Why Folks Still Believe in Religions and Supernatural Beings / Places
Dan Fake
places in varying degrees from day-to-day and place-to-place, with
doubt being considered an ever-present "temptation of Satan or
Jinns" (by many) or risk of loss of an immortal wonderland (by
many) or risk of punishment and adverse consequences in this life
and in a future life (by many) or risk of coming face to face with
the disquieting or unsettling unknowns inherent in reality (by many).
Typically, belief is strongest (and/or most pretentious) while folks
are in meetings with like-minded believers -or- pretending to talk to
magic being(s) -or- reading scripts that pronounce that magic being(s)
and magic places exist -or- trying to get others to believe in magic
being(s) and places.
- - -
Malleable Memories (and influences
impacting disbelief / belief)
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DyeHard/dyehard010627.html
Excerpt:
"Our memories can be very selective, and it turns out, very
creative.
"Memory is not like a tape recorder," says Jacquie Pickrell,
a doctoral candidate in psychology at the University of
Washington, who has come up with evidence that it may
be possible for outsiders to "implant" memories of phony
events in our brains.
Her research suggests it doesn't take much, maybe just the
right advertisement. ..." (end excerpt)
Comments: The experiment resulted in 30 to 40 percent
of subjects 'knowing' or 'remembering' an event which
had been implanted in their minds, but did not, in fact,
occur.
Do religions use the technique of implanting events over
and over in the minds of their parishioners?
Yes.
Does this explain, perhaps, why so many believers claim
to 'know' god (allah) or to have 'heard from' god (allah) or
that god (allah) is 'real' for them or that 'Jesus lives' or that
Mohammed is the last prophet or ... [list of religious claims
treated as real experiences goes here]?
Quite likely, it's a significant factor, along with many other
social / psychological factors, as the messages to believe
are canted over and over in churches, mosques, synagogues,
temples, and by the religious, influences that many seem to
be unable or unwilling or reticent to assess objectively and
skeptically, upon reaching adulthood.
- - -
Despite the illogic and ancient superstitious methods used
to promote religious faith, worship, tithing, prayer, rituals,
and belief in supernatural beings / places, why do folks
continue to believe? Is it merely based on "feelings"?
The "power of feelings" to impact ideas and human
activities is enormous, often referred to as the "power
of god (allah)" or the "power of love" or the "power of
prayer" or "the power of an idea", but seldom referred
to as ...
... the "power of delusion" or the "power of imaginary
thinking when the imagination is treated as reality" or
"the naturalistic consequence of stimuli and hormonal
reactions and brain activity in response thereto, exhibited
in thoughts, actions, deeds, and behavior of a most often
peculiar and at times illogical and irrational manner".
Another way to look at it is memes (ideas) competing for
prominence in human brains.
Excerpt from chapter 13 of "The Meme Machine", by
Susan Blackmore:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198503652
"... A religion which persuades its followers to be more
altruistic will spread because of the altruism trick. I was
once cycling in a park in Bristol when my bicycle chain
fell off. Before I could jump off to put it back two young
men raced up to me, politely offered help, expertly put
the chain back on, and stood smiling kindly at me. 'Thank
you very much', I said, feeling a little bewildered. For I had
never seen them before and I was not a ravishing sight in
my Felix-the-cat bike helmet.
God was soon on their lips, quickly followed by Joseph
Smith and Salt Lake City. The Mormon faith is ably and
deliberately spread by the altruism trick. It doesn't work
on everyone, but it works well enough to keep the memes
alive.
The altruism trick works like this. Take a political party,
a religious sect, a cult, a local benevolent society, or any
complex belief system. Incorporate within it the idea that
its followers should do good work. These good works
will then make the followers more likeable and so people
will copy them--copying in the process all the other memes
in the belief system. ..."
- - -
One who values the veritable should recognize that in the
nature of humans is the "lieness of being", and the difficulty
inherent in distinguishing the "good lie" from the "bad lie",
truth from empty claims, the value of verity as compared to
the value of the way a claim makes one "feel".
It has been demonstrated, scientifically, that the more popular
students in high school tend to be "better liars" (as unappealing
as that sounds when expressed in that manner) than their less
popular but more honest counterparts.
As part of human nature that is exhibited in all of us ...
Lying, misleading, deceiving, and being pretentious are amongst
the many strategies used to compete on earth, used in varying
degrees and ways.
As most would admit, those strategies are part of being a lawyer /
politician / sales person / priest / shaman / magician / minister /
rabbi / prophet / preacher / authority figure / counselor (not dis-
paraging those occupations, necessarily, just stating the way
things are from the standpoint that blatant honesty is rare and
the mentioned strategies are rife, for many reasons).
Those strategies are not only present in and of themselves, but all
of us are subject to human nature, and as such, from time to time,
through conscious intent or subconscious human nature, lie / mislead /
deceive / pretend to our very own selves that we have somehow risen
above those characteristics even as we participate in them:
http://danfake.home.att.net/philosophy_general/lieness_of_being.htm
Those strategies are a naturalistic consequence of being part of the
complicated state of being which all of us, those of "religious faith /
distance from religious faith / no religious faith", participate in with
varied ways and means, and to varying degrees, as a result of being
amongst the species known as homo sapiens. Being distanced from
religious faith or having no religious faith is a step away from those
strategies, but nevertheless and even so, religious faith is but one
aspect of existence and those strategies are in play in all areas.
- - -
Emotions and intuition resulting from genes (as well as all the
stimuli each of us has been exposed to) impart that which is
human behavior, and logic is a tool used in varying measures
and ways by each of us. There is also the imperceptible com-
petition of neuronal activity resulting in a random aspect attri-
butable to all animals (not something I'll dwell on, but some-
thing recently revealed as a methodology explaining the basics
of behavioral 'choices').
Logic alone does not impart enough impact on emotions,
desires, and fears to free many folks from belief in the super-
natural, for an array of reasons, some of which are dealt with
in the following segments ...
- - -
"Why Religions Persist in a Naturalistic World"
Think of a numeric reference range, with "+2" = strong
approval, "+1" = mild approval, "0" = ambivalence or
distance, "-1" = mild disapproval, and "-2" = strong
disapproval.
The abstract triad of beings called God / christ / holy spirit
(along with their locational abstract representation of good,
heaven) are imaginary entities associated with "+2" (strong
approval) in most western cultures.
The abstract being called Satan or the concept thought of
as no god (along with his locational abstract representation
of evil, hell) are imaginary entities or concepts often associ-
ated with "-2" (strong disapproval) in most western cultures.
Those concepts and all points in between are understood
naturalistically as part of the "Circle of All That Is" ...
http://danfake.home.att.net/philosophy_freelover/circle_of_all_that_is.htm
Why do imaginary beings like god / satan and imaginary
places like heaven / hell persist as abstracts representing
good / evil and "strong approval" / "strong disapproval"
in the modern day of science, logic, and reason?
The simple cut to the core of the matter is we don't know
who we are, where we came from, or where we're going.
That's almost as complete an explanation of the human
quandary now as it was in ancient days as well as in the
days of the distant past, despite our dramatically expanded
understanding of our naturalistic world in the present day.
We are heavily suspicious that this is our one and only
chance at life, and most of us don't like that, many finding
that to be deeply disturbing (for naturalistic reasons and
reasons due to indoctrination into "fear of death" via reli-
gious dogma when we were children).
Therefore, it's tempting for most to depend on parental /
societal / cultural / religious / peer-pressure support for their
methods of dealing with all that the unknown entails in the
form of fictitious beings called god and satan, to one degree
or another, and fictitious places called heaven and hell, to
one degree or another, since most of us have been exposed
to those generally accepted default explanations / promises /
threats (and _____ [herein insert what is usually invoked via
the faith / religion of one's family]) since childhood.
- - -
"Human Instincts"
---
'Are we hardwired for God?'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4351726,00.html
Thursday February 7, 2002
Religion Explained: The Human Instincts that Fashion Gods,
Spirits and Ancestors, by Pascal Boyer
---
- - -
"Grog, Grog Jr., Og, Og Jr., Oggaletto, and Us"
A scenario which is likely to have occurred, multiple times, with
this being but one example of the way humans evolved into our
current sociological / cultural / religious diversity ...
So, 30,000 or so years ago, Grog and Grog Jr. are walking around
and Grog Jr. is full of questions ... "Why is the sky blue, daddy?" ...
"Why does it rain, daddy?" ... "Why are those shiny things in the
sky sparkling at night, daddy?" ... and so on and so forth.
Grog, having been taught by his own dad to be honest and non-
pretentious in speaking of the unknown, replies with the standard
"I don't know, little Grog, but I sure would like to find out" ...
Meanwhile, nearby, Og and Og Jr. are walking around, and to
every one of Og Jr.'s questions, similar to Grog Jr.'s and reflecting
the curious nature which most children possess, Og replies "the
magnificent and all knowing beings in the sky did it, for us, little
Og".
Og Jr. is awed by his dad's amazing wisdom and knowledge,
and having overheard the conversation between Grog Jr. and
Grog Jr.'s dad, comments ... "Hey, Groggie boy, my dad says
the magnificent and all knowing beings in the sky did it for us
and your dad says he doesn't know diddly squat. Loser!"
Well, as time passed and the boys grew into manhood, Grog Jr.
tried to impress the girlies with his "don't know" approach, but
Og Jr. was scoring big time with his supposed knowledge of
"the magnificent and all knowing beings in the sky" and, like a
fish story, over time, Og Jr.'s son, Oggaletto, was passing down
stories of all sorts of acts and deeds by "the magnificent and all
knowing beings in the sky" and some 25,000 or so years later,
the evolved versions of those stories began to be recorded as
written symbols, and, well ... we all know how all that has turned
out, thus far ...
- - -
"Empty and Malleable Vessel"
http://danfake.home.att.net/disbelief/empty_malleable_vessel.htm
- - -
"Brainwashing"
http://danfake.home.att.net/disbelief/nature_of_brainwashing.htm
http://freelover.home.att.net/disbelief/brainwashing_evidence_bible.htm
- - -
"Nipple Theory (hey, who says pondering whys and
wherefores can't be fun?)"
One suspects that the God concept is an outgrowth
of our evolution and would be wise to consider the
way in which the human brain was slowly turned on
(through hundreds of millions of years of evolution)
when viewed from the current position of the species,
-and-
the way in which the human brain of every surviving
fertilized human egg is slowly turned on during gesta-
tion, barely starting to work many weeks after concep-
tion, trying to make sense of its dark / mysterious / wet
world in which sounds and nourishment are its initial
introduction to what will become, if it's lucky, an exit
through an incredibly tiny space into a mysterious
world in which large beings are scurrying about and
babbling strange sounds that are much clearer now
than they were back in the good ol' wet womb days ...
and ... ahhh, a nipple, must have nipple ... hmmmmm,
go(o)d ...
- - -
6 Reasons (used in varying degrees and combinations)
to Explain Why Many Continue to Believe:
1) They've determined that it is definitely true (oxymor-
onic 'cause faith and definitely true can't both be true,
so this option is out if faith is their motivation),
2) They've determined that it is likely true (one must
wonder if their belief crosses from faith to likely true,
is their belief no longer faith but, instead, likely true
and able to be examined in the real world we all know
and share ... if it is, then the faith no longer carries the
weight, as they're depending on existential reality for
their determination of truth and falsehood, and as
such, an objective weighing of the evidence, including
skepticism / doubt, is a factor they must utilize in one
degree or another to determine whether or not it's true),
3) They've determined that it's so attractive to believe
that it's true, what with promises of eternal life from
supernatural beings who "care about those us if we
believe / follow" (along with threats of dire conse-
quences if we disbelieve - with only *the individual*,
and not the stimuli, to blame for said consequences),
that it doesn't matter if it's true or not, so just believing
*as if* it was true (pretension and hope for a particular
outcome despite evidence contrary to that desired) is
the deal,
4) They've been scared into believing by threats, so
scared that they've determined that it doesn't matter
if it's true or not,
5) They've been influenced by sexual / social / cultural /
financial factors entailing seduction to conform / go along /
withhold intelligent doubt / subdue "what if" scenarios in
an unbalanced endeavor to "at-a-boy away" any and all
doubts via cover-ups and intellectual dishonesty ... often,
5 spins out of childhood influences projecting God / Jesus
as one with goodness and parental acceptance (even so,
it can take place in those infrequently exposed to religion
at a young age) ... many children are brainwashed (or, if
you prefer, heavily influenced) into a religion at a young
age and are never able to objectively assess it and free
themselves from it, in large part due to the factors listed
in 5,
or
6) They just want it to be true and will believe it's true
even if it's not true
- - -
3 Ways One Might Try to Believe:
1) FIRM FOLLOWING of BIBLE
or QURAN DERIVED FAITH
Why?
1a) Social/cultural support systems tie the belief one was
taught at a young and impressionable age into rewards in
this life (and the next) if one follows those teachings and
threaten one with punishment / rejection if one rejects what
one was taught (said rejection occurring for sure in this life
by family and social contacts and, more often than not,
used as a threat pertaining to a loss of the supposed 'after-
life' or the earning of eternal torment),
1b) Having been taught to diminish / distance oneself from
teachings not consistent with what one was taught at a
young and impressionable age, one seeks the reinforcement
and support (social / cultural / financial / spiritual / peer
group) from those teachings and teachers and persons
associated with those teachings and teachers.
2) MODIFIED FOLLOWING of BIBLE
or QURAN DERIVED FAITH
Why?
Simply put, as one grows up and begins to reach out beyond
the parental / social / cultural formation of one's youth, one
may call into question the foundations under which one was
raised, rebel against that, and seek a perceived better match
to one's life experiences yet still trying to cling onto the
advantages seen in the teachings that were imparted to one
when one was young and impressionable.
Also of note, partnerships of persons of different faiths often
results in one of the partners changing to the faith of the other
partner in order to insure a unity of common faith within the
family unit. This is more easily accomplished when the faiths
have more in common than they do differences and, of
course, an inability to resolve differences of faith / non-faith
in a mutually responsible and respectful manner can result in
a dissolution of a partnership / family unit.
3) REJECTED ORIGINAL YET STILL FOLLOWING
SOME OTHER BIBLE or QURAN DERIVED FAITH
Why?
If one has found one's teachings at a young and vulnerable age
to be unacceptable, one might reach out for what one considers
to be far apart from their upbringing, yet still sympathetic to an
imaginary world which one can relate to based on one's upbringing.
This 'new' perspective on one's imaginary world will consist of
a view in which one's deity is either stronger or weaker, kinder
or meaner, more Bible-centered or more 'beyond or better than
the Bible', more traditional or more liberal, yet still leveraged off
of the perspective of one's youth.
Perhaps one finds that a radical change in following places one
more in line with one's primary goals of success in this life and,
ultimately, living forever, and that appeal is so strong that reason
and logic are used as objects of inconvenience if / when they
conflict with one's faith while being considered quite convenient
when they can be used to excuse or support one's faith.
- - -
"Human Beings - Who/What/Why Are We?"
A human being is someone who sleeps one-third of its life, and
consumes about 2,000 to 3,000 calories per day, on average.
A human being is someone who has no earthly clue of where
it came from, what life is all about, or where it's going.
A human being is someone who pretends, who lies, who makes
believe that it knows what life is all about, while having nary
a clue other than knowing if it doesn't do what is required to
feed its face, it dies.
A human being often seeks and achieves a degree of pleasure
from its short existence in this world.
A human being often deludes itself and pretends it knows what
life is all about, while deep inside feeling free to be honest with
itself, knowing that it has not a clue but, for appearances, just
appearing to know is the deal, to fit in, to conform, to go along,
to do what has to be done to make it in a world that, for the
most part, couldn't care less about dealing intelligently, logically,
reasonably, and skeptically with all the claims pertaining to ulti-
mate unknowns.
A human being typically cares about its young and cares about
those critical to the survival of the human being assessing said
camaraderie, yet truly, on a deep and cut-to-the-bone level, a
human being knows that some of those it cares about and shares
with, and those who are kin to it, would sooner manipulate /
deceive / take advantage of it if doing so yielded an advantage,
a mating opportunity, a financial / social / cultural gain to said
individuals.
A human being exists alone, apart from its peers, isolated and
desolate in its attempt to emerge from its solitude and bond with
its fellow beings.
To be a human being is but to suffer the slings and arrows of
outrageous fortune, knowing that to take arms against a sea
of troubles is but to attempt to end them for a moment, a tem-
porary respite, if achieved, but as fate would have it, all such
attempts are but a brief respite from its ultimate destiny ...
But, on a brighter note, a human being is one who has the potential
to try to seek answers for what life is all about, to defeat the slings
and arrows of outrageous fortune, to attain an understanding of
and a triumph over the fate of its ancestors, to reach out for plea-
sant perpetuity within the realm of the real rather than bowing to
the immortality fantasies residing in the ancient myths ...
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
Dan Fake, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
(Freethinking Realist Exploring Expressive
Liberty, Openness, Verity, Enlightenment,
& Rationality)
http://danfake.home.att.net
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
markella
believe what they do is that the vast majority of humans are
uncomfortable with the thought of "This is all that there is" so they
invent and believe in imaginary deities and afterlifes.
markella
Tiger
Rather, perhaps we are not so arrogant to think that "this is all there is"
simply because some lame empiricists, who, although they *think* they rely
upon empiricism, they are quite quick to accept a myriad of unprovable
claims as long as said claims don't have anything to do with metaphysics.
--
Tiger
*Remove yourclothes. to reply via e-mail
Proud member of the "Windows-free" club.
Use Linux...it's actually an operating system, not a bloated front-end for
DOS.
bob
"markella" <markell...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6b277b9a.02062...@posting.google.com...
My own feeling is scriptural . the Word makes it clear that all
men inately sense or know that GOD must be . They do also
sense their own intelligence ..their own spiritual nature and
yes they have a sense of certainty that they are not just
a physical being but a very special ..thinking..feeling .. 'godlike'
being [ dont get me wrong i dont even believe men are gods :]
that is not some offhand creation of random chance and senseless
nothingness but something MUCH much different.
Then as the Word says they look at a billion worlds ..the skys
the heavens ..the magnificence of the created Universe and
they know rationally and inately that such a tremendous
creation Must have a cause and a reason . In our age we
know that the creation is of an indescrible magnatude ... [try a
billion stars and thats absolutely nothing compared to the
whole of it ] came from basically NOTHING. I.E. , science
is describing the genesis of all this incredible space and time
as coming from NOTHING... . There was a time when
there was NO SPACE AND NO TIME ... preceding
the big bang ..or big bang like theories. Sometimes its
spoken of as a 'singularity' and described as much smaller
than the head of a pin. In any event Man senses / knows
by the sheer weight of what is 'seen' that it must have had
a cause and a reason...and that is also the most 'logical'
supposition also . robert.
Dan Fake
I agree with your sentiment but would express it differently
in order to more accurately reflect our nature of being, as
of the current time.
The "this" you refer to is quite different now than it was then
(in ancient days), thanks to naturalism and science and our
increased understanding of our origins, evolution, and that
which is the nature of existence within the area of the known.
However, our understanding does not encapsulate "all", it
just covers a much larger area of understanding than it did in
the days of the origins of superstition / supernaturalism. What
remains outside the area of the known? The unknown.
- - -
Dan Fake, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://danfake.home.att.net
- - -
>
> markella
Dan Fake
> markella wrote:
>
> > Whew, that was quite a filibuster. My own gut feeling on why people
> > believe what they do is that the vast majority of humans are
> > uncomfortable with the thought of "This is all that there is" so they
> > invent and believe in imaginary deities and afterlifes.
> >
> > markella
>
> Rather, perhaps we are not so arrogant to think that "this is all there is"
> simply because some lame empiricists, who, although they *think* they rely
> upon empiricism, they are quite quick to accept a myriad of unprovable
> claims as long as said claims don't have anything to do with metaphysics.
There is science and there is "make believe". I respect science
and scientific methodology, always open to exploring our natural
world. "Make believe" can be fun when the "make believe" char-
acters and places are perceived as journeys of fantasy rather than
reality, non-threatening stories, human imagination.
Good example of fun "make believe" - "The Matrix", not only fun
but fun when pondering what is possible in the area of unknowns
and in the area of human imagination.
However, if any parent told their son or daughter they must believe
in "The Matrix" -or- "The Force" (from Star Wars fame) as reality,
and ______ (use religion as a reference point and insert all sorts
of fantasies, claims, grandiose promises, and horrific threats here),
that would be an entirely different matter, now wouldn't it?
Such is the case with religion / supernatualism, it's imagination gone
mad, "make believe" imposed upon us as "the one and only reality
(really - just trust those claiming it is so)" -or- "what life 'really' is
all about - just believe (or else)" -or- "the answer for all unknowns
(really, don't you dare doubt it)" -and- _________ (insert other
real life ramifications of religion / supernaturalism here) in this, our
one and only sure chance at life.
In the area of science, new data and an ever-expanding scope of
human experience enriches us and expands our horizons as we
progress into experiences and endeavors that offer us opportunities
and capabilites far beyond the limits we lived by 300 years ago.
Therein is our potential, and if used wisely, therein is a promising
future for humans on earth. However, it's only in trying to make
for a better world based on increased knowledge and the wise use
of it that a better world can become a reality.
Therein is the beauty of science, the book is never closed and the
books you read about evolution or history or astronomy or genetics
today has the potential to be considerably more thorough than a
book you would have read about such things 50 years ago.
50 years from now, guess what? Thanks to the scientific method,
the books you read about evolution or history or astronomy or
genetics are likely to be similar in their differentiation from today,
if not more so due to the ever-escalating pace of scientific advances
in our understanding of our naturalistic world.
The very nature of human nature may dramatically change within
the next 50 years, thanks to the ongoing and ever-escalating scientific
advances being made.
Just one example, our planet-finder mission will have enabled human-
kind to for the first time ever (that we know of) perform a detailed
search for earthlike planets (and life) in nearby star systems (nearby,
relatively speaking) within the next 10 years or so.
Dennis Jones
news:gD5R8.46213$ZQ6.2...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
depend on my personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
God Bless You,
Dennis
Galatians 2:20
JTEM
"Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
> Such is the case with religion / supernatualism, it's imagination
> gone mad, "make believe" imposed upon us as "the one and
> only reality
This where where I have to disagree. The spiritual part of us is at
least as real as our emotional side. It might even be safe to state
that human spirituality is based on our emotions, at least in part.
The impact emotions have on our perception of reality can no be
overstated.
> In the area of science, new data and an ever-expanding scope
> of human experience enriches us and expands our horizons as
> we progress into experiences and endeavors that offer us
> opportunities and capabilites far beyond the limits we lived
> by 300 years ago.
Humans are defined much less an intelligent species than we
are an emotional species. People dedicate their life to science,
to discovery, because they enjoy it... because of the "Pride"
of being the first... the trailblazer...
Our hearts are not in it for the quest of knowledge but the quest
itself.
The Holy Kaffir
Religion is the manifestation of ignorance. Gods, demons, spirits, ghost,
goblins, fairies and dragons - all stem from the same source, ignorance. The
mind's need to classify, organize, define and explore uses the least
resistant path, before recorded history as we scampered about in caves the
simplest explanation was supernatural, this was woven into culture and has
been with us since those first sentient days.
Gods exist because people fear the unknown and are too lazy or brow beaten
to shrug off the shackles of superstition imposed by culture. No one knows
anything yet people run around killing one another in the name of fairy
tales. If that's the case, may the Three Bears judge you all! ;)
Tiger
Absolutely it would. "The Matrix" and "the force" are inventions of
Hollywood. Metaphysics is not.
>
> Such is the case with religion / supernatualism, it's imagination gone
> mad, "make believe" imposed upon us as "the one and only reality
> (really - just trust those claiming it is so)" -or- "what life 'really' is
> all about - just believe (or else)" -or- "the answer for all unknowns
> (really, don't you dare doubt it)" -and- _________ (insert other
> real life ramifications of religion / supernaturalism here) in this, our
> one and only sure chance at life.
I disagree. "Supernaturalism," what I refer to as metaphysics, is not "make
believe." There is too much evidence.
>
> In the area of science, new data and an ever-expanding scope of
> human experience enriches us and expands our horizons as we
> progress into experiences and endeavors that offer us opportunities
> and capabilites far beyond the limits we lived by 300 years ago.
> Therein is our potential, and if used wisely, therein is a promising
> future for humans on earth. However, it's only in trying to make
> for a better world based on increased knowledge and the wise use
> of it that a better world can become a reality.
Indeed, science is providing more and more evidence for the existence of
something "other" than us...and I don't mean aliens.
>
> Therein is the beauty of science, the book is never closed and the
> books you read about evolution or history or astronomy or genetics
> today has the potential to be considerably more thorough than a
> book you would have read about such things 50 years ago.
>
> 50 years from now, guess what? Thanks to the scientific method,
> the books you read about evolution or history or astronomy or
> genetics are likely to be similar in their differentiation from today,
> if not more so due to the ever-escalating pace of scientific advances
> in our understanding of our naturalistic world.
I have no doubt.
>
> The very nature of human nature may dramatically change within
> the next 50 years, thanks to the ongoing and ever-escalating scientific
> advances being made.
I doubt that "human nature" will be significantly altered.
>
> Just one example, our planet-finder mission will have enabled human-
> kind to for the first time ever (that we know of) perform a detailed
> search for earthlike planets (and life) in nearby star systems (nearby,
> relatively speaking) within the next 10 years or so.
Good...I hope you are correct. However...absolutely *none* of what you said
specifically addressed my post...so I'm curious as to why you would respond
to it.
Dan Fake
news:uh9ril3...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "markella" <markell...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:6b277b9a.02062...@posting.google.com...
> > Whew, that was quite a filibuster. My own gut feeling on why people
> > believe what they do is that the vast majority of humans are
> > uncomfortable with the thought of "This is all that there is" so they
> > invent and believe in imaginary deities and afterlifes.
> >
> > markella
>
> My own feeling is scriptural . the Word makes it clear that all
> men inately sense or know that GOD must be . They do also
> sense their own intelligence ..their own spiritual nature and
> yes they have a sense of certainty that they are not just
> a physical being but a very special ..thinking..feeling .. 'godlike'
> being [ dont get me wrong i dont even believe men are gods :]
> that is not some offhand creation of random chance and senseless
> nothingness but something MUCH much different.
The origins of our universe are still being explored, but naturalism
is by no means apart from the most likely and reasonable explanation
of all that is.
Your senses impart your experience in this realm of matter and
energy, and can be understood as a result of naturalism / evolution.
The scriptures, word, god, spiritual, godlike? Man-made (with all due
respect to women, so who knows, maybe women-made is involved
in some of it), a construct of superstition and "make believe" and
understandable as a manner in which ancient and prehistoric humans
comprehended their existence in superstitious ways, living out their
short lives in a world of mystery, hardship, and wonder.
>
> Then as the Word says they look at a billion worlds ..
What word says anything about a billion worlds? Actually, there are
up to 400 billion or so stars in our particular galaxy and up to 100
billion or so galaxies in our particular universe and as for multiple
universes, well, that certainly fits within the parameters of some
theories and apart from the parameters of others, addressable and
investigatable based on the tenets of scientific methodology.
> the skys
> the heavens ..the magnificence of the created Universe and
> they know rationally and inately that such a tremendous
> creation Must have a cause and a reason .
Quantum physics is random. There is no nothing unless by
nothing you mean to describe quanta. Put another way, quanta
always has been and always will be.
> In our age we
> know that the creation is of an indescrible magnatude ... [try a
> billion stars and thats absolutely nothing compared to the
> whole of it ] came from basically NOTHING.
Actually, after the big bang there was no star development for an
estimated 500 million years, in our particular universe, per some
recent explorative expositions.
> I.E. , science
> is describing the genesis of all this incredible space and time
> as coming from NOTHING...
See quantum physics and multiple theories on naturalistic origins.
> There was a time when
> there was NO SPACE AND NO TIME ...
Some scientific theories utilize that line of reasoning, but there
are scientific theories that differ with that interpretation of the
data thus far accumulated.
> preceding
> the big bang ..or big bang like theories. Sometimes its
> spoken of as a 'singularity' and described as much smaller
> than the head of a pin. In any event Man senses / knows
> by the sheer weight of what is 'seen' that it must have had
> a cause and a reason...
We know a lot about that which is within the realm of our explor-
ative scope, thus far. Of course, not knowing what resides beyond
the area of our explorative scope, it's challenging to make a case
for how much we know as compared to how much is knowable.
As for cause / reason, within the areas of scientific inquiry, we're
exploring that which remains unknown. Really, in the modern day,
"god did it" is perceived as a religious area of interest, not a
scientifically explorable one, despite efforts of religious enthu-
siasts to try to mix the two distinctly separate approaches to
comprehension of our place in all that is, has been, or ever will
be.
> and that is also the most 'logical'
> supposition also . robert.
The most 'logical' approach is to admit there is an area of unknown,
and using the capabilities at our disposal, to research and explore
and attempt to peel back the layers of mystery, understanding that
a willingness to say "unknown" does not convey weakness, it
conveys reality. Furthermore, a willingness to say "unknown but
I am doing my best to find out, using scientific methodology"
displays strength.
Dan Fake
news:H68R8.292780$cQ3.15141@sccrnsc01...
>
> "Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>
> > Such is the case with religion / supernaturalism, it's imagination
> > gone mad, "make believe" imposed upon us as "the one and
> > only reality
>
> least as real as our emotional side. It might even be safe to state
> that human spirituality is based on our emotions, at least in part.
Human emotions are derived from a physical state of being in
a real world. Spirituality (one of those switch hitter words) is
most often associated with religion, but if you are using it to
indicate emotions of a naturalistic kind, we're in sync.
>
> The impact emotions have on our perception of reality can no be
> overstated.
Emotions / feelings, part of our physical state of being, the totality
of ourselves as evidenced in a physical world of reality. All of the
supernaturalism / superstition is apart from that, something that
people feel is real but which is really imagination confused with
reality.
>
> > In the area of science, new data and an ever-expanding scope
> > of human experience enriches us and expands our horizons as
> > we progress into experiences and endeavors that offer us
> > opportunities and capabilities far beyond the limits we lived
> > by 300 years ago.
>
> Humans are defined much less an intelligent species than we
> are an emotional species. People dedicate their life to science,
> to discovery, because they enjoy it... because of the "Pride"
> of being the first... the trailblazer...
Well, that and the way it brings reward of a physical kind in
this one real life we share. Medical advances, for example,
one of my favorites.
>
> Our hearts are not in it for the quest of knowledge but the quest
> itself.
The wanting is often more exciting than the having, but in terms
of science which eventual results in having longer life and in relieving
human suffering, the having may be pleasing and satisfying, for a
while, but nevertheless, you are correct, for there is always some
other need / want to be researched / explored, some challenge to
be overcome, some mystery to be solved.
bob
"Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:MT8R8.49647$LC3.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "bob" <now...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> news:uh9ril3...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "markella" <markell...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:6b277b9a.02062...@posting.google.com...
> > > Whew, that was quite a filibuster. My own gut feeling on why people
> > > believe what they do is that the vast majority of humans are
> > > uncomfortable with the thought of "This is all that there is" so they
> > > invent and believe in imaginary deities and afterlifes.
> > >
> > > markella
> >
> > My own feeling is scriptural . the Word makes it clear that all
> > men inately sense or know that GOD must be . They do also
> > sense their own intelligence ..their own spiritual nature and
> > yes they have a sense of certainty that they are not just
> > a physical being but a very special ..thinking..feeling .. 'godlike'
> > being [ dont get me wrong i dont even believe men are gods :]
> > that is not some offhand creation of random chance and senseless
> > nothingness but something MUCH much different.
>
> The origins of our universe are still being explored, but naturalism
> is by no means apart from the most likely and reasonable explanation
> of all that is.
Naturalism cannot be the most likely because if you really follow
science you would realize that "intelligence" appears to be
"necessary" in order to explain how everything can appear from
nothing. I dont know if you understood the point ..but things dont
just pop into being for no reason from nowhere in your's or
anyone elses experiential sense and the very existence of
science belies the idea of random nonsensical processes devoid
of reasonable avenues of exploration. Quantum physics relies a lot
on the assumptions of philosophical constructs in order to
determine the best directions for research to proceed. Goes
all the way back to aristotle and before him democritus who
first posisted that all nature must consist of smaller and smaller
particles.
> Your senses impart your experience in this realm of matter and
> energy, and can be understood as a result of naturalism / evolution.
Ok im probably gonna have to explain this 3 more times ...BUT ...
there was NO MATTER AND NO ENERGEY PRIOR TO THE
TIME {THERE WAS NO TIME PRIOR TO THE TIME EITHER
HEHEEEE} THAT THERE 'CAME TO BE' MATTER AND
ENERGY. So trying to argue that naturalism explains the existence
of nature approaches ludicrism as an explanation of itself.
> The scriptures, word, god, spiritual, godlike? Man-made (with all due
> respect to women, so who knows, maybe women-made is involved
> in some of it), a construct of superstition and "make believe" and
> understandable as a manner in which ancient and prehistoric humans
> comprehended their existence in superstitious ways, living out their
> short lives in a world of mystery, hardship, and wonder.
>
This is a SIMPLE ASSUMPTION on your part cause you
ASSUME there is NO GOD in contraindication of your natural
reason and i have no doubt you dont even see or want to admit
you dont have a clue if there is a GOD OR NOT and are unable
to accept the plain and true statement that you COULDNT
know. I hate to splain this to you but it is IMPOSSIBLE to state
there is NO GOD without the corresponding ability to exist
in everyplace in the universe at once,forever which again runs into
real problems with the concept of time.
> Quantum physics is random. There is no nothing unless by
> nothing you mean to describe quanta. Put another way, quanta
> always has been and always will be.
How silly : This means the measure of energy is a measure of
frequency which is a measure of time (an atomic fre-
quency defines a second) meaning that the measure of a
quanta, by definition, is a temporal artifact. Take away
time, the quanta goes unrealized, and energy has no par-
ticular expression. The differentiation of energy into a
discrete 'event' is inexorably linked to an observation
made during a 'slice' of time.Quanta is just the smallest
particle - im talking about NO SPACE AND NO TIME.
> > There was a time when
> > there was NO SPACE AND NO TIME ...
>
> Some scientific theories utilize that line of reasoning, but there
> are scientific theories that differ with that interpretation of the
> data thus far accumulated.
There are a zillion theories so what ?
> The most 'logical' approach is to admit there is an area of unknown,
> and using the capabilities at our disposal, to research and explore
> and attempt to peel back the layers of mystery, understanding that
> a willingness to say "unknown" does not convey weakness, it
> conveys reality. Furthermore, a willingness to say "unknown but
> I am doing my best to find out, using scientific methodology"
> displays strength.
And this from a guy that previously stated the surety that
God does not exist :) .
JTEM
"Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
> Human emotions are derived from a physical state of being in
> a real world.
Nonsense.
> Spirituality (one of those switch hitter words) is
> most often associated with religion, but if you are using it to
> indicate emotions of a naturalistic kind, we're in sync.
I assure you that I do divorce "Spirituality" from "Religion."
> > The impact emotions have on our perception of reality
> > can no be overstated.
> Emotions / feelings, part of our physical state of being,
No not really. How you feel can and does impact your
perception of reality.
You can get angry about your butter melting for example.
But the butter has no choice in the matter. It follows the
rules which govern butter and has no choice but to respond
to a given enironment in accordence to those rules.
> All of the supernaturalism / superstition is apart from that,
A "Superstition" is on the order of a religion. There is no need
to mix the two. What then remains, "Spirituality," is no more or
less a part of our existence than our emotions. Som might
argue that they are one and the same... perhaps describing
"Spirituality" as an feeling of awe in response to nature.
However, even that explaination amounts to no more than a
rationalization -- a leap of faith -- as it offers nothing to
defend the notion that humans would have difficulty defining
emotions IN THE SINGLE CASE OF SPIRITUALITY.
Note to religious freaks: My above statement neither requires
nor suggests that human spiritually must somehow originate
from an external source.
> > Humans are defined much less an intelligent species than we
> > are an emotional species. People dedicate their life to science,
> > to discovery, because they enjoy it... because of the "Pride"
> > of being the first... the trailblazer...
>
> Well, that and the way it brings reward of a physical kind in
> this one real life we share. Medical advances, for example,
> one of my favorites.
To favor one outcome over another is to display a greater
emotional response.
> > Our hearts are not in it for the quest of knowledge but the
> > quest itself.
> The wanting is often more exciting than the having,
Which explains marriage statistics...
> but in terms of science which eventual results in having longer
> life and in relieving human suffering,
People don't have an emotional response to suffering? What of relief
of suffering?
You can't be human and escape emotions.
William
>"Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>
>> Such is the case with religion / supernatualism, it's imagination
>> gone mad, "make believe" imposed upon us as "the one and
>> only reality
>
>This where where I have to disagree. The spiritual part of us is at
>least as real as our emotional side. It might even be safe to state
>that human spirituality is based on our emotions, at least in part.
It depends what you mean by spiritual. The current usage of the word
seems to mean deep subjective personal experiences rather than some
sort of disembodied existence. In that case there isn't much
difference between 'spiritual' and 'emotions'.
In either case we all categorically distinguish between what claims
people put down to subjectively/spiritual/emotional experience and
what they can support objectively. If someone said they'd had a
profound subjective/spiritual experience that pointed to you being the
local rapist you'd hope the courts would throw this out as evidence
about reality.
>The impact emotions have on our perception of reality can no be
>overstated.
Agreed. And we should all be aware of the dangers.
>> In the area of science, new data and an ever-expanding scope
>> of human experience enriches us and expands our horizons as
>> we progress into experiences and endeavors that offer us
>> opportunities and capabilites far beyond the limits we lived
>> by 300 years ago.
>
>Humans are defined much less an intelligent species than we
>are an emotional species. People dedicate their life to science,
>to discovery, because they enjoy it... because of the "Pride"
>of being the first... the trailblazer...
>
>Our hearts are not in it for the quest of knowledge but the quest
>itself.
But we still use our intelligence to try and elliminate the influence
of our emotions when we are trying to find the truth. That is the case
with all the major disciplines such as science, medicine and law. The
areas where folk let their emotions and subjective beliefs dictate
reality have been all too evident in recent times.
William
Dan Fake
> Dan Fake wrote:
>
> > [...]
> >
> > However, if any parent told their son or daughter they must believe
> > in "The Matrix" -or- "The Force" (from Star Wars fame) as reality,
> > and ______ (use religion as a reference point and insert all sorts
> > of fantasies, claims, grandiose promises, and horrific threats here),
> > that would be an entirely different matter, now wouldn't it?
>
> Absolutely it would. "The Matrix" and "the force" are inventions of
> Hollywood. Metaphysics is not.
You've doubted any postulation that "The Matrix" and "The Force" (from
Star Wars fame) reflect reality (if they are combined with supernaturalism)
because they were invented in "Hollywood" and any claims that they are
associated with supernaturalism would be of no veritability? Aside from
the supernaturalism, do you think that those movies (fantasies) describe
aspects of being that are applicable in that which is the unknown?
Are all supernaturalistic claims (and all claims of any type within that which
is the unknown) of no veritability -or- does that just apply to claims incon-
sistent with traditional supernatural ones?
I agree with you, regarding "The Matrix" and "The Force" (from Star Wars
fame) having a different perceptual impact if folks attach supernaturalism to
them, not due to their invention in "Hollywood" and the arbitrary attach-
ment of supernaturalism to them, but because mixing any supernaturalism
with any aspect of the unknown or of the reality which we are a part or is
of no veritability.
Supernaturalism is, by definition, "make believe" treated as reality by
believing supernatural beings / things / places are real as if your very life
on earth and immortal destiny depended on it (in the manner as used by
most religions we are familiar with).
As for the places outside of "Hollywood" that were used by evolved and
communicative apes (homo sapiens) to invent the supernatural, prehistoric
tribes and villages and caves were the locales. Prehistoric humans dealt with
an often harsh and cruel world, and possessed the mindset of communica-
tive species inventing be-all end-all explanations.
Ideas we now take for granted, like doubt - skepticism - experimentation,
came in handy in the real world but were caste aside when it came to
claims regarding the ultimate unknowns of existence, by many (most?)
of our ancient and prehistoric ancestors.
Instead, those who were the most convincing inventors of myths and super-
stition were placed in positions of esteem based on the evidence we've been
able to gather regarding those times, as well as the evidence present in early
relics, artifacts, monuments, and written records of ancient civilizations.
[Garplat, Fud, and son of Fud are used in the following as examples of
supernaturalism in prehistory that might have taken place - it's just a story
about what might have been ... but do know that the claimed existence &
absence of evidence for Garplat, Fud, and son of Fud follows the same
"claimed existence & absence of evidence" methodology as that used by
modern-day followers of supernaturalism and beings called god, allah,
son of god, angels, demons, holy spirits, heavens, hells, and ...]
After all, when some leader or powerful person(s) said "believe in Garplat,
the supreme being, or your family will die", hey, being that our prehistoric
ancestors knew how fragile and dangerous life was, few would find a way
to reply "no, there is no Garplat, there is just us and the unknown" (and the
few that did reply in that manner would have risked their lives to do so).
Eventually, as evolutionary destiny would have it, believers in Garplat would
end up competing (or fighting) believers in Fud and the son of Fud and the
mixture of the supernaturalistic fantasies would have merged to become the
believers in Garud and the son of Garud and ...
In addition, the ancient / prehistoric invention, if you will, of supernatur-
lism was but one of many ways folks were controlled and manipulated in
those days and in the present day in many cultures. Supernaturalism is best
understood as one of the many ways that authority figures try to manipulate
and control folks.
> >
> > Such is the case with religion / supernaturalism, it's imagination gone
> > mad, "make believe" imposed upon us as "the one and only reality
> > (really - just trust those claiming it is so)" -or- "what life 'really' is
> > all about - just believe (or else)" -or- "the answer for all unknowns
> > (really, don't you dare doubt it)" -and- _________ (insert other
> > real life ramifications of religion / supernaturalism here) in this, our
> > one and only sure chance at life.
>
> I disagree. "Supernaturalism," what I refer to as metaphysics, is not "make
> believe." There is too much evidence.
Evidence regarding the unknown? Do tell, for evidence regarding
the unknown would then become part of the known, and the need
for things like faith and belief would fade, replaced by empiricism.
Supernaturalism would then become part of naturalism, part of the
known, part of the testable and verifiable. The bible, for example,
evidence that a lot of humans had a lot of superstition, and the over
5,000 mentions of supernatural beings / places / events ... just that,
not part of our natural world, not part of empirical data, "make
believe" treated as reality by the superstitious.
Always remember, claims do not a truth make, and it's only in the
totality of evidence that a claim can be accepted as likely true or
rejected as without merit due to the fact that the claim is illogical
-and/or- unsubstantiated -and/or- inaccurate -and/or- an insult to
intelligence, logic, and reason -and/or- an effort to brainwash,
confuse, and delude -and/or- an effort to con -and/or- an effort to
seduce / threaten / blackmail via false claims bigger than the entire
universe -and/or- ...
> >
> > In the area of science, new data and an ever-expanding scope of
> > human experience enriches us and expands our horizons as we
> > progress into experiences and endeavors that offer us opportunities
> > and capabilities far beyond the limits we lived by 300 years ago.
> > Therein is our potential, and if used wisely, therein is a promising
> > future for humans on earth. However, it's only in trying to make
> > for a better world based on increased knowledge and the wise use
> > of it that a better world can become a reality.
>
> Indeed, science is providing more and more evidence for the existence of
> something "other" than us...and I don't mean aliens.
Well us, being humans, is a minute part of the totality of that which we
can detect via an array of means. Our detection only goes so far in time
and space, and our vision gets less information as we go tinier and tinier
to the quantum world -or- larger and larger to the stars, planets, black
matter, black holes, quasars, pulsars, and _______ (all that is) the fur-
ther out we go in space and the further back we go in time ...
> >
> > Therein is the beauty of science, the book is never closed and the
> > books you read about evolution or history or astronomy or genetics
> > today has the potential to be considerably more thorough than a
> > book you would have read about such things 50 years ago.
> >
> > 50 years from now, guess what? Thanks to the scientific method,
> > the books you read about evolution or history or astronomy or
> > genetics are likely to be similar in their differentiation from today,
> > if not more so due to the ever-escalating pace of scientific advances
> > in our understanding of our naturalistic world.
>
> I have no doubt.
> >
> > The very nature of human nature may dramatically change within
> > the next 50 years, thanks to the ongoing and ever-escalating scientific
> > advances being made.
>
> I doubt that "human nature" will be significantly altered.
---
Friday, April 26, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50958-2002Apr25.html
... Will human nature itself change? ... "Life in 2015 will
be revolutionized by the growing effect of technology
across all dimensions of life: social, economic, political,
and personal," a recent Rand National Defense Research
Institute report for the National Intelligence Council says.
"The results could be astonishing." ...
---
> >
> > [...]
Dan Fake
Since the religion of creationism (or the latest evolved version
of it, intelligent design) is present as an implied or overt aspect
of some religions, especially fundamentalist ones, the following
excerpts from a recent Scientific American article are provided
to help folks understand the way in which science, evolution,
and open-minded pursuit of verity are inconsistent with the crea-
tionist philosophies and their intelligent design offshoots ...
---
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF
---
- - - begin excerpts - - -
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism
by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
- - -
A broadcast version of this article will air Wednesday, June 26,
on National Geographic Today, a program on the National
Geographic Channel.
- - -
...
Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law pro-
fessor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of
Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design
theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms
to discussions of God.
...
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent
with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution.
The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeat-
edly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'"
The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organ-
isms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those
transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and
compelling.
...
"Survival of the fittest" is a conversational way to describe natural
selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential
rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling
species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring
they are likely to leave under given circumstances.
...
Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes
that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species.
Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of
species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record
and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may
be related.
These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolu-
tion has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells,
plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving
beak shapes among Galápagos finches). Natural selection and other
mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybrid-
ization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.
The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference
from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the his-
torical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology,
as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by
checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether
they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries.
...
No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up
any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find
articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace
evolution as a fundamental concept. Conversely, serious scientific
publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent.
...
Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects
their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and
other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even sub-
mitted.
...
Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how
speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral
relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a
species apart from modern humans, and much more.
These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science.
Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding prin-
ciple is nonetheless universal in biology.
Unfortunately, dishonest creationists have shown a willingness to
take scientists' comments out of context to exaggerate and distort
the disagreements.
...
New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when
populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch
of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever
distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or
it may become extinct.
...
The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists
have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and
other building blocks of life could have formed and organized
themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the
foundation for cellular biochemistry.
Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds
might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a
scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents
arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was
young.
Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing
to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even
if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for
instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago),
evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless
microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.
...
Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random muta-
tions that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend
on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities.
Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism
of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable"
(adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones.
As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can
push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures
in surprisingly short times.
...
the Second Law [of thermodynamics] permits parts of a system to
decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting
increase.
Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the
sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated
with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales.
Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming
other forms of life and nonliving materials.
...
biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations
(changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)--bacterial
resistance to antibiotics, for example.
...
molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change
that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which
new traits can appear.
...
Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural
selection could produce new species.
...
Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms,
but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are
constantly assessing the potential of unusual genetic mechanisms for
causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms.
...
the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation
events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments,
researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection--for
anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and
other traits--and found that they had created populations of organ-
isms that did not breed with outsiders.
...
paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils interme-
diate in form between various taxonomic groups.
...
evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular
biology.
All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution pre-
dicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among
species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships.
Geneticists speak of the "molecular clock" that records the passage
of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are
transitional within evolution.
...
Darwin suggested that even "incomplete" eyes might confer benefits
(such as helping creatures orient toward light) and thereby survive
for further evolutionary refinement.
Biology has vindicated Darwin: researchers have identified primitive
eyes and light-sensing organs throughout the animal kingdom and
have even tracked the evolutionary history of eyes through compar-
ative genetics. (It now appears that in various families of organisms,
eyes have evolved independently.)
...
It is wrong to insinuate that the field of explanations consists only
of random processes or designing intelligences.
Researchers into nonlinear systems and cellular automata at the
Santa Fe Institute and elsewhere have demonstrated that simple,
undirected processes can yield extraordinarily complex patterns.
Some of the complexity seen in organisms may therefore emerge
through natural phenomena that we as yet barely understand. But
that is far different from saying that the complexity could not have
arisen naturally.
...
Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism
can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informa-
tive answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature
of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works.
Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world
took shape.
Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the
effort.
- - -
---
Other Resources for Defending Evolution
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000276B7-6792-1D0A-8E49809EC588EEDF
---
- - - end excerpts - - -
> I dont know if you understood the point ..but things dont
> just pop into being for no reason from nowhere in your's or
> anyone elses experiential sense and the very existence of
> science belies the idea of random nonsensical processes devoid
> of reasonable avenues of exploration. Quantum physics relies a lot
> on the assumptions of philosophical constructs in order to
> determine the best directions for research to proceed. Goes
> all the way back to aristotle and before him democritus who
> first posisted that all nature must consist of smaller and smaller
> particles.
Excerpt from Stephen Hawking's -A Brief History of Time- ...
"There are something like ten million million million
million million million million million million million
million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes
after it) particles in the region of the universe that
we can observe.
Where did they all come from?
The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can
be created out of energy in the form of particle/anti-
particle pairs.
But that just raises the question of where the energy
came from.
The answer is that the total energy of the universe is
exactly zero.
The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy.
However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two
pieces of matter that are close to each other have less
energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because
you have to expend energy to separate them against the
gravitational force that is pulling them together.
Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy.
In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in
space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy
exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter.
So the total energy of the universe is zero. ..."
- end excerpt -
>
> > Your senses impart your experience in this realm of matter and
> > energy, and can be understood as a result of naturalism / evolution.
>
> Ok im probably gonna have to explain this 3 more times ...BUT ...
> there was NO MATTER AND NO ENERGEY PRIOR TO THE
> TIME {THERE WAS NO TIME PRIOR TO THE TIME EITHER
> HEHEEEE} THAT THERE 'CAME TO BE' MATTER AND
> ENERGY. So trying to argue that naturalism explains the existence
> of nature approaches ludicrism as an explanation of itself.
Excerpt from "After The First Three Minutes: The Story
of Our Universe", by T. Padmanabhan
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521620392
Given a description of a quantized universe, we should
be able to ask questions about the 'creation'. The most
important question is: 'Why is there a universe at all?
Why is there all this matter?'
Classical cosmology offers us no explanation: given
a certain amount of matter in the universe, classical
cosmology merely traces it back to the big bang and
then throws up its hands, being at a loss to explain
further! An empty and uneventful space is as acceptable
to classical theory as all the richness of our evolving
universe.
Some of the quantum mechanical models of the universe
do give an answer. One can show -- in these models -- that
equations describing such a universe *do not allow* an
empty universe. In other words, quantum cosmology not
only describes a universe with matter in it, but actually
demands that there should be matter in it.
In these models, empty space becomes unstable due to
the quantum fluctuations of the gravitational field and
makes a spontaneous transition into an expanding universe
filled with matter.
You may think that creating matter and making it expand
would require some amount of energy, and hence if
matter came out of 'empty space' we would be violating
the conservation of energy -- which is a cherished principle
in physics.
In fact, this is *the* question which had plagued several
philosophers: how can something emerge from nothing?
Actually there is no violation of energy conservation in
this process. Remember that the gravitational field has
negative energy because it can bind matter together (we
saw earlier that the electron bound to a proton exists
in a state with negative energy; any attractive force will
share this feature and gravitational force is always
attractive).
So we can easily come up with a situation in which
the negative gravitational energy exactly balances the
positive energy of matter (and expansion), thereby
keeping the total energy zero.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The equations of quantum cosmology indicate that
the universe has essentially sprung spontaneously
from the vacuum due to quantum fluctuations.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This might seem a very bizarre phenomenon unless you
properly grasp the subtleties of quantum-mechanical
descriptions of the universe. The vacuum of quantum
theory is not the 'mere emptiness' of classical theory.
Instead it is bristling with elementary particles constantly
being created and destroyed, and fields which fluctuate
incessantly.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The mathematics of these models indicate that such
a state of affairs *can* lead to the creation of a
material world.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It would, of course, be very wrong to say that all
that needs to be known is known. At best, quantum
cosmology is in its infancy. Several links in the chain
of arguments need to be strengthened and several
gaps need to be filled.
All the same, combining quantum theory and general
relativity -- two major intellectual triumphs of this
century -- seems to lead us to a far richer and more
beautiful vision of our universe.
- - -
Another perspective ...
Sunday, March 25, 2001
SUNDAY BOOK REVIEW
Something from Nothing
http://www.calendarlive.com/top/1,1419,L-LATimes-Books-X!ArticleDetail-26133,00.html
Excerpt:
"... Today many physicists believe that nothingness
is the foundation of everything, not just the arena in
which matter resides but the substrate from which
matter is actually constructed.
As physicists envision the universe now, everything
that exists is ultimately just a complex enfolding of
the underlying substrate of empty space.
This vision presents the universe, as English physicist
Paul Davies has summed it up, as 'nothing but struc-
tured nothingness.'
Indeed, it might be said that one way of characterizing
the history of modern physics is the gradual rise in the
status of nothing from anathema to supreme principle.
Small wonder, then, that in the last 18 months there have
been several books that have chronicled the history of
nothing and our changing attitudes to this most enigmatic
concept. ...
[skip section on history, including theological and multi-
cultural history of perspectives on nothingness]
Over the last century an eerie parallel has also been found
in physics, for physicists now believe that everything in
our universe--every speck of matter and every active force--
arose from the nothingness of empty space.
One of the most important stories of modern science has
been the gradual folding of more and more elements of
our world-picture into the fabric of space.
Einstein began the process, inadvertently it must be said,
by revealing with his general theory of relativity that gravity
could be understood as a byproduct of the underlying
curvature of space.
Unlike Newton, for whom gravity remained the ultimate
mystery, Einstein's theory places the origin of this funda-
mental force in the architecture of the void.
Both Barrow and Seife describe this astonishing insight,
which remains physics' most compelling and mystical
achievement.
That something as powerful as gravity--the force which
holds our planet in orbit around the sun and our sun in
orbit around the galaxy--could be a byproduct of empty
space seems to defy reason.
The equations of general relativity even allow, as Barrow
tells us, for the existence of empty universes: vast ex-
panses of space and time devoid of matter and energy.
Physicists refer to these as 'vacuum' universes.
Such a world would be Augustine's nightmare, a pure
and purposeless void, in the most profound sense.
But the pure void of general relativity is itself an abstrac-
tion; physicists have since discovered that the vacuum is
far from empty.
That other great pillar of 20th-century physics, quantum
mechanics, showed us that the vacuum is teaming with
'virtual' particles ...
--- end excerpt ---
The Book of Nothing : Vacuums, Voids, and the
Latest Ideas About the Origins of the Universe
by John D. Barrow
Hardcover - 416 pages (April 17, 2001)
Pantheon Books; ISBN: 0375420991
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375420991
Review Excerpt:
"... Arguably, the most important discovery of 20th-century
physics is that there is no such thing as nothing: even the
tightest vacuum is teeming with subatomic particles popping
in and out of existence, according to the dictates of quantum
theory.
Now, many astronomers suspect that such 'vacuum effects'
may have triggered the Big Bang itself, filling our universe
with matter. Indeed, the very latest observations suggest that
vacuum effects will dictate the ultimate fate of the universe. ..."
>
> > The scriptures, word, god, spiritual, godlike? Man-made (with all due
> > respect to women, so who knows, maybe women-made is involved
> > in some of it), a construct of superstition and "make believe" and
> > understandable as a manner in which ancient and prehistoric humans
> > comprehended their existence in superstitious ways, living out their
> > short lives in a world of mystery, hardship, and wonder.
> >
>
> This is a SIMPLE ASSUMPTION on your part cause you
> ASSUME there is NO GOD in contraindication of your natural
> reason and i have no doubt you dont even see or want to admit
> you dont have a clue if there is a GOD OR NOT and are unable
> to accept the plain and true statement that you COULDNT
> know. I hate to splain this to you but it is IMPOSSIBLE to state
> there is NO GOD without the corresponding ability to exist
> in everyplace in the universe at once,forever which again runs into
> real problems with the concept of time.
There is no god. Kind of defeats your postulate that it's not
possible to say there is no god. Now, in saying there is no
god, one would naturally have to define what the god is that
cannot be. In the definition is the verity or refutation of the
statement. For example:
god = "I dunno" ... well, there cannot not be no "I dunno"
god = "whatever" ... well, there cannot be no "whatever"
god = "the supreme being" ... well, what is a "supreme being"?
response = "I dunno" ... well, you got me there, see above
However, you must realize that the closer a god becomes to the
be-all end-all of the universe doing whatever it wants in whatever
way it wants -but- never lying -but- lying -but- being all loving
-but- being unendingly violent, the closer you get to "there is no
god", for by defining god in contradictory and illogical ways,
you've defined something which by the rules of logic, reason,
and intelligence, cannot exist". ...
Sure, you can have god be a chameleon, changing definitions
based on human desires and exigencies, becoming a fine-tuned
condemner of unbelievers based on specified (though contra-
dictory) criteria -and- a goody-loving-all knowing-answerer of
"worthy (in god's mind) prayers" or a daddy who used a virgin
to birth a son or a supreme being blessing humans who kill or
torture in its name or a supreme being who loves us all uncon-
ditionally, but when you're honest with yourself, and tally up
that which is attributed to god, that god disappears in a *poof*
of irreconcilable and contradictory statements, right before
the very neurons folks are using to try to imagine that such a
god exists ...
The god that doesn't exist is the impossible-to-reconcile god,
the projection of humans. If you limit a god, place it in a box,
exclude all attributions outside of a god box, then does not
god become the object of one's own creation, and how does
one validate a god that's in so many irreconcilable boxes, and
how does a believer in one single god box foreclose a super-god
beyond the god in any of the boxes -or- a super-god who main-
tains dominion over god but insists on no contact with humans?
Once you enter the world of the human imagination regarding
supernatural beings / places, you've departed from reality and
bonded with the same kind of brains and perspectives in which
"make believe" beings were first invented ... and taught to their
children ... who taught them to their children ... who (on and on
and on, the passing down of myths-treated-as-realities which is
the nature of that which is supernaturalism) ... to the current day ...
>
> > Quantum physics is random. There is no nothing unless by
> > nothing you mean to describe quanta. Put another way, quanta
> > always has been and always will be.
>
> How silly : This means the measure of energy is a measure of
> frequency which is a measure of time (an atomic fre-
> quency defines a second) meaning that the measure of a
> quanta, by definition, is a temporal artifact. Take away
> time, the quanta goes unrealized, and energy has no par-
> ticular expression. The differentiation of energy into a
> discrete 'event' is inexorably linked to an observation
> made during a 'slice' of time.Quanta is just the smallest
> particle - im talking about NO SPACE AND NO TIME.
See articles referenced above for details on pre-big bang quanta.
>
> > > There was a time when
> > > there was NO SPACE AND NO TIME ...
> >
> > Some scientific theories utilize that line of reasoning, but there
> > are scientific theories that differ with that interpretation of the
> > data thus far accumulated.
>
> There are a zillion theories so what ?
A zillion? Please define a zillion. I'm familiar with quite a few theories,
and the debate is ongoing ... quite likely we will have a theory of
everything by 2020, and the theories will be refined as humans reach
out and learn more about all that is, all that has been, and all that ever
will be ... will we ever know all? Not likely. What will remain extant
that which we know? The unknown.
>
> > The most 'logical' approach is to admit there is an area of unknown,
> > and using the capabilities at our disposal, to research and explore
> > and attempt to peel back the layers of mystery, understanding that
> > a willingness to say "unknown" does not convey weakness, it
> > conveys reality. Furthermore, a willingness to say "unknown but
> > I am doing my best to find out, using scientific methodology"
> > displays strength.
>
> And this from a guy that previously stated the surety that
> God does not exist :) .
See details above.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
bob
from a 'readers digest' compendium of citations . Let me just
say that i highly suspect that your an armchair scientist who
probably has an interest .. probably no degrees ..probably no
advanced knowledge of math at all and that you have probably
convinced yourself that you actually understood what you posted.
The reason i find this highly likely is because for example.. in noting
that you have NO CLUE and NO capability to assert that
GOD DOES NOT EXIST.. you reply with the most innane stuff
imaginable - attempting to delude someone besides yourself that
you know that God does not exist . Instead of saying Yes - bob,
i cannot say that God Does NOT exist you post the following
nonsensical drivel that i guess you think leads someone to actually
believe you know that God cannot exist. Anyone who wants to
read the following as to why you Know that God doesnt exist
is more than welcome. robert :)
Dan Fake
>
> "Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:1npR8.57243$UT.39...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > "bob" <now...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> > news:uhafjnj...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> Well i dont have time to respond to 10 pages of cut and pastes
The sections you refer to are from books I've read and articles
I've read on the internet - if you don't read them, you probably
are in denial regarding aspects of naturalism that are far removed
from religion. If you read them and ponder the impact of them,
perhaps your notions on god will be compartmentalized in a
manner differing from that which you've used to date, but that's
up to you, and your willingness to explore areas and perspectives
apart from religiosity and superstition.
---
Dan Fake, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://danfake.home.att.net
---
>
Dan Fake
news:sL8R8.25789$fR2.2...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> Dan Fake wrote:
>
> > [...]
> >
> > However, if any parent told their son or daughter they must believe
> > in "The Matrix" -or- "The Force" (from Star Wars fame) as reality,
> > and ______ (use religion as a reference point and insert all sorts
> > of fantasies, claims, grandiose promises, and horrific threats here),
> > that would be an entirely different matter, now wouldn't it?
>
> Absolutely it would. "The Matrix" and "the force" are inventions of
> Hollywood. Metaphysics is not.
You've doubted any postulation that "The Matrix" and "The Force" (from
Star Wars fame) reflect reality (if they are combined with supernaturalism)
because they were invented in "Hollywood" and any claims that they are
associated with supernaturalism would be of no veritability? Aside from
the supernaturalism, do you think that those movies (fantasies) describe
aspects of being that are applicable in that which is the unknown?
Are all supernaturalistic claims (and all claims of any type within that which
is the unknown) of no veritability -or- does that just apply to claims incon-
sistent with traditional supernatural ones?
I agree with you, regarding "The Matrix" and "The Force" (from Star Wars
fame) having a different perceptual impact if folks attach supernaturalism to
them, not due to their invention in "Hollywood" and the arbitrary attach-
ment of supernaturalism to them, but because mixing any supernaturalism
with any aspect of the unknown or any part of that which is our naturalistic
experiential reality is not veritable.
Supernaturalism is, by definition, "make believe" treated as reality by
believing supernatural beings / things / places are real as if your very life
on earth and immortal destiny depended on it (in the manner as used by
most religions we are familiar with).
As for the places outside of "Hollywood" that were used by evolved and
communicative apes (homo sapiens) to invent the supernatural, prehistoric
tribes and villages and caves were the locales. Prehistoric humans dealt with
an often harsh and cruel world, and possessed the mindset of communica-
tive species inventing be-all end-all explanations.
Ideas we now take for granted, like doubt - skepticism - experimentation,
came in handy in the real world but were looked down upon when it came
Brenda G. Kent
add some poetry and anthropormorphize somewhat..
and you have the same thing..but it's called religion.
At least to some of us out there.
religion is science is religion is science ...
Brenda
JTEM
"Brenda G. Kent" <wt...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote
> religion is science is religion is science ...
But all that means is that you have trouble understand
one, the other or both.
HINT: Substitute "A belief in the rational" for "Science"
in your above remarks and you are left with a statement
that could be defended as "True."