The God Thing

[DogOnPorch]

Looks like Thermopyle and DogonPorch are my first converts.

Never believed in a 'God'...even when young. Walked out of Sunday school and went home when it failed to mesh up to the new set of science books I'd been given. Not to mention, back then, they practically denied dinosaurs and 'cave men' ever existed when I, myself, had a large collection of fossils including a leg bone from a Hadrosaurid (heavy sucker...still have it). There's so much evidence that religion is just plain WRONG yet humans like to believe they are the centre of the Universe and set aside from the chaos of nature. We're not animals...right?

I agree with much of your post. Religion is the opiate of the masses. Its true value is the basic 'Golden Rule'...do unto others, etc.

I check the box marked "Atheist-Existentialist".

------------------------------------

I viewed my fellow man not as a 'fallen angel', but as a 'risen ape'.

---Desmond Morris

Edited September 10, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[AngusThermopyle]

"I'm not in Love".

Air Supply, a truly terrible and insipid song. Has to be just about the whiniest song ever played, even worse than I've Got A Brand New Roller Skate.

Now, back on topic. I wouldn't consider myself to be a convert, I've held my beliefs in the scientific method for many years. With me it was a rejection of religion based upon the many implausibilities and contradictions inherent in any religion. Couple that with the fact that the whole god thing makes no sense at all on several levels and you have an aetheist.

Science on the other hand is logically structured and relies upon observable measurable phenomena in order to bolster the postulations put forth. With time and the use of the scientific method these postulations will become fact if they are valid. If not valid then they will be debunked, and no scientist will stand there and tell you the impossible is possible because some mythical creature told him so.

[HisSelf]

That's just a layman's view. Real astrophysicists speak in practically their own language of mathematics. In my opinion, astrophysics, cosmology, astrodynamics et al, are the disciplines that are closer to 'the God thing' than any old book of morality stories.

That's right. God is in the mathematics. Mathematics is our best bet for undertanding the universe and our best teachers are physicist, chemists and biologists. Certainly not Bible/Koran/Talmud thumping behavioural psychologists... oops preachers.... Hey! Doctor Phil!

The last thing you want to do is let some bible thumper tell you about god. They don't know god from a bag of elbows. The matehmeticians will lead us to god, and no, they will not create a black hole in the middle of Europe, LOL.

Edited September 10, 2008 by HisSelf

[DogOnPorch]

That's right. God is in the mathematics. Mathematics is our best bet for undertanding the universe and our best teachers are physicist, chemists and biologists. Certainly not Bible/Koran/Talmud thumping behavioural psychologists... oops preachers.... Hey! Doctor Phil!

The last thing you want to do is let some bible thumper tell you about god. They don't know god from a bag of elbows. The matehmeticians will lead us to god, and no, they will not create a black hole in the middle of Europe, LOL.

Amazing! We agree on something (cues balloon drop). Indeed, the devil is in the detai...errr...sub-atomic particles.

---------------------------

Three dollars...and it only transports matter!!?

---Homer Simpson at Prof Frink's Yard Sale

[HisSelf]

Amazing! We agree on something (cues balloon drop). Indeed, the devil is in the detai...errr...sub-atomic particles.

---------------------------

Three dollars...and it only transports matter!!?

---Homer Simpson at Prof Frink's Yard Sale

I know. I can't believe it myself! You must be one of those friggin muons. Only explanation I have. LOL.

[gullyfourmyle]

Looks like under the layers of BS we were mostly on the same page after all.

Oleg Bach, we can start another thread if you like. If you read it with an open mind, your religion will likely not survive - assuming your common sense cells are alive and kicking.

I'm not sure scientists are going to lead anyone to any god. The sciences will describe the describable within the context of our comprehension - and that varies widely from person to person.

The value in the bible was the Golden Rule as DogOnPorch noted. If the bible had been shortened to just the Golden Rule in the first place, a lot of blood and guts would never have been spilt.

As for being prejudicial, there is nothing prejudicial about common sense finally holding sway over what passed for almost two thousand years as gospel. Common sense has a lot of ground to make up and the going is only made harder when you have a lot of mental disconnects blabbering about laying their lives in God's hands or letting him take responsibility for whatever sins and crimes they commit.

And before you can have a Christ who is divinely inspired you first have to have a Christ. His existence is far from certain and even with the bible, Christians have proven far more dishonest about nearly everything than you would expect from the devout claiming to be spreading God's word.

Then you have to figure out what's meant by divinely inspired. I painted three paintings that depicted 9/11. The first was completed in June of 1970. The second was completed in 1974, the third in 1978. Was I divinely inspired? Or did I have a vision? No. I just analyzed what I felt was going on in the world and came to a logical conclusion that when things got ugly, they'd get ugly in New York City in the vicinity of the UN building. The World Trade Centre hadn't been built yet so they weren't in the paintings. But the explosions were.

You don't have to be divinely inspired to say or do things that later inspire subsequent generations.

If you are really stuck on having a God, then the God Thing is for you. It makes a form of common sense and allows for a plausible scientific explanation - until someone thinks up something better.

God, the Devil, and all the other angels and spooks are imaginary constructs - an early historical version of superheroes like Superman, Aquaman, The Thing, The Flash and countless others. Reality is the values the various religions are supposed to preach but don't practice themselves.

The next round of archeologists are going to find lots of comic books. They're going to think we worshipped super heroes. Assuming of course the future archeologists are even human enough or bright enough to get beyond digging stuff up to eat.

[HisSelf]

The Golden Rule is great. But then you have the Jews and the Philistines...

[DogOnPorch]

Looks like under the layers of BS we were mostly on the same page after all.

I'm not sure scientists are going to lead anyone to any god. The sciences will describe the describable within the context of our comprehension - and that varies widely from person to person.

You describe the

of 'The Day The Universe Changed' by James Burke almost to a 'T'. He greatly affected me when his two TV shows aired way back. Science exists within the structure of its time. Old 'truths' are replaced by new 'truths' which are replaced themselves as our understanding grows. Science's mission isn't to find 'God' (real science, that is). The possible discovery of 'God' would be a side effect of the entire process.

---------------------------------

The key to why things change is the key to everything.

---James Burke

[WIP]

The bottom line I hear from the discussions on here is that if we accept what Charter Rights is saying then we have to admit that we are all responisble for our actions. Not some so called invented persona called the Devil.

We are all part of God and that begs the question, what about people we term as evil. Where do they fit into this idea?

That is where the big question comes from. If God is in all of us how can he be in a killer? That question is too frightening for most of us I guess.

The problem seems to be that we want to blame others for the ills of the world instead of accepting the truth that there is good and evil in all of us and we need to find a way to see this and work with it.

And your realization that the Problem of Evil is a dilemma for your pantheistic concept of the Universe should be a motivation to look for answers and not brush it off as an unsolvable riddle. I can understand that you don't want to deal with flaming posts from people who just want to insult or mock the way you and Charter Rights see the world, but it bothers me that you don't acknowledge opposing views or challenges on your own threads.

It may not change your basic outlook, but a pantheistic vision that our universe is guided by a lifeforce that is working towards perfection is challenged by the carnage in the nature, and people who are psychopathic and sociopathic, and have no interest or understanding of the suffering of others. This is a weakness of concepts of mind that claim our essence is non-physical, but new discoveries by neuroscientists studying the brain are finding physical differences in brain function of these antisocial people and the rest of society. Right now, these brain disorders defy any sort of treatment; but there were no reliable treatments for severe depression and schizophrenia 20 years ago either, so it's conceivable that some people who's fMRI shows the brain damage of impaired connections between the hippocampus and pre-frontal cortex could be treated with drugs -- if the damage can't be adjusted for, then they are destined for a life of crime if they also show aggressive tendencies and lack emotional control. Some unconfirmed estimates are that 20 to 25% of the average prison population contains psychopaths and sociopaths with varying degrees of brain damage. There is a genetic connection to these disorders, and even simple things like exposure to lead during pregnancy show a high correlation. If some of them could be treated, that would do a lot to alleviate overcrowding in the prisons, as most of these people are otherwise unreformable.

[WIP]

The point of the excercise wasn't to convert anyone. It was merely to make people think along different lines and maybe get some off the wall input.

It worked. margrace and WIP introduced some different aspects that could be developed into a thesis complicated enough to bore nearly everyone to death - which is why we ended up with the bible. That was the limit intellects at the time could be stretched to encompass. It's still a challenge for most people.

The thing is, if people like me don't stir things up a bit, others can never get beyond the bible.

It doesn't matter whether or not people agree with me or not as long as they think and question.

You're going accuse others of boring people to death after that self-indulgent, incoherent piece of mush that you opened with!

You tossed in a little bit of science and cosmology, and revealed that you know nothing of either! You criticized traditional religious belief as 'a man in the sky with a beard' without acknowledging that there are lots of believers in traditional religions who have a greater understanding of philosophy, religion and science far more than you have.

Telling people they're stupid for the things they believe in does not encourage dialogue or encourage them to "think along different lines;" it only raises hostility since the simple act of belief is an emotional experience, not a detached, intellectual exercise. That's why I didn't want to attack your post, even though it was all over the map. I just assumed that you had a lot on your mind, and didn't have it all organized in a cogent manner. But, if you start off mocking other people's ideas of God, then you've closed off discussion right from the start. (and the same thing applies to atheists who want to deconvert Christians) If people feel their beliefs are important to their concept of themselves and the world, they are going to resist anything further that you have to say. If few people change their minds in the political debates, it's not likely many people will change and adopt your vision, when these are the beliefs that people consider the most important.

[WIP]

No...seriously. If humans are the ultimate creation of 'God', why is he/she/it still making new stars and planets? Is that too tough a question for those who are 'believers'?

------------------------

I am now convinced that theoretical physics is actually philosophy.

---Max Born

If most people want to believe we live a world that was designed specifically with us in mind, there's not likely going to be any way of changing that opinion. When it comes to the big questions, I think Douglas Adams (Hitchhikers Guide to The Universe) provided the best explanation (in comic format), but Adams also knew that an infinitely huge empty universe that we now understand will expand and dissipate before any future generations can explore it (and it is probably almost completely devoid of intelligent life), is not a very comforting vision to most people.

For those of us, who don't want to let wishful thinking mix in with finding answers to the big questions, we have to be able to accept the most likely answers, even if they aren't pleasing for us. Who knows, maybe there is a greater purpose and truth behind everything, but so far we're not finding any evidence for it, and I have my doubts over whether a majority of people will feel comfortable with the way the naturalistic worldview is shaping up.

[gullyfourmyle]

You describe the

of 'The Day The Universe Changed' by James Burke almost to a 'T'. He greatly affected me when his two TV shows aired way back. Science exists within the structure of its time. Old 'truths' are replaced by new 'truths' which are replaced themselves as our understanding grows. Science's mission isn't to find 'God' (real science, that is). The possible discovery of 'God' would be a side effect of the entire process.

---------------------------------

The key to why things change is the key to everything.

---James Burke

I see it as an adventure in the mind. That may mean I'm totally nuts.

[gullyfourmyle]

Telling people they're stupid for the things they believe in does not encourage dialogue or encourage them to "think along different lines;" it only raises hostility since the simple act of belief is an emotional experience, not a detached, intellectual exercise.

I searched my posts and couldn't find that I'd used the word stupid anywhere. I guess I did go off on a bit of a rant though.

As for not understanding science, religion or philosophy, that may be your view based on limited exposure. But don't worry, I can carry my weight with the best of them.

You have to bear in mind that I'm poking you to provoke a response. If I didn't you'd still be lurking and not saying a word. It's more interesting to get people agitated because then you get to see what really makes people tick instead of the usual ho hum socially correct or the brain deadening name calling that goes nowhere.

If things don't get stirred up a little, sites like this die a slow death due to lack of interest and excitement. Now you're bent out of shape about what was said and that's good. I enjoyed your post. Another thing that kills sites like this is when everyone starts agreeing with each other.

As for the man in the sky with the beard, there are still plenty of people around who believe that. George Bush is probably one of them.

Whenever the bible gets knocked as I knocked it, people step forward and rationalize it, admitting that yes there are things that are wrong but you have to dig for that nugget of gold or whatever.

That sort of rationalization may deliver a comfortable warm feeling for the person holding forth, but for the rest of us who have spent serious mental time examining the flaws in not just the bible but religions in general, the rationalizations come across as kind of kindergartenish. Especially since within our lifetimes, the bible was THE WORD NOT TO BE DOUBTED. Modern communications are what finally did in religion more than anything because doubters and atheists discovered that not only were they not alone, their numbers are increasing as what is in the bible makes less and less sense in today's world.

The real miracle of the bible, the Koran and any other religious beliefs is that they lasted so long in the face of visual evidence to the contrary.

Think about the wars and genocides that have been fought in the name of Christianity. How do they reconcile with any kind of spiritual kindliness? What about the Spanish Inquisition?

Religions have provided a smoke screen for all sorts of heinous crimes that neither prayer nor religious books can wash away. How do religious philosophies begin to account for the duplicity of intent and the destruction of entire races of people and animals? And then you tell me my views are what? Self Indulgent?

What I would dearly love to know is just what a religious philosopher can be thinking when say, the walrus ivory from eastern Canada is contemplated. Do they think warm fuzzy thoughts about how nice the crucifixes and rosaries are that were made from the walrus tusks? Do they spare any thought for the hundreds of thousands of walruses that were slaughtered for religious trinkets because the North African elephants had been wiped out to provide earlier religious trinkets? Do they brood over the desertification caused in part in North Africa due to the loss of the elephants? How about the real reason for the fishery destruction as represented by the Grand Banks?

In each of those cases, vital animals were removed from ecosystems. Both animals had tusks. Tusks are used to "turn" the earth. It's a similar process to that of ploughing a field. In the ocean, the walruses stirred up the ocean bottom looking for mollusks. In the process, zooplankton were released from the mud and made available to those species at the first rung of the food chain upon whom all other species - especially the fish we like to eat - depended on for their food. Removing that link slowly erased the fisheries. Over fishing merely accelerated the process. The elephants did exactly the same thing - they ripped up trees looking for water. In the process, they also kick started the cycle of life. In addition certain tree seeds don't germinate unless they pass through the digestive tract of an elephant. Without the elephant to create new watering holes, the amount of wildlife or any kind of life the land can support is greatly reduced. Africa's ecosystem is tied to the elephant. Without it, desert soon follows. The last time I checked the Sahara was expanding southwards at a rate of 23 miles a year.

You probably already know that the Grand Banks are not recovering. They won't unless the walruses are restored to the east coast. That won't happen any time soon because the Ministry of Natural Resources scientists don't understand the relationship between the walruses, the ocean bottom and what newly hatched fish need in the way of food. On top of that, the west coast walruses are threatened as well with new oil rigs thanks to Sarah Palin, the Great White Hope. If that happens, the west coast fishery will disappear too.

That's quite a heavy load for those philosophers to contemplate. I haven't actually heard they'd started yet though. When do you suppose they will start? Do you suppose the religious leaders and philosophers will ever accept responsibility for the church's role in major environmental destruction?

Edited September 10, 2008 by gullyfourmyle

[charter.rights]

It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it. . . The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it ... In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.

Albert Einstein.

[DogOnPorch]

If most people want to believe we live a world that was designed specifically with us in mind, there's not likely going to be any way of changing that opinion. When it comes to the big questions, I think Douglas Adams (Hitchhikers Guide to The Universe) provided the best explanation (in comic format), but Adams also knew that an infinitely huge empty universe that we now understand will expand and dissipate before any future generations can explore it (and it is probably almost completely devoid of intelligent life), is not a very comforting vision to most people.

The average Joe/Jane on the street can't explain the difference between the Universe, the Milky Way and the Solar System, frankly. I understand that big things can scare folks...especially when it will upset established apple carts. But, who knows? We may have reality thrust upon us some day via some signs of life elsewhere in our galaxy. Or maybe even more dramatic as in a "Contact" type scenario. It might make us giggle, now...but, we are getting really good at seeing really far...and we'll just be seeing further in the future (into the past!). Who can say what we'll see? Already, some Earth-ish planets are turning up in the comfort zones of numerous stars.

We may for the moment be bound by time and space to a small section of the Universe, but we simply don't know how future technology might turn out. No worries re: The Universe dissipating. It isn't going anywhere soon (other than outward). It's more about our ability to survive these barbaric times without poisoning or blowing-up the Earth.

As my comment section says:

My best guess...

Chance of life on other planets: 99.999%

Chance of life within 50 light years: 75%

Chance of intelligent life within 50 light years: 0.0000001%

Chance of intelligent life within 50 light years AND existing in the same time frame as us: 0.00000000001%

...or something to that effect.

For those of us, who don't want to let wishful thinking mix in with finding answers to the big questions, we have to be able to accept the most likely answers, even if they aren't pleasing for us. Who knows, maybe there is a greater purpose and truth behind everything, but so far we're not finding any evidence for it, and I have my doubts over whether a majority of people will feel comfortable with the way the naturalistic worldview is shaping up.

Thus the myths we struggle with to this day. At another forum we had a thread called "Where's My Silver Space Suit??" It was more or less about how the public no longer shares the dream of going to the Moon or Mars, etc. The love affair with science and technology has been turned inward more than outward. Ironically, this leap in technology (communication technology in particular) has led to a rise in religious zeal which by its very nature is anti-technology...at least in that outward sense. This isn't to say MIT isn't putting out grads...just that the public doesn't see technology in the same 'Buck Rogers' way past generations did.

--------------------------------------

We can continue to try and clean up the gutters all over the world and spend all of our resources looking at just the dirty spots and trying to make them clean. Or we can lift our eyes up and look into the skies and move forward in an evolutionary way.

---Col. Edwin 'Buzz' Aldrin, USAF: Gemini 12, Apollo 11

Edited September 11, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it. . . The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it ... In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.

Albert Einstein.

Did you read the entire essay? Just curious.

The thing to remember with scientists...and Albert is included...is that they are only scientists when they are practicing the scientific method. Science has no expert opinions and doesn't argue from authority. This usually comes up when religious types attempt to use 'science' to 'prove' evolution doesn't exist.

Here's a

.

----------------------------------------------

McCoy: I'm not a magician, Spock; just an old country doctor.

Spock: Yes. As I always suspected.

---Star Trek

[WIP]

I searched my posts and couldn't find that I'd used the word stupid anywhere. I guess I did go off on a bit of a rant though.

I didn't look to see if you used that exact word or not, but the tone of comments such as:Get over the idea that there is some bearded guy sitting on a throne in the clouds letting on that he is God." and "On this site, I thought there would be sufficient mental ammunition to generate some colourful dialogue. Instead the reverse is true. The babble so far is juvenile," sounds like contemptuous condescending comments from a no-it-all who's solved the great mysteries of life.

As for not understanding science, religion or philosophy, that may be your view based on limited exposure. But don't worry, I can carry my weight with the best of them.

Then you should be able to understand that most people aren't thinking about religion 24/7 as they go about their daily lives. In dealing with people day to day, even the most religious are going to use the same secular rules and standards that less religious or nonreligious people use. The problems occur where ancient metaphysical beliefs impact with modern life, such as: strapping on bomb-belts to kill enemies of God, opposition to emergency contraception, 1st and 2nd trimester abortions, and embryonic stem cell research because of the belief that a fertilized egg has been given a soul, refusing blood transfusions because of an OT belief that the blood contains the person's soul, opposing teaching of evolution because it contradicts Biblical understanding the the Cosmos is 6,000 years old and humans and animals are separate creations.......and the list could go on and on. But many progressive theists are able to update their religious worldview to keep up to date with new scientific discoveries. Is there any value in trying to stamp out all religious thought, including ones that can be for the most part, harmonized with modern life?

You have to bear in mind that I'm poking you to provoke a response. If I didn't you'd still be lurking and not saying a word. It's more interesting to get people agitated because then you get to see what really makes people tick instead of the usual ho hum socially correct or the brain deadening name calling that goes nowhere.

If things don't get stirred up a little, sites like this die a slow death due to lack of interest and excitement. Now you're bent out of shape about what was said and that's good. I enjoyed your post. Another thing that kills sites like this is when everyone starts agreeing with each other.

I guess you landed in the wrong place if this forum isn't exciting enough for you. What's so exciting about flaming and personal attacks -- which happens enough on the political threads. When people get emotional, they become defensive and are motivated to protect their beliefs, as the more emotional attachment makes them even more crucial for their sense of self-worth. Nobody wants to be considered to be fool for the things they believe in, so if they are going to change or modify some of their beliefs, it will only occur in calm, non-threatening setting where they feel less personally invested in the correctness of beliefs like God and the soul, which may be central to how they make sense of this world and understand their own nature.

As for the man in the sky with the beard, there are still plenty of people around who believe that. George Bush is probably one of them.

Whenever the bible gets knocked as I knocked it, people step forward and rationalize it, admitting that yes there are things that are wrong but you have to dig for that nugget of gold or whatever.

Right, and that's why heaven keeps moving further away from our field of observation. Everything that is labelled 'supernatural' is beyond reach of critical analysis. But all this does not get at the reasons why most people belong to established religions. If you are able to debunk everything in the Bible, you still have not dealt with what draws most of them to church:

Tradition -- if someone comes from let's say a Catholic background where their family has been Catholic for generations, they may see the church as part of the family tradition. Where else are they going to go for weddings, christenings and funerals?

Community -- the last time I tried to get religion (when my kids were young and I thought church was essential for raising children), I found the churches with the best sense of community were those crazy Pentacostal and fundamentalist Baptist churches. In the average suburban community, these new megachurches may be tithing, money-grubbing organizations; but they are the only ones who have figured out how to create local communities where suburbanites can interact in what is often otherwise newly built, sterile neighbourhoods. I couldn't swallow all of the crazy dogmas, but many times I wish there was a secular alternative. What is the good of creating atheists, without thinking about how all of these new atheists are going get together and have something similar to what the churches provide....without the dogma.

[WIP]

The average Joe/Jane on the street can't explain the difference between the Universe, the Milky Way and the Solar System, frankly. I understand that big things can scare folks...especially when it will upset established apple carts. But, who knows? We may have reality thrust upon us some day via some signs of life elsewhere in our galaxy. Or maybe even more dramatic as in a "Contact" type scenario. It might make us giggle, now...but, we are getting really good at seeing really far...and we'll just be seeing further in the future (into the past!). Who can say what we'll see? Already, some Earth-ish planets are turning up in the comfort zones of numerous stars.

Back when Star Trek was on TV and Carl Sagan's Cosmos series was running, it seemed likely that there were billions and billions of planets with advanced, civilized lifeforms, just like on Star Trek. But, with greater understanding of how solar systems form and what conditions are like in our galaxy, the numbers are dropping considerably. Several years ago, paleontologist Peter Ward and astrophysicist Donald Brownlee collaborated to write Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe, and dumped some cold water on the irrational exuberance about E.T.'s flying around up there. Their conclusions are that binary star systems, which represent over half of the solar systems in the galaxy would not be able to maintain stable orbiting planets; red dwarf systems would also be unsuitable because they would have lost their necessary light elements. A solar system capable of containing a planet with complex life would require that the life-bearing planet contain a large moon to maintain its rotation and stable axis, a large Jupiter to pitch light elements towards the sun during early formation and to act as a vacuum cleaner afterwards, attracting most asteroids/comets that threaten the life planet. Our Sun seems to be unusually metal-rich for a star of its age and type according to astrophysicists studying similar stars. And they're not sure why. It could be that our Sun formed in an area that was rich in metals, and then migrated out to its present location -- yet another stroke of luck.

I noticed that article you linked has a blurb about Gliese 581 d being a likely candidate for having a planet that could be life-bearing, all because it's estimated surface temperature should be in the right range to maintain liquid water on it's surface. But why would a large rocky planet in a close orbit around a red dwarf star have water in the first place? If our solar system didn't have Jupiter pitching a steady stream of comets our way during the early period of our solar system, we wouldn't have oceans of water either. Gliese 581 does not have anything resembling a Jupiter if it did happen to have light elements in the outer orbits that could be used to provide oceans on a suitable rocky planet. So the hopes that it is a candidate for life look way overblown.

It has also been discovered that the Milky Way Galaxy has a limited habitable zone where life can exist. If our solar system was much closer to the middle, it would be fried by gamma rays, and if it was further out, our solar system wouldn't have had enough metals and heavy elements. Our solar system is also rotating at the same speed as the galaxy's spiral arm rotation -- which is lucky for us since passing through the spiral arms would probably kill off all life on Earth. Well, that's enough for now! The point is the rosy scenario of abundant life predicted by the Drake Equation was just counting stars and galaxies; it didn't look at the practical conditions of what's needed to make a planet a suitable habitat for complex life.

We may for the moment be bound by time and space to a small section of the Universe, but we simply don't know how future technology might turn out. No worries re: The Universe dissipating. It isn't going anywhere soon (other than outward). It's more about our ability to survive these barbaric times without poisoning or blowing-up the Earth.

I know! We're talking billions of years before heat death or the Big Rip brings our universe to an end. But the point is worth mentioning because so many metaphysical beliefs are tied up with our universe. Many religious cosmologies teach that the earth will last forever, and that those who find God's favour will live forever on the purified Earth. And what about pantheism! The mystical and eastern religious traditions that teach that God and everything in our Universe are one have to deal with the fact that our universe is going to die. So, that would also mean that a God who is inseparable from the Universe is going to die also. But I can't seem to be able to get pantheistic thinkers to try to resolve the problem.

As my comment section says:

Thus the myths we struggle with to this day. At another forum we had a thread called "Where's My Silver Space Suit??" It was more or less about how the public no longer shares the dream of going to the Moon or Mars, etc. The love affair with science and technology has been turned inward more than outward. Ironically, this leap in technology (communication technology in particular) has led to a rise in religious zeal which by its very nature is anti-technology...at least in that outward sense. This isn't to say MIT isn't putting out grads...just that the public doesn't see technology in the same 'Buck Rogers' way past generations did.

--------------------------------------

We can continue to try and clean up the gutters all over the world and spend all of our resources looking at just the dirty spots and trying to make them clean. Or we can lift our eyes up and look into the skies and move forward in an evolutionary way.

---Col. Edwin 'Buzz' Aldrin, USAF: Gemini 12, Apollo 11

I grew up in the 60's and the fizzling of the Space Program is the biggest disappointment of the last 40 years. When I was 12 years old, we all stayed up and even had the neighbours over watching Neil Armstrong make those first steps on the Moon. That was supposed to be the beginning of space exploration and colonization. Instead, it all withered away and later generations have lost all interest in space. I hope it gets back on track during my lifetime.

[DogOnPorch]

Good post, WIP. I have only a few things to point out with it.

1} While you mention that conditions like Jupiter and our Moon being essential for the rise of life on Earth, it would be a fallacy to assume that these are the only conditions where life (intelligent or not) might arise. They are certainly our conditions, though. Without the gas giant planets, it is estimated that we'd have been hit by larger asteroids on a fairly regular basis, making life that much harder and intelligent life almost impossible.

2} Red Dwarf stars are not poor of light elements. They are just small Class M or K stars. They spend their entire lives...which are in the 10 billion year range...on the main sequence. I think you're refering to White Dwarf stars which are the left-overs after a Nova or Supernova explosions. Red Dwarf stars are the most common type of star in our Universe by the looks...and since they are so long-lived, are fairly good candidates for life. Their 'comfort zones' are just that much smaller. Red dwarf stars do have some other problems, though that make them less suitable than our star. Variability (up to 50% in some cases) is one major factor while tidally locked planets in their comfort zones is the other. So not EVERY red dwarf would be a good candidate. Only a fraction.

3} Type G stars are fairly uncommon as it is (compared to Type M's)...but, they all tend to be fairly metal rich. You can check many of their metallicities and find they more or less all lay within a range comparable to our Sun. Perhaps you have information I don't, though.

4} Binary Stars come in many varieties as you might imagine. While it is true that many orbit a common barycentre, there are cases where the second companion is rather small (like a Red Dwarf) and has a nice low eccentricity like our planets. These systems have multiple 'comfort zones'.

5} Gliese 581 is only one star. Don't fall for the fallacy of small statistics.

6} The Milky Way is a rather energetic spiral galaxy with a large central bulge. There are other types of spirals (and irregulars) whose cores are not nearly so radioactive. M33 'Triangulum' is a good example of a spiral with a much quieter core. Luck doesn't come into it when it comes to our star's orbit around the centre of the Milky Way as everything turns more or less at the same rate much like a record on a turntable. This is due to the vast bulk of our galaxy's matter being unseen and beyond the visible disc (the ol' Dark Matter thingy). The stars do drift around in the arms a bit, though, on a cosmic time scale.

7} I don't go for the old UFO's are everywhere theory; but I do think the future will find that the conditions for life (maybe not as we know it) are more common than we think. It's intelligent life...existing in our time frame...that will be incredibly rare. Even rarer if said intelligent life is going to be anywhere near our location in the Universe. But, still, if we one day pick-up the radio signals of a long dead distant civilization, it would be revolutionary in regards to our place in the Universe.

Are you familiar with 'Celestia'? It makes a good companion to 'Orbiter'...both of which are free. A good 3D vid card is recommended as the graphics in both are superb.

http://www.shatters.net/celestia/

http://www.celestiamotherlode.net/

http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

-----------------------------------------------------------

Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and sometimes I think we're not. In either case the idea is quite staggering.

---Arthur C. Clarke

Edited September 11, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[gullyfourmyle]

I thought WIP's post was pretty good too.

The point I think was most important was the one where she said:

"Tradition -- if someone comes from let's say a Catholic background where their family has been Catholic for generations, they may see the church as part of the family tradition. Where else are they going to go for weddings, christenings and funerals?"

That is a big deal for most people and the main reason why religions persist in the face of common sense. There is nothing yet ready to take the place of traditional venues for life events.

Being an atheist at certain times can leave atheists pretty isolated at times when community support is called for.

The points about community and religion, while long winded were just as important in my view.

Without strong community ties, civilizations lack unity of intent. Basing your unity of intent on common sense makes sense but in real life, it's a hard sell. Anyone who has ever worked as a sales person knows that emotion and glitz outsells common sense.

So we atheists have a lot of work to do to figure out a way around this.

[WIP]

I thought WIP's post was pretty good too.

The point I think was most important was the one where she said:

She! When did I give any indication I was a she?

[Oleg Bach]

She! When did I give any indication I was a she?

I was just thanking the he God for my existance as a human...what grace HE has shown to have given me birth - a woman in a man's body...an incarnated lesbian - a man with the mind of a woman that loves woman - God was very kind to this old girl - to bring me back as a male...who is lesbian - my clitoris is substantial Hope I did not offend those that are males or females...so - actually all kidding aside - I am a man - who is a lesbian born in a man's body - thank you GOD.

[DogOnPorch]

She! When did I give any indication I was a she?

---------------------------------

Ink-a-dink-a-dink-a dink-a-dink-a-dinka-doooo...

Oh, what a tune for croon-ing-

---Jimmy Durante

[gullyfourmyle]

She! When did I give any indication I was a she?

I must have been your choice of words or the colour of your eyes. Doesn't WIP stand for Women In Power? Either way, no offence intended.

But now my curiosity is peaked...

[WIP]

Good post, WIP. I have only a few things to point out with it.

1} While you mention that conditions like Jupiter and our Moon being essential for the rise of life on Earth, it would be a fallacy to assume that these are the only conditions where life (intelligent or not) might arise. They are certainly our conditions, though. Without the gas giant planets, it is estimated that we'd have been hit by larger asteroids on a fairly regular basis, making life that much harder and intelligent life almost impossible.

Yes, I know there is a lot of guesswork involved in trying to figure out what the ranges are for habitable zones. Even here on Earth, temperatures have fluctuated wildly over the Eons. A few ice ages have covered the entire planet, so that most life that was not near volcanic vents died off, and (I can't find the story now) but there is evidence that global temperatures spiked so high after the K/T Extinction that average temperature in the tropic zones were over 40 degrees celcius and killed off all life within 30degrees latitude, either side of the equator -- so even here on Earth, conditions that support complex life are a crapshoot, and are going to come to an end about 500 million years from now if future civilizations aren't able to re-engineer the planet.

If primitive lifeforms or fossils of multicellular organisms are found on Mars, that would expand the range of potential habitable zones, so there's a lot of guesswork in trying to figure out how many worlds can support complex life that would be the base for extraterrestrial civilizations.

2} Red Dwarf stars are not poor of light elements. They are just small Class M or K stars. They spend their entire lives...which are in the 10 billion year range...on the main sequence. I think you're refering to White Dwarf stars which are the left-overs after a Nova or Supernova explosions. Red Dwarf stars are the most common type of star in our Universe by the looks...and since they are so long-lived, are fairly good candidates for life. Their 'comfort zones' are just that much smaller. Red dwarf stars do have some other problems, though that make them less suitable than our star. Variability (up to 50% in some cases) is one major factor while tidally locked planets in their comfort zones is the other. So not EVERY red dwarf would be a good candidate. Only a fraction.

3} Type G stars are fairly uncommon as it is (compared to Type M's)...but, they all tend to be fairly metal rich. You can check many of their metallicities and find they more or less all lay within a range comparable to our Sun. Perhaps you have information I don't, though.

4} Binary Stars come in many varieties as you might imagine. While it is true that many orbit a common barycentre, there are cases where the second companion is rather small (like a Red Dwarf) and has a nice low eccentricity like our planets. These systems have multiple 'comfort zones'.

5} Gliese 581 is only one star. Don't fall for the fallacy of small statistics.

True, but I was more than a little nauseated about the promotion of this star as a candidate for earth-like planets, just because one of them may be in the range of having liquid water on its surface. The problem with considering small stars for potential candidates for extraterrestrials is that they would also have less planets and other debris orbiting them that could provide the right mix of heavy and light elements to make complex life possible, and one thing I forgot to mention before was that most of the astronomers who regularly comment on the Badastronomy forum pointed out that doing the math for the orbit of the planet offered up as the candidate for life would show that it would have soon become a tidally-locked early on and I can't find anyone other than Seth Shostak of SETI, who thinks that tidally locked planets could create a biosphere that would support complex life. So, I got to go with the skeptics who believe that all of the red and orange K and M stars aren't worth considering when looking for ET. At the other end of the spectrum, the giant blue O and B stars burn so fast that the question would be whether they are going to be around long enough to support the development of complex life.

6} The Milky Way is a rather energetic spiral galaxy with a large central bulge. There are other types of spirals (and irregulars) whose cores are not nearly so radioactive. M33 'Triangulum' is a good example of a spiral with a much quieter core. Luck doesn't come into it when it comes to our star's orbit around the centre of the Milky Way as everything turns more or less at the same rate much like a record on a turntable. This is due to the vast bulk of our galaxy's matter being unseen and beyond the visible disc (the ol' Dark Matter thingy). The stars do drift around in the arms a bit, though, on a cosmic time scale.

From what I've read, most of the debates about extraterrestrial life focus on this galaxy, likely because there is more detailed information about conditions in the Milky Way than is available for other galaxies; but it's worth mentioning that other galaxies may be more hospitable to life than ours' is. It seems that our sun was one of the lucky few that somehow migrated out of range of dangerous radiation from the galactic center, and just found that sweet spot between the spiral arms that keeps it exactly in the middle. It's worth noting that other galaxies may have better conditions for possible life-bearing planets.

7} I don't go for the old UFO's are everywhere theory; but I do think the future will find that the conditions for life (maybe not as we know it) are more common than we think. It's intelligent life...existing in our time frame...that will be incredibly rare. Even rarer if said intelligent life is going to be anywhere near our location in the Universe. But, still, if we one day pick-up the radio signals of a long dead distant civilization, it would be revolutionary in regards to our place in the Universe.

Are you familiar with 'Celestia'? It makes a good companion to 'Orbiter'...both of which are free. A good 3D vid card is recommended as the graphics in both are superb.

http://www.shatters.net/celestia/

http://www.celestiamotherlode.net/

http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

-----------------------------------------------------------

Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and sometimes I think we're not. In either case the idea is quite staggering.

---Arthur C. Clarke

That's why, as much as I like Seth Shostak ( I listen to his weekly radio show Are We Alone), I have noticed that his outlook is always on the most optimistic end of how many extraterrestrial life could be out there. The SETI people have to be balanced with the Rare Earth viewpoint.

Regardless of who's right, I think the evidence so far puts a fork in design arguments that our universe is intelligently designed for life. An intelligent designer could create a universe that was smaller and much more efficient for the purposes of making lifeforms. Why so much waste? The only design argument that might work is emergent design, like the process of evolution. In nature, the designing is wasteful and less than optimal, so what if there are factors in the creation of new universes in a multiverse backdrop that would favour the creation of universes that are most likely to build organic molecules. Lee Smolin offers up a hypothesis called Cosmological Natural Selection -- it's not something you can take to the bank, but it's worth having a look at.

BTW thanks for the Celestia link. I have an old Starrynight program that I haven't run in a few years, celestia looks like it has a lot more options.