Wednesday, March 23, 2011 6:05:09 PM
@moocow22: I am firmly in the camp that our time has what meaning we chose to give it.
So what if the universe doesn't care that we`re here? I don`t need the acknowledgment of some omnipotent entity to feel like my life is worth living.
I find worth in experiencing the universe for myself. I find worth in appreciating what nature has sculpted in the forms of valleys and mountains. I find worth in the arms of a lover, or the company of a friend.
My life has meaning to me. Why would I ever care if has meaning to someone or something else?
Wednesday, March 23, 2011 10:42:18 AM
@Yaezakura: I like your thoughts. I offer a solution to the conundrum of one side modifying while the other doesn't regarding origins: if someone assumes supernatural origins, then it follows that that person also acknowledges that evolution and science will never provide all the answers, therefore deeming willingness to modify the root assumption of supernatural origins unnecessary and thereby illogical. Considering there are some things that have been mathematically shown (by an extension of Fermat`s Last Theorem) unanswerable through scientific means, for example natural selection leading to evolution of human cognitive abilities, I stand by saying that belief in supernatural origins isn`t always inconsistent and lacking legitimate intellectual processes.
On a different note, if evolution is pure chance, projects no future purpose, and causes life to be void of meaning beyond existence, then perhaps everything we just said is `meaningless,` and I can have no further respons
Wednesday, March 23, 2011 2:04:55 AM
@moocow22: The difference is that one side is willing to change its views when presented with new information, while the other literally relies on rejecting reality whenever it contradicts its existing ideas.
The scientific viewpoint is not "there is no being ultimately responsible for the universe as we know it", but "there is no evidence to suggest that there is a being that is responsible for the universe as we know it, so there is no reason to believe one exists". If evidence is found that suggests otherwise, that position will change. That is the beauty of science.
Morality is easily explained by evolution. "Meaning" requires the rather large assumption that we HAVE some kind of greater meaning other than being the byproducts of natural processes.
I genuinely do not believe every creationist is stupid. But I do believe that to continue to cling to such bronze-age fairy tales makes them cowards unable to cope with reality.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 4:28:56 PM
@Yaezakura: I'm not quite sure you understood my meaning. I agree with you: scientifically speaking, belief in creation is a terrible hypothesis because something supernatural cannot be tested with the tangible world. However, not following Occam`s razor doesn`t necessarily mean one has abandoned logic: there are historical considerations, questions of meaning/morality, experiences, etc. Can one therefore generalize that anyone believing in creation does so without logical reasoning? I would hesitate to say so because the path to believing something isn`t a linear one, and assumptions always underlie beliefs. Even science relies on assumptions: there is a real and knowable universe, the universe follows rules, these laws are immutable, and the laws can be studied. Though I understand your point, my comment was from the perspective that assuming something supernatural isn`t inherently worse than assuming something about the testable, natural world when no one can say what is absolute.
There are no legitimate "intellectual processes" which can lead to belief in creationism. "God did it" is an intellectual band-aid. It gives you the feeling of having knowledge without actually having any knowledge. You're replacing the unknown with the unknowable.
Creationism is not and can never be science, because it cannot be tested. Even if it somehow turned out that evolution was entirely wrong as an explanation for the diversity of life on earth (and every bit of evidence that exists says that it is true with absolutely no contradicting evidence), that wouldn`t mean Creationism wins by default. Scientists would simply begin developing new theories based on the observable world around them.
That is the difference between science and religion. Religion starts from a position and ignores all contradicting facts. Science starts with facts and continually rebuilds its positions when new facts are found.