Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-04-2016, 07:09 AM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(04-04-2016 10:32 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  I do agree with you that if left alone, some children may come up with some superpower answer for an unknown. But, I really, really think that is the exception, not the rule for the aforementioned reasons. This was the Lord of the Flies reference I made in an earlier post. The earlier posts on this comment by others I though was very spot on.

It seems the other way around to me, particularly given the near universality of religious beliefs, and the minority of actual atheists, who seems to have primarily appeared in recent history more so than in the past. Even in societies today often deemed as primarily non-religious, folks still tend to believe in some life force, or energy, or higher power. The universality here speaks volumes for what the intuitive conclusions we draw would be. In fact we can say that going against our intuitive assumptions, not believing that life has a spiritual, teleological components, requires teaching.

In fact there are studies that show that young children even when raised in non-religious homes, are prone to teleological beliefs, that life is part of some creative order, believing that pointy rocks exist for porcupines to scratch their backs on. We’re meaning seeking creatures, so the fact that we ascribe an intrinsic meanings and purposes intuitively shouldn’t be that surprising. This is not the exception, but the rule. You’re more representative of the exception. Atheism seems to depend more on teaching, than on the intuitive assumptions humanity has long been prone too.

Quote:I do not rule out the idea of some sort of creator, it is just the least likely option to me because nothing supernatural has ever even been demonstrated, so it is therefore the least possible option. The claim that every theist I have ever met is so specific that there is no way that they arrived to that conclusion on their own. Are you suggesting that if left alone with no influence by anyone, a group of kids will determine that the origin of the universe was due to a superbeing who had himself nailed to some wood and the only way to appease this being is to ceremoniously eat him in the form of crackers and juice? I really don't think that would happen.

I don’t think that would happen either.

Minus any explicit christian of atheists influences, a child me would assume we’re part of some created order, that’s there some meaning behind all of this, that is to be sought out and known. An entirely teleological view, only glimpsed but not known.

A growing up me, still minus these influences would perhaps hold to some form of deism, and a more reflective grown up version of myself, would say that whatever meaning is to be found in the world, that’s it both tragic, and hopeful. On one end encapsulating an unavoidable despair, and on the other end a transformative hope. That Goodness is something to be aimed for, that kindness, love are to be sought, that cruelty and hatred to be avoided, all aspects of that meaning glimpsed but not known. That is if I wasn’t increasingly distracted, avoiding contemplating life when possible.

Quote:I do agree with you that if left alone, some children may come up with some superpower answer for an unknown.

And the same can be said possibly of dolphins? That if dolphins can possibly contemplate their origin, they can possibly hold some sort of god belief as a response to this? I just want to know if your consistent here.

I did recently read some articles about some supposedly religious behavior exhibited by chimpanzees, perhaps precursors to human religion: http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archi...y/475731/,

Though it might be somewhat related to the question. So perhaps some others animals possibly do believe in a god of some sort.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2016, 07:18 AM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
"It seems the other way around to me, particularly given the near universality of religious beliefs, and the minority of actual atheists, who seems to have primarily appeared in recent history more so than in the past. Even in societies today often deemed as primarily non-religious, folks still tend to believe in some life force, or energy, or higher power. The universality here speaks volumes for what the intuitive conclusions we draw would be. In fact we can say that going against our intuitive assumptions, not believing that life has a spiritual, teleological components, requires teaching. "

Complete bullshit.

Humans have been around (as a genus) for ~2 million years. The vast majority of human history (ignoring the rest of the animal kingdom) is dominated by NOT having religious beliefs. Extrapolating using your own logic, this would "speak volumes" for the intuitiveness of human logic and indicate that religions are a construction of modern human settlements and not a biological intuition (as you suggest).

Humans, like many animals, are pattern seeking and pattern recognizing animals. The observation that humans find patterns in nature where they do and do not exist, is an indication of the evolutionary trajectory and adaptation of the human brain. There is 0 evidence or logical reason to extrapolate that any further.

As I have asked before, what does the human imagination (such as the construction of beliefs in fairy tales) indicate about the reality of nature?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
05-04-2016, 07:28 AM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(05-04-2016 07:18 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Humans, like many animals, are pattern seeking and pattern recognizing animals. The observation that humans find patterns in nature where they do and do not exist, is an indication of the evolutionary trajectory and adaptation of the human brain. There is 0 evidence or logical reason to extrapolate that any further.

As I have asked before, what does the human imagination (such as the construction of beliefs in fairy tales) indicate about the reality of nature?

The only person talking about extrapolating it further, or about the reality of nature, is you.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2016, 07:33 AM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(05-04-2016 07:28 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-04-2016 07:18 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Humans, like many animals, are pattern seeking and pattern recognizing animals. The observation that humans find patterns in nature where they do and do not exist, is an indication of the evolutionary trajectory and adaptation of the human brain. There is 0 evidence or logical reason to extrapolate that any further.

As I have asked before, what does the human imagination (such as the construction of beliefs in fairy tales) indicate about the reality of nature?

The only person talking about extrapolating it further, or about the reality of nature, is you.

You do realize that you type these things, right?

"The universality here speaks volumes for what the intuitive conclusions we draw would be. In fact we can say that going against our intuitive assumptions, not believing that life has a spiritual, teleological components, requires teaching.

In fact there are studies that show that young children even when raised in non-religious homes, are prone to teleological beliefs, that life is part of some creative order, believing that pointy rocks exist for porcupines to scratch their backs on. We’re meaning seeking creatures, so the fact that we ascribe an intrinsic meanings and purposes intuitively shouldn’t be that surprising. This is not the exception, but the rule. You’re more representative of the exception. Atheism seems to depend more on teaching, than on the intuitive assumptions humanity has long been prone too. "





Human brains seek out and recognize pattern, as do other animal's brains. This is an evolutionary adaptation. Why does that matter? How does it say ANYTHING about your religious bullshit? (and yeah, you keep bringing up your religious quackery even though you claim you don't. Your dishonesty is showing again Drinking Beverage )

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2016, 07:55 AM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(05-04-2016 07:33 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(05-04-2016 07:28 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The only person talking about extrapolating it further, or about the reality of nature, is you.

You do realize that you type these things, right?

"The universality here speaks volumes for what the intuitive conclusions we draw would be. In fact we can say that going against our intuitive assumptions, not believing that life has a spiritual, teleological components, requires teaching.

In fact there are studies that show that young children even when raised in non-religious homes, are prone to teleological beliefs, that life is part of some creative order, believing that pointy rocks exist for porcupines to scratch their backs on. We’re meaning seeking creatures, so the fact that we ascribe an intrinsic meanings and purposes intuitively shouldn’t be that surprising. This is not the exception, but the rule. You’re more representative of the exception. Atheism seems to depend more on teaching, than on the intuitive assumptions humanity has long been prone too. "





Human brains seek out and recognize pattern, as do other animal's brains. This is an evolutionary adaptation. Why does that matter? How does it say ANYTHING about your religious bullshit? (and yeah, you keep bringing up your religious quackery even though you claim you don't. Your dishonesty is showing again Drinking Beverage )

And apparently you don't realize when you yourself are trying to extrapolate further from what was said. No one said anything about the validity of these intuitive assumptions, of whether they reveal anything about the nature of an external reality. I never claimed that any of this supports the veracity of these beliefs. That's not even being discussed.

So learn to pay better attention next time, and don't let your ADD get in the way.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2016, 08:02 AM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(05-04-2016 07:55 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-04-2016 07:33 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You do realize that you type these things, right?

"The universality here speaks volumes for what the intuitive conclusions we draw would be. In fact we can say that going against our intuitive assumptions, not believing that life has a spiritual, teleological components, requires teaching.

In fact there are studies that show that young children even when raised in non-religious homes, are prone to teleological beliefs, that life is part of some creative order, believing that pointy rocks exist for porcupines to scratch their backs on. We’re meaning seeking creatures, so the fact that we ascribe an intrinsic meanings and purposes intuitively shouldn’t be that surprising. This is not the exception, but the rule. You’re more representative of the exception. Atheism seems to depend more on teaching, than on the intuitive assumptions humanity has long been prone too. "





Human brains seek out and recognize pattern, as do other animal's brains. This is an evolutionary adaptation. Why does that matter? How does it say ANYTHING about your religious bullshit? (and yeah, you keep bringing up your religious quackery even though you claim you don't. Your dishonesty is showing again Drinking Beverage )

And apparently you don't realize when you yourself are trying to extrapolate further from what was said. No one said anything about the validity of these intuitive assumptions, of whether they reveal anything about the nature of an external reality. I never claimed that any of this supports the veracity of these beliefs. That's not even being discussed.

So learn to pay better attention next time, and don't let your ADD get in the way.

You bring it up, but then claim you don't bring it up? You see it as significant, but don't want to defend why it is significant to you?

Dishonest tool. Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
05-04-2016, 08:05 AM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
Some animal's brains seek out and recognize pattern. This does NOT mean that atheism is a taught trait (as you explicitly claim). I don't even know how you extrapolate to that conclusion, but I assume it is from a deep-seated ignorance.

Why does pattern seeking in animal brains (human or otherwise) seem significant to you with respect to your religious bullshit?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2016, 08:15 AM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
Tomasia, why are you here? You obviously have nothing to offer to sway a person interested in fact to your side. So why bother?

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
05-04-2016, 08:19 AM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(05-04-2016 08:15 AM)Banjo Wrote:  Tomasia, why are you here? You obviously have nothing to offer to sway a person interested in fact to your side. So why bother?

Yep. Sometimes I wonder if tomasia is really a troll or
Not but I give him the benefit of the doubt.

Religion is bullshit. The winner of the last person to post wins thread.Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Leo's post
05-04-2016, 08:20 AM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(05-04-2016 08:19 AM)Leo Wrote:  
(05-04-2016 08:15 AM)Banjo Wrote:  Tomasia, why are you here? You obviously have nothing to offer to sway a person interested in fact to your side. So why bother?

Yep sometimes I wonder if tomasia is really a troll or
Not but I give him the benefit of the doubt.

Don't worry, the benefit of the doubt will disintegrate sooner rather than later. Thumbsup

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: