I have read many of the posts on this site, and I am afraid that no one
seems to have hit upon the true reason that this film/book was made.
This film exists to promote skepticism, as practiced by CSICOP, and the
people who work at SETI. Since this brand of skepticism is bereft of
logic or true science, the film falls flat on its face with numerous
plot inconsistencies. I will detail a few now.
At the end of the movie, Arroway is grilled, and she is admits that 'it
could all have been a dream' (usually, schoolboys ending essays in this
way get an instant 'F'). Skeptics always demand 'scientific, repeatable
proof' for the existence of ETs, why didn't everyone simply RUN THE
EXPERIMENT AGAIN? The machine was built, all one needed is energy to run
it; WHY NOT run it 1000 times to confirm the results? especially with
tantalizing evidence of 18hrs of elapsed in-capsule time...a glaring
mistake, and logical inconsistency. The movie should have ended with the
DISMANTLING of SETI, since man now had the means to explore space
DIRECTLY with the machine, and subsequent ones that would have surely
been built.
when the dr. was being launched, she confirmed the gantry, and every
other pre-flight event EXCEPT the door SELF SEALING in with a non human
technological method. This AMAZING, self sealing door went UNNANOUCED or
confirmed; simply incredible, as it was part of the most shocking
aspects of the machine. A quite simply unreal omission; exactly the
type of omission that skeptics make when they are confronted with
scientific evidence that their mind set cannot accept. Quite pathetic
really.
at the end James Woods says that the whole thing could have been a hoax.
Self sealing metal doors, undeniably alien transmissions containing
plans for machines...how much evidence do skeptics want?! You will find
that real life skeptics exhibit the same sort of behavior; no matter
what quality of evidence you provide them with, they will NEVER believe
that ETs exist. This is the dogma of thier religion. 'There are no ETs,
and if they are, they can NEVER get to earth'. This is of course,
nonsense. ETs can and do get to earth, and this can be proven to the
same standards of evidence that are used to convict criminals or infer
that quarks/leptons/muons are real.
and finally, whilst Vegans may or may not choose Hitler to send back a
message, do you not think that they would have sent some VIDEO OF
THEMSELVS, in the same format as the Hitler footage? Think about it;
they would have FOR SURE done this, as well as sending copious amounts
of other 'personal info', at the very least, in the form of schematics as
the form of a human in the machine was represented by the ETs.
The message sent back with the bewildered dr. also was totally absurd.
It could have, and WOULD have been sent with the machine instructions;
why send for someone just to say some pathetic, soppy words? and the
business of 'making it easier for you' is also totally rubbish; people
died to make that trip possible, and the dr. knew this. A TRUE scientist
would say, 'easier for me?.....how dare you patronize me! reveal
yourself at once damn you!' This part of the plot is another
manifestation of the skeptic/csicop belief system; 'you cannot imagine
what aliens look like, because they are (if they exist at all) too alien
for us to imagine'. This is similar to several religious beliefs saying
that it is forbidden to portray God in any way.
That's all I have time for now. This film is interesting, not for what it
says, but as a historical document detailing the skeptic mentality that
infected scientists and held back the progress of humanity in the late
20th century. People in the future will look back on this era as we look
back on the era of Galeleo, when scientists were killed/ruined/chastised
for applying pure logic EVENLY to the world, accepting whatever results
come out as simply 'how it must be' no matter what the current thinking
was, and how many books needed to be re-written. True scientists are not
slaves to 'the laws of physics', and they do not use science to DISPROVE
an idea. Think about it.
Scientists today are a cult of religious fanatics and salary addicts who
are driven by fear; fear of ridicule, fear of unemployment, fear of the
truth about ETs, and fear of 'the uneducated masses' who they believe
live in darkness, which only THEY the ELITE can dispel.
http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/discussion/Eth.htm
I direct you to this essay and web site. If after reading it, you STILL
believe that SETI is money/time well spent, then you must either work
for SETI, or you are simply not able to come to terms with the world
that we live in. Either way I bid you:
Enjoy!
I agree, there were quite a few things about the movie that I found to be damaging to the purpose. The end was particularly disturbing and I found it to be inadequate. On the other hand I must say that this movie was in many ways largely successful at conveying its point. It makes you think of the similarities between Ellie's situation and Columbus's. Opposition from every direction, and a vast unexplored region that has the potential to alter society and challenge our most fundamental principles.
I can agree with some of what was said in the movie, especially from the aliens' point of view. Humans, tend to be afraid of what they cannot explain and of things that are foreign to them. Alien life is something that many of us consider, and some of us deem probable, yet, most of us do not consider the implications of. I think that it would be very difficult for us to remain a stable and what we consider to be civilized society under the conditions that might have occurred had Ellie come back with undeniable proof. "Small moves" is definitely one of the more important quotes from this movie when dealing with delicate matters such as this.
I do not believe that it would have been possible to make the machine work again, contacting the aliens and using their technology. We could certainly not have altered it. But little things that happened while she was gone would have given enough proof of the trip, like the chair having been somehow dismounted from the ball. .I agree that it is important to be skeptical, but most skeptics are logical in their approach, that is why the last few scenes of the movie bother me. The skeptics as many people would consider them, began to be irrational and not take into account important possibilities like running the machine again, or trying to figure out minute details like, where Ellie was for the fraction of a second that every sensor they had on her was unable to locate her. On the other hand, it is exactly for these reasons that we need scientific research. To prove things that over time people will come to accept, understand, and eventually, use. SETI and other programs are for exactly that reason crucial to our development as a species. Many scientists have only the pursuit of truth in mind, not all, but many. It is in this was that I believe the movie was inaccurate.
My opinion:
The movie was intended to broaden everyone's mind about that which cannot (yet) be explained.. It DOES depict a conflict between Science and Religion. It DOESN'T give many answers.. It's silly to expect the answers to the universe and the nature of God could be revealed in a three hour movie. Sagan's whole point (as someone said earlier) with Contact is to make you "think", think not about what you've been told, what you were taught in Sunday school or Astronomy class, not what's in the Bible (which is someone telling you what to think as well). The point is to think about it for yourself..
I don't adhere to any religion, and am not a scientist. But I can still form my own judgments on both.
I noticed some said Religion was "bashed", some (just recently) pretty much proclaimed the SETI the Nazi's of Science. I think it's human nature to "bash" what your opposed to, which, I think, is one of humankind's greatest faults. We haven't evolved far enough to be open minded. We're gullible, we look for "quick" answers without proof, we enjoy watching other's misfortune. No? More wars than I could possibly name have been waged over religion, ratings for TV shows like Jerry Springer and COPS soar as we satisfy our tastes for crime and trash, Psychic Network phones ring off the hook. I may not resort to these things, you who are reading this may not either, but A LOT of people do! Not all religious people are crazy fanatics (as seen in the movie) who kill and hurt to promote their niche of belief, But A LOT of people do! Pro-Lifers gunning down doctors who perform abortions, whole factions who commit suicide when a comet shows up, and no doubt, when the millennium hits as well.
Faith? I don't understand faith. Believing in something without proof seems foolish to me. You don't take a car-salesman's words as gold. Why anyone else's? The word of God? where is his/her/its "Statement to the Planet"? It's certainly NOT the Bible.. every Bible I've ever seen has one phrase on the cover that disclaims: "King James Version".. Why should I believe his version? I've read that whole books of the bible were "edited out" by the Kings in order to guide the herd.
That's enough ranting for now.
Stating (or proving) that religion is "wrong", does not make religion nothing. Religion IS wrong because we (humans) are wrong.. wrong all the time! We thought the world was flat until someone proved it wrong, now it's common knowledge the Earth is round.. But that's easy to rationalize in the grand picture: Why wouldn't the Earth be round? God made it! Sphere's are perfect!
I don't want to do away with religion, and I don't think Sagan means that either. In my opinion, the ideal of religion is wonderful.. It gives us hope, gives us incentive to tolerate the World's faults and still, somehow, find the goodness within ourselves to do the right thing. But Religion can be wrong because we invented it. One Christian's beliefs may be right, but that Christian has to accept the fact that what he/she believes may be wrong as well. But most people aren't ready to do this, what they've learned or come to believe HAS to be right... Why? Because it was the people they cared about who told them, or it was their own conscious that formed the opinion.
I'm not trying to say those who have faith are fools, I'm saying those who CHOOSE to have faith are misleading themselves. Sometimes the car-salesman actually tells the truth! Faith is one of those things: you either have it (or acquire it through some experience) or you don't. I think that a majority of those who claim to have faith, only think that they should have faith. One can't "choose" to believe anything.. If, that is, they actually believe what they're saying. Those who choose to believe are choosing because of some bias.
I've had the following argument many times: Why do you believe in God? answer 1: Because if you don't, you go to Hell! answer 2: Because the Bible says ... yadda.. yadda... answer 3: It's just plain 'wrong' not to believe in God!
Not everyone gives these answers, but these are common. Notice how defensive they are? Because there's no real way to prove one's belief in the existence (or absence) of God. Not yet anyway. I think that's the issue and nobody (I included) can deal with that.
And finally, how does the proof of aliens threaten religion? I can only guess it somehow threatens what we believe to be the perfect universe, modeled and created for us and us alone! My twin boys are only 2 months old, but I picture them squabbling over toys, "MINE!! Daddy bought that for me!". That's going to be the best (and most challenging) part of being a parent: Letting these wonderful boys make their own decisions in life, establish their own beliefs. I only hope they don't base their judgment of the universe based on some movie.
I am very troubled by the way this person has misrepresented both science and faith, and perhaps the only reason I'm commenting on it is because I feel like there is a sense of misinformation woven into the fabric of popular culture. It becomes frustrating to be constantly bombarded by statements like the above which are ill defined and poorly supported. If what Larry Klaes says is true, that "Most people gain their scientific education through movies" then it is also true that most people gain their education about the nature of faith through a similar, unreliable process.
Faith:
The first problem I'd like to address is the notion that "faith is believing without reason or proof." This sadly misrepresents the position of every world religion, not to mention that of the atheist's. Perhaps there are as many definitions or "sects" of atheism as there are major divisions in religion, so I do not mean to speak for every atheist in the world, the same way I do not intend to speak for every religious person either. But what we can say about both positions (though the specific degrees may vary), is that they all contain an element of faith. Before this century, perhaps the only way to "rationally" establish God's existence or nonexistence was in the following argument.
1. Life has meaning.
2. If there were no God, life would be meaningless
3. Therefore, God exists
Of course I do not have to tell you that the premise, "Life has meaning" is an assumed premise. By this I mean that there is no objective way to prove that life, in fact, does have meaning --not to mention what this meaning might be. But many believe in a purpose-filled-life regardless of whether it is possible to objectively prove its accuracy. Nevertheless, a person may have many "reasons" upon which to base this claim which are not subject to quantification or analysis.
Conversely, it is also impossible to prove that life is meaningLESS, a dilemma the atheist cannot avoid either. But he too has "reasons" he has discovered through his experience in order for him to say, with certainty, that life is meaningless. Regardless of which side you might tend to agree with, we employ "reason" in order to come to a conclusion, and neither conclusion is reached by pure, blind guess-work. But as I have already mentioned, neither position is so well supported by "evidence" that we can say, with certainty, one is definitely true, and the other is definitely false. Otherwise, the case would be closed and you would have no reason to read my dull, boring post.
My point is very simple. Faith is not an irrational belief. Faith without reason cannot be considered faith at all, rather self deception or ignorant guess-work.
Science:
Like any institution, science begins with a set of assumptions about the universe. What we are interested in here is one called, "Natural Causality." This is the belief that all things in our universe can be explained through natural processes. Further, it assumes that there is a natural explanation for every phenomena we might observe.
Like ones belief that our universe has meaning (or is meaningless) Natural Causality is not an irrational or unreasonable assumption. Without it, we might still think that the earth is stationary or that species spontaneously generate out of thin air. It has shown itself to be very useful in discovering objective reality, (and personally, I think that is the way it should be.)
Though Natural Causality is NOT a far reaching assumption, it is still no more provable than ones belief that the universe is meaningless. It exists only as a philosophy within the scientific community. If the author of the above quote actually meant that "There is also NO PLACE FOR FAITH IN THE ULTIMATE SEARCH FOR "TRUTH" it would be necessary for him to omit "Natural Causality" and concede that any kind of explanation is admissible --even supernatural ones. But such an idea is preposterous.
Perhaps the only way to approach the God question is by determining whether or not there exists meaning and order, or perhaps if at the heart of nature it is randomness and chaos that reign. I might throw down a bag of marbles and it would appear that the placement of the marbles (after they fell and bounced around for a while) was strictly random. But the marbles were actually following the laws of physics. If it were possible to know all variables involved when I dumped out the bag of marbles --like the precise topography of the carpet, each groove, the thickness, it's resistance to weight... each intricate detail-- it would be possible to predict the outcome. Thus the placement of the marbles as they fell out of the bag is not random at all.
Perhaps the answer lies in a paradox, that nature is ordered chaos. At the moment, I am not so arrogant to say that I have the answer. But the only way we can approach an answer is by treating the subject matter fairly. It's easy to dismiss faith if we think it means we should be lead by ignorance and blind guess-work. Faith lives in science just as it lives in us. You will NOT find it in observations or experiments, NOT the practical application of science, but in THE VERY same philosophy upon which science is based.
1. Life has meaning.
2. If there were no God, life would be meaningless
3. Therefore, God exist
Indeed your assumption of life having a meaning is vague at best, but that is not the argument that I would like to comment on, it is the second. If there were no God, life would be meaningless. I would like you to elaborate on that point, because I do not agree. I think that this is an assumption that many people who consider themselves "faithful" in religion make and I would say that the argument itself requires a bit of faith. I would in fact define faith as the belief in something in which the person believing has no rational evidence to believe.
I am also interested in your ideas on Natural Causality. The idea that scientists believe that everything happens for a reason, is only one of convenience and requires no faith. Much like in studying logic it is often useful to assume one thing to prove another, this assumption, if it is the basis of all scientific study, is done merely to expedite scientific research. It is not necessary and in fact every piece of scientific evidence could probably be traced back to the statement: if everything happens for a reason, then this holds true. The interesting part is that once the experiment is done and the consequence is found to be truthful the prior statement of causality is no longer needed.
It is true that many things require presumptions that are not more than mere educated guesses about the nature of the universe, but after these presumptions have been used to find the answer, they, being a means to an end, are no longer necessary. Faith on the other hand requires its presumptions always, as it cannot be proven that there is a god or and anyone's ideas on the matter are correct. That is why I am an agnostic, and I hold my ground in stating that sciences is infinitesimally more probable than religion or faith.
I know what I believe to be true. No amount of science or skepticism can convince me otherwise. There are simply things on this earth, in this universe that we are not intended to know during this lifetime. Those things will be revealed to us when God decides we're ready to know them. Our mission is to do what we're commanded to do by God, and to do all we can to understand what has been given to us. Life is a test, a trial and we're here to prove ourselves worthy of returning to him.
The movie does not "bash" Christianity as one reader suggested. If that person was familiar with Mormon beliefs, he would know that the movie only portrays the existence of other worlds in which we (Mormons) know exist. It's hard to explain in this venue and without getting into deep doctrine but regardless of "Contact's" flaws, it is a phenomenal movie and asks a lot of questions that we all wonder in our hearts.
I don't think that statement is true because I think "meaning" is open to whatever interpretation you wish to see it as. Does that assumption go as far to say that anyone who questioned the existence of God in their beliefs would have meaningless lives?? A teen-age girl thinks her life is RUINED (meaningless shambles) when her boyfriend breaks up with her. Only later, she realizes she was wrong.. Feeling your life has meaning, to me, is feeling good about the decisions or course of actions YOU are taking.
1) Life has meaning (as you said, it's assumed, there's no reason life has meaning and no proof that life has meaning)
2) Life would be meaningless without God.. (no reason why life would be meaningless otherwise, and no proof that it is meaningful with God)
3) God exists.. (no reason why, no proof for or against)
I don't see how this sheds any light on faith NOT being an assumption based on the absence of proof or reason.
Let's toss another, everyday example of faith into the discussion: ( I read this in a church newsletter that was tied to my doorknob, it is like an editorial, where church-goers can give their reasons for going to church)
"I had a big baseball game coming up! But it was on Thursday and we go to church on Thursday, so my parents made me miss the big game and go to church.. I was mad but my father said it would be made up to me in God's way. The next weekend we had another, even bigger game, and I hit a triple!!! Now I know what dad was talking about when he said it would be made up to me."
This, of course is the condensed version.. But, I think it points out how a lot of people believe that God intervenes with everyday life. I find it difficult to believe that God would change the outcome of a small-town baseball game in order to award some kid's good deed. It makes me want to say, "Hey, you know.. there's starving kids in Africa.. how 'bout a little help there?"
Oh.. and here's another example I don't understand: Reporter talking to tornado victim who's house has just been demolished, "That tornado just rolled your house two blocks.. How do you feel?" FARMER: "I thank God we made it out alive!"
???? I understand he's happy to have his family and life still there.. but, you know, next time God... why don't you... like... steer the natural disaster around my house? Just a request there..
Finally, I don't believe that there are things "on this earth.. that we are just not intended to know in this lifetime.." That's what the cavemen thought about fire.. It's a rationalization of that which we don't understand and don't know the means to discover.
Speculation is cool and I wouldn't mind seeing a little more of it here. Where would science be without creative speculation? This site is full of wonderful, intelligent logic, but a little more speculation would make it more interesting.
For example: we might look at an object together on the side of the road. I might say this object is a pineapple and you might say this object is an orange. The truth is, this object (whatever it might be) has objective properties. It exists as "something," regardless of what we might call it.
Also, when you wrote your post, there was intent, purpose, and meaning. We might argue over the reason for which you wrote it, but the fact remains that your post possesses "meaning."
I am not interested in what the meaning of life might be for different people --that would be distorting the issue; and I am CERTAINLY NOT suggesting that life is meaningless without God. I am asking whether or not there is an objective nature to meaning.
When I said, "Life has meaning" this was intended to convey the idea that, "Things happen for a reason." That's why I gave the example of the marbles, to distinguish the difference between random happenstance and intent. Modern biology says that we are the result of natural selection acting on random genetic mutations. In other words, you're reading this post due to a long sting of accidents occurring over millions of years. You weren't meant to read it; you just are. On the other hand... someone might be reading this and feel that they WERE meant to read it (though I can't imagine who would think that.)
Is it possible that behind the seemingly random process of "life," there is something behind the scenes somehow leading life to fulfill some unknown and ultimate purpose? (Please don't answer... it's a rhetorical question.)
To be clear-- the atheist might say, "no" there is no objective purpose to our lives; however, this would NOT mean that the atheist believes life to be meaningLESS. --Are we clear on this?
(If you need more clarification, I'd be happy to give it to you; however, I feel I'm beating a dead horse, and now I will move on.)
All kidding aside... You said that my "assumption of life having a meaning is vague at best." Maybe you're right about that. But I'm not trying to be specific about what the meaning of life is supposed to be, only point out that, if one believes that there is an ULTIMATE meaning to life, he then has a logical premise to conclude that God exists.
Elaborating on the second premise: "If there were no God, life would be meaningless"
It might be necessary for you to read over what I wrote to Barry for clarification. But let me say here that I am addressing an "ULTIMATE" meaning. Seriously, if you read over the post I wrote him, it should clear up this matter.
You're absolutely correct in saying that this assumption requires faith. I have already said this in my original post. Conversely, to say that life has no meaning is also an assumption, something we'd have to take on faith as well.
I'm really disappointed in you "personal" definition of what faith is, that it is a belief where there is no rational basis. I'm sure there are many, many people throughout the world who would care to disagree with you on that one.
About Natural Causality, you said, "The idea that scientists believe that everything happens for a reason, is only one of convenience and requires no faith." First, natural causality is not a belief that things happen for a reason. It is the belief that ONLY natural, physical phenomena exist in the world. If you don't think this is founded on faith, then let me say just one thing... Prove otherwise.
I'm not saying that natural causality is an irrational belief. Indeed, this goes back to my point that faith can be founded on reason. You've got to release this notion that faith relates only to religion. Popular culture... what can I say? Listen to your own words. You said that, " sciences is infinitesimally more probable than religion or faith." Since when does probability relinquish us from assuming that one thing or another is true? Faith is the belief in ANYTHING when you know that its probability is less than one. If it is less than one, nothing guarantees its truth. Saying that science isn't faith is a very, very broad generalization. Sure, science can only deal with the facts. But what do we say about the various astronomers who say that the big bang never happened? Especially when you have just as many (if not more) saying that the big bang DID happen? Who's appealing to faith now? What about Stephen Hawking who is trying to demonstrate the validity of multiple universes? We cannot prove whether or not multiple universes exist. Even Hawking admits to this, yet he believes they exist without a single shred of evidence. The only thing we can say about his scientific work on multiple universes is that he has been able to show that they are not impossible. But we can even do this much on the question of God. When you get down to the specific details, faith is a human quality, and none of us escape it. It's late, and I've got to get to bed. If you still have a problem with what I'm trying to say, go ahead and post it... but I can't guarantee I'll get back to it for a while.
Now I think I'd like to talk about your logical reasoning. Have you given up on your logical proof of God or do you still hold to it? I can't really tell from your statements. I would like to address your ULTIMATE meaning though. Why must we have God in order to have an ULTIMATE meaning… this isn't rhetorical… I'm looking forward to an answer. Without that second statement your proof doesn't hold.
Oh, and one more thing, about Natural Selection. You said: "Modern biology says that we are the result of natural selection acting on random genetic mutations. In other words, you're reading this post due to a long sting of accidents occurring over millions of years." I'm not doing the quoting to embarrass or make fun of you, please don't misunderstand, I'm doing it to refresh my, your and everyone else reading's, memory. I am so tired of hearing that we are a string of accidents. That's not what Natural Selection is about. It's about the best "mistake" (if you must call it that) surviving and carrying on to propagate itself. Lets have an example: there are two frogs, one of them is normal and the other has one leg. The one legged frog dies in no time while the normal frog is free to carry on its genes, this is how nature ensures that we do not digress (although as a society we have found a way around that). Now, lets take the example of one frog that was born extra strong and healthy compared to the other normal frogs. The strong frog gets to propagate its genes more than the others do, ensuring that it will be replaced by at least two like it. This is how evolution works, yea it was a mistake that the one frog was born strong, but it was no mistake that it was successful in conveying its strength to the tadpoles of the future. It's not really a mistake that we're here, it's more like it was a matter of time, and if we didn't pull it off now, we might have done it accidentally sooner, or it might have happened later. Eventually evolution would pull it off though, and eventually the human race will be very different as we continue to evolve more than our race already has. Now, this has gone on for way too long, and you guys are tired of reading this entry, and I have no doubt missed something that I hope someone else will point out.
Life on Earth by Audesirk & Audesirk, Prentice Hall, 1997
This is your basic freshman level biology text (for non-science majors) and in the introduction, along with the basic definition of science, you'll find the same information about Natural Causality. Not only is this the same definition of natural causality that I gave, but it is also being taught in the biology class room. For an example of this, look at a site run by Derek Hagman, who is a T.A. at U.T. Austin. The first question on this site is about natural causality. http://www.esb.utexas.edu/mcclelland/bio301m/questions/answer1.html
Notice how Derek rephrases it by saying, "things do not happen due to supernatural forces." So if nothing in this universe can be the result of supernatural forces, then it presupposes that natural forces are the ONLY other possibility, as I stated before. But don't get me wrong. This isn't something I automatically disagree with--as I have also stated, this philosophy has been VERY helpful to science throughout history. Without it, we might still think that species spontaneously generate from raw meat. However, it is no more provable than any other philosophy. It's a sound philosophy, a logically valid and reasonable one, but impossible to prove, nonetheless.
Okay... let me shift gears for a second. Daniel, you said, "Many scientists do believe in other planes and dimensions, places where all of our physical laws and scientific knowledge might be thrown out the window. That doesn't mean that science is now somehow invalid." I sincerely hope that you don't actually think I'm trying to argue that science is invalid. I don't think that at all--not even in the least. Nor is it my message to say that science should use faith when investigating the physical universe. That's totally opposite of what I am trying to say. With regard to faith, I was merely pointing out that Natural Causality is not an axiom; it's not an automatic given, and not something we can prove to be true or false. Yet it is THE underlying philosophy in science.
Natural Selection:
Perhaps you should read again what I was saying. I'm not trying to explain what natural selection is or is not, nor am I trying to give a critique or assess it in any way. The definition is independent of the point I was trying to make. You said yourself that it was the best "mistake," and this by itself hits the nail on the head Whether it is a good, bad, best, worst mistake... it is a mistake nonetheless.
It almost seems like you're saying that humans would have evolved no matter what happened. You said, "Eventually evolution would pull it off though, and eventually the human race will be very different as we continue to evolve more than our race already has." If this is truly your opinion, then it is one held independent of, and in spite of what modern biology teaches. Please, I beg you to show me just ONE reference which says that humans would have eventually evolved. Modern biology does NOT teach that humans would have evolved sooner or later. There is no inward drive in evolution determining which species to evolve. It is determined by our ever changing environment. And the forces which shaped human evolution throughout history are endless. If you take out certain "events" like dinosaur extinction, then we wouldn't be here.
By the way, you might want to check out some of the latest research on human evolution, specifically. There are a lot of biologists out there that think humans are not evolving anymore because there is too much variation within an over populated community (the earth).
Gotta go for now.
Evolution:
If you disagree or take issue with what I said concerning too much variation in the gene pool, then you'll have to take it up with those scientists who are positing these ideas. I have said nothing that doesn't already exist in popular scientific literature and have merely echoed it in my post.
Mistakes:
You said that you were " referring to sentience in general." Which apparently is supposed to mean that sentience would have developed as long as evolution was occurring. But I cannot understand why you would obscure the issue and begin to deliberate over a less specific idea (like sentience) when I have always, and still am, discussing HUMANS specifically. And when we talk about humans, we must agree that there is nothing in the grand theory of evolution that says humans evolved by necessity. That being said, I think my point is well made; we --human beings-- are the result of a long sting of chance occurrences.
Ultimate Meaning:
So, I now return to my previous question: "Do things happen for a reason?" Is there an ultimate "reason" or "purpose" that humans endure suffering and grief or enjoy happiness and pleasure? Does this go beyond our inner drive to survive--whether it be for the individual or for the whole population? Is there a "meaning of life" besides just survival? Is there something that transcends all of this, all of us, this entire cold universe? That's what I mean by "ultimate meaning." It is understood through a specific purpose all humans are striving for. To one who believes in ultimate meaning, things are "supposed" to happen whether they are good or bad. If things "just happen" any search for objective purpose is done in vain. So when you read my second premise, keep this in mind.
Okay, I guess I wasn't finished. I want to address the things that you said about supernatural phenomena and natual causality.
There is a difference between saying "things do not happen as a result of supernatural phenomena," and saying, "science is not allowed to accept supernatural explanations." The first one assumes that supernatural phenomena DOES NOT exist --case closed. The second one says that science simply will not accept supernatural explanations because such explanations are not productive in the pursuit of science. The second is one is not saying whether the supernatural exists or not, only that it will not accept it as an explanation. It is --by far-- less presumptuous and more honest. And I'd also like to point out that the second one, unlike the first one, is not subjecting itself to a stance of faith.
But my point in bringing that up was not to suggest that science SHOULD accept supernatural explanations. In fact, I'm surprised you gave me that condecending speach that followed --as if I actually thought otherwise. I've already said the same thing in my very first post, if you'll care to remember. So here is the point... Remember that in this same post, I quoted someone who said that "THERE IS NO PLACE FOR FAITH IN THE ULTIMATE SEARCH FOR TRUTH." If what this person says is true, that there is no place for faith in science, then science too must abandon natural causality, because natural causality is NOT an axiom, but an unprovable philosophy. But even YOU have pointed out how preposterous it would be to abandon natural causality. So don't you agree that the person who wrote the above quote is a little bias against "faith?" Or maybe it's not "faith" he's biased against but religion in general. And if he is so interested in "Truth" with a capital T, should we not do our best to relinquish all presuppositions and bias?
First:
Many scholars and educators believe that the Bible --whether it is true or not-- is one of the greatest works of literature. Both secular AND religious historians refer to it as an historical record (particularly the book of Luke). It has been an aid to archeologist's findings of ancient Hebrew tribes. And whether you believe in it or not, it has significantly shaped and defined European and American culture. I think it's sad that your appreciation of literature, history and culture lies so shallow that you refer to the Bible as "bed time stories."
Second:
If you cannot see religion working in the world, it might be due to an unwillingness on your part. For example, religion has done more in the realm of charity and humanitarian work than any secular venture. It is a well documented fact that people of "THE faith" are more likely to recover from life threatening sickness, fatal illness, surgery, etc. Physicians are not saying that something "supernatural" is happening to their patients, but the fact remains that ones faith drastically aids in the area of ones health and recovery.
Third:
Please don't forget that my argument is focused around theism in general (the belief in God). But no where have I tried to identify who or what this God might be. So, if you think that by attacking Christianity you have somehow made Natural Causality or "Naturalism" more credible, you might want to broaden your perspective a little more, perhaps contemplate whether or not our universe necessarily excludes that God (in general) exists.
For example, Daniel has already said that, "Many scientists do believe in other planes and dimensions, places where all of our physical laws and scientific knowledge might be thrown out the window." To be specific: in the last two years astrophysicists have discovered that there are at least 10 dimensions that exist beyond our normal 4 dimension reality i.e. length, height, width, and time. How well must we know these other dimensions before we can say, with the same certainty you have demonstrated, that the best bet is Natural Causality? To say that this is the best assumption is also to assume that we (humans) are somehow reaching the "end" of science, the end of knowledge.
I am all for science's commitment to natural explanations. I don't have a problem with science excluding supernatural explanations at all, but any philosophy which says that supernatural phenomena DOES NOT exist, (as a point in fact) seems to me, a little arrogant a dishonest.
To close this post and answer your question, which was:
"Do you (anyone reading this) believe that we'll be judged poorly based on the factthat we question God? Or the existence of?"
No... It is my hope that, if there is a God, he would DEMAND we question whether or not he/she exists. What good is a belief if it is not called into question at one time or another? In fact, sometimes I wonder if the question itself is more important than the answer. A little philosophy I live by says that once we feel secure that no other possibilities exist, we are no longer looking for the Truth, only reasons and rationale to support our contentions. Of course, like everything else, you should take it with a grain of salt.
I'm glad you brought up the points you did about people going from believing there is a God--to believing science is evil--to burning down abortion clinics, etc. You might be interested to know that religious people find the recent atrocities regarding abortion physicians as horrifying as everyone else. Churches all over America have been speaking out against this kind of behavior, trying to disassociate themselves from the radical zealots. Unfortunately, it seems like the only thing the media wants to air on TV. are the radical, right-wing-conspiritor-types, who are far more interesting and easier to condemn. If I'm not mistaken, the sniper who has recently caught the most attention from the networks doesn't even have a religious affiliation.
I hear loud and clear your comments concerning the age of the earth, and I completely agree. There are many Christians who hold to the unfounded belief that the earth is about 6,000 years old. This, to me, seems like one of the most intellectually dishonest ideas to ever come about in religious culture. I think you should know, however, that young earth cosmology does not define all Christians (or Christianity in general). In fact, there is a growing trend of Christians heading up societies and organizations in order to perpetuate old-earth cosmology e.g. mainstream science. But I know how you feel--to me, young earthism is the biggest discredit to religion.
I remember last year on the U.T. campus, in the west mall by Guadeloupe street, there were these "Christians" who came every day and yelled at people, (maybe they're still there). They called them sinners, hell-bound heathens, etc. I can guarantee you that there were as many Christians who were disgusted with this as there were secular people. They give Christianity a bad name. And I think this is the situation in general with the many aspects that you had brought up (evil scientists and terrorists burning up abortion clinics, etc.)
You asked, "How can religion be such a wonderful profound thing and how can God and the savior and the bible be such wonderful things when they have caused and continue to cause so many people pain?" This is a good question, one which I have struggled with myself for some time. But I want to ask you a question: Is it really "religion" which causes people to do these things? Could there be something in this persons psyche or psychological disposition to account for such anti-social behavior? For example, weren't the people in the "Heavens Gate" cult almost destined to find themselves in such a situation? Didn't they all have naive personalities who were easily convinced, who were constantly searching to fill some unexplainable void? Perhaps there is something about the abortionist sniper which better explains his behavior than mere "religious" belief. Perhaps this person is naturally aggressive or even psychotic--and the perversion of a religious belief has given him an excuse? Can someone who blows up abortion clinics and murders abortion physicians really be considered "good"--even if they proclaim they are doing the work of God? If it is true, IF there is a God and this God is "good" then there is no way that those who perform such atrocities can be from God--no matter what they claim. I don't know... that's just my two cents worth.
Listen, Daniel, it's been really good talking to you. If I seemed a bit perturbed or offended in the past, I apologize for that. You seem like you can treat a lot of this material with an open mind and deal with it intellectually and critically. You're a pleasure to converse with. Unfortunately, I've about run out of time I have to contribute to this forum. It's been fun though. This kind of discourse always helps me understand different ideas and perspectives, allows me to see the strengths and weakness in my own arguments as well as those in others. We'll see you later... take care...
You are just one of some people in the world and some people who have been contributing in this website that you do not know and understand enough in religions and religious people. We are all human beings. If the scientists are smart, religious people are not different who are not the especial fools. I sugguest that you should do a brief research on such religions and people in order to judge them. The true Christians even never yell but ever only have and much more peace among all people anywhere in the world.
Gee.. where to start..
First of all, I'm not pretending the Bible is not an important piece of literature. I realize it is historically accurate. What I mean by "bed-time story" is actually that. Historically accurate happenings, that over the years have been modified to better teach religion. Basically, some issues that were questioned then: The creation of the Universe, the Universe's size and our place (locale) in the universe, the powers behind that which we didn't (then, or maybe even now) understand were explained as best as they could be.
I don't believe the book of Genesis, because, (please don't get angry) science has provided a more "believable" solution, that appears to be backed up solidly with fact. The Theory of Evolution is no more, It's simply Evolution. Schools and University are no longer 'required' to teach Creationism along with Evolution.
I agree that one can't base his/her judgement on religion, or religous people, based on the actions of those who are radical. I almost said "those few" but I firmly believe there are more than a few. Which, I painstakingly point out, is not a bash against those who read this or are religous.
I've read certain views that attempt to support the notion that the Crucification of Jesus was a hoax, that Jesus lived until old age. That the sticks to snakes episode was the work of sleight of hand. I'm not supporting this, I had the feeling I was sinning simply from reading the book. But, this is what I don't FEEL right about with religion. I think, in order to make a clear judgement on whether or not I'm making the right decisions, I shouldn't be plagued with the fear of NOT being understood by God. If there is a God, I want his/her love just as much as those who live with faith.
Ironically, as I usually steer clear of religious debate amongst my close friends, the topic came up and I shared some of the arguments presented here. I mentioned Natural Causality, and was shocked when someone replied, "How do you know... say, Jupiter.. exists?" I naturally said, "Because I've seen photos from Explorer, Hubble, I can see it with the naked eye as well.." The reply: "But how do you know what you see with the naked eye isn't just what the 'Scientists' want you to think is a planet?
I think, and this is my best explanation for what bothers ME about religion, that fear drives us, maybe even myself, to argue some of the most ridiculous scenarios. Fear of Hell, of Limbo, of Purgatory, whatever; causes us to stick with what the Bible or Church states. And I think that's why we've fought so many wars, shed so much blood, over this issue.
Think about after we went out with our friends and then came back home, we suddenly feel empty because of loneliness in the universe? Or after all works have been done and we suddenly feel empty, will we think that it is because we are alone in the universe? This is totally not related to the issue of loneliness in the universe. And no one would be seriously depressed or feel painful or emptiness(¡KYou are the interesting species¡Klonely...only you¡K) when we think we are lonely in the universe except without God. The examples are truly live. Everybody would practically feel and think the things/ways everyday. So, this is one of the examples that Carl Segan was unable to solve the problems of humanities.
I wanted to provide a bit of context for the statements presented by the Mormon last month, where he mentioned that Mormons DO believe in life on other planets...
Mormon doctrine states "As man now is, God once was. As God now is, man may become." What does that mean? Mormons believe that our God (emphasize OUR there) was once a regular guy on some planet somewhere, living his life like you and I. He lived a good life, was a good Mormon, and so when his mortal life was over he was given an Earth to create, to rule over, to populate with "spirits" and bodies. Good Mormons here, after death, supposedly will be given the same opportunity, to become Gods to their own planets, to have spirit children, etc. Basically, the Mormons believe in "worlds without number" because there has to be someplace for them all to become Gods of their own worlds.
My own context? A former Mormon (and former Missionary) who started thinking for himself and seeing that the truth in the world around us does not conform to the faith that Mormonism (or any other religion) requires one to espouse.
Does God exist? To quote another poster here...who cares? Even if he does, he doesn't affect the lives of people here in any discernable way, so it really doesn't matter -- unless you are scared of "going to hell" when you die, and I'm not. :) We can achieve the tangible goals of religion (peace on earth, goodwill towards men and women, do unto others, etc.) with effort and education, and without the mystical, magical, unknowable baggage that religion brings with it.
Contact was intended to make people think, and I feel the postings to your forum prove that it has done just that. Thanks for providing space to allow people to share their thoughts. Oh, and your Astronomy pages are quite nice, also!
My new email address is astrokeith@yahoo.com
Speaking of my geocities site someone recently added a new entry there to my surprise. Among other things he said, "As a Wiccan, I've adhered to the belief in the equality of all spiritual paths for years, and it's nice to see a movie finally address that." I really enjoy reading people who express their beliefs on these subjects, whatever they may be. It expands me. It increases my understanding.
Paul, thanks for the complementary words about this site. I like the second half of your entry and I invite you to return and add more about what you think.
I know a little about Mormonism. 18 years ago I spent two years in Georgia as a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It was a great experience that I value more than my college education. At the end of the The 12 Day Debate I made it clear that the tenets of any specific religion are not open for debate on this site. I can say that, I have all power here. This site will not be a debate about Mormonism, Catholicism, Wiccanism (if that's a word) or any other specific tenet. Even you Mormons who want to correct Paul had better be very careful with what you say.
In the More Pictures and Commentary section I put this statement from the book because it fits well with my beliefs: "Any faith that admires truth, that strives to know God, must be brave enough to accommodate the universe. I mean the real universe. All those light years. All those worlds. I think of the scope of your universe, the opportunity it affords the Creator, and it takes my breath away...your universe has room enough, and time enough, for the kind of God I believe in."
My God is the God and Savior of the whole universe and He will always be my God and Savior.