jay pettitt on 8/4/2008 at 08:17
...Nope.
Quote Posted by Tocky
But isn't one of the basic tennents of evolution the drive for survival and reproduction? The logical conclusion of being immoral is that the rest of the species, having that same drive to survive and reproduce, will ostrasize and possibly destroy you severly limiting your ability to survive and reproduce should you inhibit thier ability to do so. From that basis morality itself logically evolved.
Yes, Clearly that isn't the case as we tend to try and avoid conflict at least some of the time. While it's true that some species have evolved to be highly territorial that is just one strategy of many. The strategy our species has adopted is social. Neither is it the case that we should fatalistically accept evolution if we have a better idea.
Quote:
Where I run into a wall is in what caused the drive for survival and reproduction. Was it inevitable that conditions would appear such that certain groupings of atoms would unite and replicate to produce life even there within the singularity that was before the big bang?
Yes. Life is a mathematical probability, why would it require some higher purpose?
Chimpy Chompy on 8/4/2008 at 08:30
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
But what are the boundaries that would prevent us from unpicking the brain? .
Well it does occur to me, can science explain the all workings of our mind when it is itself a construct of our minds? But, hey, I'm all for trying at least.
My other thought for now, re: "our place in the universe" is some of the implications of Quantum Mechanics (or at least some interpretations of it) - ie a weirdy universe of ghost possibilities that isn't real until someone's looking at it. But I should stress that doesn't push me towards theism, just to appreciating stuff is probably still a whole lot weirder than we realise, and I don't think we should assume we know everything about the role of consciousness just yet.
Epos Nix on 8/4/2008 at 08:48
You wanna know what's really weird? We humans may one day create some facsimile of life through robotics and AI that will more than likely realize our imperfections better than we ever could and subsequently disown us.
Imagine the turmoil the robots will likely face at the very notion that a superior construct of such design as themselves were in fact created by a bunch of upright monkeys :(
Thirith on 8/4/2008 at 09:21
All of this has happened before and it will happen again.
:p
Jay pettitt et al.: I definitely accept that science and the observation of the physical world may eventually lead us to understanding everything, at least potentially. (Chances are we'll all be dead before we even come close.) I can even accept statements like "There is no scientific evidence to anything beyond the physical world. There is no scientific evidence for any validity in metaphysics of any kind. I therefore believe these things to be highly unlikely." But saying that observation of the physical world *will* lead there still strikes me as a quasi-religious statement. That's where I see the logical jump. To me it looks like you're extrapolating from one thing onto everything.
catbarf on 8/4/2008 at 10:17
Quote Posted by Renzatic
I'm sorry, but until you at least have a nasty standardized slur to call your own, I can't take your claims to victimhood seriously.
Do you contest the claim that there would be a far different result in a situation with a different victim?
Thirith on 8/4/2008 at 10:22
I'd imagine that the situation of atheists in the States (especially in certain states) is vastly different from that of atheists in large parts of Europe. You'd be hard put to find many openly religious people, say, in Swiss universities, and the immediate reaction of most people to anyone at university saying "I consider myself a Christian/Jew/Muslim/Hindu etc." would be polite but condescending interest or outright derision, or something in between. In general, it'd be similar in cities, although out in the country I would imagine that religion and the church still have more authority.
In any case, I think there's something seriously wrong with the separation of Church and State (which I consider one of the most important goods in a democracy) if a presidential candidate basically loses any chance he or she may have had by professing atheism.
Ben Gunn on 8/4/2008 at 10:28
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
...Nope.
Elequent and concise as usual and as usual no case at all. Is there anything- similiar to logic- behind your believes?
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
...Nope.
Ok, I had to check.
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Yes. Life is a mathematical probability, why would it require some higher purpose?
The mathematical probability of life is very close to zero, whats your point?
All of the organs and mechanisms of a living thing serves a purpose of some sort, asking whether the organism as a whole has a purpose too is a valid question- any scientist will tell you that. Who said anything about a higher, god-given purpose?
I could assert that your purpose is to not understand anything that dont fit into your nicely tucked world view, while you yourself do absolutly no effort to ground this world view in a solid ground- and I have strong evidence to back it up.
jay pettitt on 8/4/2008 at 11:21
So it's a good job the universe is so big. Infinite Monkey theorem and all
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
Well it does occur to me, can science explain the all workings of our mind when it is itself a construct of our minds? But, hey, I'm all for trying at least.
Yeah, I thought that. That there might be some natural limit to the complexity of things we can understand and that the brain would likely be beyond it by way of a wacky paradox. We'd need a more complex brain to understand our current brain, which knowledge would then be redundant because we'd need another more complex 3rd generation brain to understand brain 2.0 yadda yadda.
Again, I'm not sure why I thought that. In the harsh light of day it does sound rather like bunkum.
Thirith on 8/4/2008 at 11:33
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Yeah, I thought that. That there might be some natural limit to the complexity of things we can understand and that the brain would likely be beyond it by way of a wacky paradox. We'd need a more complex brain to understand our current brain, which knowledge would then be redundant because we'd need another more complex 3rd generation brain to understand brain 2.0 yadda yadda.
Somehow I thought that Douglas Adams might have had similar thoughts, because this reminds me a lot of Deep Thought and its upgrade, Earth.
Chimpy Chompy on 8/4/2008 at 11:39
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Again, I'm not sure why I thought that. In the harsh light of day it does sound rather like bunkum.
Can you explain?
