly it will do both (in the reverse order.) The point being, no matter what purpose we attampt to give ourself, it is ultimately futile, because nothing that we acomplish will truely last.
All that we can do is try to fulfill ourselves right now within what we have. To that end, I would argue that if believeing in god is what makes an individual feel fulfilled, then it is WRONG to attempt to talk them out of it, because all that you are doing is ruining their fulfillment. Having their eyes opened to reality serves no larger purpose, because there IS NO larger purpose.
But ultimately, on an infinite timeline, space exploration has just as much of a lasting impact as praying to God does.
Why give the "infinite timeline" any importance then? Why frame things in terms that render our existence "meaningless" when you can just as easily frame things in terms that don't?
Because most debates like this, no matter what side you're on just turn into mental masturbation. Or atleast a little self fondling to make yourself feel all good inside.
I think you are confusing science with philosophy. Science never has been very good at explaining the philisophical "why" and that's not really what the scientific method is designed to do. It's more about figuring out what "is" and how it all works.
Semantics. Science can certainly answer why questions:
• Why is the sky blue?
• Why are there so many different kinds of animals?
•*Why do people behave altruistically?
• Why does light behave like both a particle and a wave?
Any "why" question that religion purports to answer, science can answer better.
Also, I disagree with your artificial division between science and philosophy.
I am making a distinction between a philosophical "why", and the physical "why".
For example, "Why is the sky blue?" can be interpreted as a physical why "What makes the sky blue?". Unless the question is looking for some perceived meaning behind the sky's blueness. (god liked blue maybe? Though you are Qingu so I doubt you would ever reach that conclusion )
If you are looking for the physical "why", science is all up in that. Bring on the deductive reasoning and experiments.
If you are looking fo the philosophical "why", you can still employ the scientific method in a more limited sense. But since your results are always subjective, it is impossible to prove a philosophical "why" via the scientific method.
To be clear, I'm talking about science in the limed sense. Stupid english language!
sci·ence
1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science> 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena
4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>
5capitalized : christian science
Darkchampion3d on
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
How are morals futile? Without morals, we wouldn't have society. Without society, we wouldn't have computers, spaceships, or art.
And some day all of that will be gone.
"I am Ozymandias, king of kings. Look on my works ye mighty, and despair."
Y'know?
I'm not arguing that we SHOULDN'T do those things. We might as well do something while we're here.
But ultimately, on an infinite timeline, space exploration has just as much of a lasting impact as praying to God does.
Unclear. Look at the extent human beings have changed the face of the Earth only in a 50 year timespan. Our technology may well fundamentally change the universe, especially if you believe in the Singularity.
so you believe that we will change the laws of physics?
Evander on
0
FalloutGIRL'S DAYWAS PRETTY GOOD WHILE THEY LASTEDRegistered Userregular
But ultimately, on an infinite timeline, space exploration has just as much of a lasting impact as praying to God does.
Why give the "infinite timeline" any importance then? Why frame things in terms that render our existence "meaningless" when you can just as easily frame things in terms that don't?
Because the goal is to recognize the truth, right?
I mean, that's what I hear all of these atheists saying who are attempting to open the eyes of people who believe in religion.
If they are refusing to recognize the ultimate futility of life, then they are being JUST as blind as the people that they are trying to "save".
How are morals futile? Without morals, we wouldn't have society. Without society, we wouldn't have computers, spaceships, or art.
And some day all of that will be gone.
"I am Ozymandias, king of kings. Look on my works ye mighty, and despair."
Y'know?
I'm not arguing that we SHOULDN'T do those things. We might as well do something while we're here.
But ultimately, on an infinite timeline, space exploration has just as much of a lasting impact as praying to God does.
Unclear. Look at the extent human beings have changed the face of the Earth only in a 50 year timespan. Our technology may well fundamentally change the universe, especially if you believe in the Singularity.
so you believe that we will change the laws of physics?
No, I know that we do not have a complete understanding of the laws of physics.
Posts
First off, while science has enabled us to harm the environment, it's the nature of all living things, not just humans, to want to expend as little effort as possible to get the most benefit. There a plenty of people who know that it isn't wise to harm the environment, but there are many more people who are either completely ignorant or don't care. We could easily use science to only do the right thing, but human emotions can make us act in illogical ways.
So, basically, science isn't some awful thing that's causing us to harm living things. The nature of living things is to try and live as comfortably as possible. Humans aren't unique in this; we're simply the species with the best capability to carry out our desires. I am 100% certain that any other possible intelligent species would act in the exact same way we have. It really wouldn't even have to be an intelligent species; any species that became dominant would continue to act in its own self-interest, and those species that aren't intelligent wouldn't have any ability to recognize what its done.
If you decry both science and religion, why are you acting as if the environment is some sort of thing that we should live in harmony with? Nature is cruel, and I don't think we should have to live in suffering. That includes suffering that humanity inflicts upon itself. Instead of returning back to basics, we should put safeguards and regulations into place that force humanity as a whole to do what is in its best interest for the long term.
Why should we go back to a primitive society when life is much more difficult and suffering more pervasive? Why should we allow all those precious animals to suffer that way? Wouldn't it be better to inflict some kind of global euthanasia to end all suffering on Earth? No one and no thing would have to suffer ever again, and the Earth could carry on for the rest of its existence without pesky living things bothering it.
Then let me get the pissy comment out of the way first: since you can't even articulate what you mean, and since you say that it is something between 1) and 3), which to my mind are both wildly different and speak of very different areas of interest, I suggest that you don't say that you "use words according to what they mean."
Ok, there we go
let me tackle 3 first. A law forbids one from acting in a certain way. It is restrictive. "If you commit X, you will be punished. It is not exhortatory. The Law does not say the way one should act -- rather, it says that certain actions are restricted, and will warrant punishment if one commits the acts. Laws are often formulated upon the morals that a society holds, but that does not prove the existence of morals, nor does acting in accordance with the law make one moral. Morals are exhortatory -- they tell a person how they ought act. That murder is itself morally wrong is not because people have a right to life nor because it is gives pain the loved ones of the murdered, but because there is a hortatory moral commandment "thou ought not kill" which constitutes the fabric of the natural law of the universe or whatever enlightenment metaphor you want to adhere to.
and as for one -- if many societies believe in morals and that makes the morals themselves objectively true, does that make the existence of god true, since many societies believe in him?
Definition of morality from a year-old thread.
I have been bested!
The bolded part yes, the underlined part, hell no.
Life IS meaningless. Without a divine creator to instill some kind of purpose in it, what you have is random chemical reactions and random mutations giving up what we today call life. The fact that it exists is through pure random chance, and serves no purpose other than to continue its own existance as long as it can.
As for morality/ethics, though, I think that you can have those based on a variety of things OTHER THAN a god. The simplest is simple projection: do not so to other people things that you do not what other people to do to you. Ultimately these morals are futile, maybe, but that is no different from anything else in the rest of reality.
What's pleasant for you may not be for others.
Maybe for some one else they find it pleasant to believe that god exists.
So what if they are wrong? They like thinking that, and it is ultimately irrelevant what they think, so why put so much effort in trying to correct them?
I think most people feel that things which are created have a purpose, and that things which come about arbitrarily or randomly do not.
It's cute how religious people seem to feel the need to try to make atheists feel inferior. I'm an atheist, and I am fascinated with life, its consequences, and its details. I give myself purpose.
That depends on your interpretation.
Evolution certainly seems like it has a direction to me. Organisms which are better able to recognize patterns in the world survive better. This fact alone leads to the development of things like eyes, nervous systems, and consciousness. Technology is an outgrowth of biological evolution. It is the universe becoming aware of itself.
If you don't think that's beautiful and meaningful and amazing, I don't know what your problem is. I certainly don't understand how a Mesopotamian legend about a sky god molding humans out of clay to work as slaves in his garden provides a better sense of purpose.
How are morals futile? Without morals, we wouldn't have society. Without society, we wouldn't have computers, spaceships, or art.
it would be able the same ammount of meaning.
If an ant farm just randomly popped in to existance, then it would have less of a purpose than if you bought an ant farm because you liekd watching ants, though.
Which is quite a leap.
It is entirely possible that if we were created, that we were created just because, or as practice or on a dare, or for a Omnipotent Science Fair entry or any number of possible reasons that do not imbue any meaningful purpose onto us.
To you maybe
the ants wouldn't give a shit
I think you are confusing science with philosophy. Science never has been very good at explaining the philisophical "why" and that's not really what the scientific method is designed to do. It's more about figuring out what "is" and how it all works.
Your point as far as philosophy/religion being largely bullshit does have some merit though, as both have relative meaning that vary from individual to individual. Despite that, philosophy is absolutely essential to provide some kind of generally agreed upon "moral structure" for human civilization, unless you want to live in brutal anarchy. What is generally agreed upon is of course relative, and has varied widely through the ages.
Most artists (and scientists) see creativity as an essentially randomly generated process of selection—that is, closer to "discovery" than the traditional Christian understanding of "creation ex nihilo."
The creative act itself is a sort of evolutionary process.
I think it would be smarter to avoid trying to draw more detailed explanations from people who throw out such sweeping and meaningless statements.
And some day all of that will be gone.
"I am Ozymandias, king of kings. Look on my works ye mighty, and despair."
Y'know?
I'm not arguing that we SHOULDN'T do those things. We might as well do something while we're here.
But ultimately, on an infinite timeline, space exploration has just as much of a lasting impact as praying to God does.
:^: :^:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidegger
why do I care what the ants think?
i think the "creation = meaning" argument is bogus in general
• Why is the sky blue?
• Why are there so many different kinds of animals?
•*Why do people behave altruistically?
• Why does light behave like both a particle and a wave?
Any "why" question that religion purports to answer, science can answer better.
Also, I disagree with your artificial division between science and philosophy.
The afterlife. With that, there is purpose for what we do here and someone who created us with some sort of purpose in mind. It also helps/helped for us to understand how things were and are around us when science isn't/wasn't able to. It is inherent in people to fear what they don't know, and fear most what they can't know. Not all people of course, but most people.
If we die and then we're nothing more then worm food people can tend to have a bleak outlook on life.
Also, if you feel that there is a big guy in the sky watching out for you and he has a plan for you, it takes a lot of pressure off of you with the sense that in the end it will all work out. Also, eternal paradise is quite appealing.
Again, a completely meaningless statement that says something you couldn't possible know.
You have no way of knowing the lasting impact of space exploration, on any timeline, no matter how long.
Because then it wouldn't support his point, duh.
the point is that WITHOUT creation, then there is no entity with the authority to have given any purpose to existence/life.
I'm trying to stray away from the term "meaning" here, because it can be a bit broad. Things can be interpretted to mean all kinds of things. I am talking about an INHERENT meaning, a purpose towards which existence is intended to move.
People who believe in religions tend to believe that we were created to serve god. We weren't created to serve anything, though. Our entire existence is pure random chance. Hence, we have no purpose.
Add to that the fact that eventually we will be gone, as will everything that we have created. Eventually the entire Universe will either contract back to a singularity, destroying us all, or else it will expand to the point where it can no longer support life. Possibly it will do both (in the reverse order.) The point being, no matter what purpose we attampt to give ourself, it is ultimately futile, because nothing that we acomplish will truely last.
All that we can do is try to fulfill ourselves right now within what we have. To that end, I would argue that if believeing in god is what makes an individual feel fulfilled, then it is WRONG to attempt to talk them out of it, because all that you are doing is ruining their fulfillment. Having their eyes opened to reality serves no larger purpose, because there IS NO larger purpose.
Because most debates like this, no matter what side you're on just turn into mental masturbation. Or atleast a little self fondling to make yourself feel all good inside.
I am making a distinction between a philosophical "why", and the physical "why".
For example, "Why is the sky blue?" can be interpreted as a physical why "What makes the sky blue?". Unless the question is looking for some perceived meaning behind the sky's blueness. (god liked blue maybe? Though you are Qingu so I doubt you would ever reach that conclusion
If you are looking for the physical "why", science is all up in that. Bring on the deductive reasoning and experiments.
If you are looking fo the philosophical "why", you can still employ the scientific method in a more limited sense. But since your results are always subjective, it is impossible to prove a philosophical "why" via the scientific method.
To be clear, I'm talking about science in the limed sense. Stupid english language!
sci·ence
1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena
4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>
5capitalized : christian science
so you believe that we will change the laws of physics?
Because the goal is to recognize the truth, right?
I mean, that's what I hear all of these atheists saying who are attempting to open the eyes of people who believe in religion.
If they are refusing to recognize the ultimate futility of life, then they are being JUST as blind as the people that they are trying to "save".
No, I know that we do not have a complete understanding of the laws of physics.