Defending Atheism: Writing Softly and Carrying a Big Stick.
I had an email last night and responded. I thought I’d share it to my readers for comment. Again the names and addresses have been change to protect the ignorant… Sorry, I just couldn’t help myself. I may have been a little too confrontational for I held back little.
On Oct 24, 2010, at 8:09 AM, Penner wrote:Name: Penner
Wow…you have developed some phenomially successful ways to protect yourself from the truth…sort of the COME TO ME SO I CAN SLAME YOU approach.
Makes me wonder what your real bottom line actually is…
Time: Sunday October 24, 2010 at 7:09 am
My reply follows.
Mr. (Ms.?) Penner.
The truth, of which you so highly speak, is always confirmed by evidence, as much as we can gather. In contrast, the evidence for your idea of the universe is nonexistent. God is a made up hypothesis created by bronze age goat herders, nothing more. While a tough and admirable people, I’m hardly willing to use them as a basis for all modern morality and ethics. I use a vulgar type of humor to shock people on the sidelines of the great debate enough to have them actually think about their superstitions and woo based beliefs. So many people have never even considered the possibility of questioning their beliefs, and I simply give them an opportunity. I prod them just right knowing that they will be angry but also knowing that, perhaps years later, they may complete their journey to reason. I plant seeds.
Mr. (Ms.) Penner, I don’t actually like to cause pain or get people upset, but I find the evangelical/young earth creationist mindset so dangerous to modern life that I must fight it. Nuclear weapons in the hands of bronze age religions is as absurd as it is reality. Science has raised us from the primitives not religion. To grasp on to religion, to cling to faith in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary will only lead us back to those dim times. Christians were in charge of the world for a thousand years, and we call the majority of that time The Dark Ages for a reason. The evidence you have or the arguments you present are the same as those given by the Moslems, the Jews, the Hindus and the New agers which is to say no evidence at all. Theists always use the same plodding arguments and base massive beliefs on a few small assumptions, desperately clinging to lies to avoid the pain of realizing they’ve been wrong their entire lives.
I merely point out the fallacy in the assumptions and beliefs, and I consider it the best thing I can do for humanity. It’s a task I don’t get paid for and one for which I receive no glory, yet it’s one which I will continue to do. If I can save a single person from the bonds of blind superstition, It’ll have all been worth it. The bottom line is the truth for which we have proof. Evidence based science has us building layer on previous layer of rational work pushing the human race higher than it’s ever been. Religion, in contrast, just has us milling about on the same level often killing others on that level who happen to disagree about made up “facts”.
Science makes a difference. Religion just gives us the illusion that we are.
It’s a little harsh, I know, but I still feel it’s needed. In some cases a little slap may be all it takes. So that in mind, I’d like to start a discussion on angry atheists. Is being too confrontational a bad thing? Is it retarding the rationalization of humanity?
My thoughts have always been to use all levels, all strategies. The civil rights movement needed both Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. The anti-slavery movement needed both Sojourner Truth and John Brown. We need both kind accommodationists and fervent Gnu Atheists. We need to take all paths; we need to use every honest non-violent strategy. We need to coddle and we need to insult. We need to push and pull and prod and entice and, if necessary, hit with a (metaphorical) stick. We need to be heard.
That being said, I want to hear from you. And be honest! Above all, we need to demand that.
There’s an appropriate reaction other than anger to organised misogyny, homophobia, child-rape, female genital mutilation, tax-breaks for religions, indoctrination of children, promoting bogus science…?
A bit more seriously, I’m not sure where the line is between old and gnu atheism, but I definitely lean toward the gnu. Treating such things as purely personal would only work in a world without all of the above, plus the more political stuff I didn’t mention because it differs from country to country. If religion ever becomes treated as purely personal, then I’ll treat my own lack of belief in the same fashion.
I’ll be honest, I’m torn right down the middle on this.
When it comes to what I post in my blog, it’s mean and confrontational, and I think those have their place.
However, to avoid being hypocritical, in everyday life, I’m much milder. I used to have violent arguments with my family on the subject.
Once when my car broke down on the side of the road, a lady stopped and let me use her car phone, and while I was waiting to be picked up, she evangelized at me for a half hour. If it hadn’t have been below zero out, I would have stood outside. As it was, I seriously considered it. I made the mistake of complaining once my dad picked me up, and he began with, “Do you think a satanist would have helped you?” and it got worse from there.
When I declined to have my daughter baptized, my sister informed me that she sincerely believed that I had condemned my child to an afterlife of hell, regardless of anything the child might do over the course of her lifetime.
There are others, but you get the idea.
However, since dad’s passed, we’ve all become milder with each other. I do occasionally tell my mother she’s being a dumbass when she makes some sort of blanket, kneejerk, religious statement.
My mother in law and I have had some interesting conversations on the subject, and its her ‘type’ that make me madder than the fundies, to be honest.
I sort of view them with the same disgust that I do the KKK and the like, but the people who accept science and reason and logic and STILL insist on believing really make me mad.
Her position: “I don’t believe that the Bible is literal, I don’t believe in organized religion, but I HAVE to believe that there’s something after life. I need to know that there’s a purpose, otherwise life really isn’t worth living. There MUST be a reason for all of this.”
Those are the time that we’ve gotten into arguments, cause she’s SO CLOSE to letting the security blanket go..
My apologies, went a bit off topic, but the answer is that yes, I agree with you. Anger/passionate atheists are necessary, just as well as those who are ‘peaceful’ and ‘normal’.
In my everyday life, I rarely discuss atheism. I have never found it to be productive, and well, I have a little girl who just wants to fit in. I have this thing about not making her pay for my choices.
I’ve been accused of hypocrisy due to it, perhaps they’re right. But in my book, the kid’s needs will always come first. And I don’t think she needs that burden from me. She’s got enough problems.
First let me confirm that this is a different Alice than we normally talk to… Right? There has been an Alice here since the very beginning and you have a different email. If so welcome aboard. If not… Well, enlighten me.
Secondly, good response. I understand the difference between writing in a blog and dealing with the neighbors in everyday life. I am never confrontational in real life unless someone says something really stupid like homosexuality is a crime punishable by death or some garbage about young earth creationism. Then I’ll ease into the argument and state in a no nonsense but not harsh tone of voice what I believe. If I feel I know the people well enough and it’s some violent reaction to Gay I will lecture a bit further. But if they drop it, I will.
I have the nicest neighbors and all of them are religious. I love them all and frequently help them when they need it and even take part in a few rituals. My neighbors to the north are two of my favorites. They are practicing Jews active in the Jewish community in Bismarck. Saul is 93 with bad hearing and a mind like a vice. He remembers what happened 60 years ago better than I remember what happened last month. Sybil is 84, wickedly funny and is over visiting every other day or so. Her and my wife have gotten quite close. We’ve had them over for supper several times and we have partaken in their Sabbath meal a half a dozen times. Let me tell you Sybil is a damn good cook. Do I use this opportunity to mock their beliefs? Absolutely not! I wear the kippah while they say their parts and the ritual and happily enjoy the company. And the food! Let’s never forget about the food.
I have never made any pretense about what I am. They know I don’t believe, but we have such a great relationship, it simply is irelevent. I clean their gutters. I fix their toilets. three weeks ago I spent a good part of a Sunday mopping up water that had flooded their basement and fixing the leak. They are top notch people and I truly hope they live forever. I would never denigrate them, but I will also be honest and forthright in my dealings. It wouldn’t be right any other way.
I’ll be honest here. I do worry what they would think about this blog if they read it. My irreverent tone for the ancient Hebrew God could be mistaken for anti-semitism. This is not my intention or thought. If I mock the ancient Hebrews, it’s to show that the modern Biblical literalism of evangelicals is wrongheaded. It is never designed to denigrate the Jews. The idea of holding modern Jew for the foibles of their 3000-year-old ancestors is as ridiculous as hold me accountable for the pillages of the Vikings, even more so as mine only happened 1000 years ago. I’ve toyed about another post clarifying my position here.
About the evangelical in the car… Hmm… I think it was very rude of her to use you as a captive audience and force those beliefs down your throat just because she had helped you. I wonder what her reaction would have been if some fervent Muslim would have done a similar thing to her?
My point here is that in most cases I’m not standing naked on the street corner screaming about the benefits of atheism. If someone will talk; I will answer. But I choose which battles are important.
About your daughter: That’s a tough one. We are in the same boat. I feel a strong need for honesty, but seldom just outright volunteer the info without pretense. On the other hand we need to be more open about what we believe to normalize it. Like gays and interracial marriages and anything else once considered controversial, the more it’s in the open, the more accepted it will be. We just need to find the line.
While I’ve been reading a while, I’ve not been commenting the entire time, therefore the Alice that you’ve been talking to since the beginning, must not be me. I didn’t realize there was another. (That might’ve been awkward.) I am, however, the Alice who sent you the video and the Mary picture and who likes Terry Pratchett. I will go by Sprinklings (the name of my blog) from now on to avoid confusion.
When asked, I will answer honestly, on any subject, though like you, I rarely offer my opinions unsolicited.
My daughter knows that Mommy and Daddy don’t believe in God. (She asked after coming home from school when most of her class was preparing for first communion, and she had no idea what they were referencing.) She has decided that she believes in God, but not in Jesus. She thought the story was silly. (This from a child who still believes in Santa and the Easter Bunny.) She came home one day asking if two girls can be married, and I told her yes, and where they can. My theory is that if she’s old enough to ask the questions, she’s old enough to hear the answers. (Not looking forward to THE TALK, however.)
I envy the irrelevance of your beliefs with your neighbors. My mother’s friend, I think, has decided to ‘save’ me. She’s a very sweet old lady in a lot of ways, but she always insists on telling me all the miracles of god she’s seen that day and offering things like the sunrise, or her still being alive as proof that I should believe. I’m a pretty laidback person and I just pretend she’s a crazy old alzheimer’s patient and let her ramble without any sort of response but there are those days where I’d like to just slap all her things down with logic.
And a random note, the line I hate the most out of all of them (Other than, “I will pray for you.”) is: “If there’s no God, then why don’t you just kill yourself?” Apparently there is no in-between..
Hi Alice:)) I, too, may be outspoken in comments online, but around friends and family–not so much. I generally prefer to keep my own counsel. “Life is short–don’t waste it fighting with your family”. That’s my mother’s mantra, and mine, too. So, even though my parents still attend church, I’m pretty certain that if my mom had to choose between church and her own creed–she’d pick her creed and church be damned. Living in Japan, I sidestep a lot of that. Taking the kids to church with my parents once a year or so I view as simply educational. As far as dealing with kids in school, Parenting Beyond Belief (edited by Dale McGowan) has a great essay by Stu Tanquist titled, appropriately, “Choosing Your Battles”. You may very well already have read it, but I thought I’d post it anyway, in case there are others here who haven’t.
(p.s.–OT, but just read Colour of Magic. Pratchett convert made!:-))
Hi, Amy!
I have not read that, I’ll add it to my list. I’ve sort of been making my own way through this, being the only atheist couple we know in a heavily Catholic and Presbyterian small midwest town. Thank you! Every little piece of advice helps.
Also, glad to hear that you liked the Pratchett book. They are all just as good, I think.
Dammit, I forgot the name change, sorry!
You can check out his blog, too, at The Meming of Life (I’ve got it in my blog list on my site, or you could just stick that into google). He has three kids of his own–and just had a bout at his 10th grade son’s school with a science teacher spouting creationist nonsense in class. He posted throughout the goings-on, and handled it *very* well, I’d say. A useful series of posts for anybody with kids:)) Both of the books he edited are great, btw.
Sorry to post twice–I missed that last bit on Alice’s last comment.
Answer: “I thought about it, but there might be a rainbow tomorrow, and I’d hate to miss it”
From one Alice to another (I think I’m the third?), that’s a horrible, nasty-minded thing to have to hear!
I think my polite reply would be that this is the only life I or any of us have, and that makes it all the more precious. My not-so-polite reply would be that if their heavenly reward is so awesome, why don’t they kill themselves?
Actually, judging from the email address, you’re the first Alice, but then again, I’m a bit confused right now. But I do like the new nickname. Alleyprowler! There’s something deliciously unwholesome about it.
My least favorite thing to hear is the old Cliche “You’re only an atheist because you want to have an excuse to sin.” I find this most ironic coming from people in the construction trade, a group of people not known for high moral standards. I usually look at the person and say something along the lines of, “Yeah, that’s why I never drink to excess, don’t do drugs, am still on my first wife whom I have never even considered cheating on, adore my child, work at charities and help my neighbors as much as possible.” It’s really entertaining when they have just finish bragging about getting laid the weekend before or drinking themselves into a coma.
But hey, they have god!
Maybe all the Alices (Alicae?) here should start a rock group… The Alice Band.
Sorry!
MY least favourite is close to yous KK. “Where do your morals come from, without God?” Or the even worse variant “…without the fear of Hell to hold you back?”
Must go now, I have my weekly pillage and rape allotment to get through. No rest for the wicked…
I realized, KK, that I didn’t really answer your question about whether your response was too harsh or not. I think it wasn’t at all–no foul language, no meandering, and it’s all correctly spelt:)) You just laid out your position without equivocating. Calmly and rationally stating your position without tiptoeing around it isn’t shrill or militant or harsh–it’s simply open and clear and allows the other person to know exactly where you stand. That’s honesty, not militancy.
I think, in the end, the best thing atheists (secular humanists, freethinkers, naturalists, preferred label or none) can do is what you’re doing, KK–living a calm, quiet, rational, moral, ethical, helpful, caring life.
Ye shall know them by their works:))
Dibs on the bass guitar position!
(sniff, sniff) my name’s not alice, but it does start with an A…can I play tambourine:-))
Damn! the tambourine was going to be mine! Alas, I am incapable of anything else!
I’m pretty good at rock band, though.
Generally, I don’t bother. My blog is just about books and music – though soon it might become a place for my angry ranting about politics. (I hate the politics of my country. If we had a single MP who actually knew anything about the subjects they’re supposed to speak on or the departments they’re meant to manage, we’d be better off – and if they weren’t so self-interested . Instead we have a singer as a Minister for Environment, where we should have a professor at the very least; we have some random guy in charge of Communications when we should have someone with a degree. The blind are leading the blind in Australia.)
Being in Australia, religious belief holds about as much importance as favorite colour or choice of underwear type. It’s not a big thing.
However, the few times I’ve been called on it, I have responded a little snarkily, largely because a) I don’t see why it matters and b) I don’t see why it’s a problem. I don’t give a monkey’s ass where people go on what day of the week, so why do they care? To me, asking that sort of question to a total stranger is pretty darn rude. But I’ve never been seriously called on it (as in, it’s been passing comments about atheism in general, not anything directed at me) so I’ve never had to get into a serious debate. I guess that is the big difference between Australia and a lot of other countries – over here, most people don’t care enough to consider it an issue. Less than 10% of the country goes to churhc on a regular basis, to give you an idea of how bad we Aussies are at being religious.
There is a hardcore minority of fundies but it’s a pretty small minority. I’ve never even seen them. I’m not sure if they really exist or if the Internet is lying to me.
I’ve seen bits here ‘n’ there around the web about fundies sneaking hard-core creationism into Australian schools under the guise of comparative religion, but I don’t know how prevalent it is. As Bill Bryson pointed out, we in the rest of the world hardly hear anything about events in Australia.
OT, but I believe you’ve put your finger on the main problem with democracy. The fact that anyone can vote and anyone can run for office means that anyone can vote and anyone can run for office. Sugar-coated simplified policies and media-friendly speeches sound better to an uninformed electorate than the bitter pills that are actually needed.
I have always hated the thought that billions of people have been hoodwinked since the beginnings of our species by any religion or non-religion. I have always hated that science has not (yet) given me adequate explanations for many of the important concepts that surround us all day…art, religion, fashion, politics, family values. I have a problem with scientific descriptions of bubbles appearing in the void for the beginning of the universe. [Note: This description is probably 10 years old, though Stephen Hawking is still talking in similar terms today; the newest ideas I have read talk about the birth of our universe coming from two membranes, which used to be thought of as strings which lay under subatomic particles such as quarks, touching.]
I had a problem understanding how life, as humans define it, actually started and once it did start how did one-celled creatures turn into multi-celled creatures. Wouldn’t a multi-celled creature just be a bunch of single celled creatures in a huddle? And so I tried to make statements that could apply to everything, from the subatomic to the cosmic, including fashion, religion and politics.
1) Everything Groups and Everything Ungroups
2) Everything is made up of groups of other things
Every time we are able to look smaller, we find smaller somethings which make up the something we thought was as small as small could get. If there is no brick at the bottom, no smallest something and no ceiling at the top, no largest anything, if there is infinity in the small and infinity in the large (and now scientists are talking about infinite parallel universes as well), then the group is Everything.
This system would need no creator outside of it. It would always have been and will always be…world without end. If there is a creator outside this Everything, I must ask the questions where did the creator come from and did the creator create other Everythings?
Just for fun, let’s take away the human centric philosophy that we are the only sentient creatures and allow sentience in every grouping, from the subatomic to the cosmic. If every grouping of anything is sentient on some level, then that would give decision-making capabilities to cities, fashions, religions, species, galaxies, cells and molecules…to name a few.
Multi-celled creatures would exist because individual one-celled creatures grouped together for symbiotic, parasitic, social or cultural reasons…or just for fun. Life would have formed because groups of molecules decided to group together for their personal or societal reasons.
Is my physical body a vast ecosystem of infinite societies with their own cultural and societal values? Is every grouping as real as I am? Do religions exist as sentient entities as long as there are people who group around the philosophies of their gods? Once a religion has formed, no one person ever has total control of it. The person lives and dies, but the religion goes on. I lose cells, but I go on.
This would mean I truly am creating reality by the choices around which I group.
This would mean I not only contain infinite entities, I am part of infinite entities on other granularities. I am my city, my family, my friendship circles, my species, my planet, my galaxy. When I allow war to exist is it like my heart dropping bombs on my lungs?
Every atom in everything I have ever seen or touched was once part of the giant star that exploded and re-formed into our solar system. With every breath you take, you inhale more atoms than there are stars in the known universe. We have been grouping and ungrouping in this particular area of this particular universe for billions of years. Parts of us have been each others mothers, fathers, predator and prey.
Now if you need a special word to describe all of this, I guess God is as good as any.
“I have always hated the thought that billions of people have been hoodwinked since the beginnings of our species by any religion or non-religion.”
Me too. Unfortunately, it’s true — whether I hate it or not.
“I have a problem with scientific descriptions of bubbles appearing in the void for the beginning of the universe.”
Me too. That doesn’t make it untrue, however. Someone much brainier than I said something along the lines of ‘If you think you understand quantum theory, you don’t understand quantum theory.’ Start off with the fact that the ‘void’ you’re picturing is nothing like you’re picturing it, and work from there…
“I had a problem understanding how life, as humans define it, actually started…”
As a non-living* but self-replicating chemical reaction. That reaction has never yet stopped replicating, otherwise we wouldn’t be here talking about it.
*The grey area, of course, is at what level of complication do we draw a line and say ‘this is life’? But that’s just a human-created boundary which doesn’t exist in nature.
“…and allow sentience in every grouping, from the subatomic to the cosmic…[for several paragraphs]”
That’s some good weed you’re smoking! Seriously, this is one of the most stereotypical ‘pot-head’ discussion-subjects you’ll ever find. See National Lampoon’s Animal House for more details.
“Now if you need a special word to describe all of this, I guess God is as good as any”
I prefer ‘nature’. ‘God’ implies a consciousness that just doesn’t exist.
Maybe we should call you God, since you already know what is true and what is not. It is interesting that you will allow the possibility of anything scientific to be true whether you understand it or not, but not anything religious, whether you understand it or not. Are scientific paradigms different flavors of mythologies?
I was trying to preface my ideas with the journey my thoughts had taken, but that is really irrelevant. What you didn’t address, and which is my main point, is the concept of grouping and ungrouping and at what point does a group form a sentience. Consider the Portuguese Man-of-War. It looks like a giant jelly fish but it is actually 4 different types of creatures living in symbiotic colonies and acting in synchronization. One type handles the stinging of the prey, one type handles digestion, one type handles reproduction and then there is one large float. There are many such creatures. But is this really that different from our own bodies? Our bodies contain more bacteria cells than they do cells containing our own DNA. We would not be able to digest our food without them. There are corporate personalities, team personalities, even cities and countries have personalities. What are we building with our world wide web? The patterns of its development could mirror the development of the brain in general.
You seem to believe my concepts have no scientific merit. I have been told by John Archibald Wheeler (coiner of the term black hole) and Ken Ford (author of the Quantum World) that there is nothing provably wrong in any of my theories and that my ideas are a lot of fun to think about. Apparently you are not able to shrink and grow with my analogies and enjoy the thought experiment.
I am looking for rational explanations for why things are the way they are. I can’t dismiss religion out of hand, because I know it exists. I see evidence of it all around me. There are churches everywhere. I want to discuss a philosophy of everything that includes religion, fashion, politics, quarks, singularities, sun spots and acne. If I allow myself to anthropomorphize and give sentience to all, rather than reserve it for the human species, I begin to see patterns that exist in Everything. I assume you have a consciousness. Why cannot everything else have a consciousness? Must we remain so human centric? Is it possible for you to travel down this thought trail with me for a little while? Would we see patterns between food and dance and subatomic particles? Between gravity and evolution and virus mutations?
I am probably on the wrong site.
Sarah, I like the groupings idea. This is a line of thought quite familiar to me and one I’ve spent time on. Does human society mimic or exhibit characteristics of some sort of meta-organism? Have our interactions with each other reached such a complexity that a higher form of life could be hypothesized? Certainly. Groups of people act differently than individuals and seem to have differing goals and methods. You could label this as life of a sort, even sentience. There is purpose there without a doubt, some kind of meta behavior that rises far above us as individuals.
My problem comes with the implying everything as having purpose or possible sentience. From galaxies to molecules, everything has patterns sometimes incredibly complex and beautiful patterns. But patterns are not life. They are not purpose. They are not sentience. Sentience arose on this planet because natural selection worked that long on life. Life by definition does not just exist. It reproduces varied and imperfect copies of itself into succeeding generations. Natural selection picks out those best imperfect copies and they survive while the weaker and the originals die. Thousands of trillions of generations later you may have complex live and trillions beyond that sentience. It is natural selection’s weeding out the lesser fit that pushes us forward. It is the only thing that pushes us forward.
The key thing here is that this can only work on items that copy themselves with some degree of precision. For the vast majority of cases nothing but life even comes close. Molecules don’t. Galaxies don’t. To imply that these things are sentient is to say that they assembled themselves into The most incredibly complex forms without the benefit of natural selection. This is unlikely in the extreme.
Now in no way am I saying that everything in our galaxy doesn’t affect everything else and isn’t tied intricately together. They are and the do. The Milky Way is the midst of an incredibly complicated dance of gravity and electromagnetism that we are just in the beginning stages of understanding. But it doesn’t reproduce, therefore natural selection can’t hone it into sentience.
And without sentience what is it? Without humanity to gaze at it and wonder about it’s beauty, what does it do. Nothing. Life is what gives the purpose anywhere and sentience most of all. We can speculate or run thought experiments, but in all our looking, we have never seen evidence of other life or sentience. Without evidence or a working theory, all those thoughts and speculations are just guesses. No more. Our possibly unique sentience makes us infinitely valuable in this universe, and should make our prime goal one of spreading this “gift” of sentience far and wide.
Without humans or other sentient life all those patterns as beautiful as they are, are meaningless.
Now I am always willing to travel down odd roads of thought, but to go very far there has to be a rational, a method, a theory as to how it would come about not just assuming it does. This is the difference between science and religion. Religion just assumes God is there and actively defends the idea with blind faith. In contrast, science actively tries to disprove everything it knows and the stuff it can’t are regarded as truths but only tentatively.
Science isn’t just another mythology pushing humanity to and fro. Like natural selection, science hones the best ideas into truth. The ideas that are most fit are the ones which continue.
I’m sorry you think you’re on the wrong blog, but like darwinism, ideas need to be battered about to see which ones are going to stand up. Daz was only doing what all of us should do. That is force the rest to THINK!
“..since you already know what is true and what is not.”
Well, obviously I don’t. The whole point of science is to admit what isn’t known and explore it. Religions, on the other hand, claim to know everything, yet show no proof.
“you will allow the possibility of anything scientific to be true whether you understand it or not, but not anything religious, whether you understand it or not.”
“Allow the possibility” is not the same as “declare to be true.” For instance, I’m personally suspicious of the various multiverse theories doing the rounds. They seem to be well grounded in maths, but lacking in any physical evidence. And in maths, the same as in logic, you can prove anything as long as you pick your initial postulates well.
What’s to understand about religious explanations of existence? Religions say ‘God did it,’ but provide not one jot of evidence in support of the existence of god(s). If they can’t provide convincing evidence for the central pillar of their hypothesis, why should I bother learning about the conclusions they build on that unsupported foundation?
“Are scientific paradigms different flavors of mythologies?”
No
Your point about groupings, symbiosis and such is well taken, but in your original post you alluded to molecules with a sense of purpose, and galaxies with decision-making capabilities. That’s what I alluded to as pot-head philosophy.
I like your world wide web allusion. If we ever achieve proper AI and it gets loose on the internet, the possibilities are fascinating. And a galactic internet, capable of replicating its own junctions and other hardware could eventually become a ‘sentient galaxy,’ and possibly the first immortal life-form. Pretty sure I’ve seen an essay on that somewhere. I’ll try to find it.
“Apparently you are not able to shrink and grow with my analogies and enjoy the thought experiment”…”Is it possible for you to travel down this thought trail with me for a little while? Would we see patterns between food and dance and subatomic particles? Between gravity and evolution and virus mutations?”
There certainly are connections between all those things, and everything else in the universe, but thought experiments involving sentient molecules won’t find them. Religion won’t either, because religion, by its nature, allows no questioning of the central dogma.
Damnit, done it again. Sorry, that was me.
“Ooh! Ooh! I know! Pick me!”
“And a galactic internet, capable of replicating its own junctions and other hardware could eventually become a ‘sentient galaxy,’ and possibly the first immortal life-form. ”
Daz–That’s from Tim Ferris’ Coming Of Age In The Milky Way! I literally just read that bit and dog-eared the page. A very cool idea, and very much along the lines of what Sarah is talking about, I think.
That’s not the whole description (which was a page and a half or two), but that’s the idea.
To be fair, the intrusion of what seemed like the sentience of atomic particles was what Einstein disliked about quantum theory:
It seems that a solid definition of “sentient” would come in handy right about now…:))
Sarah–do you know anything about slime molds? Single-celled organisims that can come together and act coherently as a multi-cellular organism, and then they split up again. I read about those a year or so ago (probably in Dawkin’s Ancestor’s Tale) and thought, “wow–I need to know more about those! Everybody needs to know more about those!” Biologists studying slime molds might have some interesting things to tell us about sentience. Definitely connections with the idea of grouping/ungrouping!
“Timothy Ferris…”
Daaamn Youuu! *shakes fist theatrically*
It’s been bugging me all day. I realised, literally as I came in the door, where I’d read it. Found the book, found the passage, opened BABS to post it, and you beat me to it! Lovely piece of writing though, isn’t it. Sense-of-wonder by the bucketful.