Well, we have to remember that whatever we see, hear, touch, taste, etc., it needs to pass through our 'perceptual filters, which means whatever causes such perceptions ends up being 'processed' by our biology and presents itself to us as 'reality.'I covered that. And you don't need to go find aliens. Creatures right here on earth perceive things differently than we do. You, got that right! :-) Sure, but we only have one 'tree of life' model for this planet, based on DNA. For all I know there might lifeforms out there that derive from a different tree of life and be radically different from life on earth.
I take your point, but there seems to be something in human beings, at least some human beings, that needs to find some kind of answer to what it is all about.Yes, I agree of course. INQUIRY: We have an inquiry in to the largest of subjects. METHODOLOGY: And we have a common methodology, a search for "The Answer", that is, AN attempt to create a conceptual object which accurately describes the largest of subjects. After thousands of years of applying this methodology to this inquiry, we have little evidence it's getting us anywhere. As it has been from the very beginning, some people believe in God, some don't, while others aren't sure. Nothing has really changed. So if we are to reason, we have to face this evidence. If we are to reason, we don't have the option of just wishing it away. And so we arrive at a crossroads. Which is more important to us, the inquiry, or the methodology? If we answer the inquiry, then it seems time to abandon a methodology with a very long history of failure, and try something else. If we answer the methodology, then it seems time to abandon this inquiry and proceed to some other inquiry where this methodology has proven useful. The least rational choice would be to keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results, which Einstein declared to be the definition of insanity.
You aren’t going to find an answer if you can’t even formulate the question. Unless you find 42 satisfying.
Just an idea. Knowledge is not the making of a Christian god. Knowledge should cover a broad spectrum of the subject being analyzed. Before there were deities and the written word, the gods said that earth was made from star dust and star dust was made from matter. And everything in the universe was made from matter. How the universe came to be, mankind may never know. Making this one of the oldest puzzles of thought known to mankind. We can only guess at how old these stories passed down from pre-history are. The question on the table for the last decade was not how was the universe made, but are there more than one universe? Instead of looking for aliens. One should be asking, if the old stories are saying that today’s humans were domesticated (created), then who were the gods that created modern humans. Today’s thinking is that H. floresiensis derived from an early Indonesian H. erectus, which is currently accepted for expansion out of Africa. New hypothesis is coming out every few years now. One is saying that Homo erectus evolved around the same time as Home habilis. This suggests Homo floresiensis was a “sister species" of Homo habilis and the two likely shared a common ancestor. One big question today is did Homo erectua pekinensis descendants and fellow members of the species of Homo erectus die out or evolved into the modern species. The point is that in the next decade we might have the questions. Did modern humans evolve or were they domesticated? Was the knowledge of evolving ancestors hyperthymesia? The old pre-history stories talk about the problems of overpopulation, plagues and natural disasters. But no talk of wars or deities. Therefore, it is quite possible that with the control of knowledge by the deities came wars. Point being, if the religious entities with deities in the world went away, would the need for wars also disappear? You could still have religion and afterlife, just take away the deities, like it way in the past. The deities do two major tasks. One is they control all knowledge. Two is they judge you. Without deities would the nations get along better? That does not seem to be the case in countries like Pakistan and India where there are still religions based upon the roots of the old pre-history religions. This gives more weight to the need to review the hyperthymesia hypothesis.I would argue the opposite is true. Communal memory has caused thousands of years of wars, especially in those counntries or societies with long hyperthymesia, such as feuds that last for generations. OTOH, when one is given the opportunity to change one's mind hyperthymedia tends to fade. As the saying goes, "with time painful memories fade , but the happy memories remain". I' take that kind of hyperthymesia anytime. Personally I have seen and experienced emotional pain, but now I am happy just to be alive and still remain lucid in thought and appreciation for the arts, the great advancement of communication, which allows me to converse and change ideas with other keen or more knowledgeable minds. There is nothing more tragic than to see someone you love descend into a state of oblivion and lose the one ability that sets them apart from all other species. But then comfort can be found in the knowledge that in their prime, they contributed to humanity in meaningful ways. Their legacy of having contributed to the happiness of others, remains a lasting example and satisfaction to have known them. Without the experience of unhappiness, we would not know the experience of happiness. All emotional experiences are relative to one's environment. As the signature of one of the contributors to this forum states: "in order to see the light one must have seen the darkness" I believe it is an exceprt from a movie.
Point being, if the religious entities with deities in the world went away, would the need for wars also disappear?First you got to get past the first reason people have wars - to take what some other people have. I don’t see this on the people level. What did our people in WWI and WWII bring home as far as value to them?
I take your point, but there seems to be something in human beings, at least some human beings, that needs to find some kind of answer to what it is all about.Yes, I agree of course. INQUIRY: We have an inquiry in to the largest of subjects. METHODOLOGY: And we have a common methodology, a search for "The Answer", that is, AN attempt to create a conceptual object which accurately describes the largest of subjects. After thousands of years of applying this methodology to this inquiry, we have little evidence it's getting us anywhere. As it has been from the very beginning, some people believe in God, some don't, while others aren't sure. Nothing has really changed. So if we are to reason, we have to face this evidence. If we are to reason, we don't have the option of just wishing it away. And so we arrive at a crossroads. Which is more important to us, the inquiry, or the methodology? If we answer the inquiry, then it seems time to abandon a methodology with a very long history of failure, and try something else. If we answer the methodology, then it seems time to abandon this inquiry and proceed to some other inquiry where this methodology has proven useful. The least rational choice would be to keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results, which Einstein declared to be the definition of insanity. “As it has been from the very beginning". What are you talking about? From the beginning of Deities? That is what 10,000 years. From the beginning of religion? That is 200,000 years. From the beginning of the white race, that is 12,000 years. You are right, change your Methodology. There has been no search of any substance for the answers you seek. Most research so far has been political or religious controlled research. Webplodder is right, there is something in the human beings driving this quest. It is called genes. It is one of the traits that defines humans. All animals have them and they control the behavior of species. God creating the universe is nothing more than a con, driven by greed. History tells us that.
I take your point, but there seems to be something in human beings, at least some human beings, that needs to find some kind of answer to what it is all about.Yes, I agree of course. INQUIRY: We have an inquiry in to the largest of subjects. METHODOLOGY: And we have a common methodology, a search for "The Answer", that is, AN attempt to create a conceptual object which accurately describes the largest of subjects. After thousands of years of applying this methodology to this inquiry, we have little evidence it's getting us anywhere. As it has been from the very beginning, some people believe in God, some don't, while others aren't sure. Nothing has really changed. So if we are to reason, we have to face this evidence. If we are to reason, we don't have the option of just wishing it away. And so we arrive at a crossroads. Which is more important to us, the inquiry, or the methodology? If we answer the inquiry, then it seems time to abandon a methodology with a very long history of failure, and try something else. If we answer the methodology, then it seems time to abandon this inquiry and proceed to some other inquiry where this methodology has proven useful. The least rational choice would be to keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results, which Einstein declared to be the definition of insanity. “As it has been from the very beginning". What are you talking about? From the beginning of Deities? That is what 10,000 years. From the beginning of religion? That is 200,000 years. From the beginning of the white race, that is 12,000 years. You are right, change your Methodology. There has been no search of any substance for the answers you seek. Most research so far has been political or religious controlled research. Webplodder is right, there is something in the human beings driving this quest. It is called genes. It is one of the traits that defines humans. All animals have them and they control the behavior of species. God creating the universe is nothing more than a con, driven by greed. History tells us that. I think we need to recognize that human beings need not only practical, goal-oriented solutions to life but also a spiritual element that 'makes sense' of us being here and of the universe as a whole being here. This is, doubtless, something caused by our genes and it is very easy to dismiss the spiritual side of life as 'hokum' or 'superstition' but it is a deeply rooted need in some (not all, I admit) people and isn't going to go away anytime soon. The thing about science is that in reality it has become an analogue for religion in promising to find answers to the mysteries of life, however, you can only push science so far, so this inevitably fails to provide answers to the really big questions. Perhaps the best approach might be to look for ideas in the scientific sphere that might give us some insight into spiritual experiences, which, after, are as real in their way to scientific ones. We may be on the cusp of a new approach in attempting to understand the universe and our place in it by synthesizing scientific theories with spiritual experiences thus creating a new paradigm of reality. We will see.
I think we need to recognize that human beings need not only practical, goal-oriented solutions to life but also a spiritual element that 'makes sense' of us being here and of the universe as a whole being here. This is, doubtless, something caused by our genes and it is very easy to dismiss the spiritual side of life as 'hokum' or 'superstition' but it is a deeply rooted need in some (not all, I admit) people and isn't going to go away anytime soon. The thing about science is that in reality it has become an analogue for religion in promising to find answers to the mysteries of life, however, you can only push science so far, so this inevitably fails to provide answers to the really big questions. Perhaps the best approach might be to look for ideas in the scientific sphere that might give us some insight into spiritual experiences, which, after, are as real in their way to scientific ones. We may be on the cusp of a new approach in attempting to understand the universe and our place in it by synthesizing scientific theories with spiritual experiences thus creating a new paradigm of reality. We will see.Not sure how to say this. But you are talking about two different items here. One is religion and the other is science. And your timeline is at the root of both subjects. I very much agree with what you are saying except for the meaning of life. I think it was for the meaning of death. My thinking is that religion and science at the root were started at the same point on the timeline. Religion was people expressing themselves. A couple of assumptions, one is that people did not need writing because they were hyperthymesia. Second is that death of a loved one for hyperthymesia people must have been a hundred times more painful than for people today. Thus, sometime at the beginning of religion, from 200,000 to 300,000 years ago religion was created to comfort the people at the time of death of a loved one. Comfort was in the knowing that your loved one would be reborn again. That evolved to your loved one going to heaven while waiting to be reborn again. Even at the time of Jesus the levels of heaven were understood. One needs to ask, if religion was started by a need to comfort the human genes, were our ancestors a more loving people back then than we are now?
I think we need to recognize that human beings need not only practical, goal-oriented solutions to life but also a spiritual element that 'makes sense' of us being here and of the universe as a whole being here. This is, doubtless, something caused by our genes and it is very easy to dismiss the spiritual side of life as 'hokum' or 'superstition' but it is a deeply rooted need in some (not all, I admit) people and isn't going to go away anytime soon. The thing about science is that in reality it has become an analogue for religion in promising to find answers to the mysteries of life, however, you can only push science so far, so this inevitably fails to provide answers to the really big questions. Perhaps the best approach might be to look for ideas in the scientific sphere that might give us some insight into spiritual experiences, which, after, are as real in their way to scientific ones. We may be on the cusp of a new approach in attempting to understand the universe and our place in it by synthesizing scientific theories with spiritual experiences thus creating a new paradigm of reality. We will see.Not sure how to say this. But you are talking about two different items here. One is religion and the other is science. And your timeline is at the root of both subjects. I very much agree with what you are saying except for the meaning of life. I think it was for the meaning of death. My thinking is that religion and science at the root were started at the same point on the timeline. Religion was people expressing themselves. A couple of assumptions, one is that people did not need writing because they were hyperthymesia. Second is that death of a loved one for hyperthymesia people must have been a hundred times more painful than for people today. Thus, sometime at the beginning of religion, from 200,000 to 300,000 years ago religion was created to comfort the people at the time of death of a loved one. Comfort was in the knowing that your loved one would be reborn again. That evolved to your loved one going to heaven while waiting to be reborn again. Even at the time of Jesus the levels of heaven were understood. One needs to ask, if religion was started by a need to comfort the human genes, were our ancestors a more loving people back then than we are now? Oh, I think religion was simply a way of making death less frightening. However, maybe this a little disingenuous, because people would have been more spiritually attuned to their surroundings then and it would only have seemed natural to attribute spiritual status to things like animals, rocks, rivers, mountains and so on and, as an extension, to the spirit of people when they died, which carried on. Science wouldn't have got much of a look-in, I think, in such a spiritually oriented culture. Maybe, when civilizations became more complex and the need of technological innovations became more pressing, then science began to really make its appearance, such for example, in the building of the Egyptian pyramids. Certainly trade fueled the need for mathematical developments such as algebra, I believe, in reckoning up what was owed.
I very much agree with what you are saying except for the meaning of life. I think it was for the meaning of death.Sure pondering death is a big one, but Why am I here? What part do I have to play? Seems to me such questions live right beside the death question. People been multitasking since way back.
“The story so far:
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.In which case where does god come from. If god exists then he/she/it needs an origin as well. The goal of any religion is bias confirmation, not an objective exploration of the data.
This lecture by Anil Seth may shed some light on how our brain makes "best guesses" as to what we experience. https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.In which case where does god come from. If god exists then he/she/it needs an origin as well. The goal of any religion is bias confirmation, not an objective exploration of the data.
You missed it, Doug. This sentence was specifically formulated to get around that loophole. It says "Everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause." For the theist, God has always existed. He never BEGAN to exist, so he doesn't need to be explained. Very clever, those theists.1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.In which case where does god come from. If god exists then he/she/it needs an origin as well. The goal of any religion is bias confirmation, not an objective exploration of the data.
You missed it, Doug. This sentence was specifically formulated to get around that loophole. It says "Everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause." For the theist, God has always existed. He never BEGAN to exist, so he doesn't need to be explained. Very clever, those theists.Everything that doesn't BEGIN to exist doesn't exist. We can play word games too and just stipulate them to be true.1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.In which case where does god come from. If god exists then he/she/it needs an origin as well. The goal of any religion is bias confirmation, not an objective exploration of the data.
You missed it, Doug. This sentence was specifically formulated to get around that loophole. It says "Everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause." For the theist, God has always existed. He never BEGAN to exist, so he doesn't need to be explained. Very clever, those theists. They have been at this a long time....and they are not stupid. Personally I call it Potential (that which may become reality). It meets all the standards and properties of God, except the concept of intelligent intentional creative motivation, which IMO, is a human invented but superfluous theistic asset. The definition of Potential has profound implications in the emergent creative (ordering) functions of the universe.1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.In which case where does god come from. If god exists then he/she/it needs an origin as well. The goal of any religion is bias confirmation, not an objective exploration of the data.