Religion and Dinosaurs

[MADMANMIKE]

If you want to insult someone here, make sure you've picked someone that's dumber than you. It kinda doesn't work if you don't.

Perfect I'll pick you.

..This is why so many people move away from Christianity; those who claim it so vehemently are so unChrist-like with their rabid attacks on nonbelievers.

 

[nikki630]

..Alright, I'll wait for you to listen to the podcast before discussing this further with you.

Hi Mike

So, I have listened to the most recent Paracast with Dr. Bernard Haisch. He presented his opinions in a rational, articulate way, though I have to say that he did not convince me.

As I understand it, in Dr. Haisch's view, god is an infinite intelligence that is omnipotent, omniscient and in perfect bliss. At some point in eternity god decided to experience existence. So god used part of its essence to create the universe. This essence is what makes up you and me and everything around us. In that sense we and everything around us are all part of god. His basis for his theory is that there are nine finely tuned laws of physics that allow for life as we know it and that it is so unlikely that these laws could occur by chance that there must have been a designer, that designer would be god

If I misstated something feel free to correct me.

The idea of everything being a part of a god-force is not new. It is very similar to Taoism. The difference is that a philosophical Taoist (there are religious Taoists) does not assign intelligence to the essence of the Tao. I have no problem with the idea of a universal force that makes up everything in the universe -- this would be similar to the grand unifying theory that Einstein was looking for. My problem comes when intelligence is assigned to that force, for me that is when things start to fall apart. For a book that explores similarities between Taoism and physics I would recommend the Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra -- it is rather old so some of it may be outdated, but still worth a peek if you are interested in this sort of thing.


I am unclear whether Dr. Haisch thinks it is impossible that the nine laws of physics have arisen by chance or that it is just extremely unlikely that these laws could arise by chance. If he believes that it is impossible that these laws happened by chance, then all I have to say is that he did not present any proof to back up that belief. However if his position is that it is extremely unlikely that these laws arise from chance, then I have explanation to offer other than god.

This idea that something is so finely tuned that it is so unlikely to have arisen by chance is also used when fundamentalist discuss the 'goldilocks zone'. The golidlocks zone is what is used to descibe the area in space that our planet occupies because it is 'just right' to support life and like Dr. Haisch they believe this indicates a designer. Both of these rare occurrences can be explained by the Anthropic theory. Simply put, chance, however small is enough to account for the nine laws and the goldilocks zone. If you postulate a small probability that we can exist by chance, then it is reasonable to say that it did happen by chance because our existence is proof of that occurrence. Another way to look at it is we all know the probability of winning the lottery is very small, yet millions of us buy our lottery ticket every week and eventually someone wins regardless of how small the odds are. Likewise the laws of the universe are like a lottery that we won, regardless of how small the chances are we 'won' . But regardless of that, the other flaw in this reasoning is that it assumes that these laws are the only laws that would support life of any kind. There is no way to know that if the laws of the universe were different, that some other form of life beyond our imagining would not arise. Carl Sagan put it this way "Something happened, this is the result" -- I may be paraphrasing a bit, but that was the gist of it.


While Dr. Haisch rejects the classic image of god and heaven, he does hold to the classic attributes of god, that of an infinite, omnipotent and omniscient entity. That brings me to my other problem with this theory. The idea that 'god wanted to experience existence'. I agree with Dr. Haisch that experiencing something is different from just knowing it. But what is that difference? I think that experience brings a deeper level of knowledge. For example, you know that the Antarctic is very cold, but till you go there you do not have the knowledge of exactly how cold it is and how that feels. An omniscient god would already have that deeper knowledge, it would already know exactly what the experience of standing outside in the Antarctic in the dead of winter feels like -- therefore no need to experience existence. Also a entity that is in perfect bliss should be perfectly content, the wanting to experience something implies some sort of discontent, a need or at least a desire -- not perfect bliss. Which brings me back to: "What does god need a universe for?" with still no answer

 

[Rob]

Yeah, after having listened to the interview, it really does reek of the intelligent design argument, despite the statement from Haisch at the outset that it isn't (at least in the common usage of the evolution/id argument context), he presents a conception of a thing that is outside of all human capacity to comprehend yet is responsible for everything we experience, and this thing will remain tangibly undetectable despite all our efforts. Well couldn't some 11 year old could come up with that? Cloaking it all in fancy physics helps to make it sound all cutting-edge like, but ultimately he's talking about something that whilst we can have a rational discussion about, doesn't actually bring anything useful to the table.

 

[MADMANMIKE]

..Obviously you haven't followed the whackos that claim the Intelligent design theory. You can't just say Intelligent Design, even if the literal meaning of those words fits, as they now have taken on the meaning of a group of nuts that believe the universe is only 5000 years old and that fossils are the work of the devil.

..nikki, the problem you face is realizing that there is no such thing as chance. The notions of "chance" and "coincidence" are part of the concerted effort of the powers that be to keep people ignorant and therefore easier to control. They're catch words that give the user license to stop thinking.

..Everything happens for a reason and every occurance is part of the grand scheme of things. I posted about this in my thread that rolled off the first page here a week or two ago.

 

[ArizonaWill]

I agree that just because something is improbable to us (yet occurs) does not automatically equate to an intelligent source. For all we know, there are a zillion planets out there, and when conditions are right, life of some sort arises. We just happen to have lucked out as being one of those cases. Just because we seem to live within a somewhat orderly universe doesn't mean there might not be a billion other universes of chaos, and we just happen to be inside one of the unverses that is orderly (by human perception of such) and allowed us to exist. If I throw dice all day with the desire for a certain result (e.g., two fives) this result will happen, but is that because I have some sort of divine power over the dice, or is this just a statistical certainty, considering the number of times within a day that the dice will NOT honor my request?

I think the good doctor has a right to his view, but I will share mine. What the hey, it's as valid as his, correct?

I think we are living within a matrix of our own creation. We are part of the godhood, having a dream (or nightmare?) that we are individual beings in a physical world. In reality (so to speak), there is no physical universe, and the "awake" portions of the godhood don't even know about this wacky place, much less grant it any kind of divinity. Enlightenment is awakening from the dream of individuality and rejoining the godhood, which may have watched us toss & turn in our little nap, but knew we'd eventually come around. Would a real God (as humans conceive of it) create a world where all life exists by eating or absorbing other life? This is a really savage universe. A god would have to be a mental case to create this "kill to survive" place. Of course, fundamentalists just project their own insanity upon their god figure, and assume that the insanity is justified as "godly wrath", then they go further by projecting their own guilt upon others (e.g., "It is all YOUR fault that God is mad at us" - the scapegoat varies by time and place).

Of course, all the above is just my view, and I would never be presumptuous enough to be on a podcast to pontificate on such drivel, unless I had some sort of ego driven evangelical zeal to have everyone believe as I do. I suppose there would be a few bucks in Fastwalkerism, and I could rent a store front and work my way up to Joel Osteen's fame and fortune. To think it may all begin here, with a simple post.

Well, must dash. I have to blanket the internet with Fastwalkerism, and gather a few fanatical adherents to do all the grunt work for me.

 

[nikki630]

..nikki, the problem you face is realizing that there is no such thing as chance. The notions of "chance" and "coincidence" are part of the concerted effort of the powers that be to keep people ignorant and therefore easier to control. They're catch words that give the user license to stop thinking.

..Everything happens for a reason and every occurance is part of the grand scheme of things. I posted about this in my thread that rolled off the first page here a week or two ago.

Mike -- of course this is your opinion, unless you have some evidence that chance does not exist ?

Your comment about a 'grand scheme' sounds suspiciously like "God's Plan" my response to that is always THIS!!! is the plan ????

 

[BrandonD]

I think we are living within a matrix of our own creation. We are part of the godhood, having a dream (or nightmare?) that we are individual beings in a physical world. In reality (so to speak), there is no physical universe, and the "awake" portions of the godhood don't even know about this wacky place, much less grant it any kind of divinity. Enlightenment is awakening from the dream of individuality and rejoining the godhood, which may have watched us toss & turn in our little nap, but knew we'd eventually come around.

I feel the same way about this sort of idea as I do about Bernard's theory: It makes some sense, but it's missing a crucial element because it doesn't fully reflect the human experience.

If a person honestly believes that we are just having a cat-nap as we are being cradled in the creator's arms and everything is ok, then I would expect such a person to behave VERY differently than anyone I've ever met. He would have no reason to ever be afraid, angry, or impatient with anything. You seem like a pretty chill guy, so maybe your actions do reflect this belief, but I have yet to meet anyone like this.

Would a real God (as humans conceive of it) create a world where all life exists by eating or absorbing other life? This is a really savage universe. A god would have to be a mental case to create this "kill to survive" place. Of course, fundamentalists just project their own insanity upon their god figure, and assume that the insanity is justified as "godly wrath", then they go further by projecting their own guilt upon others (e.g., "It is all YOUR fault that God is mad at us" - the scapegoat varies by time and place).

In the gnostic tradition, this universe was not created by the ultimate god, but by a false or lesser god (they called it the demiurge - the "half-creator"). Thus this universe is a false creation or an illusion, and within this illusion the demiurge entrapped conscious sparks of the ultimate godhead.

My inner reflection and observation of the world most closely matches the gnostic view. In my opinion there is some sort of battle taking place, consciousness is being imprisoned somehow by an external force, and the consciousness is struggling to free itself. However, the consciousness is not fully aware of itself, and thus some outside agent is manipulating it in a direction that is not conducive to evolution and awakening.

Ultimately though, if one's perspective can be taken to the cosmic level, then perhaps "all is well in the universe". But I personally find it silly for people to talk about that sort of thing when in the next moment they're flipping off the car that just cut them off in traffic. I personally think we should look at exactly where we are right now, and not pretend that we're somewhere else.

None of these comments about traffic and stuff are directed at you personally, of course. Your statements just happen to be the catalyst for me to spout some of my reflections.

 

[louis belanger]

message to Nikkie :YOU have been tenacious,you have been consistant,you are intellectually over the average and probably young.You have done a very nice defense of your knowledge: but you will never win aganst faith. It's just a waste of time.Fathfull religious peoples are morons and probably ,because of their inbreeding between people of the same faith,they are a little bit ludicrous ,but not bad.Once you know that,you quit arguing with them.Don't waist to much energy with them.Concentrate on your own knowledge.

 

[nikki630]

message to Nikkie :YOU have been tenacious,you have been consistant,you are intellectually over the average and probably young.You have done a very nice defense of your knowledge: but you will never win aganst faith. It's just a waste of time.Fathfull religious peoples are morons and probably ,because of their inbreeding between people of the same faith,they are a little bit ludicrous ,but not bad.Once you know that,you quit arguing with them.Don't waist to much energy with them.Concentrate on your own knowledge.

Thank you Louis.


I am not actually trying to convince anyone of anything. But contrary to what some people here think, I do have an open mind. But to use a well worn phrase "not so open my brains fall out". People on this thread have made statements that challenge my beliefs, I owe it to myself to consider those statements and see how they stand up to my beliefs. I hope that my responses have been respectful, well thought out and well written, explaining why I have rejected something NOT why someone else should. In this way I do work on my knowledge, either strengthening my beliefs or finding something that works better. Its a win win for me.

 

[ArizonaWill]

BrandonD,

You are correct that if a person actually KNEW that this was all an illusion, such a person would not react as we mere mortals do to the world. Perhaps to some extent Jesus and Buddha were 2 such chaps?

The problem is that we can know such things intellectually, and truly believe them, yet also have a viseral animal fear within us of physical pain and a desire for pleasure and safety. Call it the ego, if you wish. This is what much Eastern religion (e.g., Buddhism) calls this aspect of self.

Frankly, I have met one person who seems to a great deal to exemplify a true sense of knowing that this is ultimately an illusion, and we are participants within someone's (if not our own self-created) Playstation. That person had a Near Death Experience, and returned from it a very changed person. Very kind, very mellow, and loving (seeing the Christ within everyone). So what do we each do, bring ourselves to near death in hopes of jump starting this level of consciousness? No, that can't be right.

Gnostic beliefs intrigue me very much. My only difference is that I think we created this universe, not some god rather low on the achievement list. The "we" that created this place is not the conscious physical "we" that read web forums, but the originating spirit "we". Perhaps we created it as an escape mechanism to hide from god, as part of some petty quarrel we think we had, which is distorted as "The Fall"?

Whatever......

 

[BrandonD]

Frankly, I have met one person who seems to a great deal to exemplify a true sense of knowing that this is ultimately an illusion, and we are participants within someone's (if not our own self-created) Playstation. That person had a Near Death Experience, and returned from it a very changed person. Very kind, very mellow, and loving (seeing the Christ within everyone). So what do we each do, bring ourselves to near death in hopes of jump starting this level of consciousness? No, that can't be right.

This makes me think about a quote in the Castaneda material:

"Every sorcerer I know, male or female, sooner or later arrives at a breaking point in their lives. Not a mental breakdown or anything like that. Mental breakdowns are for persons who indulge in themselves. What I mean is that at a given moment the continuity of their lives has to break in order for inner silence to set in and become an active part of their structures.

It's very, very important that you yourself deliberately arrive at that breaking point, or that you create it artificially, and intelligently."

 

[Rob]

..Obviously you haven't followed the whackos that claim the Intelligent design theory. You can't just say Intelligent Design, even if the literal meaning of those words fits, as they now have taken on the meaning of a group of nuts that believe the universe is only 5000 years old and that fossils are the work of the devil.

...

That's my point, that Haisch's arguments and his use of evidence can be used to support intelligent design theory by the very same nuts (not all of whom explicitly state that the universe is only 5000 yrs old, fossils are the devil's work etc) by giving credence to some intelligence that will forever be outside of our understanding. It's the classic God of the gaps. I'm saying that we should be wary of this kind of argument being exploited by partisans of id.

 

[BrandonD]

It's the classic God of the gaps. I'm saying that we should be wary of this kind of argument being exploited by partisans of id.

The funny thing is, all sides have their "gods of the gaps", which are required to preserve whatever foundational assumptions are believed.

A few of science's gods of the gaps: dark matter, punctuated equilibrium, neutrinos, etc. These are all next to impossible to verify, and did not come about through observation of the natural world (as one would expect science to operate). They were instead postulated in order to preserve theories which were *contradicted* in some way through observations of the natural world.

They are not exactly on the same level, but surely similar to observing the existence of something which contradicts a 5000 year-old earth, and coming up with a fantastical theory in order to preserve that belief because so much has already been built upon it.

 

[auntiegrav]

You can't have everything...where would you put it?
You can't be everything, where would you be?
You can't do everything, when would you do it?
Answers:
Everywhere, Anywhere, Everytime.
In other words, you give up the concept of cause and effect.
That's why Captain Kirk and Captain Janeway always get Do-Overs: because what they did isn't real, and paradoxes are only a re-writing of reality. Re-writing reality- isn't.

Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresent, these all are used to describe God. To be all places and aware of all things at once, would in essence mean being all places and all things.

-Mike

 

[Rob]

Brandon, the difference being that science postulates, predicts and (ultimately or not) observes not to maintain belief systems, but to test them. Look at CERN, large scale experiments to attempt to observe what was postulated and predicted 50+ years ago. If what they hoped to find doesn't exist, that's just as much a success as it will be a failure of previous foundational assumptions and models.

 

[auntiegrav]

True. Many of the GOGs (gods of gaps) have become taboo to investigate by credentialed people. Tenure, etc., are all at risk if someone steps over certain lines in universities.
There has been discussion on the PC that the military motivation to hide UFOs is that they would have to admit they can't protect us. One motivation for scientists to come up with pandimensional and dark matter theories is because they feel they have to come up with SOME kind of answer for things
because they are tasked to do so. To throw out Big Bang, Relativity, manifold mathematics etc, may or may not be correct, but would definitely be a very large 21st century abyss to find oneself hanging over with only a tiny ball of dirt to support you in an infinitely empty (or not) universe.
Peer Review is also Peer Mediation: otherwise known as "celebrating mediocrity".
As a species, we do everything we possibly can to support the middle of the Bell Curve. It's a natural evolutionary principle. The problem with it is that we also changed the environmental niche which would otherwise tell us where the middle of the Bell Curve is supposed to be. The result is an evolutionary spike of Homo Petroleumus that will be clipped off by nature sometime, and we can't predict where the next niche will open up. This is why diversity is important. The species doesn't evolve because the middle of the curve moves to the new niche: it survives because there were already oddballs in that location, and a new environmental niche allows them to reproduce faster than the previous 'normal' units. The lunatic fringe becomes the new normal.
Religion, technology, education, and mini-malls are all part of the old normal, and just haven't had the grace to die off and let the new normal thrive. Our 'health' care systems, political systems, transportation systems, and general consumption is all going toward propping up the Spike at the expense of the overall energy level of the rest of the biosphere and the rest of humanity.
AG
"Got Life?"

The funny thing is, all sides have their "gods of the gaps", which are required to preserve whatever foundational assumptions are believed.

A few of science's gods of the gaps: dark matter, punctuated equilibrium, neutrinos, etc. These are all next to impossible to verify, and did not come about through observation of the natural world (as one would expect science to operate). They were instead postulated in order to preserve theories which were *contradicted* in some way through observations of the natural world.

They are not exactly on the same level, but surely similar to observing the existence of something which contradicts a 5000 year-old earth, and coming up with a fantastical theory in order to preserve that belief because so much has already been built upon it.

 

[auntiegrav]

Brandon, the difference being that science postulates, predicts and (ultimately or not) observes not to maintain belief systems, but to test them. Look at CERN, large scale experiments to attempt to observe what was postulated and predicted 50+ years ago. If what they hoped to find doesn't exist, that's just as much a success as it will be a failure of previous foundational assumptions and models.

We can only hope...;-)

 

[nikki630]

A few of science's gods of the gaps: dark matter, punctuated equilibrium, neutrinos, etc.

An article about the history of neutrinos from the University of California What's a Neutrino?, that includes information about the discovery of neutrinos.

A National Geographic article about proof that dark matter exists Dark Matter Proof Found, Scientists Say

I couldn't find anything proof of punctuated equilibrium, but that is not surprising, since it applies to a process that happens over long periods of time. Besides there is still a lot of debate about this aspect of evolution.

They are not exactly on the same level, but surely similar to observing the existence of something which contradicts a 5000 year-old earth, and coming up with a fantastical theory in order to preserve that belief because so much has already been built upon it.

The difference between the scientific and the religious 'god of the gaps' is that the scientific gap fillers are either predicted by observations of known reactions or mathematics and fit with accepted scientific knowledge. Religious gap fillers generally fly in the face of accepted knowledge to make reality fit their religious hypothesis - the 5000 year old earth is a perfect example.

So I would have to say that even remotely trying to equate one with the other is a real stretch.

 

[BrandonD]

An article about the history of neutrinos from the University of California What's a Neutrino?, that includes information about the discovery of neutrinos.

A National Geographic article about proof that dark matter exists Dark Matter Proof Found, Scientists Say

I couldn't find anything proof of punctuated equilibrium, but that is not surprising, since it applies to a process that happens over long periods of time. Besides there is still a lot of debate about this aspect of evolution.

The gods of the gaps I mentioned above have not been verified through direct observation, despite the bold titles of contemporary science articles. They've been "proven" through indirect methods, ie "A had a certain effect on B, and thus C exists."

The sad fact about this type of verification is that, if one is setting out to prove a certain premise, he can most likely find *some* way to do it.

The difference between the scientific and the religious 'god of the gaps' is that the scientific gap fillers are either predicted by observations of known reactions or mathematics and fit with accepted scientific knowledge. Religious gap fillers generally fly in the face of accepted knowledge to make reality fit their religious hypothesis - the 5000 year old earth is a perfect example.

So I would have to say that even remotely trying to equate one with the other is a real stretch.

I said that they weren't exactly comparable, but they're most definitely similar.

Stories are the best analogies, so here's one:

A thousand years ago there was a peasant who lived in a desert next to a small pond. He noticed that all the camels who went by this pond stopped next to it. Being a thoughtful man, he formulated a theory that water has some sort of magnetic attractive force toward camels.

Then one day the peasant noticed a dead camel lying several hundred yards from the pond. It was not being pulled towards the water, and thus he modified his theory. Water has an attractive force toward the blood circulation in camels. When the blood stops circulating, the attraction stops.

Then one day he noticed a healthy camel walking by, being ridden by a very well-to-do man. This camel walked right by the pond without stopping. So he was forced to modify his theory once again: There is a special particle which only affluent camels possess. This particle is the opposite polarity of the attractive force in the water, and thus allows these camels to resist that force.

And thus the convoluted cobweb of science marches on.

 

[BrandonD]

Brandon, the difference being that science postulates, predicts and (ultimately or not) observes not to maintain belief systems, but to test them. Look at CERN, large scale experiments to attempt to observe what was postulated and predicted 50+ years ago. If what they hoped to find doesn't exist, that's just as much a success as it will be a failure of previous foundational assumptions and models.

Yes, that's what they tell us in school isn't it?

It's funny how skeptical a person can be towards one particular type of institution, and at the same time an idealistic/credulous devotee of another.

Individuals fight to preserve their world-view, and change it only after their resistance has been beaten down. And unfortunately scientists are not an exception to this rule. ESPECIALLY since their point of pride is that they are searching for truth.

Just as a religious man's point of pride is that he's a "moral person", a belief which gives him the freedom to be as cruel and immoral as he likes.