is there a purpose?

seems quiet here, so i'll continue my obsessive-compulsive posting (of
course, maybe that is why it's quiet here). since i earlier started
a celebrity behavior thread, now i will start:
does the universe have a purpose? prompted by the 2pp spread in the
nytimes today by the john templeton foundation (to peek in on that
conversation go to www.templeton.org/purpose).

what do you think?
i sure don't know, but i'm still in awe: (from that great bbc series,
planet earth)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRvfG6jIt24

ellen

ellen <epdpster@gmail.com> wrote in news:1193005293.143396.36330
@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> seems quiet here, so i'll continue my obsessive-compulsive posting (of
> course, maybe that is why it's quiet here). since i earlier started
> a celebrity behavior thread, now i will start:
> does the universe have a purpose? prompted by the 2pp spread in the
> nytimes today by the john templeton foundation (to peek in on that
> conversation go to www.templeton.org/purpose).
>
> what do you think?
> i sure don't know, but i'm still in awe: (from that great bbc series,
> planet earth)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRvfG6jIt24

I think that people who think that the entire universe was created just
to hold puny little humans are incredibly arrogant.

I don't think the universe needs a purpose - it is. It just is. It
appears to be the result of cosmic forces that are only poorly
understood, even though great strides are being made toward
understanding.

The universe doesn't much care whether we understand it or not, though.
It just is.

Chak


--
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
--Anatole France

Chakolate wrote:
> ellen <epdpster@gmail.com> wrote in news:1193005293.143396.36330
> @i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> seems quiet here, so i'll continue my obsessive-compulsive posting (of
>> course, maybe that is why it's quiet here). since i earlier started
>> a celebrity behavior thread, now i will start:
>> does the universe have a purpose? prompted by the 2pp spread in the
>> nytimes today by the john templeton foundation (to peek in on that
>> conversation go to www.templeton.org/purpose).
>>
>> what do you think?
>> i sure don't know, but i'm still in awe: (from that great bbc series,
>> planet earth)
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRvfG6jIt24
>
> I think that people who think that the entire universe was created just
> to hold puny little humans are incredibly arrogant.
>
> I don't think the universe needs a purpose - it is. It just is. It
> appears to be the result of cosmic forces that are only poorly
> understood, even though great strides are being made toward
> understanding.
>
> The universe doesn't much care whether we understand it or not, though.
> It just is.

What she said.

And, Which universe? Some folks think there are many ... even an
infinite number of universes. Do some of them have a purpose and
others not? How would one decide?

And I like Neil deGrasse Tysons reply:
http://www.templeton.org/questions/p...say_Tyson.html

"How about human life itself? If you are religious, you might
declare that the purpose of life is to serve God. But if you're
one of the 100 billion bacteria living and working in a single
centimeter of our lower intestine (rivaling, by the way, the
total number of humans who have ever been born) you would give an
entirely different answer. You might instead say that the purpose
of human life is to provide you with a dark, but idyllic,
anaerobic habitat of fecal matter."

"...So while I cannot claim to know for sure whether or not the
universe has a purpose, the case against it is strong, and
visible to anyone who sees the universe as it is rather than as
they wish it to be."

FurPaw

--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dog.

ellen wrote:
> seems quiet here, so i'll continue my obsessive-compulsive posting (of
> course, maybe that is why it's quiet here). since i earlier started
> a celebrity behavior thread, now i will start:
> does the universe have a purpose? prompted by the 2pp spread in the
> nytimes today by the john templeton foundation (to peek in on that
> conversation go to www.templeton.org/purpose).
>
> what do you think?
> i sure don't know, but i'm still in awe: (from that great bbc series,
> planet earth)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRvfG6jIt24

not sure it *needs* a "purpose". It just *is*.

--
Jette Goldie
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:21:33 -0700, ellen <epdpster@gmail.com> wrote:

>since i earlier started
>a celebrity behavior thread,


You did? How did I miss that? You mean like Britney and Lindsey and
Paris, Rosie, etc?

Hmm..what was the threat subject?


Dana
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

Dana© wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:21:33 -0700, ellen <epdpster@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> since i earlier started
>> a celebrity behavior thread,
>
>
> You did? How did I miss that? You mean like Britney and Lindsey and
> Paris, Rosie, etc?
>
> Hmm..what was the threat subject?
>

"the other ellen"?

--
Jette Goldie
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)

FurPaw wrote:
> Chakolate wrote:
>> ellen <epdpster@gmail.com> wrote in news:1193005293.143396.36330
>> @i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> seems quiet here, so i'll continue my obsessive-compulsive posting (of
>>> course, maybe that is why it's quiet here). since i earlier started
>>> a celebrity behavior thread, now i will start:
>>> does the universe have a purpose? prompted by the 2pp spread in the
>>> nytimes today by the john templeton foundation (to peek in on that
>>> conversation go to www.templeton.org/purpose).
>>>
>>> what do you think?
>>> i sure don't know, but i'm still in awe: (from that great bbc series,
>>> planet earth)
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRvfG6jIt24
>>
>> I think that people who think that the entire universe was created
>> just to hold puny little humans are incredibly arrogant.
>> I don't think the universe needs a purpose - it is. It just is. It
>> appears to be the result of cosmic forces that are only poorly
>> understood, even though great strides are being made toward
>> understanding.
>> The universe doesn't much care whether we understand it or not,
>> though. It just is.
>
> What she said.
>

Doesn't simply being qualify as a purpose?
8~)


> And, Which universe? Some folks think there are many ... even an
> infinite number of universes. Do some of them have a purpose and others
> not? How would one decide?
>
> And I like Neil deGrasse Tysons reply:
> http://www.templeton.org/questions/p...say_Tyson.html
>
> "How about human life itself? If you are religious, you might declare
> that the purpose of life is to serve God. But if you're one of the 100
> billion bacteria living and working in a single centimeter of our lower
> intestine (rivaling, by the way, the total number of humans who have
> ever been born) you would give an entirely different answer. You might
> instead say that the purpose of human life is to provide you with a
> dark, but idyllic, anaerobic habitat of fecal matter."

OK, my fecal bacteria are welcome to think, but when they
start buying stuff on eBay on my charge card, i'm rebelling.



--
pax,
ruth


Save trees AND money! Buy used books!
http://stores.ebay.com/Noir-and-More-Books-and-Trains

>
> Hmm..what was the threat subject?
>
> Dana
> Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
> for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

jette was right, i was referring to the 'other ellen.' but i hope
that you meant to type thread instead of threat. i've got enough
problems without having to explain anything to federal law enforcement
officials :-) (you know - i understand the need to add the emoticons
or whatever they are, but they just seem so odd after certain
phrases....).

i don't follow celebrities much, but if it's of sufficient interest i
could do updates on the latest detroit or fictional celebrity gossip -
which means it would be infrequent. i did hear the kid rock punched
someone again. & can you believe that albus dumbledore is gay (i
thought bi maybe, but....)?

ellen

ellen <epdpster@gmail.com> wrote:

> seems quiet here, so i'll continue my obsessive-compulsive posting (of
> course, maybe that is why it's quiet here).

*crickets*

> since i earlier started
> a celebrity behavior thread, now i will start:
> does the universe have a purpose?

Ah, the ultimate celebrity. :-) I'm reading Bernard Haisch's "The God
Theory" right now and he says "yes". In it he deals with what he says is
a _lack_ of investigation by today's scientists, while proposing a
theory for why there is likely an intelligence (though not "intelligent
design") behind everything, rather than all of existence depending on a
bunch of coincidences.

> prompted by the 2pp spread in the
> nytimes today by the john templeton foundation (to peek in on that
> conversation go to www.templeton.org/purpose).

I'll have to look at that when I have more time. Looks very interesting!

> what do you think?

If it doesn't, I'll really feel bummed out. I can't stand hanging around
for no reason. I think a lot of people don't like the idea of there not
being some greater purpose or reason for it all, which is why there is
philosophy and religion.

Haisch and others (including ancient mystics) state that we are God
experiencing God. There's thought, and then there's experience - idea
and expression. We are God expressing.

Note: This idea works best if you get rid of Michelangelo's old guy in a
beard version of God
(<http://artchive.com/artchive/M/michelangelo/creation.jpg.html>
Artchive. Cute. Anyway...) and go with something more like The Force in
"Star Wars" or taoism.

> i sure don't know, but i'm still in awe: (from that great bbc series,
> planet earth)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRvfG6jIt24

Isn't this planet just the best place ever to hang out? :-D Thanks for
that piece of awe!

--
Keera in Norway * Think big and then ask for more.
http://home.online.no/~kafox/

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:24:49 -0700, ellen <epdpster@gmail.com> wrote:

>jette was right, i was referring to the 'other ellen.' but i hope
>that you meant to type thread instead of threat. i've got enough
>problems without having to explain anything to federal law enforcement
>officials :-) (you know - i understand the need to add the emoticons
>or whatever they are, but they just seem so odd after certain
>phrases....).


LOL. Oops. Sorry. Spell checker doesn't correct content, at least it
was spelled right, eh?


Dana
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

In article <1193005293.143396.36330@i13g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
epdpster@gmail.com says...
> seems quiet here, so i'll continue my obsessive-compulsive posting (of
> course, maybe that is why it's quiet here). since i earlier started
> a celebrity behavior thread, now i will start:
> does the universe have a purpose? prompted by the 2pp spread in the
> nytimes today by the john templeton foundation (to peek in on that
> conversation go to www.templeton.org/purpose).
>
> what do you think?
> i sure don't know, but i'm still in awe: (from that great bbc series,
> planet earth)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRvfG6jIt24
>
> ellen

I'm one of those "arrogant" people who believe that God prepared the
universe before He created the humans who live in it. However, this is
not a reason to declare how awesome people are. Rather, it is a reason to
praise Him for His kindness to His undeserving creation.

Keera Ann Fox <thinkbig.shrinktofit@online.no> wrote:
> ellen <epdpster@gmail.com> wrote:

>> seems quiet here, so i'll continue my obsessive-compulsive posting (of
>> course, maybe that is why it's quiet here).

> *crickets*

>> since i earlier started
>> a celebrity behavior thread, now i will start:
>> does the universe have a purpose?

> Ah, the ultimate celebrity. :-) I'm reading Bernard Haisch's "The God
> Theory" right now and he says "yes". In it he deals with what he says is
> a _lack_ of investigation by today's scientists, while proposing a
> theory for why there is likely an intelligence (though not "intelligent
> design") behind everything, rather than all of existence depending on a
> bunch of coincidences.

>> prompted by the 2pp spread in the
>> nytimes today by the john templeton foundation (to peek in on that
>> conversation go to www.templeton.org/purpose).

> I'll have to look at that when I have more time. Looks very interesting!

>> what do you think?

> If it doesn't, I'll really feel bummed out. I can't stand hanging around
> for no reason. I think a lot of people don't like the idea of there not
> being some greater purpose or reason for it all, which is why there is
> philosophy and religion.

> Haisch and others (including ancient mystics) state that we are God
> experiencing God. There's thought, and then there's experience - idea
> and expression. We are God expressing.

> Note: This idea works best if you get rid of Michelangelo's old guy in a
> beard version of God
> (<http://artchive.com/artchive/M/michelangelo/creation.jpg.html>
> Artchive. Cute. Anyway...) and go with something more like The Force in
> "Star Wars" or taoism.

>> i sure don't know, but i'm still in awe: (from that great bbc series,
>> planet earth)
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRvfG6jIt24

> Isn't this planet just the best place ever to hang out? :-D Thanks for
> that piece of awe!

It's interesting that almost all of the folk who think there is a
Purpose think that we're the good guys and part of the Purpose. Given
what we're doing to the planet it wouldn't surprise me if the planet
(or the Purpose in charge of it) had decided that it was time it got
rid of us.

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Chris Malcolm wrote:

> It's interesting that almost all of the folk who think there is a
> Purpose think that we're the good guys and part of the Purpose. Given
> what we're doing to the planet it wouldn't surprise me if the planet
> (or the Purpose in charge of it) had decided that it was time it got
> rid of us.
>
I think maybe George Carlin got it right w/r/t the purpose of humans,
excerpted from this:
http://www.chaparyan.com/2005/04/geo...et-is-fine.php

"The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came
out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one
of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be
spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself.
Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our
age-old egocentric philosophical question, "Why are we here?"
Plastic...asshole.

"So, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now.
And I think that's begun. Don't you think that's already started? I
think, to be fair, the planet sees us as a mild threat. Something to
be dealt with. And the planet can defend itself in an organized,
collective way, the way a beehive or an ant colony can. A collective
defense mechanism. The planet will think of something. What would you
do if you were the planet? How would you defend yourself against this
troublesome, pesky species? Let's see... Viruses. Viruses might be
good. They seem vulnerable to viruses. And, uh...viruses are tricky,
always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is
developed. Perhaps, this first virus could be one that compromises the
immune system of these creatures. Perhaps a human immunodeficiency
virus, making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and
infections that might come along. And maybe it could be spread
sexually, making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of
reproduction."

FurPaw

--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dog.

FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:

> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>
> > It's interesting that almost all of the folk who think there is a
> > Purpose think that we're the good guys and part of the Purpose. Given
> > what we're doing to the planet it wouldn't surprise me if the planet
> > (or the Purpose in charge of it) had decided that it was time it got
> > rid of us.
> >
> I think maybe George Carlin got it right w/r/t the purpose of humans,
> excerpted from this:
> http://www.chaparyan.com/2005/04/geo...et-is-fine.php
>
> "The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came
> out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one
> of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be
> spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself.
> Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our
> age-old egocentric philosophical question, "Why are we here?"
> Plastic...asshole.
>
> "So, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now.
> And I think that's begun. Don't you think that's already started? I
> think, to be fair, the planet sees us as a mild threat. Something to
> be dealt with. And the planet can defend itself in an organized,
> collective way, the way a beehive or an ant colony can. A collective
> defense mechanism. The planet will think of something. What would you
> do if you were the planet? How would you defend yourself against this
> troublesome, pesky species? Let's see... Viruses. Viruses might be
> good. They seem vulnerable to viruses. And, uh...viruses are tricky,
> always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is
> developed. Perhaps, this first virus could be one that compromises the
> immune system of these creatures. Perhaps a human immunodeficiency
> virus, making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and
> infections that might come along. And maybe it could be spread
> sexually, making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of
> reproduction."
>
> FurPaw

I'm not sure whether to just have a good laugh or feel sorry for you,
Chris (and Carlin). Doesn't it hurt to point out only the destructive or
useless? And: Does it help?

--
Keera in Norway * Think big and then ask for more.
http://home.online.no/~kafox/

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:51:34 +0200, thinkbig.shrinktofit@online.no
(Keera Ann Fox) wrote:

>I'm not sure whether to just have a good laugh or feel sorry for you,
>Chris (and Carlin). Doesn't it hurt to point out only the destructive or
>useless? And: Does it help?


Isn't that what Al Gore won the Nobel Peace thing for?

And Carlin is wrong, we fooled Mother Nature and we are living longer
with that virus now. Never under estimate a human being when it comes
to figuring it out.

Dana
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

Keera Ann Fox wrote:

> I'm not sure whether to just have a good laugh or feel sorry for you,
> Chris (and Carlin). Doesn't it hurt to point out only the destructive or
> useless? And: Does it help?

Does it hurt what? Does it help what? How do you know that I point
out only the destructive or useless?

"There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is
suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to
answering the fundamental question of philosophy. Al the rest --
whether the world has three dimension, whether the mind has nine or
twelve categories-- comes afterward... I see many people die because
they judge that life is not worth living. I see others paradoxically
getting killed for the ideas or illusions that give them a reason for
living (what is called a reason for living is also an excellent reason
for dying). I therefore conclude that the meaning of life is the most
urgent of questions." Albert Camus, "The Myth of Sisyphus."

I first read this when I was 19. Mulling over this and many other
ideas, over the course of the next 40 years, I came to the conclusion
that "the purpose" of MY life is whatever I make it, and I accept that
"the purpose" dies with me. I don't have any evidence of any other
sort of externally-driven purpose to 'life, the universe, and
everything' (besides, perhaps, a genetic drive to reproduce my genes,
and I defied that biological imperative).

I DO have a bit of a twisted, dark sense of humor... I like to look at
the fabric of society from odd angles.

You need not feel sorry. Laughter is much better.

And: Did you ask in order to understand?

FurPaw

--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dog.

ellen wrote:
& can you believe that albus dumbledore is gay (i
> thought bi maybe, but....)?

I have to admit, I hadn't given Dumbledore's sexuality one iota of
thought before Rowling outed him! When Hubster started reading me the
article, I thought it was from The Onion.

I shall now reinsert my head into the sand.

FurPaw

--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dog.

FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:

> Keera Ann Fox wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure whether to just have a good laugh or feel sorry for you,
> > Chris (and Carlin). Doesn't it hurt to point out only the destructive or
> > useless? And: Does it help?
>
> Does it hurt what? Does it help what? How do you know that I point
> out only the destructive or useless?

You just did, in this thread. A poster asked a serious question, and you
and Chris chose to respond with the suggestion that humanity is more or
less a waste of carbon.

> "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is
> suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to
> answering the fundamental question of philosophy. Al the rest --
> whether the world has three dimension, whether the mind has nine or
> twelve categories-- comes afterward... I see many people die because
> they judge that life is not worth living. I see others paradoxically
> getting killed for the ideas or illusions that give them a reason for
> living (what is called a reason for living is also an excellent reason
> for dying). I therefore conclude that the meaning of life is the most
> urgent of questions." Albert Camus, "The Myth of Sisyphus."
>
> I first read this when I was 19. Mulling over this and many other
> ideas, over the course of the next 40 years, I came to the conclusion
> that "the purpose" of MY life is whatever I make it, and I accept that
> "the purpose" dies with me. I don't have any evidence of any other
> sort of externally-driven purpose to 'life, the universe, and
> everything' (besides, perhaps, a genetic drive to reproduce my genes,
> and I defied that biological imperative).

Isn't that a rather, what's the word I want, defined-by-function view of
the reason for existing? It reminds me of the current evolution vs.
intelligent design debate, where the scientific camp cannot bring itself
to admit (or entertain) that we are here to do more and even something
else besides procreate.

> I DO have a bit of a twisted, dark sense of humor... I like to look at
> the fabric of society from odd angles.
>
> You need not feel sorry. Laughter is much better.
>
> And: Did you ask in order to understand?

Yes, actually, because yours and Chris's response wasn't unique. In
other discussions like this the atheist/scientific type inevitably
points out the negatives with mankind, even if it's served as a joke. I
get that sort of response (without the humor) from the religious/gnostic
side only if they are fundie fruitcakes because they have Original Sin.
So, does it help to have and to share a cynical view, even in jest? I
mean, there must be a reason for choosing that response.

--
Keera in Norway * Think big and then ask for more.
http://home.online.no/~kafox/

Keera Ann Fox wrote:
> FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Keera Ann Fox wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure whether to just have a good laugh or feel sorry for you,
>>> Chris (and Carlin). Doesn't it hurt to point out only the destructive or
>>> useless? And: Does it help?
>> Does it hurt what? Does it help what? How do you know that I point
>> out only the destructive or useless?
>
> You just did, in this thread.

If I pointed out only the destructive or useless, I wouldn't
bother to try to provide information or support to people who
come to asm. I have been known to do that, on occasion. So has
Chris. My response style isn't solely defined by my responses in
this thread. Neither is yours, I suspect.

> A poster asked a serious question, and you
> and Chris chose to respond with the suggestion that humanity is more or
> less a waste of carbon.

It's a waste of carbon only if you believe that purpose-waste are
a dichotomy, occupying opposite ends of a single dimension. I
don't think humanity has a purpose nor do I think it is a waste,
any more than I think that beetles have a purpose nor that they
are a waste. With respect to the existence of the universe(s?)
and life, 'purpose' and 'waste' lie on independent dimensions, at
least, from my point of view.

>> "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is
>> suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to
>> answering the fundamental question of philosophy. Al the rest --
>> whether the world has three dimension, whether the mind has nine or
>> twelve categories-- comes afterward... I see many people die because
>> they judge that life is not worth living. I see others paradoxically
>> getting killed for the ideas or illusions that give them a reason for
>> living (what is called a reason for living is also an excellent reason
>> for dying). I therefore conclude that the meaning of life is the most
>> urgent of questions." Albert Camus, "The Myth of Sisyphus."
>>
>> I first read this when I was 19. Mulling over this and many other
>> ideas, over the course of the next 40 years, I came to the conclusion
>> that "the purpose" of MY life is whatever I make it, and I accept that
>> "the purpose" dies with me. I don't have any evidence of any other
>> sort of externally-driven purpose to 'life, the universe, and
>> everything' (besides, perhaps, a genetic drive to reproduce my genes,
>> and I defied that biological imperative).
>
> Isn't that a rather, what's the word I want, defined-by-function view of
> the reason for existing?

??? I have no idea what you mean here.

> It reminds me of the current evolution vs.
> intelligent design debate, where the scientific camp cannot bring itself
> to admit (or entertain) that we are here to do more and even something
> else besides procreate.

Folks in the intelligent design camp seem to have equal
difficulty entertaining the possibility that there is no purpose,
no designer, that it all could have happened without design as
the universe(s) evolved. They are uncomfortable with the
uncertainty that that position leaves open, and choose to fill
the gap with belief in a designer.

On the evolutionist side, it's not so much having faith in the
scientific method as the willingness to tolerate the uncertainty
that science inevitably engenders: that method is a process of
successive approximations at discovery: theories lead to
hypotheses that lead to the examination of data, which may
support the hypotheses but usually leads to more questions than
answers, stumbling along until more and more data either lead to
the rejection of a theory or solidification of portions, using
those portions as platforms upon which to expand theories. Rinse
and repeat. It's not a comfortable position, but to me it seems
to be the easiest to justify rationally, from my fly-speck
perspective.

There's a lot of data supporting the main tenets of the theory of
evolution; and I don't think that ANY scientist would argue that
it is complete or entirely correct.

I think a lot of scientists entertain the possibility that there
is a "purpose" for human life, but fail to find evidence for any
such purpose. Of course, that may depend on how you define
"purpose." It's not clear that you and I are using the same
definition.

At day's end, I don't think I need a 'purpose.' That's the
source of some of the dark humor - as in, "well, if someone
insists that I have to have a 'purpose,' then maybe it's to
support the bacteria that reside in my colon. Or create plastic."
In other words, it's a way of saying, "I don't accept your
premise."

Or maybe, "I'd prefer to take a less anthropocentric perspective
- look at it from the point of view of bacteria, or the planet
earth, or Orion, or a black hole three galaxies over: Purpose?
humans are far less significant than fly specks on the fabric of
the universe."

>> I DO have a bit of a twisted, dark sense of humor... I like to look at
>> the fabric of society from odd angles.
>>
>> You need not feel sorry. Laughter is much better.
>>
>> And: Did you ask in order to understand?
>
> Yes, actually, because yours and Chris's response wasn't unique. In
> other discussions like this the atheist/scientific type inevitably
> points out the negatives with mankind, even if it's served as a joke.

See above. It could mean, "I don't accept your premise."

> I
> get that sort of response (without the humor) from the religious/gnostic
> side only if they are fundie fruitcakes because they have Original Sin.

???

> So, does it help to have and to share a cynical view, even in jest? I
> mean, there must be a reason for choosing that response.

It could mean, "I prefer to take a less anthropocentric perspective."

FurPaw

--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dog.

FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:

> Keera Ann Fox wrote:
> > FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Keera Ann Fox wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'm not sure whether to just have a good laugh or feel sorry for you,
> >>> Chris (and Carlin). Doesn't it hurt to point out only the destructive or
> >>> useless? And: Does it help?
> >> Does it hurt what? Does it help what? How do you know that I point
> >> out only the destructive or useless?
> >
> > You just did, in this thread.
>
> If I pointed out only the destructive or useless, I wouldn't
> bother to try to provide information or support to people who
> come to asm. I have been known to do that, on occasion. So has
> Chris. My response style isn't solely defined by my responses in
> this thread. Neither is yours, I suspect.

Oh, dear. I see there's a misunderstanding. I meant _in this thread_. I
was and am referring only to yours and Chris's response in this thread,
on this particular topic.

> > A poster asked a serious question, and you
> > and Chris chose to respond with the suggestion that humanity is more or
> > less a waste of carbon.
>
> It's a waste of carbon only if you believe that purpose-waste are
> a dichotomy, occupying opposite ends of a single dimension. I
> don't think humanity has a purpose nor do I think it is a waste,
> any more than I think that beetles have a purpose nor that they
> are a waste. With respect to the existence of the universe(s?)
> and life, 'purpose' and 'waste' lie on independent dimensions, at
> least, from my point of view.

Well, I guess I do see purpose and waste as opposites, or, rather, as
mutually exclusive, because I cannot see not having a purpose as also
not wasteful. It seems to me that the use of energy would preclude that.
My observations of life is that it tends to conserve energy; it does try
to find the easiest, most efficient way (one could say least wasteful)
to accomplish something.

> >> "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is
> >> suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to
> >> answering the fundamental question of philosophy. Al the rest --
> >> whether the world has three dimension, whether the mind has nine or
> >> twelve categories-- comes afterward... I see many people die because
> >> they judge that life is not worth living. I see others paradoxically
> >> getting killed for the ideas or illusions that give them a reason for
> >> living (what is called a reason for living is also an excellent reason
> >> for dying). I therefore conclude that the meaning of life is the most
> >> urgent of questions." Albert Camus, "The Myth of Sisyphus."
> >>
> >> I first read this when I was 19. Mulling over this and many other
> >> ideas, over the course of the next 40 years, I came to the conclusion
> >> that "the purpose" of MY life is whatever I make it, and I accept that
> >> "the purpose" dies with me. I don't have any evidence of any other
> >> sort of externally-driven purpose to 'life, the universe, and
> >> everything' (besides, perhaps, a genetic drive to reproduce my genes,
> >> and I defied that biological imperative).
> >
> > Isn't that a rather, what's the word I want, defined-by-function view of
> > the reason for existing?
>
> ??? I have no idea what you mean here.

I'm not able to find the right word.

I think I need to ask for clarification: When you say you have not seen
an externally-drive purpose to life, following on the statement that you
make your own purpose, are you saying that you lack non-physical reasons
for existing, or are you saying you don't see a collective reason for
existence? You state you see a purpose for yourself, one you make for
yourself. I'm trying to understand if that means you don't see a purpose
for humanity as a whole.

> > It reminds me of the current evolution vs.
> > intelligent design debate, where the scientific camp cannot bring itself
> > to admit (or entertain) that we are here to do more and even something
> > else besides procreate.
>
> Folks in the intelligent design camp seem to have equal
> difficulty entertaining the possibility that there is no purpose,
> no designer, that it all could have happened without design as
> the universe(s) evolved. They are uncomfortable with the
> uncertainty that that position leaves open, and choose to fill
> the gap with belief in a designer.
>
> On the evolutionist side, it's not so much having faith in the
> scientific method as the willingness to tolerate the uncertainty
> that science inevitably engenders: that method is a process of
> successive approximations at discovery: theories lead to
> hypotheses that lead to the examination of data, which may
> support the hypotheses but usually leads to more questions than
> answers, stumbling along until more and more data either lead to
> the rejection of a theory or solidification of portions, using
> those portions as platforms upon which to expand theories. Rinse
> and repeat. It's not a comfortable position, but to me it seems
> to be the easiest to justify rationally, from my fly-speck
> perspective.
>
> There's a lot of data supporting the main tenets of the theory of
> evolution; and I don't think that ANY scientist would argue that
> it is complete or entirely correct.
>
> I think a lot of scientists entertain the possibility that there
> is a "purpose" for human life, but fail to find evidence for any
> such purpose. Of course, that may depend on how you define
> "purpose." It's not clear that you and I are using the same
> definition.
>
> At day's end, I don't think I need a 'purpose.' That's the
> source of some of the dark humor - as in, "well, if someone
> insists that I have to have a 'purpose,' then maybe it's to
> support the bacteria that reside in my colon. Or create plastic."
> In other words, it's a way of saying, "I don't accept your
> premise."
>
> Or maybe, "I'd prefer to take a less anthropocentric perspective
> - look at it from the point of view of bacteria, or the planet
> earth, or Orion, or a black hole three galaxies over: Purpose?
> humans are far less significant than fly specks on the fabric of
> the universe."

It's a difficult subject to discuss, partly because neither of us knows
exactly what reference points the other has.

My current reading leads me to think that scientists are not exploring
the issue of there being a third choice (the first two being no god at
all and god made everything Just Like That), such as evolution not being
only a physical/biological phenomenon.

I don't see that third alternative as being anthropocentric, either
(none of evolution is). Quite the contrary: It can take us away from
focusing on details, and instead start seeing the whole. Some of us
forget that evolution is not necessarily limited to our planet. Our
entire solar system may be evolving. Evolution = start with one thing,
and let it grow and develop into something else, according to
opportunity and circumstance.

> >> I DO have a bit of a twisted, dark sense of humor... I like to look at
> >> the fabric of society from odd angles.
> >>
> >> You need not feel sorry. Laughter is much better.
> >>
> >> And: Did you ask in order to understand?
> >
> > Yes, actually, because yours and Chris's response wasn't unique. In
> > other discussions like this the atheist/scientific type inevitably
> > points out the negatives with mankind, even if it's served as a joke.
>
> See above. It could mean, "I don't accept your premise."

What did you think was my premise? Or the original poster's premise?

> > I get that sort of response (without the humor) from the
> > religious/gnostic side only if they are fundie fruitcakes because they
> > have Original Sin.
>
> ???

In some Christian circles, one believes humans are born losers, because
of Original Sin. (This in spite of Jesus supposedly taking care of that
problem.) A rather negative POV, IMO.

> > So, does it help to have and to share a cynical view, even in jest? I
> > mean, there must be a reason for choosing that response.
>
> It could mean, "I prefer to take a less anthropocentric perspective."

By dissing people?

--
Keera in Norway * Think big and then ask for more.
http://home.online.no/~kafox/

Keera Ann Fox wrote:
> FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Keera Ann Fox wrote:
>>> FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Keera Ann Fox wrote:

[snipped]

>>>> I first read this when I was 19. Mulling over this and many other
>>>> ideas, over the course of the next 40 years, I came to the conclusion
>>>> that "the purpose" of MY life is whatever I make it, and I accept that
>>>> "the purpose" dies with me. I don't have any evidence of any other
>>>> sort of externally-driven purpose to 'life, the universe, and
>>>> everything' (besides, perhaps, a genetic drive to reproduce my genes,
>>>> and I defied that biological imperative).
>>> Isn't that a rather, what's the word I want, defined-by-function view of
>>> the reason for existing?
>> ??? I have no idea what you mean here.
>
> I'm not able to find the right word.
>
> I think I need to ask for clarification: When you say you have not seen
> an externally-drive purpose to life, following on the statement that you
> make your own purpose, are you saying that you lack non-physical reasons
> for existing, or are you saying you don't see a collective reason for
> existence? You state you see a purpose for yourself, one you make for
> yourself. I'm trying to understand if that means you don't see a purpose
> for humanity as a whole.

One problem here is that 'purpose' has several related
definitions, and it's easy to switch between them without
changing the word.

When ellen asked, "does the universe have a purpose?" I took that
to mean this definition: (encarta dictionary)

"1. reason for existence: the reason for which something exists
or for which it has been done or made
the purpose of life" - e.g., an externally determined and applied
purpose, external to 'the universe' or to 'humanity'.

To believe that there is an externally determined purpose, I
suppose that one must believe that there is some agent that
determines the purpose.

When I say that "The 'purpose' of my life is whatever I make it,'
I mean the second definition ...

"2. desired effect: the goal or intended outcome of something
The purpose of the law is to control pollution."

.... because I don't believe that there needs to be an external
reason for existence. In my cognitive framework, it just _is_.
Existence happens. I don't understand the 'either-or'
distinction you are making in the above.

But no, I don't see a purpose (definition 1) for humanity as a
whole. I see a myriad of purposes (definition 2) that humans
create for themselves, even if they then turn around and
externalize the ownership of the purposes, morphing them into
definition 1.

What do you mean when you say 'purpose?'

[snipped]

>> At day's end, I don't think I need a 'purpose.[definition 1]' That's the
>> source of some of the dark humor - as in, "well, if someone
>> insists that I have to have a 'purpose,' then maybe it's to
>> support the bacteria that reside in my colon. Or create plastic."
>> In other words, it's a way of saying, "I don't accept your
>> premise."
>>
>> Or maybe, "I'd prefer to take a less anthropocentric perspective
>> - look at it from the point of view of bacteria, or the planet
>> earth, or Orion, or a black hole three galaxies over: Purpose?
>> humans are far less significant than fly specks on the fabric of
>> the universe."
>
> It's a difficult subject to discuss, partly because neither of us knows
> exactly what reference points the other has.
>
> My current reading leads me to think that scientists are not exploring
> the issue of there being a third choice (the first two being no god at
> all and god made everything Just Like That), such as evolution not being
> only a physical/biological phenomenon.

What do you mean by 'a third choice?' I need more examples.

> I don't see that third alternative as being anthropocentric, either
> (none of evolution is).

Some folks would quibble, taking the point of view that
'evolution' is 'directed' towards a particular endpoint, e.g.,
that it is guided by a 'purpose.' (I'm not one of them.)

> Quite the contrary: It can take us away from
> focusing on details, and instead start seeing the whole. Some of us
> forget that evolution is not necessarily limited to our planet.

Don't count me as one of them.

However, Darwin's theory of evolution was (IIRC) limited to the
evolution of life on earth. Other people speak of the 'evolution
of the planet Earth' or the 'evolution of the solar system' or
the 'evolution of the universe.' So here's another area where we
need to define our terms - to what are we referring when we say
'theory of evolution?'

> Our
> entire solar system may be evolving. Evolution = start with one thing,
> and let it grow and develop into something else, according to
> opportunity and circumstance.

Here's one place where I would quibble with your language...
"_let_ it grow" implies that some agent is allowing growth. I
don't know if you chose the term deliberately or if you were just
speaking colloquially.

I would rewrite that as "Evolution = start with one thing, which
gradually grows and develops into something else." e.g. a
gradual process of change and development.

>>>> I DO have a bit of a twisted, dark sense of humor... I like to look at
>>>> the fabric of society from odd angles.
>>>>
>>>> You need not feel sorry. Laughter is much better.
>>>>
>>>> And: Did you ask in order to understand?
>>> Yes, actually, because yours and Chris's response wasn't unique. In
>>> other discussions like this the atheist/scientific type inevitably
>>> points out the negatives with mankind, even if it's served as a joke.
>> See above. It could mean, "I don't accept your premise."
>
> What did you think was my premise? Or the original poster's premise?

Definition 1, above, that there is some external agent that has
determined or is guiding the evolution towards the 'purpose of
the universe.' That's usually what is meant by the question.

>>> I get that sort of response (without the humor) from the
>>> religious/gnostic side only if they are fundie fruitcakes because they
>>> have Original Sin.
>> ???
>
> In some Christian circles, one believes humans are born losers, because
> of Original Sin. (This in spite of Jesus supposedly taking care of that
> problem.) A rather negative POV, IMO.

Are you dissing them?

>>> So, does it help to have and to share a cynical view, even in jest? I
>>> mean, there must be a reason for choosing that response.
>> It could mean, "I prefer to take a less anthropocentric perspective."
>
> By dissing people?

Here I don't get what you mean - you'll have to be more specific.
I can tell that my comments in this thread have put a burr
under your saddle; I can feel the underlying irritation. But I
don't know precisely what is bothering you. Are you referring to
my quoting George Carlin, in response to Chris's comment, "Given
what we're doing to the planet it wouldn't surprise me if the
planet (or the Purpose in charge of it) had decided that it was
time it got rid of us"? Or quoting Neil deGrasse Tyson? Or is
it that my point of view 'disses' theistic and spiritual
viewpoints by virtue of questioning their premises? Or ???

FurPaw

--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dog.

FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:

> Keera Ann Fox wrote:
> > FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Keera Ann Fox wrote:
> >>> FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Keera Ann Fox wrote:
>
> [snipped]
>
> >>>> I first read this when I was 19. Mulling over this and many other
> >>>> ideas, over the course of the next 40 years, I came to the conclusion
> >>>> that "the purpose" of MY life is whatever I make it, and I accept that
> >>>> "the purpose" dies with me. I don't have any evidence of any other
> >>>> sort of externally-driven purpose to 'life, the universe, and
> >>>> everything' (besides, perhaps, a genetic drive to reproduce my genes,
> >>>> and I defied that biological imperative).
> >>> Isn't that a rather, what's the word I want, defined-by-function view of
> >>> the reason for existing?
> >> ??? I have no idea what you mean here.
> >
> > I'm not able to find the right word.
> >
> > I think I need to ask for clarification: When you say you have not seen
> > an externally-drive purpose to life, following on the statement that you
> > make your own purpose, are you saying that you lack non-physical reasons
> > for existing, or are you saying you don't see a collective reason for
> > existence? You state you see a purpose for yourself, one you make for
> > yourself. I'm trying to understand if that means you don't see a purpose
> > for humanity as a whole.
>
> One problem here is that 'purpose' has several related
> definitions, and it's easy to switch between them without
> changing the word.
>
> When ellen asked, "does the universe have a purpose?" I took that
> to mean this definition: (encarta dictionary)
>
> "1. reason for existence: the reason for which something exists
> or for which it has been done or made
> the purpose of life" - e.g., an externally determined and applied
> purpose, external to 'the universe' or to 'humanity'.
>
> To believe that there is an externally determined purpose, I
> suppose that one must believe that there is some agent that
> determines the purpose.
>
> When I say that "The 'purpose' of my life is whatever I make it,'
> I mean the second definition ...
>
> "2. desired effect: the goal or intended outcome of something
> The purpose of the law is to control pollution."
>
> ... because I don't believe that there needs to be an external
> reason for existence. In my cognitive framework, it just _is_.
> Existence happens. I don't understand the 'either-or'
> distinction you are making in the above.
>
> But no, I don't see a purpose (definition 1) for humanity as a
> whole. I see a myriad of purposes (definition 2) that humans
> create for themselves, even if they then turn around and
> externalize the ownership of the purposes, morphing them into
> definition 1.
>
> What do you mean when you say 'purpose?'

In replying to Ellen, def. 1. In thinking about my own existence... also
def. 1. But in reading about theories about whether or not our existence
truly is coincidental, def. 2 does pop up as a way for def. 1 to be
carried out.

> [snipped]
>
> >> At day's end, I don't think I need a 'purpose.[definition 1]' That's the
> >> source of some of the dark humor - as in, "well, if someone
> >> insists that I have to have a 'purpose,' then maybe it's to
> >> support the bacteria that reside in my colon. Or create plastic."
> >> In other words, it's a way of saying, "I don't accept your
> >> premise."
> >>
> >> Or maybe, "I'd prefer to take a less anthropocentric perspective
> >> - look at it from the point of view of bacteria, or the planet
> >> earth, or Orion, or a black hole three galaxies over: Purpose?
> >> humans are far less significant than fly specks on the fabric of
> >> the universe."
> >
> > It's a difficult subject to discuss, partly because neither of us knows
> > exactly what reference points the other has.
> >
> > My current reading leads me to think that scientists are not exploring
> > the issue of there being a third choice (the first two being no god at
> > all and god made everything Just Like That), such as evolution not being
> > only a physical/biological phenomenon.
>
> What do you mean by 'a third choice?' I need more examples.

For example, evolution on a non-biological level, i.e. mental and
spiritual. One example of this can be found in the 1980's book "The
Awakening Earth" (US title "The Global Brain") where (I'm going by my
memory now) the theory is that planet Earth is itself an individual. The
theory in that book is based on the observation that evolution doesn't
happen gradually, but in leaps. And that some leaps were taken when a
certain critical mass was met, i.e. number of cells cooperating produced
organs, number of brain cells in our brains gave us language. The next
big evolutionary leap would be when the number of people on the planet
reach this magic number (I forget what it is). Basically, a human would
function as a neuron in Earth's brain (forests function as lungs, the
daily rotation as pulse, etc.). A scenario like that also suggests that
it is vital for each human to be healthy and to be the best he or she
can be so as to be a well-functioning neuron. So our personal lives and
habits would then matter to some greater good or function.

In other reading, there is the suggestion that there is no conflict
between some vast creating (life)force that makes and governs the
universe(s) and evolution and free will. Quite the contrary: Evolution,
happenstance and us suiting ourselves _increases_ the opportunities and
methods for this force to unfold and expand. Like a well-run business:
Set it up right, get the right people working and the CEO doesn't have
to do everything himself.

> > I don't see that third alternative as being anthropocentric, either
> > (none of evolution is).
>
> Some folks would quibble, taking the point of view that
> 'evolution' is 'directed' towards a particular endpoint, e.g.,
> that it is guided by a 'purpose.' (I'm not one of them.)

I guess one aspect of believing in a purpose is that it must end
somewhere, that there is a goal to be reached. Yet mystics keep telling
us that the point is the journey itself. I'm thinking that for global
concerns that is probably the best way to see it.

> > Quite the contrary: It can take us away from
> > focusing on details, and instead start seeing the whole. Some of us
> > forget that evolution is not necessarily limited to our planet.
>
> Don't count me as one of them.
>
> However, Darwin's theory of evolution was (IIRC) limited to the
> evolution of life on earth. Other people speak of the 'evolution
> of the planet Earth' or the 'evolution of the solar system' or
> the 'evolution of the universe.' So here's another area where we
> need to define our terms - to what are we referring when we say
> 'theory of evolution?'

Most people mean the one Darwin meant.

> > Our entire solar system may be evolving. Evolution = start with one
> > thing, and let it grow and develop into something else, according to
> > opportunity and circumstance.
>
> Here's one place where I would quibble with your language...
> "_let_ it grow" implies that some agent is allowing growth. I
> don't know if you chose the term deliberately or if you were just
> speaking colloquially.

Speaking colloquially. I mean, I could say "watch" but that would imply
an observer. By "let" I meant "let the process happen without
interference".

> I would rewrite that as "Evolution = start with one thing, which
> gradually grows and develops into something else." e.g. a
> gradual process of change and development.

Yes, much better wording.

> >>>> I DO have a bit of a twisted, dark sense of humor... I like to look at
> >>>> the fabric of society from odd angles.
> >>>>
> >>>> You need not feel sorry. Laughter is much better.
> >>>>
> >>>> And: Did you ask in order to understand?
> >>> Yes, actually, because yours and Chris's response wasn't unique. In
> >>> other discussions like this the atheist/scientific type inevitably
> >>> points out the negatives with mankind, even if it's served as a joke.
> >> See above. It could mean, "I don't accept your premise."
> >
> > What did you think was my premise? Or the original poster's premise?
>
> Definition 1, above, that there is some external agent that has
> determined or is guiding the evolution towards the 'purpose of
> the universe.' That's usually what is meant by the question.
>
> >>> I get that sort of response (without the humor) from the
> >>> religious/gnostic side only if they are fundie fruitcakes because they
> >>> have Original Sin.
> >> ???
> >
> > In some Christian circles, one believes humans are born losers, because
> > of Original Sin. (This in spite of Jesus supposedly taking care of that
> > problem.) A rather negative POV, IMO.
>
> Are you dissing them?

By saying I find this particular religious tenet to be negative? I am
speaking for myself (it is my opinion) so I don't see how.

> >>> So, does it help to have and to share a cynical view, even in jest? I
> >>> mean, there must be a reason for choosing that response.
> >> It could mean, "I prefer to take a less anthropocentric perspective."
> >
> > By dissing people?
>
> Here I don't get what you mean - you'll have to be more specific.

You stated you wanted to be less anthropomorphic. But isn't it
anthropomorphic to be focusing on the flaws of humans in a discussion
about the purpose (if any) of the universe?

> I can tell that my comments in this thread have put a burr
> under your saddle; I can feel the underlying irritation. But I
> don't know precisely what is bothering you. Are you referring to
> my quoting George Carlin, in response to Chris's comment, "Given
> what we're doing to the planet it wouldn't surprise me if the
> planet (or the Purpose in charge of it) had decided that it was
> time it got rid of us"? Or quoting Neil deGrasse Tyson? Or is
> it that my point of view 'disses' theistic and spiritual
> viewpoints by virtue of questioning their premises? Or ???

This part of the thread got started when you quoted Carlin, which
followed on Chris's (IMO, cynical) commentary. That's what kicked all of
this off.

And thank you for taking the time out to answer me. I have noticed that
Chris is mum. :-)

--
Keera in Norway * Think big and then ask for more.
http://home.online.no/~kafox/