The Evolution and Spirituality Thread
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=61409
Printed Date: November 26 2024 at 14:18
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The Evolution and Spirituality Thread
Posted By: Negoba
Subject: The Evolution and Spirituality Thread
Date Posted: September 20 2009 at 20:30
|
We were having a discussion in the Christian thread about evolutionary ideas, and it really wasn't on topic, so I started a new thread.....
I would like to start by saying that I believe that genetic drift and punctuated equilibrium govern speciation much more than we're led to believe. The basic picture we're given is that evolution is a continual process where better adapted individuals give rise to more dominant species by virtue of random genetic changes over time. "Evolution by natural selection."
I dislike this term and would propose "Speciation characterised by punctuated equilibrium governed primarily by genetic drift"
That is, the species we see on this planet are a system characterized by long periods of equilibrium and rapid periods of change governed by changes in system conditions. The change in these conditions is often caused by cataclysmic events that no members have any "fitness" to survive and who remains is primarily a matter of random chance. The characteristics of these survivors is the primary determinant of what the next equilibrium will look like. With no competition, these groups rapidly expand and the how they initially interact with their environment finishes the process.
This correlates to initial conditions in a mathematical system with many many possible equilibrium conditions.
------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |
Replies:
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 20 2009 at 20:44
should we call you Cladogenesis now?  Yeah the punctuated equilibrium sounds more likely but I'd take it a step further and suggest that certain species that appear related - or 'split' - could simply be a similarity of design as governed by terrestrial requirements and not in any direct way related. Certain things, like say a feather and a leaf, behave or are shaped similarly and have no actual lineage. |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: September 20 2009 at 20:53
|
I think evolution of some variety is a given, here. Punctuated equilibrium or otherwise, it makes sense. How do we mingle this with spirituality, though? As an atheist, I suppose, I do not know where to begin the discussion.
------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: September 20 2009 at 21:40
|
Spirituality , is that like, ghosts and sh*t too? I don't really know, cos I'm too hungover to understand what the topic is about, but yeah, I'm pretty much an atheist and don't believe in much stuff but I believe in ghosts. I dunno if that makes me a sad case or what. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: September 20 2009 at 21:43
|
Cosmology is about what we believe about how we came to be here. The way we live our lives is connected to our personal cosmology. One of the points I'm making is that the absolute confidence with which many hold their current cosmology is misplaced.
Part of what I believe is wrong with the world is the degree to which we as a society think we have all the answers. Even the smartest among us can't fathom the math that really governs reality.
I believe there's much much more to reality than what we see, and that it's not supernatural, it's completely natural. It's governed by mathematics, it can be sensed. It's just that we have stopped bothering to look.
I just think we miss out on new discovery for the same reason that the hyper-religious miss out, overconfidence in our own knowledge.
------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: September 20 2009 at 21:46
Those last 4 words cover so many areas. When talking faith or other related matters, I will always offer the words "i don't know" to anyone I'm debating or discussing with....it seems the only honest approach to me. Because none of us can really know these answers, despite what we believe to be truth. |
Negoba wrote:Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: September 20 2009 at 21:52
|
I have issues with your use of the word 'cosmology'. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: September 20 2009 at 21:57
|
Ok, I'm curious. Looking over the definitions from a couple sources, I don't think I've strayed too far. ------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: September 20 2009 at 22:56
I like very much how you disabuse the history channel surfers of their glib 'natural selection' myth here. However, when you refer to cataclysmic events capable of engendering such a change, you must be referring to a species primordial calendar ? (i.e. system upheavals from several million years ago) You need to clarify primarily a matter of random chance i.e. are you advocating your proffered mathematical model to support his ? Regardless, it appeals to an atheist. More importantly, at least I'm confident there's no danger of any creationist hogwash seeping through the cracks in your very robust reasoning. (but don't hold your breath, an evangelist armed with a Venn diagram may appear over the horizon any time now) Good post. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: September 20 2009 at 23:30
Personal cosmology makes you sound like a boardwalk psychic. I know what you mean I just thought the word choice was silly. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 21 2009 at 02:48
In punctuated equilibrium, cataclysmic events are not the only events that can punctuate the equilibrium, they don't need to occur on a world-wide scale (such as the one that ended the Cretaceous period (ie end of the dinosaurs), but can be relatively minor and much more localised. The last one was 25,000 years ago, which saw the extinction of most of the large land animals and there is some specuation that this extintion period, known as the Holocene extinction, is still on-going. ------------- What? |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: September 21 2009 at 03:24
Thanks for the info (this is an area I knew squat about) What's particularly interesting about the Holocene extinction you describe, is that it is the only one to date where the presence of that primordial soup of an acquired taste (mankind) has had a significant contributing effect. I was amazed and shocked to learn that between 20,000 and 2 million species are believed to have become extinct in the 20th century alone.  However, having recently perused the 'Political Discussion' thread, it seems both the Dodo and woolly Mammoth continue to thrive and prosper in 2009.-------------
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 21 2009 at 03:56
There are so many 'facts' we don't know that it is difficult to say with any certainty whether the extinctions during the 20th century were shocking or not. They could be the normal attrition rate for species during Interglacial periods. The guess of the number of species that went extinct in the 20th century is a wide margin (2 magnitudes!) - and that was recent history, the further back in time we go the harder it is to estimate to any degree of accuracy.
The number of extant species is unknown - the guess is 20-50 million, but it's just a guess, no one has ever counted all of them - the current estimate is that http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0305_0305_allspecies.html - we have classified between 2 and 20% of the species currently on earth . Because of that, we don't know how many of the unclassified species are "new" - the 20th century extinction rate could be balanced by an equal number of new species.
The fossil record is woefully short of being complete, we have barely scratched the surface. The process of fossilisation is a rare event, not every species gets fossilised - it is most certain that whole families and classes of animal are missing from the fossil record simply because the conditions that allowed the mineralisation of their bones never existed in the environment where they lived - for example in acid soils bones do not survive long enough for fossilisation.
Of course none of these guesses are blind guesses - they are extrapolations based upon known data.
------------- What? |
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: September 21 2009 at 08:30
|
Here's one article that is barking up some of the trees I've been looking at over the years. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/02/evolution-as-bi/ - http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/02/evolution-as-bi/
This is science and math based, nothing to do traditional religions. (Some have tried but it just doesn't work) However, many of the concepts seem like "magic" or "supernatural phenomenon" to some observers. It should appeal to atheists. I wish it would also appeal to religious people because it is the leading edge of our understanding of the universe, and it involves some true beauty and some things I person find divine. And before anyone jumps on that word, I use divine as those aspects of the universe that are beyond my power and understanding, but govern the world around me.
Natural selection is one of many factors involved in speciation, but I doubt it is even in the top 3. Not that that matters except for the fact that it is only one many people (those that even bother to believe in the concepts) know about.
I also hate the term "evolution." There are some basic reasons why things build on themselves over time, but there becomes a breaking point where too much energy is required and the system become extremely precarious to changes in environmental conditions. For example, the degree of "evolution" that pushed toward enormous animals, probably fueled by a much greater biomass than we have now, eventually overstretched itself to the point that when the system conditions changed, it collapsed, It did not rebound after the last big cataclysm, and a new course of "evolution" started.
Again, evolution implies a linearity that does not infact exist. It also has been associated with a slow steady course that doesn't exist either.
------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |
Posted By: LinusW
Date Posted: September 21 2009 at 09:11
|
Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gaylord_Simpson - George Gaylord Simpson's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_evolution - quantum evolution , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#cite_note-13 - [14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Goldschmidt - Richard Goldschmidt's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltation_%28biology%29 - saltationism , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#cite_note-14 - [15] pre-Lyellian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophism - catastrophism , and the phenomenon of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinction - mass extinction . Punctuated equilibrium is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradualism#Geology_and_biology - gradualism , when it is actually a form of gradualism, in the ecological sense of biological continuity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#cite_note-pe1972-0 - [1] This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sediments, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next. To this end, Gould later commented that "Most of our http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology - paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allopatric_speciation - allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_genetics - evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication, primarily because they did not think at geological scales." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#cite_note-Opus200-9 - [10] The relationship between punctuationism and gradualism can be better appreciated by considering an example. Suppose the average length of a limb in a particular species grows 50 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centimetre - centimeters (20 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inch - inches ) over 70,000 years—a large amount in a geologically short period of time. If the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_mean - average generation is seven years, then our given time span corresponds to 10,000 generations. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that if the limb size in our hypothetical population evolved in the most conservative manner, it need only increase at a rate of 0.005 cm per generation (= 50 cm/10,000), despite its abrupt appearance in the geological record. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins - Richard Dawkins dedicated a chapter in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_Watchmaker - The Blind Watchmaker to correcting, in his view, the wide confusion surrounding the theory of punctuated equilibrium. His first, and main point, is to argue that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyletic_gradualism - phyletic gradualism in the sense of uniformity of rates—what he refers to as "constant speedism"—is a "caricature of Darwinism" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#cite_note-15 - [16] and "does not really exist." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#cite_note-16 - [17] His second argument, which follows from the first, is that once this caricature is dismissed, we are left with only one logical alternative, which Dawkins calls "variable speedism." Variable speedism may be distinguished in one of two ways: "discrete variable speedism" and "continuously variable speedism." Eldredge and Gould, believing that evolution jumps between stability and relative rapidity, are described as "discrete variable speedists," and "in this respect they are genuinely radical." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#cite_note-17 - [18] They believe that evolution generally proceeds in bursts, or not at all. "Continuously variable speedists," on the other hand believe that "evolutionary rates fluctuate continuously from very fast to very slow and stop, with all intermediates. They see no particular reason to emphasize certain speeds more than others. In particular, stasis, to them, is just an extreme case of ultra-slow evolution. To a punctuationist, there is something very special about stasis." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#cite_note-18 - [19] Dawkins therefore commits himself here to an empirical claim about the geological record, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#cite_note-19 - [20] and it is this particular claim that Eldredge and Gould have aimed to overturn. Another pervasive misunderstanding of punctuated equilibrium was that it invoked large-scale mutations, the sort invoked by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Goldschmidt - Richard Goldschmidt in The Material Basis of Evolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#cite_note-20 - [21] According to Dawkins, punctuated equilibrium "has no connection with macromutation and true saltation, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#cite_note-21 - [22] but rather "followed from long accepted conventional Darwinism," namely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mayr - Mayrian allopatric speciation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#cite_note-22 - [23] |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: September 21 2009 at 09:16
Say Linus, does the W in your username stand for Wikipedia? 
------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 21 2009 at 09:21
|
we shouldn't really allow large chunks of wiki text here - there are copyright issues - relevant snippets and links are best ------------- What? |
Posted By: LinusW
Date Posted: September 21 2009 at 09:23
I'll better myself  . It's just an easy way to add to the discussion without having to write it all yourself.
|
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: September 21 2009 at 09:33
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Copyright - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Copyright Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify Wikipedia's text under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and, unless otherwise noted, the GNU Free Documentation License. unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts. |
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: September 21 2009 at 09:38
|
That quote from Wikipedia is a mishmash of points that took me 10 minutes to parse and I've studied this stuff. The first paragraph and diagram in the actual article make a little more sense. There is a good point about scale, though poorly made. Just like pixilation, if you back up enough it looks continuous, or if you get enough points. I personally dislike Dawkins quite a bit, his belligerent atheism is just the over confidence in his own knowledge I'm talking about. Finally, allopatric speciation is an example of my point...boundary conditions being the determining factor rather than intragroup competition. ------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: September 21 2009 at 09:43
Damn, I knew I should have paid more attention in my Partial DE class. 
|
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: September 21 2009 at 10:05
|
stonebeard mentioned that he as an atheist does not see how spirituality enters. that is a very interesting remark indeed; it seems to mean that what atheists really deny is the existence of spirit, not the existence of God. atheists indeed are usually materialists; the believe there is nothing but "solid matter". they could not be more wrong. first of all, the so-called "solid matter" is not so solid at all. an atom is mostly empty space, through which lots of virtual particles run this way and that. an atom is a process, and indeed all of matter is nothing but that: a process. a process, however, is not material at all. everything in the world is a process. so is our consciousness, of course, or our spirit, to let that word enter the discussion. this spirit is, due to its nature as a process, not material at all. will the spirit somehow survive after we are dead? I don't believe so, since many of the sub-processes which are responsible for its creation end with death. but that does by no means mean the spirit does not exist. it is indeed a stranger notion to say so; how could you utter that statement if it did not exist? -------------  A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: LinusW
Date Posted: September 21 2009 at 10:12
|
What's for sure is that geological and biological history plays a big role. Chance events are an inherent part of the evolution theory of today, including allopatric speciation. Evolution is essentially nothing but changes in gene frequencies over time. That's it. The bare essentials. Whatever people read into it is another thing. So everything that changes gene frequencies in a population is evolution. But what acts upon those changes, and all gene frequencies is still natural selection, which isn't random. If some phenotype accounts for higher fitness, its genotype will increase in the population. Discussing the relative importance of natural selection vs. genetic drift is difficult. It depends on so many factors, and boils down to a case-by-case study. How big is the population? What's the migration rate? It goes down even to behavioural level, since contact between different populations can have many different results. I accept that in some cases genetic drift is more powerful than natural selection, but does it really change anything? To me it doesn't. Evolution of today is a synthesis, not simply "evolution by natural selection". However, natural selection is still a rare, non-random ingredient in evolution and as such extremely interesting. Regarding punctuated equilibrium, even though you didn't like the points of criticism, that's where I stand.  |
Posted By: LinusW
Date Posted: September 21 2009 at 10:19
|
I think another important point is that natural selection most definitely and strongly is at work on a species level, which not necessarily lead to speciation, but genetic polymorphisms and ecotypes. Just to expand the term evolution. |
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: September 21 2009 at 10:59
|
I'm making a point that using the word "evolution" for something that just means "changes in genetic frequencies over time" is an extremely poor choice of a single word for a complex process.
Similarly, though natural selection acts and is a significant contributor to allele frequencies, it is probably not the primary large scale determinant of gene frequencies. And mutation is almost certainly not where genetic variation leading to change comes from.
Even you, Linus, who have an understanding of these things, adhere to these concepts because it is part of your cosmology. The parallel between our faith in science and faith in religious systems is something we all need to think about.
From here and other discussions, I do acknowledge the fact that science and traditional religions have major qualitative differences. But the way we deal with our personal philosophy based on cosmologies, whether scientific or religious, bear similarity.
------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: September 21 2009 at 11:02
Yay! (I can respond to that!)
In almost everything relating to religion, spirituality, philosophy and really science too, I can never be strictly sure about my beliefs. I'm willing to take a stance on things, but if you press me, I'll say I'm just not 100% sure. Anything else is just belligerence and disregards that there is very little which we know for certain. Take the soul or spirit for example. I consider myself a materialist (until someone gives me a really persuasive argument against it), and the idea of a soul that transcends human death and body seems unlikely to me for sure. I won't however, completely rule out that such a thing might exist. We may just not know the mechanics of it. The lack of evidence for such a thing entails that we should not believe in it when better supported, materialistic mechanisms for the same emotional/consciencous effects of a supposed soul are available (I presume they are).
This ties into my views regarding Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and seemingly to a lesser extent, Dennett. I lieu of knowing for certain all these many aspect of life are really the way they seem, I prefer to take a more soft-spoken view of atheism or criticism of religion. I'm usually on the side of the atheists, but I only take the positions with the qualifier that it is on the best evidence available now, and that other views might be right. It's just those views (existence of a body-transcending soul) don't seem to have enough evidence. Dennett, as a philosopher professionally, seems to me to express doubt slightly more than the others. The New Atheists are doing a good job with espousing the critical worldview, but I do think that they do not offer up enough the truism that nobody in the debate stands on 100% solid ground, presumably because casting uncertainity on yourself doesn't help you in debates. Or they could just know a sh*tload more than me (probably true nonetheless).
------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: LinusW
Date Posted: September 21 2009 at 11:08
I do see you points. But before moving on I need to clarify that mutation accounts for a small part of the genetic variation in a population. The key factor for that variation is recombination during meiosis . |
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: September 21 2009 at 11:29
Exactly and then further scrambled by sexual selection. (Which gamete happens to find which gamete)
And yet, again, the lay view of "evolution" has mutation as the primary method of introducing variability into the equation. ------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |
Posted By: LinusW
Date Posted: September 21 2009 at 11:37
But that's a teaching problem then  .Or rather:  |
Posted By: LinusW
Date Posted: September 21 2009 at 11:46
|
But since you're fishing after the difference/similarity between "faith in science you have not fully grasped, yet accepts as fact" and "religious faith".... ...yes, it's problematic. Science isn't static. Science deals with the facts at hand. Science deals with what is most probable at this point in time, with the knowledge we have at our disposal. Scientific truths are always debated, sometimes overthrown. But I'd still say that it's an important qualitative difference, just as you mentioned above. Still worthy some thought. |
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: September 21 2009 at 12:39
|
Stonebeard really hits alot of points well, and seems to be at a place where I wish more people were...rely on science for what it can provide us, but be aware of its limitations. Working in medicine, large proportions of what we do are cultural, based on an early-mid 20th century philosophy based on an excessive worship of science. The need to gather data and intervene on measurable variables too often overshadows just guiding a human being through their sickness. Many of the choices we make every day cannot be scientific decisions, though we use scientific data to help us. Those distinctions, to me, are important.
------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 21 2009 at 13:33
|
The state of lay understanding of any scientific principle is running 100-150 years behind the scientific community, so any current thinking has yet to filter down to the masses, which is not such a bad thing given the number of cul de sacs science is prone to wander down from time to time, the filtering is a necessary step to remove the noise. Whether the layman understands the various possible processes of speciation isn't that relevant - it is whether biologists, geneticist and palaeontologists and all those other -ists understands them that is important - science progresses through peer review, not by popular vote. And as this field of science delves deeper into this subject the more convoluted and complex it will become, until at some point in the future someone will be paraphrasing Richard Feynman "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics" and "If I could explain it to the average person, I wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize".
What is important to me (as a layman) is not the understanding of all of the processes at graduate level, but the understanding of the general principles enough to sperate probability from improbability, to be able to look at a synopsis of a particular hypothesis and say, 'yeah, that could work' - of course what I can never do is look at it and say 'no, that doesn't work' - all I can say for that is 'that's beyond my understanding'.
I suspect that there is no single theory or process involved here, but an amalgamation of some of them, some of which will be more relevant than others at explaining specific cases, and none of them that can be used to explain all cases. The concept of Evolution proposed by Darwin was based upon the current thinking of 1850 where only one process (natural selection) was needed to explain all that he understood of the diversity of species at the time. Now "evolution" is just a catch-all phrase that covers everything that is not "creation". ------------- What? |
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: September 21 2009 at 14:36
|
Dean, you are an educated, intelligent person. When you talk about yourself as a layperson, it doesn't correspond to the populace at large very well. If I use the word mythology to refer to the stories we tell to make cosmology easier to grasp for the entire populace, the current mythology is at best a story written 100 years ago. Our mythology doesn't reflect science, and I think that IS important.
I was once told an agnostic is someone who "Doesn't know, doesn't care." I've come to learn that most of those people believe it's impossible to know so it's pointless to try. Some times I feel like that. But a better description of me is "Doesn't know, desperately does care."
Where that leads me is chasing alot of windmills I suppose. ------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 21 2009 at 17:21
I know what you mean Jay, but when I refer to myself as a layperson it is because my knowledge of this particular subject is superficial, my interest-level allows me to skim a selection of texts on the subject and garner some level of understanding from them, but that is still closer to the general populace level than to someone working or studying in that field. Whatever thoughts, opinions, insights and understandings I have are "harmless" and would be dismissed as psuedoscience - all I can be is a passive spectator. However, I will acept that many people equate "natural selection" with "survival of the fittest" - so 100 year "mythology" is probably about right
 ------------- What? |
Posted By: KoS
Date Posted: September 21 2009 at 18:43
|
Has anyone read the new Dawkin's book The Greatest Show On Earth? It's supposed to be a book on evolution for laymen. |
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: September 21 2009 at 19:34
|
No thank you, too much hate in that soul. ------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: September 21 2009 at 20:13
No but I did see him talking on BBC recently about Evolution as well as the new book. I'll see if the clip is on YouTube. Here you go: This is right up your ally, Siam. It also features Margaret Atwood. -------------   
|
Posted By: Visioner
Date Posted: September 21 2009 at 20:24
|
Newbie here. To prog, to progarchives, to the deeper philosophical discussion points mentioned. But hope you'll welcome me just the same and help me learn. I appreciate Stonebeard's, Negoba's and Dean's mentions of being unsure.
So glad to see the maturity, confidence and awareness evident in being able to admit there are things that are unknown. I, for one, am tired of people (believers of all ilks-- including atheists--and "omniscient" celebrities who declare themselves experts on virtually everything. Anyone who claims to know everything about anything arouses my suspicion and disdain. Bravo, Stonebeard, Negoba and Dean! Those who are seekers on the journey are more to be admired than those who claim to have totally arrived. ------------- Look beyond the obvious or you will see only the mundane. |
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: September 21 2009 at 20:54
|
Welcome visioner, jump on in. The atheists with too much certainty bother me too. Acknowledging our limitations while pushing the boundaries is one key to wisdom, I think. ------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: September 21 2009 at 21:31
|
I guess I always thought it was obvious that science has limitations because human beings have limitations. All science is is the encapsulation of our insatiable need to explain why things are the way they are, and we've done a remarkably good job of it - sometimes I feel that "God", as it were, are in these details; and when I allow myself to think of God as some loving Father figure I imagine Him smiling with delight as his children uncover these truths, the way I and all fathers smile as they watch their children discover and learn. Yet there will always be an element to the human condition that belies scientific rationale - I can offer no mathematical proof that I love my wife and sons, I can provide no equation that successfully predicted that I love olive oil but hate olives or other such eccentricities. The "evolution" discussion on the previous page was terrific, thanks to all who contributed to it. |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: September 22 2009 at 03:03
|
Although the following mildly itches my own atheist ears (i.e. the God part) I do think the existentialist thinkers (theistic and atheistic alike) eg Sartre, Camus, Heidegger, Schopenhauer, Jaspers and Kierkegaard do firmly nail my own colours to the mast here: What I really lack is to be clear in my mind what I am to do, not what I am to know, except in so far as a certain knowledge must precede every action. The thing is to understand myself, to see what God really wishes me to do: the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die. ... I certainly do not deny that I still recognize an imperative of knowledge and that through it one can work upon men, but it must be taken up into my life, and that is what I now recognize as the most important thing. Soren Kierkegaard Irrespective of your spiritual/secular orientation, what the quoted text makes abundantly clear is that certitude is illusory and that removing God from any theory does not remove the moral realm of ACTION (in harness with knowledge) Contrary to popular misconception, the existentialists have no truck with either a nihilistic or purely materialistic world view, as they all posit the need for an individual to find their own reason for living and for that reason to have a moral foundation. As interesting and practical are the reasons for growing our teleological knowledge of species, they shrink in urgency to that of a more pressing need to act morally (with or without empirical scientific data - which will only serve to confirm the actions of those who consider themselves above morality - history and graveyards are bulging with the handiwork of such types) Existence precedes essence - you cannot separate the knower from the known Hey ho, time for bed everyone -------------
|
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: September 22 2009 at 04:05
|
without Science there would be ignorance
without Religion there would be chaos
though the two seem diametrically opposed, one cannot exist without the other...Religion is designed to create order and control in society, but like Science it should be a growing, changing thing always open to debate and discussion, and be able to change ideology without sticking to old outdated ideas.
Too many religious devotees are living in a little box, are blinkered and are opposed to any other kind of opinion or ideology, time many of them climbed out and smell the coffee!
 -------------  Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: September 22 2009 at 05:07
Slightly off tangent to the evolution 'thang' but the world would be a damn site better ordered place without organised (sic) religion and the latter is culpable in the creation of more chaos than a toddler with a pin on a bouncy castle. Yes, you are correct that religion is a control mechanism, but for those who are either unwilling or unable to control themselves. Ask yourself why gruesome serial killers habitually turn to the 'good book' and repent their sins ? It's a cop out for those who refuse to take responsibility for their actions/choices. BTW Satan made me type this post. -------------
|
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: September 22 2009 at 09:48
|
I personally believe that there is an objective truth, but that all of us see it from different perspectives. The old proverb of the elephant and the blind men. That we must find our own personal window to the light, and accept both its insights and limitations is part of accepting our selves.
Organized religion gets beaten up about abuse of power and misuse of spiritual motivation to control people. But those abuses are far from unique to religion. Many, if not all, in power will use all methods at hand to maintain their elevation above the commoner. Right now financial class is used to justify these power differentials.
Religion has many positive functions, but it is a human institution prone to human shortcomings. ------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: September 22 2009 at 11:35
While I agree with your second opinion, if religions would be better for society if their adherents were more open-minded toward other worldviews, it completely diminished your virst point, that without religion there would be chaos. If religious people become more open minded, the role of religion as a serious social adhesive falls apart, as no cosmopolitan (re: diluted, ineffective, arguably meaningless) religious system is nearly as effective in maintaining social cohesion as either a single, strict, dictatorship-religion or a cosmopolitan social system based on good philosophy and shared values, but without superstitious baggage. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: September 22 2009 at 14:56
These are good points well expressed certainly. However we would have to go back to medieval times before we met again a European country where the clergy had any meaningful leverage in a nation's affairs or the behaviours of its people. Similarly, we would have to return to the soviet bloc era in Europe before we encounter the last totalitarian political regime. Therefore it seems abundantly clear to me that religious dogma as a control mechanism has long been consigned to the past and no longer constitutes a credible scenario for the future. Are you implying that the 'social cohesion' that results from either unyielding religious dogma or a liberal democracy is tantamount to the same thing ? This cannot be the case surely ?! ( I dearly hope I have misunderstood your post) Otherwise, ain't that the recipe for ruin that Anthony Burgess outlined in A Clockwork Orange ? -------------
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: September 22 2009 at 15:07
No they're not the same at all. Just because a society doesn't fall apart and its people kill each other doesn't mean it's healthy. The social cohesion provided by religious dogma is fragile, intolerant, and cruel (and probably a lot of other bad adjectives too). Liberal democracy has negatives as well, but it certainly outweighs a dictatorship in the long run (I may say dictatorships can possibly be a good thing, so long as they're brief, benevolent, and just. They hardly ever are.) But any good that can come out of a religious dictatorship can be done in a regular politically based dictatorship, without adherence to unprovable superstition, though the cult of the leader might just be a religion anyway. But in the end, cosmopolitan religion cannot be a basis for governing at all, as I can't see how it would ever be effective. Unless history has proven me wrong... ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: September 22 2009 at 15:22
Exactly, you have neatly outlined the plot of Burgess fabby tome i.e. A brainwashed conformist can be just as bad as a violent anti-social thug.Agreed, neither do ITime for beer and those pastry funnel things with the green squishy stuff in the middle -------------
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 22 2009 at 19:06
|
I have to admit that I was apprehensive when I saw Jay's title for this thread, for once the discussions turned to 'Spirituality' I felt I would have nothing to contribute, and I sense that is still the case. Science is about uncertainty and understanding empirical data, Religion is about belief and faith - the two have no business meddling in each other's affairs because they are incompatible systems (not opposing or alternative systems).
Science is there to be doubted, to be questioned - in science nothing is certain - it progresses by continuous questioning and testing, changing and adapting with time to fit new data as it is discovered. Scientists don't prove anything - they test things - if it fails the test then it is proven false, if it passes, they do more tests. In the 1950, 100 years after the publication of the Origin of Species, David Lack's study of Darwin's Finches did not prove that Darwin was right - all it showed was that he wasn't wrong.
Religion is the absence of doubt, it is ineffable, immutable and infallible - if something threatens or challenges belief, it cannot adapt or change to absorb the new data, it has to counter and refute it.
------------- What? |
Posted By: Visioner
Date Posted: September 22 2009 at 22:00
I found your views very interesting and I’m trying to understand your definition of religion because your interpretation seems to be different from what I’ve familiar with, based on any of the religions I’m acquainted with. From the rabbi to the priest to the B’hai practitioners to the Hindis to the Buddhists to the 20 or so ministers I’ve known from about 8 different variations of Christianity, they have all agreed that our minds were given to us to question, to challenge, to interpret and reinterpret the evidence as presented to us by writings, people, reason and experience. That’s what revelation is all about. Some basic canons are written in stone, but the religion as a whole can change and adapt. If we see religion as a set of beliefs and practices, then in some religions those beliefs and practices certainly do evolve due to the absorption of new data. For example: scientifc explanations of homosexuality led to the ordination of gays in churches that previously would have declared that to be incompatible with church teachings; scientific support of the theory of evolution has led some sects of Christianity to adjust their view of the Genesis concept of creation, stating that it is illustrative rather than literal, and some sects have deemed both creation and evolution to be truth--that they work in harmony not opposition. New discoveries (the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 20th century) or new interpretations of the original language of texts can be incorporated into the religion and reflected in updated practices and redefined beliefs. I have to disagree with your the conclusion that science is never sure of anything and that religion never doubts anything. I find science and religion not only compatible but often complementary and totally supportive of each other. Sometimes one even corroborates the other. Oh, how I've rambled. OK. I'm finished. I'll be quiet now. ------------- Look beyond the obvious or you will see only the mundane. |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: September 22 2009 at 22:28
But if religion is to have any validity, then some things have to be objectively true. If, in the case of Christianity, a literal interpretation of Genesis was irrefutable and 100% believed among many people for 1500+ years, then you can't hope to turn 180 degrees and claim otherwise and hope to still be telling the truth. One interpretation was right, one wasn't (or maybe both weren't). Sure, scientific progress and religion can work in harmony, as long as one doesn't think to hard about one's ever-evolving religious beliefs. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: September 22 2009 at 23:06
I don't think this is necessarily true. a placebo does have its validity, even though there is nothing true about it at all. mark that I am not saying that religion is nothing but a placebo; I am only saying that it would still have its validity if there was nothing true about it. it is, by the way, very interesting to see that many people automatically seem to assume that spirituality necessarily has to go along with religion, and once they arrive at religion they automatically think of Christianity. a bit short-sighted, if you ask me. religion does not necessarily have to be opposed to science at all. it is perfectly possible to believe in a deity and in science; I have no problem with that at all. my believe actually is the more science discovers the more proof of the existence of a deity there is. this is quite contrary to the common belief that science explains away God. however, I do not believe in a deity which is forever unchangeable; on the contrary, the deity I believe in is an evolving one. this is quite contrary to the common concept of "God", who is forever unchangeable and the same. God is a process; the common concept of God is a stagnant one. God is also not the "wandweaver". by that I mean that one should not expect God to make anything happen which is against the laws of nature. this is by no means a limitation of God, by the way. on the contrary, I would see it as a limitation if a deity had to interfere in such a way with its creation. what a poor deity that would be indeed! ------------- A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: Visioner
Date Posted: September 22 2009 at 23:20
I agree that some things within a religion must be a constant in order for the religion to be valid. Everything can't blow with the wind. And within the religion, some basic tenets must be held as objectively true. And they are.
But as science evolves and reveals new facts, religion identifies those as revelations of a deeper truth than what was understood before, appropriate for the time in which it is revealed. The Genesis story, if you take the references to night and day poetically, bears a remarkable resemblance to the actual sequence and process of evolution. But that initial knowledge was placed in a format that the people of that time could comprehend. Ergo, it's not that one was true and then it becomes false when another seems true, or that neither was true, but rather that BOTH are true. Larger pieces of the puzzle are seen, but that doesn't mean the smaller piece was false, just less complete.
That said, I don't think all religions are created equal. Some are closer to the objective truth than others are. Some sects within a religion are closer to the truth than other sects within that same religion. You can't just lump them all together, and you can't write them all off. Discern them by their results.
Religions can't be perfect because they are practiced by humans, who can't be perfect. But....do the practitioners of that certain religion now--generally--seek to make the world a better place, not just for themselves but also for others? And does their religion help them try to become better individuals, better members of Team Human? In essence, to play nicely with others? Not that it makes the religion perfect or the people perfect. But that it makes them better than they would be without it. You could say THAT is what determines it's validity.
Ultimately, religion evolves and science evolves and people, individually and collectively, evolve. The "creation" is continuing.... ------------- Look beyond the obvious or you will see only the mundane. |
Posted By: Visioner
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 00:33
Since the thread is about evolution, the comparison to a commonly held Christian interpretation of creation is a natural inclination. Plus, since Christianity has the most adherents in the Western hemisphere, which is where most progarchive participants seem to be from, and hence its scriptures are more commonly known than many of the other religions' texts, it's not unusual that discussions veer in that direction in order to illustrate a point in a way most likely to be understood. But to mention one religion does not mean that it particularly came to mind automatically or exclusively. To make such an assumption would indeed be shortsighted.
Regarding religion versus spirituality, I am trying to get a grasp on what the thread's posters consider to be definitions of both. Would like for you to share your thoughts on that.
I loved your observation that the more science discovers the more likely it will be that it lends proof to, rather than refutes, the existence of the Divine. Several scientists have already stated the same. (Yes, some of the most intelligent, scientific individuals on the planet believe in God.) I also found interesting your thought about the "process" God. While I personally do not think that God is a process, I find helpful the reference: "God is spirit. And they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." I add that thought here because I think that's why so many people get tripped up on thinking they have to choose science or spirituality. They think, but they do not feel. They use the mind, but don't use their spirit in seeking the truth. They limit themselves by not using all the aspects of the self that are available to be tapped into.
------------- Look beyond the obvious or you will see only the mundane. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 05:03
Religions can change - they have done several times in very major ways over the past xxxx thousand years, the diversity of christian religions is documentation to that fact, but Religions themselves are resistant to change - the Reformation did not change the Catholic Church, even the initial Church Of England after the break with Rome was resistant to changing religious practises - it remained Catholic in all but name and didn't become a Protestant religion until much later. The result was two seperate religions with different practises, but the central belief system is (still) the same.
The ordination of homosexuals does not require scientific justification, any more than the ordination of women does.
However changing practises, ritual and modus operandi isn't what I was getting at - it was the fundamental beliefs that cannot change - for example the central tenet of christianity is the belief of the resurrection of Jesus - change that and the religion can no longer be called christianity.
The dead sea scrolls are not "new" data - they are old data re-found - all of which was known when the Tanakh and the Old Testament were originally compiled and purposely ignored or removed - much of the Apocrypha as been known (and published) since the 16th century - none of it has changed practises or beliefs.
------------- What? |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 06:03
|
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 08:23
The last statement in red is pointlessly argumentative with little to do with the statements it addresses.
It would be much more interesting for the conversation if you stuck to something --- "Stonebeard refers to atheists this way, yet I am an atheist of this sort." And then explain you position. A little throwing of stones from a position of safety going on.
------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |
Posted By: Visioner
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 10:48
|
Dean,
I know people who would disagree with your definition of Christianity. They still consider themselves Christian even though their brand of Christianity does not hinge on a singular belief in one particular tenet, even one you define as necessary--they assign different criteria to ascribing to their faith. The fact that there are so many different denominations shows that the defining beliefs, even core ones, are not agreed upon entirely.
I was not making the statement that the Dead Sea Scrolls are new data... I said, as you quoted me, they were a recent discovery. As such, they offer fresh corroboration that there have not been many errors in the years from the early writings to today's translations. I was using that as an illustration of how we humans are continually uncovering information that can have an impact on people's decisions to believe something.
Regarding the ordination issue.... I am pointing out that some churches have changed their beliefs based on scientific data. Being born male or female was never considered a choice, but many churches saw (and some still do) sexual orientation or gender identification as strictly chosen behavior rather than biologically determiined. Recent medical studies about the complexities involved in the gender/sex spectrum have caused some churches to change the way they adhere to their scriptures.
Church leadership in many mainstream churches also looks at the way cultural influences and accommodations at the time scriptures were written may have been misinterpreted as foundational ordinances. Hence, most Protestant churches now ordain women when some previously didn't.
You appear to have updated your original thought about religion: "if something threatens or challenges belief, it cannot adapt or change to absorb the new data" to your later position: "Religions can change - they have done several times in very major ways over the past xxxx thousand years." I agree with your thought that religion resists change. And isn't that a good thing? It can't be a valid religion if it's willing to easily toss out some beliefs and add on others. It takes some major thinking, soul searching and Divine Will seeking for leadership to finally say, "let's change this." Vatican II is an example of such a major shift.
We each on our own individual level have to do the same thing--examine, think, seek, experience the Divine. The result may be choosing to believe in a faith when we previously didn't, because the evidence makes it the logical thing to do.
This has been an enjoyable discussion with you.
------------- Look beyond the obvious or you will see only the mundane. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 11:25
Accepted - I was simply pointing out that most of the scriptures contained in the DSS were not new or even unknown.
Most, not all - and even then there is a limit on how far they can progress, however, I do not think that "science" has been the driving force behind those policy changes.
Nope. My two statements stand alone and do not conflict or contradict. The first deals with "belief" the second with "practise" - and in the examples I was alluding to the change has resulted in a break-away church - but not a change in beliefs.
------------- What? |
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 11:28
|
Thanks so much for joining the conversation visioner.
My original idea that made at least one other poster uncomfortable was talking about cosmology, origin mythology, and personal ideas about philosophy and / or spirituality and lumping both religious and scientific contributions in one discussion.
But given that religion and science are the two major sources we currently use to base those three things, I feel like they must be discussed together. Origin theories based on scientific observation are still very limited and a product of imagination / creative synthesis. What's on the other side of the big bang? As a singularity, it is likely impossible to know. To us it's a dead end in terms of our ability to gather data. But it doesn't mean nothing happened prior to that. Certainly the idea of wave like expansion and contraction of the universe seems very plausible. But even if it consistent with scientific information, it is likely that we will never be able to have data to confirm or deny that. Kind of like Santa Claus? And we are firmly in the territory of current scientific cosmological thought. ------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 13:18
Religions address the whole picture and regard it as a single event because they need to - in a single story they can encompass everything and convey it in a form that is easily digested and does not require further thought. In one simple story you get the creation of the cosmos, life, morality and a belief-system. Science can address the whole picture, but the resulting story will be less condensed and manageable, not only in terms of the amount of information that needs to be understood, but in the depth of prerequisite knowledge that is needed to process that information. What I don't get, or understand, is where philosophy, spirituality and religion fits into that - I cannot see how any of those existed before sentient life evolved so would have no bearing on cosmology or evolution prior to that..
What's on the other side of the big-bang? The same thing that the Universe is expanding into. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 13:59
Assuming their is objective truth without an observer...a tricky question both in quantum mechanics and philosophy...you're right, however the world came to be is what it is no matter what our conceptualization of it.
But science, philosophy, spirituality, and religion are all attempts for human brains to understand as much of those things as we can. I personally believe they all have truths to tell.
At the same time, I respect that the domains they cover or at least should cover, are separate. One deals with measurable or observable phenomenon, the other mainly deals with the relationship of conscious beings with the world we inhabit. Those interact but carry quite a distance betwen them. ------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |
Posted By: Visioner
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 14:21
Thank you for the welcome, Negoba. It has been a most interesting discussion indeed.
I liked your observations about “what’s on the other side of the big bang.” If we can accept the incomprehensible power of a big bang leading to every bit of life, why is it so difficult for some to accept the concept of a being of greater power than a human causing the big bang to happen? If we cannot prove either by science, as you so eloquently point out, then incorporating other judgment processes beyond measurable science seems to me to be quite reasonable. Empirical evidence is still valid evidence. In fact, the scientific community relies on it. I am intrigued by people who want to base absolutely everything on observable, measurable science, yet find it perfectly plausible to accept "everyday miracles” —intricate processes like birth, growth, rejuvenation in nature, remarkable human intelligence on display— without observing the origin of such. Is the likelihood of a superior being that much more of a leap than the incredible workings of the mind, which they value? Denying a spiritual connection can only be done by those who have not experienced it. Those who have experienced the spiritual realm know it to exist, even if they do not fully understand it. I am amazed at people who consider themselves experts on philosophy and cosmology and yet have rejected the idea of God without ever having studied in depth the very concepts and scriptures they reject. I am always trying to understand why they do that.
So, thank you for originating such a thought provoking and respectful thread. And thank you, all, for so graciously accepting this newbie into the discussion.
------------- Look beyond the obvious or you will see only the mundane. |
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 15:23
|
What goes on in my mind is basically unmeasurable. And yet the course of natural history in this time on this planet has been drastically shaped by other human minds and their thoughts and choices. The extinction of entire species and the survival of others all within the ephemeral realm of thought. Small pox still exists because of the decisions of a few, and its weaponized or accidental release could alter the course of human history drastically. (The same virus drastically affected the course of history in the New World already, after all) Responsible scientists are quick to point out the limits of their methods. The said follow-up is too often "But it's all we got." This is so very wrong. Luckily many are willing to use science as a tool but are still open to complimentarily rely on personal spiritual tools as well. ------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 18:08
|
Being part of the natural history of this planet allows us to do whatever damage we do, that is the ecology of the system. However artificial and unnatural what we do may seem when compared to the the so-called natural world, it is no different to any other natural cataclysmic "event" that happens on earth or the shaping of the environment by any dominant species of that locality. (Any farmer will tell you that you cannot put sheep and cows in the same field - the sheep cut the grass too short for the cows to feed - from the cow's point of view the sheep have damaged the environment). That we could wilfully or accidentally cause a global catastrophe is no different or unnatural as a plague, a meteor impact or the detonation of Krakatau. The difference is that we know it is wrong, that it is preventable, that by choice we could take another route - some put that knowledge of right and wrong down to some spiritual explanation or a taught morality - I see it as no different to the pet dog that steals food from the diner table - it knows it is wrong and that there will be consequences - it is simply the instinctive and natural behavioural action of a pack animal, and humans are a pack animal.
------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 20:01
Now you puzzle me... Why do you need a "greater power than a human" to cause the big bang?
There are numerous different theories regarding the one fact we do know, which is that the universe is expanding - every object in the universe is moving away from every other object in the universe, that is the space between them is expanding. Some of the theories are concerned with what happens in the future, and some are to do with what happened in the past. The big-bang theory comes about by mentally rewinding this expanding universe back in time, so that it contracts to a single point (a singularity) of infinite density and temperature. From general relativity we know (and have observed) that space/time is distorted by gravity, that gravity is proptional to mass, and that the distortion of space time by gravity has the effect of slowing time. Therefore the closer we get to the moment of the big bang then the slower time runs, until at the point of the big-bang, time stops.... that's it.
No more time.
There is no "before the big bang" because time does not exist; there is nothing "on the other side of the big bang", the same nothing that the universe is currently expanding into. So if there was nothing before the big bang, and time did not exist before then, what started it? If not a supreme being then what?
Quantum physics provides an answer - at the point of singulariy, with infinite mass and infinite density the normal laws of physics break down, what we are left with is quantum physics - or more accurately quantum cosmology, and in quantum physics we have observed spontaneous "creation" - subatomic particles behave in unpredictable ways, there is inherrent uncertainty in everything, that particles have duality, they change direction without external forces, they spontaneously appear and disapear, that the three dimensions of space and the fourth dimension of time are switching places at random, that there is uncertaintly as to what is space and what is time. So, given the infinitesimally small size of the "big-bang" singularity (ie that it contains the whole cosmos at that moment, all three dimensions of space compressed to a single dimensionless point), quantum effects such as that can happen on an apparent cosmic scale, and the one that "kicks off" the big bang is the creation of time from one of the compressed dimensions of space.
Of course, there is enough "uncertainty" in all that to still see the finger-prints of a greater power if you wish, but quantum mechanics is a science of uncertainty.
I don't accept these as "everyday miracles" as miracles would be the most obvious explanation. That they are self-perpetuating and self-sustaining doesn't cause me to go looking for a superior being, they all are created from living things by living things without the need for some external force to "give them life". Now if one of those was created from something inert and lifeless, from something that had never been a living thing in the first place, then I would then be looking over my shoulder.
The working of the mind is a remarkable thing, capable of many many things, like the invention of a superior being and all the mythology to support it.
In nature we can observe how brains smaller than ours operate and function, how they apply reason and logic, how the owners of those brains can be self-aware and how they inter-relate, how they can conceptualise, analyse and solve a problem. It is not such a leap to see that a brain with a surfeit of processing power (ie more than is required to simply survive) can produce "intelligence" on a human scale, and given enough time, we will probably work out how that happens.
...like, wow! Where did that come from?!?! ------------- What? |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 22:22
Well said.   Whoops. I'll let things go back to normal now, my apologies for gate crashing. -------------
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 22:29
|
Well, I do believe in Evolution and a higher power, (god, spirituality, grand architect of the universe whatever you'd like) |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 22:39
|
I think we follow too much and think too deeply. If that makes sense? I try not follow any tenets and just live my life as I see fit. I will maybe one day read some Philosophical works but I will try not to label myself as anything after reading them. My views seems to agree with non-religious Existentialism but I won't label myself as that because that then makes Philosophies a kind of religion in their own right. That is not what I personally want. -------------
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 22:46
You can't avoid labels, James. If you read something and agree fully with it's worldview, then it's yours. Subconsciously, at least. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 22:56
I know. I'm not avoiding labels. I just try not to endorse them into my daily thoughts. I do not need a book on Existentialism to tell me I'm an Existentialist thinker (gosh, I do not even want to be an Existentialist thinker; I just want to be me!). Indeed, I have my own philosophies and do not really need others. -------------
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 22:58
Maybe reading something changes your mind. None of your philosophical beliefs were inherent. You got them at some point. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 23:01
|
Mostly common sense on my part. Really. I've barely read any Philosophy of any kind and when I have tried, I usually have trouble understand it. -------------
|
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: September 24 2009 at 03:45
the main argument of atheists usually is: "can you show me God? can I see him, hear him, touch him?" this is the materialist position as well; anything that can't be seen, touched or heard is being denied. so it is not at all a wild generalization ------------- A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: September 24 2009 at 04:38
|
Maybe we're all Gods/Goddesses ourselves and we all structure the way of the Earth and the Cosmos. -------------
|
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: September 24 2009 at 12:19
|
Events occuring in a timeless reality is a little too difficult for me to fathom. Of course, anything approaching infinity is beyond human understanding. We can point to it, say "yeah it's kind of like that," but you it's a concept completely outside the realm of our experience.
What is the link between complex molecules and something we'd call life? What forces started the process?
None of the things we observe prove the existence of a higher power, but some of them certainly make you wonder. The biggest problem is that "higher power" can mean alot of things. Whether that power is conscious, or benevolent, or within or without our realm of existence, all impossible to know. Reasonable hunches are possible.
I am very interested in a field of study called complexity which involves "Self-organizing systems," or properties of groups that tend to lead to increased complexity over time. It is possible that this field could actually bolster atheist though by explaining phenomena which just don't make sense mechanistically. Unfortunately, it's very hard to mathematically model well, and some people think it's too "out there." At the same time, little bits and pieces of the field are getting assumed into current scientific thought all the time.
The higher power may still be math at some level. ------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: September 29 2009 at 08:42
|
Although only slightly related, I want to ask a question or two. I was watching a rather fascinating 3 part series about Cells last night and the general idea, as you are all likely aware, is that all lifeforms have evolved from just one cell. Well, what I want to ask is this: is it not possible that there could have been more than one identical cell and different life forms have formed from each one and then evolved, rather than one just evolving into whatever it evolved into first (such as an Amoeba) and then eventually evolving into all life that has ever existed on earth. I realise that that one cell's initial creation was indeed just pure luck and depended on the correct chemicals but is not possible for several to have been formed at the same time? I am not really scientifically minded, so if this is easily answered, then I do apologise. My other question is: If therefore this one cell created all life on earth, what are the possibilities of such a cell forming on other planets? Could there have been a cell created millions of years before the one that created life on earth, or could it be the case it hasn't happened yet. Will it ever happen? Or maybe cells are made by different chemicals on other planets? Apologies if I have got some basic facts wrong and please feel free to correct them, if that is indeed the case. Your insight is much welcomed. -------------
|
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: September 29 2009 at 09:17
|
James,
These are fundamental questions that I don't think have been answered. It is virtually impossible that a cell was the first living thing as it's too complicated to happen de novo. Let me place this firmly out there. Life would never have occurred "by chance" as we conceive of it. All life involves self-sustaining systems and self-organizing systems. But life is not the only thing that does this. Simpler systems can still exhibit these properties and it from one of those simpler systems that life literally evolved as simply a progressively more and more complex self-organizing system.
This idea does not require any kind of divine intervention, but neither does it disprove any such thing either. It's just another example of how elegant and complex the universe we live in is.
------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 29 2009 at 09:33
|
I'll have a stab at the second question James.
Yes - the laws of physics are the same on every planetary body in the Universe, and the scale of the Universe is so large that statistically it is possible for the chemistry (and thus biology) of single cell life to have emerged. Assuming that this can only occur on planets of a given age, then it could have happened on planets that are older than ours (since our Sun and thus our planet is not specifically unique, nor was it the first or the oldest) and it could happen again by the same logic. Our body chemistry is carbon-based by virtue of the environment we emerged into - from a physics point of view other elements have similar properties as carbon - the most obvious being silicon - here on Earth life is carbon and computers are silicon (we have the technology to make germanium computers but silicon is better, cheaper and easily available in it's crystalline form, we could make carbon computers, but crystalline carbon is a little pricey and difficult to work ), so under different circumstances (pressure heat chemistry) silicon-based lifeforms are feasible.------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 29 2009 at 09:40
I agree (even though I admit to not knowing much about the subject) but there is a huge gap (in terms of geological time) between the "primordial soup" (random collection of amino acids) and the first single-celled lifeform. ------------- What? |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: September 29 2009 at 09:51
|
One thing that was made clear to me though is that it's once and for all made me definitely convinced there is no God of any kind. Also, it seems at Harvard, they can now use cells to make Diesel. Does this mean the depletion of oil in the future is now a thing of the past? -------------
|
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: September 29 2009 at 09:56
|
Well this is an area where I think there is still alot to be learned. But the I think the idea of self-organizing systems is something that needs to seep in to culture. Life didn't happen by complete random chance, there are natural laws that promote organization, and these almost always involve multiple interactions of subcomponents. So things are random, and then a more complex stability point is found. The activity of the system is no longer random. From there additional complexity can occur, at a rate that is statistically impossible without the organizing properties of the equilibrium points.
I know it's convoluted but it is a critical point in thinking about our origins.
Again, though, these things neither support nor refute the existence of God. ------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: September 29 2009 at 10:00
|
Oh it didn't refute the existence of God, but to me, it really convinced me there wasn't one. Although I have never believed a God existed in the first place, mind you.
-------------
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 29 2009 at 10:14
could you run through that one more time for the hard of comprehending.
No that's just transferring the problem from one resource to another. The energy put into the cell to produce combustable oil has to come from somewhere. ------------- What? |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: September 29 2009 at 10:20
|
Oh I see. I either switched off there or they didn't mention that... As for incomprehensible statement: I am now more adamant than ever that God does not exist after finding out a bit more about cells, primordial soup, amino acids and all that. If indeed we are all evolved from just one cell, then that doesn't make me think a God would go to so much trouble as to create it all (if you see God as the creator, of course). -------------
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 29 2009 at 10:27
There are different degrees of random - some apparently random events are periodic (ie repeating patterns) on a scale to complex to process, and some events that look cyclic have minor variances that mean they are not repeating.
A simple pendulum produces a predictable periodic motion whereas a double pendulum is chaotic and aperiodic and will result in an extremely complex motion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Double-compound-pendulum.gif">
 So systems that appear to rely on random chance can also be the result of the interaction of very simple predictable events and only give the illusion of being random to the observer. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 29 2009 at 10:32
Ah, odd that - if I were a supreme being and wasn't in any immediate hurry for the finished product, then that is exactly how I would do it - far easier than painstakingly constructing every single living thing one species at a time.
It still doesn't prove or refute anything. ------------- What? |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: September 29 2009 at 10:38
|
As I said above; no, it doesn't prove or refute anything in real terms. I honestly do not think they will ever be able to prove or refute the existence/non-existence of God. If they did, people would still doubt it and refuse to believe it. However, the whole concept convinced me more than ever of what I know to be true. I wish I could understand a lot of this more easily and also get my point across better. It is not just due to what I said in my previous message that makes me think that way. I am not scientifically minded, so I cannot really explain it as I'd like to. -------------
|
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: September 29 2009 at 10:42
|
I dig the thingy, I watch it over and over.
I love this subject matter. There is a beauty to it, that does feed me spiritually. And by that I mean my personal (perceptual) experience of my existence. So much of it is beyond my understanding, but there is so much to behold. ------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 29 2009 at 10:51
|
^ I wish the forum would allow Java applets - a double pendulum simulation is even more fascinating than that simple animation http://www.myphysicslab.com/dbl_pendulum.html - http://www.myphysicslab.com/dbl_pendulum.html ------------- What? |
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: September 29 2009 at 11:11
Work computer does not run Java....IT nazis....I can waste my spare time here but not use anything fun.
I'll watch it at home tonight. ------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: September 29 2009 at 11:58
|
Erm...I've always been haunted by this scenario: Would a deity bestow the requisite tools upon mankind to be able to confirm his own existence using purely rational and scientific methods alone ? Otherwise, why kneel in supplication before the CEO of Celestial Autos when you can build another car yourself ? So, even if our scientific efforts refuted the existence of a deity (by that I mean the hypothesis is not supported by the available data) this would not remove entirely the possibility of an erm...cosmic architect i.e. could there be some data that is not observable as beyond our human sensory/cognitive perception and designed that way ?) Ain't this a bit like Sherlock Holmes introducing himself to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in the street ? (My head melts when I try to solve this )Why would the old critter rope off parts of his creation ? (To perpetuate belief only by free-will ? Insert can of worms here) Ergo, was God stingy with the grey matter ? (Clearly parsimonious in my case )-------------
|
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: September 29 2009 at 12:09
|
C.S. Lewis talks about just such things in Mere Christianity. He makes some interesting arguments and some not very persuasive ones, but it's interesting hearing a scholar who believes do some of the reasoning.
But at least part of it is what you've suggested, that if the creator intervenes within the creation directly, it destroys the autonomy of the creation. It become merely a puppet show. And one would assume that the one thing a sentient creator might wish for is company.
------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 29 2009 at 13:04
Once a deity gives its creation the ability to question then all bets are off, whether we have the mental capacity to figure out the puzzle is immaterial, the damage has been done - the umbilical has been cut. It's not that we won't arrive at the right answers, we just haven't addressed the right questions to know when we get the right answers. (And then we can apply Sherlock Holmes' favourite maxim: "When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" - something he himself would have done if he had any inkling that he was a fictional character).
But that will still not refute or prove the existence of a diety or supreme being - it will only demonstrate the most likely mechanism by which the process operates - an achievement that would make any diety proud of its creation I'd have thought. If we could create a computer that could rationalise how it was made that would be pretty spectacular.
[Of course the logical conclusion of the Celestial Autos analogy is that we'll all be driving Shinto Hybrids in the near future ... or walking everywhere. ]------------- What? |
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: December 07 2009 at 19:31
|
Just wonder what people think about holons:
http://www.panarchy.org/koestler/holon.1969.html - http://www.panarchy.org/koestler/holon.1969.html ------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |