Our fundamental nature

ronbyrne2005

If there was no creator and universe is as it appears to us and we are just biological machines who emerged by chance would this make your life any less valid? If your emotions feelings and thoughts are merely chemical reactions in the mind are they any less valid than if they were something more ...transcendent (i think is the word im looking for)

5uspect

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

If there was no creator

Who created the creator? Assuming a creator simply ignores the question about the origin of everything.

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

...we are just biological machines who emerged by chance

Where does chance come into it? Evolution is not chance.

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

...would this make your life any less valid? If your emotions feelings and thoughts are merely chemical reactions in the mind are they any less valid than if they were something more ...transcendent (i think is the word im looking for)

Most religions believe in an afterlife which this life is spent in preparation for.
As an atheist I value the short time I have to live and enjoy (even if it is just a chemical reaction).

Most religious people say that God is a mystery we cannot comprehend as it is beyond our universe. I find this a defeatist and almost selfish attitude, we can try to help to understand our universe in a rational scientific manner without having to appease our personal needs to feel comforted and not challenge that feeling.

Myksyk

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

If there was no creator and universe is as it appears to us and we are just biological machines who emerged by chance would this make your life any less valid? If your emotions feelings and thoughts are merely chemical reactions in the mind are they any less valid than if they were something more ...transcendent (i think is the word im looking for)

No. I believe we are just biological machines but this takes not one ounce from my amazement and wonder at the existence of life and its evolutionary journey. Because I don't believe I will have any existence after I die and that I will cease to exist in every sense some day relatively soon, I am shaken regularly out of complacency and am filled with a desire to live the fullest life I can. I like that 'seconds left to live' counter you can get on the net ... if that doen't focus you to 'get busy living' not much will!

Esmereldina

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

If there was no creator and universe is as it appears to us and we are just biological machines who emerged by chance would this make your life any less valid? If your emotions feelings and thoughts are merely chemical reactions in the mind are they any less valid than if they were something more ...transcendent (i think is the word im looking for)

No, this does not make me, my emotions or thoughts any less valid... 'Biologial machines' seems like a slightly crude way to put it (although the wording seems to serve your argument) but yes, this is what human beings are...

Scofflaw

Absolutely not - quite the opposite. From my own point of view, the impermanence and insignificance of our lives, their utter improbability, actually gives them a quality of transcendence.

Two quotes, at the risk of being accused of excessive poesy:

One moment in annihilation's waste,
One moment, of the well of life to taste -
The stars are setting and the Caravan
Starts for the dawn of nothing - oh, make haste!

and

Only in silence the word
Only in darkness the light
only in dying Life
Bright the hawks flight on the empty sky

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

If I hold a red hot poker against my arm, the resulting experience is merely as a result of chemical signals from my nerve endings telling me my outer layer is being damaged.

I know this, but I would imagine the experience is "valid" nonetheless.

Zillah

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

If there was no creator and universe is as it appears to us and we are just biological machines who emerged by chance would this make your life any less valid? If your emotions feelings and thoughts are merely chemical reactions in the mind are they any less valid than if they were something more ...transcendent (i think is the word im looking for)

What exactly does "valid" mean in the context? I am. What else does there need to be?

I think any God that created us for a reason cheapens what we are. To go from gloriously improbable sentient matter to plaything/test subject for a unknowable/insane God is a horrible state of affairs.

How does there being an intelligent creator make life more "valid"?

bonkey

5uspect wrote:

Evolution is not chance.

Yes, it is. Evolution works because of chance. Indeed, one could argue that evolutionary theory is dependent on chance.

If there was no chance, then it wouldn't be evolution, it would be a pre-determined blueprint. That may be an appealing way to look at it for some religious persuasions, but its not evolution. Its "something superficially like evolution" that they find more appealing.

Getting back to the original question...

The only people I've ever heard put seriously forward the idea of "validity" or "meaning" being tied to a belief in the supernatural are those who believe in the supernatural. They typically feel as sorry for me, and my meaningless life, as they do for people who put their faith in the wrong supernatura stuff, because they too are living a life without meaning.

Personally, I generally have little time for anyone who tries to express the meaning of any life other than their own. They don't have the right perspective to be able to do so meaningfully, but lack the wisdom to see this.

We each find our meaning in life. I find even the suggestion that there is some sort of common baseline that everyone must share in this regard almost repellant.

5uspect

bonkey wrote:

Yes, it is. Evolution works because of chance. Indeed, one could argue that evolutionary theory is dependent on chance.

If there was no chance, then it wouldn't be evolution, it would be a pre-determined blueprint. That may be an appealing way to look at it for some religious persuasions, but its not evolution. Its "something superficially like evolution" that they find more appealing.

What I meant to say was that natural selection is not merely chance. Obviously evolution requires random mutations to occur by chance in order for the useful ones to be selected. The selection of particular aspects is in many ways deterministic. It was a quick remark to the usual "purely by chance" argument we so often hear.

Apologies for going OT.

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

Yes, it is. Evolution works because of chance

Being chance and working because of chance aren't really the same thing. Mutation, or in a more general terms "errors in replication" are due to chance, but neo-darwin biological evolution is more than simply the errors in replication.

For example, the quality control system in an assembly line functions, has purpose, specifically because random errors will appear in something like a TV. But the quality control system as a whole is not random.

Evolution requires randomness to exist. But it is not random itself. In fact the most important aspect of evolution, natural selection, isn't random at all.

easyontheeye

Atheist as far as i can see or try to understand do not believe in religion due to the lack of scientific evdience? am i right? how can you be happy? how do you love? have faith in partners? wives/husbands?

Do you think that science can ever solve the reason why we ( humans, the earth the universe) exists? Well what gave us science?

I think its a sad existance to believe we lead a life to end up out of existance. why hold morals? why lead a good life? why be faithful to your partner? why be selfless? why be honest? in your eyes it counts for nothing.

Zillah

easyontheeye wrote:

Atheist as far as i can see or try to understand do not believe in religion due to the lack of scientific evdience? am i right?

Yes.

how can you be happy?

Because our brains are designed to release happy chemicals when certain things happen, like sex, socialising or great achievement.

how do you love?

Brain chemicals.

have faith in partners? wives/husbands?

Faith? No. Trust, yes. If you believe someone loves you and is dedicated to you, then you trust them. How does the existence of God affect that?

Do you think that science can ever solve the reason why we ( humans, the earth the universe) exists?

Evolution explains where humans came from. As for the universe itself, maybe. We don't know yet. Its certainly doing a very good job so far.

Well what gave us science?

The Greeks kick started it mostly. The very nice human brain is also to blame.

I think its a sad existance to believe we lead a life to end up out of existance.

Some might find it sad. It could be the most horribly depressing thing they could imagine but it doesn't make it any less true.

why hold morals? why lead a good life?

Because people who don't do that get arrested or shunned. Morality is just a basis for working together. The people that didn't work together died and didn't make babies.

why be faithful to your partner?

To make babies. Because you love them.

why be selfless?

Other will be selfless back. Ultimately you gain a LOT when you put yourself out for family and friends.

why be honest?

Because people don't like liars? And if people don't like you then you're less likely to survive and make babies.

in your eyes it counts for nothing.

Not true.

easyontheeye

Are you the terminator? lol

Son Goku

easyontheeye wrote:

I think its a sad existance to believe we lead a life to end up out of existance. why hold morals? why lead a good life? why be faithful to your partner? why be selfless? why be honest? in your eyes it counts for nothing.

Because you want to, because it is nice.

Zillah

easyontheeye wrote:

Are you the terminator? lol

Yes. Yes I am.

easyontheeye

Son Goku wrote:

Because you want to, because it is nice.

what makes you want to? what makes it nice? dont say chemicals!!! :mad:

Son Goku

easyontheeye wrote:

what makes you want to? what makes it nice? dont say chemicals!!! :mad:

Eh, alright I won't. Nothing makes me, I just do it cause that's what I want to do. For instance let's say I buy a DVD for my mam, the last thing I'm thinking of is "chemicals" or "an infinitely powerful entity with universe creating abilities", I'm thinking of my mam.

Why should I? What's my justification?
I don't know, none I suppose, but who cares?

Zillah

easyontheeye wrote:

dont say chemicals!!! :mad:

Why not? Thats what it is. Theres absolutely no doubt that it is the electro-chemical machine of the brain that causes conciousness, so it makes sense that different chemicals and electrical signals will alter that consiousness.

Thats why people take drugs. It simluates all sorts of happy chemicals which provide the high. The reason those drugs are bad is because they're taken in too large quantities and upset the body's normal balance.

easyontheeye

Son Goku wrote:

Eh, alright I won't. Nothing makes me, I just do it cause that's what I want to do. For instance let's say I buy a DVD for my mam, the last thing I'm thinking of is "chemicals" or "an infinitely powerful entity with universe creating abilities", I'm thinking of my mam.

Why should I? What's my justification?
I don't know, none I suppose, but who cares?

Could it not be a warm hearthed Soul who enjoys bringing happiness to their mother that is doing it?
I believe that some questions are just not within our capability to answer.

aidan24326

easyontheeye wrote:

Atheist as far as i can see or try to understand do not believe in religion due to the lack of scientific evdience? am i right? how can you be happy? how do you love? have faith in partners? wives/husbands?

Do you think that science can ever solve the reason why we ( humans, the earth the universe) exists? Well what gave us science?

I think its a sad existance to believe we lead a life to end up out of existance. why hold morals? why lead a good life? why be faithful to your partner? why be selfless? why be honest? in your eyes it counts for nothing.

You are asking some very silly questions there.

By your rationale all atheists should be lying, cheating, selfish, murdering anarchists. Have you ever wondered why this is not the case?

You make the classic mistake of assuming that god (and religion) is responsible for holding the human moral framework together. It isn't. Guess who is? We are. That's right, you and I in our humble apeness. Like Zillah said there are actually good evolutionary reasons why we have the moral framework we do. Even altruism and selflessness have been shown to be of evolutionary benefit, even if not always to the individual.

We don't need god for our morals/ethics. Get it? We don't. Don't Don't Don't.
It is a very poor argument in favour of religion. Imagine if our morality had been shaped by the old testament for example? Even the NT has nothing especially interesting to say on the subject.

easyontheeye

aidan24326 wrote:

We don't need god for our morals/ethics. Get it? We don't. Don't Don't Don't.
It is a very poor argument in favour of religion. Imagine if our morality had been shaped by the old testament for example? Even the NT has nothing especially interesting to say on the subject.

Im not here to argue in favour of religion, as i am also not here to convert anyone. I'm a very scientific person due to my background etc.

Its very easy to say oh chemicals are the answer for this and that and evolution helped us to develop these traits to do this and that, but in the end they question is why? and honestly Im happy not knowing the answer to that, just blind faith.

I just find it hard to discount something that cannot be proven wrong.

MrJoeSoap

easyontheeye wrote:

I just find it hard to discount something that cannot be proven wrong.

You must believe a hell of a lot of stuff so.

nesf

Wicknight wrote:

Being chance and working because of chance aren't really the same thing. Mutation, or in a more general terms "errors in replication" are due to chance, but neo-darwin biological evolution is more than simply the errors in replication.

For example, the quality control system in an assembly line functions, has purpose, specifically because random errors will appear in something like a TV. But the quality control system as a whole is not random.

Evolution requires randomness to exist. But it is not random itself. In fact the most important aspect of evolution, natural selection, isn't random at all.

He said dependant upon chance, he didn't equate it with chance. The quality control argument doesn't really work either tbh, since evolution is part of the system rather than seperate to it selecting from an external point. It's a bit like the falacy of thinking there actually is an invisible hand pushing the markets in different directions.

5uspect, is evolution determinstic in it's selection? Or is it just a case of arbitrary efficieny over time purely defined by the conditions that are present?

easyontheeye

MrJoeSoap wrote:

You must believe a hell of a lot of stuff so.

Ok well i dont mean trivial stuff, im talking christianity.

MrJoeSoap

easyontheeye wrote:

Ok well i dont mean trivial stuff, im talking christianity.

What about all the other religions though? You can hardly prove them wrong.

easyontheeye

MrJoeSoap wrote:

What about all the other religions though? You can hardly prove them wrong.

Nor do i intend to, everyone has their own beliefs.

I believe there is a God
Atheist believe there is no God.
Neither me or an Atheist is in a better position to prove the other wrong.

I have church once a week and the bible, Atheist have science ( I too have science)
But at least I believe that my life will be worth something in the end.

Ok so if im wrong and there is no God, so what ill be dead, out of existance etc. its not like ill know i believed in something for 80yrs and will feel utter dissapointment.

But if im right

Zillah

easyontheeye wrote:

but in the end they question is why?

We don't know. Its quite possible there is no why. It just is. Anything beyond that is fairy tales.

MrJoeSoap

easyontheeye wrote:

But at least I believe that my life will be worth something in the end.

Atheists of course, famously do not. :rolleyes:

Atheists have the courage of their convictions not to believe in something in case it might be true.

Going by what you are saying you should be praying to all the potenial "Gods", lest one of them might actually exist.

Scofflaw

aidan24326 wrote:

By your rationale all atheists should be lying, cheating, selfish, murdering anarchists. Have you ever wondered why this is not the case?

Because we'd get caught. Obviously. Also, we wouldn't necessarily murder anyone if there was no need - besides, it's difficult. And messy.

Anyway, I've done all the other ones.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

easyontheeye wrote:

Nor do i intend to, everyone has their own beliefs.

I believe there is a God
Atheist believe there is no God.
Neither me or an Atheist is in a better position to prove the other wrong.

I have church once a week and the bible, Atheist have science ( I too have science)
But at least I believe that my life will be worth something in the end.

Ok so if im wrong and there is no God, so what ill be dead, out of existance etc. its not like ill know i believed in something for 80yrs and will feel utter dissapointment.

But if im right

If you're wrong, then you're wasting your short time on this earth looking forward to a future that will never come.

If you're wrong, you're less likely to care for this planet, because you believe that you'll be leaving it for somewhere better, as will your children, whereas I know mine will be living in the mess our generation makes.

If you're wrong, you're spending your time following the dictates of a bunch of Bronze Age priests, as if nothing had ever improved and we hadn't learned a thing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

5uspect

nesf wrote:

5uspect, is evolution determinstic in it's selection? Or is it just a case of arbitrary efficieny over time purely defined by the conditions that are present?

Isn't that the same thing? Natural selection is the selection of the optimum design for a given state of nature. The utilitarian optimum is generally what matters in natural selection. Changes in climate shift the selection pressure. We should be able to predict what organisms will be like under a given environment because we know what natural selection should select by predicting the environment. Sexual selection is a different story however and is generally far from being simply utilitarian however such things are generally not as important the more utilitarian pressures which allows such excesses.


This is from wikipedia and discusses a concept called "constructal theory" which is all about recognising the optimum design in nature (primarily to achieve more efficient electronics cooling etc). And this is an interesting plot of bird and insect mass and flying speed compared to a well known empirical correlation that has been found to describe many aircraft. It was found to apply quite well to flying animals too. I find the trend quite amazing (even though the log scale does help!).

There is more here , the calculations are relatively crude so far but it does look promising.
I have a few papers in work that I'll put up.