The Atheism Thread - Part 5

[Hawkingbird]

Actually, you didn't. And I was taking his argument into account. I just happened to disagree.

There's an ignore function. I invite you to use it. Whether you do is of no consequence to me.

Go to User CP and click on Edit Ignore List. Go ahead and type in "Doctor Evo" (my username should pop up just below). One more button-click and you're done.

From then on out my posts will be hidden from your view. It seems rather silly that you'd let a complete stranger hamper your enjoyment of an internet message board, but this is a potential solution to your problem. Enjoy!

You're not worth the effort

 

[Doctor Evo]

You're not worth the effort

Then stop whining.

 

[redhawk23]

Quite frankly you both need to chill, be civilized or avoid the thread outright.

 

[Hawkingbird]

I'll avoid it. Sorry everyone.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Not by our means or envelope of knowledge today...but neither was much of what we can do today 100 years ago.

But as discussed in another thread specifically about this...it could possibly entail some radical biological changes on our part to become beings that can survive for many nomadic generations in space...specifically without the same kind of gravity. To me, it'd have to be a big plan put in place and started at least centuries in advance as we build towards successive stages of off-world living. I think what bothers a lot of folks is the image/concept of humans becoming very different looking creatures, but it's something we very well may have to do rather than hoping for some magical teleportation or hyperspace or finding a planet just like Earth. Heck, we may look rather like octopi, but if it comes down to either that or accepting extinction, it could be yet another stage of evolution that we ourselves would induce and expedite.

Well, heh, a lot of what you just said violates basic principles of evolution, so there is that, although I suppose given enough time, a large enough ship with a self-sustained ecosystem (like a massive bio-dome) could work. However, thus far, the Bio-dome experiment has been a failure. At least the ones I am familiar with.

I won't totally discount it, but technology definitely doesn't exist in a vacuum. Most of what we've done so far is fairly consistent with what we've seen done in nature, whereas what you're talking about we've never seen done, at all. My best suggestion would be to use monoliths like those found in 2001: A Space Odyssey probably carrying both genetic and digital information to other worlds. Even that would end up being something we'd likely never know the result of, but the hope is someone with intelligence would find your monolith and figure it out.

That at least is slightly more consistent with reality. We know lifeless objects like asteroids can exist in space and travel great distances, however we know of nothing that travels between galaxies or would be able to travel between galaxies. I suppose the gravity these galaxies let off must be massive, so as one would get close to them, it'd be a sure bet things would tend to get pulled towards them, however the distances between them, and traversing them would be problematic.

The biggest problem with your idea is I know, nor does anyone else, of any life that has developed or continued to evolve in space. Space wouldn't be an environment like Earth. There's no natural selection process in space since everything would stay relatively constant (from the perspective of an organism). Whereas part of the reason we adapt to Earth is that Earth is in a constant state of gradual change. So I have trouble understand how we'd evolve to suit space travel. If you sent a population as they are now they'd probably all die off. Maybe after many generations had lived between Earth and Earth's surrounding space we'd have a few that had adapted well for space travel. Yet the distances your talking about making an all together different experience than simply sitting in a nearby space station.

We're also really coming to find out technology has a limit. Like I said, everything we've done from electricity to breaking the sound barrier seems to be replicated by nature somewhere in nature. This, not so much. Also, it seems very much that the notion of Type I, Type II and Type III civilizations is nonsense. In all likely hood if some space faring civilization existed we'd probably have found evidence by now. Because if one could do it, many ought to have considering the size and scope of the Universe and the fact that life is fairly predictable as a property of emergence. People who say "we're too stupid, they wouldn't contact us", or "maybe since we don't have space travel they're not interested", well the Native Americans didn't have a Navy, but Britain and France sure did. So it all seems highly unlikely.

 

[redhawk23]

Technology has always only been about manipulating natural forces. Conscious manipulation of these forces though can certainly give way to interactions and materials that would never occur in nature short of some iteration of the "infinite chimpanzees typing" sort of thing.

As for intergalactic travel, why even bother with that when we can hardly conceive of interstellar travel? What benefit would there be to leaving the galaxy when it is extremely unlikely that we could render the milkyway fully explored?


As for other spacefaring species, there's always the question of the huge distances involved and the huge number of potential destination in our galaxy alone. I don't think theres any reason to assume that if such a species existed that "we'd know by now." Even if they existed for millions of years there is no guarantee that we'd even be picking up traces of their radiowaves or whatever by now. Also theres no reason to believe that entirely alien cultures would at all follow similar behavioral patterns as earth colonialism. There can be many motivations for expansion or exploration or nomadic lifestyles.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Technology has always only been about manipulating natural forces. Conscious manipulation of these forces though can certainly give way to interactions and materials that would never occur in nature short of some iteration of the "infinite chimpanzees typing" sort of thing.

This seems to be reaching. Even within the confines of our own Earth we've really not done this yet. We've made things that don't occur in nature, but are still very much a product of nature.

Also, you missed entirely what I said. I didn't say "manipulating natural forces" I said we've only done things nature had already proved to be possible.

 

[redhawk23]

I never said that you said that. Its what I myself am saying. That is all technology is. Our knowledge of natural forces allows us to harness them to various ends. We build off further knowledge that these manipulations allow us to access.

What I meant by the infinite monkeys typing thing is that it is nearly inconceivable that without conscious manipulation that nature would ever give rise to a pocket watch. There are no natural forces that would bring those specific materials together in that configuration. That isn't to say that nature doesn't give rise to far more complex things, like the human body, but bodies are the result of natural processes, the material that make it up are drawn together by natural forces (chemicals forming amino acids and the like).

We have studied the various ways that particles interact but in combination with knowledge of other forces and materials we can bring about interactions that would never occur otherwise.

We have created entire elements that without our conscious intervention would never exist.

 

[Dr.]

Eh...I'm really not sure about this. I think that, within this context, science is simply the application of the scientific method. I usually take issue with these types of expanded definitions because they tend to create confusion.

I disagree. The context here (in a religion discussion) is that “science doesn’t have all the answers.” And if it can be shown (which, obviously, it can) that other, non-scientific systems of thought produce useful knowledge (e.g., the law, the arts, philosophy, history) then religion gains legitimacy by analogy.

But this gambit relies on defining science as its own separate and unique epistemology or “way of knowing.” But that’s not the case; science is merely one tradition within a broader system of rationalism and empiricism (that also includes philosophy, history, etc.). So for example: while the tools and techniques of, say, history are necessarily different than science (proper), both rely on evidence to formulate conclusions, both adhere to the principles of falsification, etc. Of course, this true perspective doesn’t serve the religious argument because non-rationalistic religion then becomes isolated - the only member of the “other ways of knowing” club. So it behooves them to blur the distinction and claim allegiance with all the other non-scientific systems of knowledge (validity by association).

I would suggest that if religion is going to misrepresent science as an epistemology, then broadening the definition of science is an appropriate counter-move.

 

[redhawk23]

What is interesting is how much emphasis Catholic Universities place on exploring faith through rationalism. There is a lot of focus on examining the bible and later developments of Christianity in specific historical and literary contexts. They take great pride that this somehow separates them from fundamentalist Christians who accept the bible literally and at face-value. However, I've found that they consistently shy away when this more "reason-based" approach leads to observations that bring the whole house of cards crashing down.

Essentially what they teach is "given these central biblical teachings, then reasonable contemplation shows that A, B, C, D, E & F follow." But they are never able to give an equally reason-based answer for accepting the central biblical teachings to begin with. Upholding the entire world-view becomes the sole purpose and motivation for accepting those central tenants, regardless of how well they hold up to scrutiny.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Catholics believe though that Religion is not attempting to be, or be a replacement for, or even provide something that science doesn't. Catholicism teaches that science has really only been around after the formation of their religion (which is basically accurate since most of our scientific achievements have been relatively recent) and therefore science can't be in the Bible and isn't part of understanding the Bible. I'm sort of inclined to agree with them there.

I mean Catholics are pretty level headed, outside of some of the nutty things the Pope drones on about (and honestly Catholics don't care to listen most of the time anyways). They really aren't pedophiles either. That was less than 1% of all Priests.

 

[redhawk23]

As I described at least among the Jesuits there IS an attempt to examine the Bible through rational means. They heavily criticize Christian denominations who do not and yet fall short of any real commitment to following through with their point of view.

 

[redhawk23]

I don't understand the point of following a religion if you have to ignore the vast majority of its teachings and the commands of its leadership in order to incorporate it into your life .

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I don't understand the point of following a religion if you have to ignore the vast majority of its teachings and the commands of its leadership in order to incorporate it into your life .

I think Catholics would tell you when you read the Bible a lot of the idea is to put yourself in the characters shoes rather than try to pull it from its context like Creationists and Evangelicals often try to do.

 

[redhawk23]

By the way, this year the Harvard Humanist Chaplaincy has named Eddie Izzard as this years winner of the Oustanding Lifetime Achievement in Cultural Humanism award.

Past winners have included Joss Whedon, The Mythbusters, Stephen Frye, Salman Rushdie, Mary Roach and Greg Graffin from Bad Religion.

 

[redhawk23]

I think Catholics would tell you when you read the Bible a lot of the idea is to put yourself in the characters shoes rather than try to pull it from its context like Creationists and Evangelicals often try to do.

True but even they aren't quite even handed in that approach. They are more like the Evangelicals than they like to admit.

And you yourself said they vastly ignore what the modern leadership of the Church has to say.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

True but even they aren't quite even handed in that approach. They are more like the Evangelicals than they like to admit.

And you yourself said they vastly ignore what the modern leadership of the Church has to say.

Ignoring the Pope is as Catholic as the Virgin Mary.

 

[redhawk23]

Whedon's speech from when he won Harvard's award back in 2009. I've posted this several times over the years but I continue to share it because there are few sincere speeches that I find myself agreeing with as much as this one.
[YT]dTY8-XPhTzQ[/YT]

 

[redhawk23]

Ignoring the Pope is as Catholic as the Virgin Mary.

Which is exactly my point.

Leadership that fails to speak reality, attitudes and needs of its membership and a dogma with no historical or scriptural basis are very much defining aspects of this very flawed institution.

 

[Doctor Evo]

I disagree. The context here (in a religion discussion) is that “science doesn’t have all the answers.” And if it can be shown (which, obviously, it can) that other, non-scientific systems of thought produce useful knowledge (e.g., the law, the arts, philosophy, history) then religion gains legitimacy by analogy.

Not if you make the following distinction:

But this gambit relies on defining science as its own separate and unique epistemology or “way of knowing.” But that’s not the case; science is merely one tradition within a broader system of rationalism and empiricism (that also includes philosophy, history, etc.).

...and, subsequently:

So for example: while the tools and techniques of, say, history are necessarily different than science (proper), both rely on evidence to formulate conclusions, both adhere to the principles of falsification, etc. Of course, this true perspective doesn’t serve the religious argument because non-rationalistic religion then becomes isolated - the only member of the “other ways of knowing” club. So it behooves them to blur the distinction and claim allegiance with all the other non-scientific systems of knowledge (validity by association).

I would suggest that if religion is going to misrepresent science as an epistemology, then broadening the definition of science is an appropriate counter-move.

...which obviates the need for an expanded definition of "science" and avoids further confusion over the term. I don't believe that the approach of expanding the definition of "science" is an appropriate response at all, especially considering the fact that you've provided a completely adequate - and superior - alternative.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Well, heh, a lot of what you just said violates basic principles of evolution, so there is that...

Could you expand on this?

The biggest problem with your idea is I know, nor does anyone else, of any life that has developed or continued to evolve in space. Space wouldn't be an environment like Earth. There's no natural selection process in space since everything would stay relatively constant (from the perspective of an organism). Whereas part of the reason we adapt to Earth is that Earth is in a constant state of gradual change. So I have trouble understand how we'd evolve to suit space travel. If you sent a population as they are now they'd probably all die off. Maybe after many generations had lived between Earth and Earth's surrounding space we'd have a few that had adapted well for space travel. Yet the distances your talking about making an all together different experience than simply sitting in a nearby space station.

So you replace natural selection with artificial selection and, potentially, genetic engineering. Of course, without knowing and defining exactly which traits lend themselves to space travel, we have no way to discuss their feasibility.

Also, it seems very much that the notion of Type I, Type II and Type III civilizations is nonsense. In all likely hood if some space faring civilization existed we'd probably have found evidence by now. Because if one could do it, many ought to have considering the size and scope of the Universe and the fact that life is fairly predictable as a property of emergence. People who say "we're too stupid, they wouldn't contact us", or "maybe since we don't have space travel they're not interested", well the Native Americans didn't have a Navy, but Britain and France sure did. So it all seems highly unlikely.

I don't believe that this is sound reasoning. It seems as though it could be extended to anything. "If an event were going to occur, it would have by now." Yet there are many plausible events that have not yet occurred. Or am I misunderstanding?

 

[Dr.]

...which obviates the need for an expanded definition of "science" and avoids further confusion over the term. I don't believe that the approach of expanding the definition of "science" is an appropriate response at all...

But, again, this is about the religious claim that there are “other ways of knowing.” So it benefits religion to limit science as (only) that thing that scientists do. If, however, science is construed more broadly, as “applied rationalism” - no different, in principle, from the rationalism used by everyone else - then the “other ways of knowing” argument loses much of its currency.

No doubt, this article by philosopher Russell Blackford states the point more clearly. A short quote:

The fact that we can still investigate some questions without doing anything distinctively scientific in no way supports the idea that there are spooky “other ways of knowing” that are radically discontinuous from science and from rational inquiry in general … and that can be relied upon.

E.g., an archeologist may use her knowledge of ancient Greek to translate an inscription, and so learn something new about what happened in ancient times, and this is not distinctively scientific; but that in no way supports the idea that there is some “way of knowing” that transcends the rational forms of inquiry carried out by scientist, humanistic scholars, and ordinary people…

On a proper understanding, then, science is not “limited” in a sense that lends credence to supernatural “ways of knowing” such as divine revelation, mystical transport, and the like. If these are going to be justified as “ways of knowing”, it will need to be in some other manner than harping on the alleged limitations of science.

http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=3645

 

[Doctor Evo]

Why not simply use the term "rationalism?"

 

[redhawk23]

Because it is not just rationalism alone but also empiricism.

Not to mention the question of how capable of rationality people actually are.

 

[Dr.]

Why not simply use the term "rationalism?"

From the religion side, I think it’s because “science” is a comparatively softer target. It’s easier for non-scientists to critique, humble, limit what scientists do. On the other hand, everyone (including the religious) believes they’re rational. So to disparage rationalism somewhat implies that the alternative on offer (religion) is irrational. Can’t have that.

“Scientism” is the pejorative epithet for “a [misplaced] trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science [as] applied to all areas of investigation…”

As far as I know, no one has coined “rationaltism” as a means to chastise people for being too reasonable.