Science and religion

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by dpmartin

There must be purpose; for life acts with purpose, which is, to live. If there where no purpose there would be no order at all.

This is a teleological statement that might make sense to Aristotle, the 2300-year old master of all rational teleologists, but the statement is wholly and completely incompatible with science as we know it in the last 400 years since Sir Newton's feet were gravitationally attracted to our planetary mass. Aristotle believed that the heavenly bodies naturally moved in circles, it was their end to move that way. Newton showed that planets move in straight lines, but due to gravity change direction in every instant and the end effect is circular. In other words, from Newtonian mechanics on through to the present, we understand that there is no purpose (from a scientific point of view), there is only mechanism.

Living is a process, not a goal. Life is a condition, not an end. Purposes are things that we rationally project onto longitudinal processes, but purposes do not fall within the domain of scientific speculation or inquiry. We can talk about mechanisms, or function, or interactions, or roles, but we cannot talk about purpose in science. If your aim is purpose, then science isn't your tool.

[Scattered]

Aedes,
You want to invalidate Dr. Watson. It doesn't change what happened. It also makes me careful of what you use to support your arguements.
Cool enough, but the way you say it, it seems you think it started with antisemitism. I think that is a bad thing because then it makes zenophobia look like some new thing and an abbaration. You are quite right that Social Darwinism existed before somebody thought up a theory about it, but it also existed before there were cities. Tribes and clans have fought through history, worldwide. No, it's the norm and is for a rational reason including genetics. When tribes mix, there is only an advantage after the long time it takes for effective hybridization between the tribes. Most of the time, under natural conditions, it is bad for tribes to mix. The first generation hybrid is stronger, but after that the generations tend to be weaker than the parenals. Religion has been one of the primary tools for keeping tribes apart, especailly in a multi-cast society. Western society is primarily 4 tribes hybridized together starting with the tribal groups of Sumeria, but it took a long time.
What you are talking about with fighter pilots and individual medical survival is about individuals, that is the level of normal Darwinian Natural Selection. Social Darwinism is an aspect of apparent selection at the level of groups. One group lives, one group dies. Group selection is a far more complicated and debatable than individual natural selection.
.
dpmartin,
Wow!
>>There must be purpose; for life acts with purpose, which is, to live.
Now that is one I go for. That is what I base all my studies in biology on.
Reading the rest, I see some great views, but I'm not entirely which ones you most subscribe to.
...
You seem thoughtful. Question. There was once a universe and in it evolved "humans". They prospered and grew and became so advanced that they were unimaginable to us. If they created a universe, perhaps hearalded by a big bang, with the intention that it would be a good place for humans and other forms of life to develop, would that make them a God? How about if they sometimes assisted "humans" by teaching them moral lessons?
Just a scattered thought...

[Aedes]

I don't entirely invalidate Watson -- but he is one of the last people whom I would regard as a flagbearer of scientific ethics.

I certainly don't contend that it starts with anti-Semitism -- I just happened to be able to name a specific example of Social Darwinism from 15th century Spain as a counterpoint to the obvious post-Darwin anti-Semitic Social Darwinism under the Nazis.

Genetic screening operates at the level of the population -- while it will variably affect the lives of individuals, the net movement for cystic fibrosis patients is that they now mostly survive to adulthood, whereas even just a few years ago only 50% would make it until 20. Healthy women with CF can (and do) have children, and pass on that CF gene. (Men with CF are sterile). So as a population, we have more adults with previously fatal genetic illnesses. I was taking care of a 38 year old sickle cell patient last week who has a 16 year old daughter who also has sickle cell. So at the level of the population, we're making it possible for genetically ill patients to survive and take part in our society.

Anyway, my point is that genetic screening runs counter to Social Darwinism, because it validates the presence of genetically "weaker" groups (as defined by a common genetic characteristic) in our society -- and it validates the expense of resources and time to support those groups. And these are racially targeted too, because, for example, sickle cell is far more common among blacks and CF is far more common among whites -- so screening is directed accordingly.

I've mostly said my piece about life having purpose. But again I find that biologically unsound by virtue of its open teleology, which is simply not part of biology -- and teleology is specifically taught out of students in the sciences.

Life is self-sustaining. Animals preserve themselves by eating, fleeing, fighting, reproducing, etc. But that doesn't mean that living is a purpose -- it means that entrenched in behavior and biology are traits that foster self-preservation -- that need not be consistent with purpose. And lest we forget, things like mushrooms and ferns and seaweed are alive too -- i.e. nonsentient, vegetative organisms. Is their purpose to live? If so, you can just as easily say that the purpose of a dead squirrel is to be dead, or the purpose of a rock is to be a rock.

[Scattered]

Hmmmmmm.
I admit that survival is an instinct in animals.
Could it apply to plants? Their purpose is not to live, it is to survive in an evolutionary sense. Is there a difference there?
Is there a difference in the purpose of concious survival?
Interesting... In a way you seem to be saying that there cannot be a purpose to survival. Cannot survival be a purpose? (To me, survival always means in an evolutionary sense)

[Aedes]

Survival can be a purpose if you're self-consciously doing somthing with the intention of surviving.

But in an evolutionary sense survival is a result, not a purpose. Organisms survive because they are able to biologically survive under the conditions in which they live; and vice versa. And the same is true for successful reproduction.

And that's why even in conscious, "rational" beings as ourselves, we have irrational feedback processes to get us to do things that are advantageous. As a general rule adult humans don't have sex for the purpose of reproduction (or at least not only because of that) -- they have sex because of all the instinctive factors that attract them to one another and the physical pleasure of the act. In other words, the process of reproduction happens because our bodies are biologically "incentivized" to do it, not because it's our biological purpose -- and that's similarly why humans have sex even when they clearly do not want to reproduce, or even when they clearly can not reproduce. By the same token we are biologically incentivized to eat because it's uncomfortable to be hungry but satiating to be full. And we are biologically incentivized to sleep, breathe, and everything else.

Some of these are unconscious -- like our autonomic nervous system which respondes compensatorily to changes in blood pressure or blood volume or whatever. But it's the same thing -- we raise our heart rate in response to low blood pressure because there is a neurovascular reflex that stimulates it -- and the end effect, the apparent purpose, is to raise the heart rate to sustain our cardiac output -- but this happens via an unconscious reflex, not with an end effect in mind.

[Scattered]

OK, that's all cool, but
>>self-consciously doing somthing with the intention of surviving
In a way, this suggests I should ask when are we conciously doing it verses unconciously. That would lead to Maslow, self awareness and other things, racheda, racheda, racheda... So that seems to not be a problem.
I guess then it's a question of genetic programming as well. We are programmed to survive, no doubt. I call that faith in humans. We can also make it a concious matter. Evolution and demographics suggest though that it will always be selected for to operate at an instinctual level. Hmmmm. Well, I have always said that a key will be self awareness, which will be true no matter how strong ths instincts.... Then again, I have said that the moral issue is birth control, because that is where the strategy of the instinct operates. Have sex, have babies. Maybe that's it. Channel reproductive instincts to soemthing that is highly conciously controllable. So look at demographics and see what is creating babies and why. Is it concious or instinctual. It seems to be the habit of family in a context of religion. A highly adaptive religion based on survival... Well, for whatever it's worth, it seems to follow the pattern I have been developing for a long time. ... Cool, I don't often get offered many thoughts or considerations worth the time to think about. Well, I guess that is why there is a philosophy BBS.

[Aedes]

Yup, I think you have it right. To have sex or not have sex is a complex decision with many variables -- and there are three big ones these days -- the relationship aspect and how sex fits into an interpersonal relationship; the reproductive aspect and how intention / desire / lack of desire to reproduce fits in; and the risk aspect with things like STDs. It leaves a lot of room for moralization when these variables come into contact with religious institutions.

[dpmartin]

Aedse
But as in the example of Newton, it toke insight, and understanding to even wonder about gravity, of which the knowledge was there all the time but do to his talent was able to not only have the insight but all the other skills, and the opportunity, to express his findings to others that they may not only understand but use. He did not make the knowledge, he learned it.

"Living is a process, not a goal. Life is a condition, not an end. Purposes are things that we rationally project onto longitudinal processes, but purposes do not fall within the domain of scientific speculation or inquiry."

I am presuming you would admit that you are alive at this particular time. If your trying to show that there is no purpose. Then would you not be doing that for a purpose? To show that there is no purpose. That is not just a mechanisms, or function, or interactions, or roles. To show that there is no purpose, is that a process, or a goal, is it a condition and not an end. Is it not a goal to show there is no purpose? Would that be a purpose, to show that there is no purpose?

It amazes me how some science wiz’s can pretend they do not find, nor seek purpose in there pursuits, without realizing that in essence they are saying what they do has no purpose. For if there is no purpose, then there is no purpose in what they do, or think, or say, nor in the results of their findings. No offence Aedes it just don’t stand to reason that one who lives and does for the purpose of, every day, and says there is no purpose. I mean you wiggle through traffic when your late for work for the purpose of getting to work with the goal in mind of getting there on time. Science or not. Engineering is the search for and application of the known, I always thought science was the search for the unknown and the never done before.
*********

Scattered

"You seem thoughtful. Question. There was once a universe and in it evolved "humans". They prospered and grew and became so advanced that they were unimaginable to us. If they created a universe, perhaps hearalded by a big bang, with the intention that it would be a good place for humans and other forms of life to develop, would that make them a God? How about if they sometimes assisted "humans" by teaching them moral lessons?"

I prefer this one...
If the universe was created, perhaps hearalded by a big bang, with the intention that it would be a good place for humans and other forms of life to develop, would the creator be God? How about if "humans" came to know God by the revaluation of God to "humans" as a "human" so that "humans" could become sons of God, prosper and grow and became so close to God it would be unimaginable to us?

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Yup, I think you have it right. To have sex or not have sex is a complex decision with many variables -- and there are three big ones these days -- the relationship aspect and how sex fits into an interpersonal relationship; the reproductive aspect and how intention / desire / lack of desire to reproduce fits in; and the risk aspect with things like STDs. It leaves a lot of room for moralization when these variables come into contact with religious institutions.

I bet you are great in bed. Do you always have the calculator turned on at least?

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by dpmartin

"Living is a process, not a goal. Life is a condition, not an end. Purposes are things that we rationally project onto longitudinal processes, but purposes do not fall within the domain of scientific speculation or inquiry."

I am presuming you would admit that you are alive at this particular time. If your trying to show that there is no purpose. Then would you not be doing that for a purpose? To show that there is no purpose. That is not just a mechanisms, or function, or interactions, or roles. To show that there is no purpose, is that a process, or a goal, is it a condition and not an end. Is it not a goal to show there is no purpose? Would that be a purpose, to show that there is no purpose?

1. I am alive
2. I am trying to show that "living" is not a purpose of life
3. My purposes are not metaphysically tied to any absolute purpose. I have intentions behind deliberate actions, and the consequences I hope for are the purposes that I apply
4. Consciousness allows us to think of purpose. Without consciousness there is no purpose. I am interacting with you consciously and self-consciously, and I have purposes (for letters to appear on the screen that correspond to my thoughts, and for them to appear on your screen for you to become aware of my thoughts, etc). But my sinoatrial node, which tells my heart how fast to beat, is not working with the purpose of doing that because it's involuntary -- it's just firing because of a self-regulating biological mechanism.

Originally Posted by Fido

I bet you are great in bed. Do you always have the calculator turned on at least?

I sometimes forget that some people aren't used to casually and non-judgementally chatting about sex, ****, piss, pus, phlegm, drugs, and rashes. I promise to make it PG-13 for you next time.