You say that as if an established scientific fact when it is no more than a speculative theory.
My terminology was wrong, as I admit there is no way of proving there was not a deity that made us in his image about 3000 years ago (despite the fact he created everything), and while he was creating black holes, quasars, supernovas, etc, he dropped by on his most recent creation and gifted us the miracle of scripture, and gave us tips on what to eat, what to wear, how to covet our neighbours women and goats, etc. This god is obvioiusly divine and definiately not created by humans.
You say that as if an established scientific fact when it is no more than a speculative theory.
You're saying its no more than a speculatiive theory to suggest the 3000 year old superstions of a "flash in the pan" species within a 14 billion year old universe are perhaps not fact? This is why we will be a mere footnote in time. Despite the valiant efforts of our most intelligent, our species is quite simply too stupid and superstitious to progress to level 2.
I think the overall gist is accurate enough. The Universe sprung into existence some 13 billion years ago, vast clouds of atoms were formed which condensed into galaxies, and then microbial life on Earth evolved via natural selection to create the species we see today.
For those with eyes to see and a mind to think, the existence of god is so unlikely as to be all but impossible.
But isn't the idea of spontaneous creation just as big a cop-out as the belief in some kind of God (or call it some as yet unknown force if that makes it easier).
Stephen Hawking states that..“Because there is a law like gravity the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”
Fair enough. But when he says “the universe can and will create itself from nothing”, the “nothing” he’s talking about isn’t the standard definition of the word (i.e. “no thing”, non-being). Instead, he’s very much referring to “something”, in this case gravity, space, a quantum vacuum, and a set of laws at work referred to as M-Theory.
It's still not non-existence (in any real sense) becoming existence, that would really would be a conjuring trick beyond even today's scientific reasoning. I suppose the question is..why should there "be" at all ?
It's interesting to me though that people here are anxious to downplay the importance of human beings : the word "insignificant" keeps popping up both in relation to human life and the earth. Let's assume for a moment we are the only beings in the universe who are conscious of it's existence. Wouldn't that make us really big players in the general scheme of things? For starters, we are verifying that it actually exists and that it is not a trick or illusion. When you think about it, it is absolutely staggering that there are conscious beings living in this vast universe who are actually aware it exists....almost a miracle.
When I say bleak or negative, I'm referring to this downplaying of our role to being mere ants in a gigantic desert. Such an opinion doesn't seem to hold humanity in high esteem at all : there is nothing great or special about human life according to this rather fatalistic version of events, it is utterly insignificant and without purpose (and anyone who departs from this narrative and suggest that human life is special or even sacred is a inflated egomaniac with delusions of grandeur).
Not trying to downplay anything, just saying it as I see it and our planet is insignificant, when you bear in mind the vastness of the universe. I believe it's statistically likely that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe but due to the vast distances between us and even the nearest stars, I have accepted that I will almost certainly never know for sure.
Don't particularly hold humanity in high esteem, some humans are very bad, some are very good and everything in between. We have evolved into what we are today and are currently the dominant species on our planet, but that's as far as it goes, there's no reason to assume we are special or the most advanced species in the universe.
Can't really understand why you need humanity to be seen as special or sacred, does it make any difference to the quality of your life?
It's interesting to me though that people here are anxious to downplay the importance of human beings : the word "insignificant" keeps popping up both in relation to human life and the earth. Let's assume for a moment we are the only beings in the universe who are conscious of it's existence. Wouldn't that make us really big players in the general scheme of things? For starters, we are verifying that it actually exists and that it is not a trick or illusion. When you think about it, it is absolutely staggering that there are conscious beings living in this vast universe who are actually aware it exists....almost a miracle.
When I say bleak or negative, I'm referring to this constant downplaying of our role to being mere ants in a gigantic desert. Such an opinion doesn't seem to hold humanity in high esteem at all : there is nothing great or special about human life according to this rather fatalistic version of events, it is utterly insignificant and without purpose (and anyone who departs from this narrative and suggest that human life is special or even sacred is a inflated egomaniac with delusions of grandeur).
The word vanity has two meanings. There's excessive pride in or admiration of one's own appearance or achievements and there's the quality of being worthless, pathetic or futile.
Neither state is a position of strength or healthy and both are associated, with the thinking that encourages individuality, specialness, and separation from each other, and everything else, through conceit, narcissism, self-absorption, futility, idleness, anxiety, and fear.
Because I'm not an atheist and don't worship at the altar of science. The "life has no meaning" thesis does sound a pretty bleak and negative one by the way, and it has been repeated quite a few times in this thread. Many people in this world feel their life has a higher purpose and that there is a reason they exist, and that they are not just a bunch of cells and molecules that happens to find itself living on a rock in space.
Well they're the bald facts. Being disappointed with them isn't a good reason to make things up and invent meaning and purpose where there isn't any.
You'll be forever frustrated if you seek explanations for things which don't require explanation.
To quote Homer Simpson, "It's all just some stuff that happened."
Trite as it may seem, I've found that philosophy really useful. Don't complicate life by looking for things that aren't there, you're wasting the precious time that just happened to land in your lap for no predetermined reason whatsoever.
My terminology was wrong, as I admit there is no way of proving there was not a deity that made us in his image about 3000 years ago (despite the fact he created everything), and while he was creating black holes, quasars, supernovas, etc, he dropped by on his most recent creation and gifted us the miracle of scripture, and gave us tips on what to eat, what to wear, how to covet our neighbours women and goats, etc. This god is obvioiusly divine and definiately not created by humans.
Well that god probably is, or at least interpreted that way by humans. You're arguing against the existence of an old testement god, when no is actually putting that forward. All religious ideas are just human interpretations and influenced by human bias and culture.
The word vanity has two meanings. There's excessive pride in or admiration of one's own appearance or achievements and there's the quality of being worthless, pathetic or futile.
Neither state is a position of strength or healthy and both are associated, with the thinking that encourages individuality, specialness, and separation from each other, and everything else, through conceit, narcissism, self-absorption, futility, idleness, anxiety, and fear.
Without the notion of self, how can there be personal accountability for actions and behaviours which harm the 'whole'.
Well they're the bald facts. Being disappointed with them isn't a good reason to make things up and invent meaning and purpose where there isn't any.
You'll be forever frustrated if you seek explanations for things which don't require explanation.
They are the bald facts of you're interpretation of things. Everyone wants to have this knowledge and certainty of their place, but we're nowhere near to working that out. People have a real problem with just going along with the mystery of it all, they need an answer be it religious or materialist. If it works for you great but people tend to get defensive and divisive about it all, which is where all the religious strife arises
To quote Homer Simpson, "It's all just some stuff that happened."
Brilliant outlook. As a non atheist I think it's sound advice.
Without the notion of self, how can there be personal accountability for actions and behaviours which harm the 'whole'.
The whole can't possibly be harmed because it's everything that there is and everything that's real. There isn't anything else. Personal accountability isn't required because of the recognition that harm can only be done to oneself to further enhance the illusion and pain of separateness. Theft would be like stealing something off yourself when you already have it and charity and forgiveness steps in the direction of recognising the truth of this. The nature of Self as whole is not the same or to be confused with the muddied and muddled version of the nature of self as human. imo.
The whole can't possibly be harmed because it's everything that there is and everything that's real. There isn't anything else. Personal accountability isn't required because of the recognition that harm can only be done to oneself to further enhance the illusion and pain of separateness. Theft would be like stealing something off yourself when you already have it and charity and forgiveness steps in the direction of recognising the truth of this. The nature of Self as whole is not the same or to be confused with the muddied and muddled version of the nature of self as human. imo.
Then in your view there is no concept of theft as it is impossible to steal from yourself ?
Then in your view there is no concept of theft as it is impossible to steal from yourself ?
In my view there is a concept of theft because I have an ego mindset which includes a body. If I had no concept of theft I wouldn't lock my doors at night. Other minds in my environment also have a concept of theft. In fact thinking about this, pretty much my entire house and work environment is about the protection of my body and my stuff. Old habits die hard.
On the other hand though I never even think about intentionally stealing something off someone else.
But isn't the idea of spontaneous creation just as big a cop-out as the belief in some kind of God (or call it some as yet unknown force if that makes it easier).
Stephen Hawking states that..“Because there is a law like gravity the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”
Fair enough. But when he says “the universe can and will create itself from nothing”, the “nothing” he’s talking about isn’t the standard definition of the word (i.e. “no thing”, non-being). Instead, he’s very much referring to “something”, in this case gravity, space, a quantum vacuum, and a set of laws at work referred to as M-Theory.
It's still not non-existence (in any real sense) becoming existence, that would really would be a conjuring trick beyond even today's scientific reasoning. I suppose the question is..why should there "be" at all ?
Whether it sprung from something or nothing misses the point I was trying to make i.e. that the age of the Universe is about 13.7 billion years and therefore the Universe 'began' to all intents and purposes (whether it had previous lives or not) 13.7 billion years ago. Imagine you were 27-years-old. You would say that you were born 27 years ago but that's not when you were conceived or when the sperm and ovum were formed. etc. etc.
Who knows what happened before the Universe began but as we explore quantum mechanics (and the Universe) in greater depths I'm confident that some things which seem unanswerable now will be resolved.
I remember when I was growing up it was impossible for anyone to discuss what happened before the Big Bang. In the astronomy books I read, the question was always dismissed as pointless, futile and a waste of time. Now we have numerous fascinating theories that are based on science even if they remain untested. Will string theory be proved correct? Who knows. But how exciting that people can even speculate in a meaningful way!
(I agree that some physicists like to move the goalposts when talking about 'nothingness'. It seems that you can get something from nothing if 'nothing' refers to a vacuum with a specific point in time and space).
If we could convince superstious folk to take an interest in science and the universe, they would realise there is so much wonder and awseome things to discover. Your Abrahaimc religion and blatantly created by blokes tribal scripture may tell you that the fact you're living on a rock in space is boring, and I'll respect that belilef as it's "religious", but free your mind from human created nonsense and open your mind to the sheer wonder of it all.
I've never found anything (Quran excluded) that implied the creator of the universe gave a **** what we ate, who we shagged, what our women wore, or what days we worked, during the last Mars or Titan missions..
I think one of the talents we have as humans is to be able to tolerate, simultaneously, views that sit awkwardly together. Our brains don't explode just because we tolerate apparent incompatibilities.
Football psychologists wear their lucky suits to matches and we are quite capable of using both science and religion appropriately without feeling we have to make some artificial decision between them.
Whether it sprung from something or nothing misses the point I was trying to make i.e. that the age of the Universe is about 13.7 billion years and therefore the Universe 'began' to all intents and purposes (whether it had previous lives or not) 13.7 billion years ago. Imagine you were 27-years-old. You would say that you were born 27 years ago but that's not when you were conceived or when the sperm and ovum were formed. etc. etc.
Who knows what happened before the Universe began but as we explore quantum mechanics (and the Universe) in greater depths I'm confident that some things which seem unanswerable now will be resolved.
I remember when I was growing up it was impossible for anyone to discuss what happened before the Big Bang. In the astronomy books I read, the question was always dismissed as pointless, futile and a waste of time. Now we have numerous fascinating theories that are based on science even if they remain untested. Will string theory be proved correct? Who knows. But how exciting that people can even speculate in a meaningful way!
(I agree that some physicists like to move the goalposts when talking about 'nothingness'. It seems that you can get something from nothing if 'nothing' refers to a vacuum with a specific point in time and space).
Yes, I certainly remember being told it was futile to even think about a "before" the Big Bang. You were just instructed that there was no "before", that everything just began including time itself. Whilst understanding the concept, that was never enough for me. There must always have been existence because non-existence (as a total abscence of anything, even the nothing into which existence could begin) is impossible to conceive. Try doing it and your brain really does start hurting.
Yes, I certainly remember being told it was futile to even think about a "before" the Big Bang. You were just instructed that there was no "before", that everything just began including time itself. Whilst understanding the concept, that was never enough for me. There must always have been existence because non-existence (as a total abscence of anything, even the nothing into which existence could begin) is impossible to conceive. Try doing it and your brain really does start hurting.
Such questions were usually relegated to the realms of theology and philosophy. I love the fact that science has now moved onto their turf.
In the recent Brian Cox series, 'Human Universe', there was an interesting idea that our universe (I didn't understand it exactly) might've been created from a kind of sea of energy, with peaks and troughs in the waves. The trough of one energy wave was depicted as going slightly deeper than the rest at which point a 'blob' of pure energy broke away from the rest and the resulting expansion of that energy created our Big Bang.
The multiverse theory is extremely compelling, IMO. The chances of a single, one-off universe being exactly right to allow for the creation of matter and the sustained formation of galaxies, stars, planets and life are exceedingly slim. If protons had only 0.2% more mass than they do then the formation of atoms would've been impossible.
It's hard to explain such fine tuning without resorting to a multiverse model. Maybe there are billions of universes, or an infinite number, some of which last for seconds and some of which, like ours, have the right properties to enable atoms (and therefore us) to be created.
Not trying to downplay anything, just saying it as I see it and our planet is insignificant, when you bear in mind the vastness of the universe. I believe it's statistically likely that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe but due to the vast distances between us and even the nearest stars, I have accepted that I will almost certainly never know for sure.
Don't particularly hold humanity in high esteem, some humans are very bad, some are very good and everything in between. We have evolved into what we are today and are currently the dominant species on our planet, but that's as far as it goes, there's no reason to assume we are special or the most advanced species in the universe.
Can't really understand why you need humanity to be seen as special or sacred, does it make any difference to the quality of your life?
Let's assume for a moment that we are the only planet in the universe with intelligent life on it and that the billions of other planets are lifeless. Wouldn't that suggest that far from being an insignificant speck of dust, that it would be the most significant planet in the universe by a long, long way, even from a scientific perspective?
If we go to the counter theory of intelligent life forms existing throughout the universe (perhaps even millions of them), wouldn't that in turn indicate that intelligence and consciousness are very much part of the "blueprint" of the universe?
Well they're the bald facts. Being disappointed with them isn't a good reason to make things up and invent meaning and purpose where there isn't any.
You'll be forever frustrated if you seek explanations for things which don't require explanation.
To quote Homer Simpson, "It's all just some stuff that happened."
Trite as it may seem, I've found that philosophy really useful. Don't complicate life by looking for things that aren't there, you're wasting the precious time that just happened to land in your lap for no predetermined reason whatsoever.
That mindset might work perfectly well for 'glass half empty' people but I suspect many of those who are religious are of the 'glass half full' variety - atheists will always go for the more depressing interpretation of why the universe exists, and religious people go for the optimistic one.
That mindset might work perfectly well for 'glass half empty' people but I suspect many of those who are religious are of the 'glass half full' variety - atheists will always go for the more depressing interpretation of why the universe exists, and religious people go for the optimistic one.
What is so optimistic about having to spend all eternity in the company of a sadistic, psychopathic and all powerful dictator like Yahweh?
Let's assume for a moment that we are the only planet in the universe with intelligent life on it and that the billions of other planets are lifeless. Wouldn't that suggest that far from being an insignificant speck of dust, that it would be the most significant planet in the universe by a long, long way, even from a scientific perspective?
If we go to the counter theory of intelligent life forms existing throughout the universe (perhaps even millions of them), wouldn't that in turn indicate that intelligence and consciousness are very much part of the "blueprint" of the universe?
It's a huge assumption to make that our planet is the only one with intelligent life and as I said previously, we will almost certainly never find out for certain if there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.
But it doesn't matter if we are the only intelligent life form or just one amongst millions, it doesn't indicate that there must be any kind of "blueprint", it just happened to turn out to be like that.
That mindset might work perfectly well for 'glass half empty' people but I suspect many of those who are religious are of the 'glass half full' variety - atheists will always go for the more depressing interpretation of why the universe exists, and religious people go for the optimistic one.
Not going to speak on behalf of other atheists, but I don't see the scientific interpretation of why the universe exists as being depressing, it's realistic. Also don't really see the religious interpretation as being optimistic, but would use the word 'fanciful'.
That mindset might work perfectly well for 'glass half empty' people but I suspect many of those who are religious are of the 'glass half full' variety - atheists will always go for the more depressing interpretation of why the universe exists, and religious people go for the optimistic one.
First and foremost, whether something is happy and optimistic is not an indication of whether or not that thing is any more likely to be true.
Secondly, I don't consider the scientific view of the universe to be particularly depressing. There is plenty to marvel at and be amazed at in out universe, be that gigantic galactic networks, life or matter itself. But there is also plenty of stuff which we find unpleasant.
All of this, IMO, is indicative of a "shit happens" worldview. I don't feel a need to assign responsibility to a magical deity for bad things or good things which happen. Things just happen with no grand higher purpose.
Let's assume for a moment that we are the only planet in the universe with intelligent life on it and that the billions of other planets are lifeless. Wouldn't that suggest that far from being an insignificant speck of dust, that it would be the most significant planet in the universe by a long, long way, even from a scientific perspective?
If we go to the counter theory of intelligent life forms existing throughout the universe (perhaps even millions of them), wouldn't that in turn indicate that intelligence and consciousness are very much part of the "blueprint" of the universe?
Again, you're arbitrarily applying meaning to something after the fact.
If we're the only ones it's because it just doesn't happen to have cropped up anywhere else, if not it's because its nothing remarkable.
You can't infer optimism or pessimism from either your view or mine but you're arbitrarily deciding that your view is positive and mine negative in order to bolster an empty and utterly baseless view that things have to have meaning.
Bottom line is, what does it matter what people believe. If it makes sense to you and fits comfortably into your way of working with the world and that way doesn't interfere with anyone elses so be it.
It's a huge assumption to make that our planet is the only one with intelligent life and as I said previously, we will almost certainly never find out for certain if there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.
But it doesn't matter if we are the only intelligent life form or just one amongst millions, it doesn't indicate that there must be any kind of "blueprint", it just happened to turn out to be like that.
Not going to speak on behalf of other atheists, but I don't see the scientific interpretation of why the universe exists as being depressing, it's realistic. Also don't really see the religious interpretation as being optimistic, but would use the word 'fanciful'.
Well if there were millions of intelligent life forms, it would tell us that they were very much part of the universe and intended to be there (if "intended" can ever be the right word). If there were that many forms of intelligence and consciousness, it would also raise the fundamental question as to why there was so much of it in the universe. Would it have a purpose of some description? The universe can function perfectly well without intelligence and yet if it was everywhere, it might suggest that it had some (yet to be defined) role to play.
On the second point, don't pessimists and 'half glass empty' people always claim they are merely being "realistic"?
Again, you're arbitrarily applying meaning to something after the fact.
If we're the only ones it's because it just doesn't happen to have cropped up anywhere else, if not it's because its nothing remarkable.
You can't infer optimism or pessimism from either your view or mine but you're arbitrarily deciding that your view is positive and mine negative in order to bolster an empty and utterly baseless view that things have to have meaning.
Well I believe there have been a considerable number of scientific studies to try and ascertain whether atheists or religious people are happy or depressed - it's not hard to guess which group invariably comes out worse in the happiness stakes. Atheists might say they are merely being realistic, but that type of mindset doesn't necessarily lend itself to feelings of positivity and optimism about the future.
Comments
My terminology was wrong, as I admit there is no way of proving there was not a deity that made us in his image about 3000 years ago (despite the fact he created everything), and while he was creating black holes, quasars, supernovas, etc, he dropped by on his most recent creation and gifted us the miracle of scripture, and gave us tips on what to eat, what to wear, how to covet our neighbours women and goats, etc. This god is obvioiusly divine and definiately not created by humans.
You're saying its no more than a speculatiive theory to suggest the 3000 year old superstions of a "flash in the pan" species within a 14 billion year old universe are perhaps not fact? This is why we will be a mere footnote in time. Despite the valiant efforts of our most intelligent, our species is quite simply too stupid and superstitious to progress to level 2.
But isn't the idea of spontaneous creation just as big a cop-out as the belief in some kind of God (or call it some as yet unknown force if that makes it easier).
Stephen Hawking states that..“Because there is a law like gravity the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”
Fair enough. But when he says “the universe can and will create itself from nothing”, the “nothing” he’s talking about isn’t the standard definition of the word (i.e. “no thing”, non-being). Instead, he’s very much referring to “something”, in this case gravity, space, a quantum vacuum, and a set of laws at work referred to as M-Theory.
It's still not non-existence (in any real sense) becoming existence, that would really would be a conjuring trick beyond even today's scientific reasoning. I suppose the question is..why should there "be" at all ?
Not trying to downplay anything, just saying it as I see it and our planet is insignificant, when you bear in mind the vastness of the universe. I believe it's statistically likely that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe but due to the vast distances between us and even the nearest stars, I have accepted that I will almost certainly never know for sure.
Don't particularly hold humanity in high esteem, some humans are very bad, some are very good and everything in between. We have evolved into what we are today and are currently the dominant species on our planet, but that's as far as it goes, there's no reason to assume we are special or the most advanced species in the universe.
Can't really understand why you need humanity to be seen as special or sacred, does it make any difference to the quality of your life?
The word vanity has two meanings. There's excessive pride in or admiration of one's own appearance or achievements and there's the quality of being worthless, pathetic or futile.
Neither state is a position of strength or healthy and both are associated, with the thinking that encourages individuality, specialness, and separation from each other, and everything else, through conceit, narcissism, self-absorption, futility, idleness, anxiety, and fear.
Well they're the bald facts. Being disappointed with them isn't a good reason to make things up and invent meaning and purpose where there isn't any.
You'll be forever frustrated if you seek explanations for things which don't require explanation.
To quote Homer Simpson, "It's all just some stuff that happened."
Trite as it may seem, I've found that philosophy really useful. Don't complicate life by looking for things that aren't there, you're wasting the precious time that just happened to land in your lap for no predetermined reason whatsoever.
Well that god probably is, or at least interpreted that way by humans. You're arguing against the existence of an old testement god, when no is actually putting that forward. All religious ideas are just human interpretations and influenced by human bias and culture.
Without the notion of self, how can there be personal accountability for actions and behaviours which harm the 'whole'.
They are the bald facts of you're interpretation of things. Everyone wants to have this knowledge and certainty of their place, but we're nowhere near to working that out. People have a real problem with just going along with the mystery of it all, they need an answer be it religious or materialist. If it works for you great but people tend to get defensive and divisive about it all, which is where all the religious strife arises
Brilliant outlook. As a non atheist I think it's sound advice.
The whole can't possibly be harmed because it's everything that there is and everything that's real. There isn't anything else. Personal accountability isn't required because of the recognition that harm can only be done to oneself to further enhance the illusion and pain of separateness. Theft would be like stealing something off yourself when you already have it and charity and forgiveness steps in the direction of recognising the truth of this. The nature of Self as whole is not the same or to be confused with the muddied and muddled version of the nature of self as human. imo.
Then in your view there is no concept of theft as it is impossible to steal from yourself ?
In my view there is a concept of theft because I have an ego mindset which includes a body. If I had no concept of theft I wouldn't lock my doors at night. Other minds in my environment also have a concept of theft. In fact thinking about this, pretty much my entire house and work environment is about the protection of my body and my stuff. Old habits die hard.
On the other hand though I never even think about intentionally stealing something off someone else.
Whether it sprung from something or nothing misses the point I was trying to make i.e. that the age of the Universe is about 13.7 billion years and therefore the Universe 'began' to all intents and purposes (whether it had previous lives or not) 13.7 billion years ago. Imagine you were 27-years-old. You would say that you were born 27 years ago but that's not when you were conceived or when the sperm and ovum were formed. etc. etc.
Who knows what happened before the Universe began but as we explore quantum mechanics (and the Universe) in greater depths I'm confident that some things which seem unanswerable now will be resolved.
I remember when I was growing up it was impossible for anyone to discuss what happened before the Big Bang. In the astronomy books I read, the question was always dismissed as pointless, futile and a waste of time. Now we have numerous fascinating theories that are based on science even if they remain untested. Will string theory be proved correct? Who knows. But how exciting that people can even speculate in a meaningful way!
(I agree that some physicists like to move the goalposts when talking about 'nothingness'. It seems that you can get something from nothing if 'nothing' refers to a vacuum with a specific point in time and space).
I think one of the talents we have as humans is to be able to tolerate, simultaneously, views that sit awkwardly together. Our brains don't explode just because we tolerate apparent incompatibilities.
Football psychologists wear their lucky suits to matches and we are quite capable of using both science and religion appropriately without feeling we have to make some artificial decision between them.
Yes, I certainly remember being told it was futile to even think about a "before" the Big Bang. You were just instructed that there was no "before", that everything just began including time itself. Whilst understanding the concept, that was never enough for me. There must always have been existence because non-existence (as a total abscence of anything, even the nothing into which existence could begin) is impossible to conceive. Try doing it and your brain really does start hurting.
Such questions were usually relegated to the realms of theology and philosophy. I love the fact that science has now moved onto their turf.
In the recent Brian Cox series, 'Human Universe', there was an interesting idea that our universe (I didn't understand it exactly) might've been created from a kind of sea of energy, with peaks and troughs in the waves. The trough of one energy wave was depicted as going slightly deeper than the rest at which point a 'blob' of pure energy broke away from the rest and the resulting expansion of that energy created our Big Bang.
The multiverse theory is extremely compelling, IMO. The chances of a single, one-off universe being exactly right to allow for the creation of matter and the sustained formation of galaxies, stars, planets and life are exceedingly slim. If protons had only 0.2% more mass than they do then the formation of atoms would've been impossible.
It's hard to explain such fine tuning without resorting to a multiverse model. Maybe there are billions of universes, or an infinite number, some of which last for seconds and some of which, like ours, have the right properties to enable atoms (and therefore us) to be created.
Let's assume for a moment that we are the only planet in the universe with intelligent life on it and that the billions of other planets are lifeless. Wouldn't that suggest that far from being an insignificant speck of dust, that it would be the most significant planet in the universe by a long, long way, even from a scientific perspective?
If we go to the counter theory of intelligent life forms existing throughout the universe (perhaps even millions of them), wouldn't that in turn indicate that intelligence and consciousness are very much part of the "blueprint" of the universe?
That mindset might work perfectly well for 'glass half empty' people but I suspect many of those who are religious are of the 'glass half full' variety - atheists will always go for the more depressing interpretation of why the universe exists, and religious people go for the optimistic one.
What is so optimistic about having to spend all eternity in the company of a sadistic, psychopathic and all powerful dictator like Yahweh?
No thanks.
It's a huge assumption to make that our planet is the only one with intelligent life and as I said previously, we will almost certainly never find out for certain if there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.
But it doesn't matter if we are the only intelligent life form or just one amongst millions, it doesn't indicate that there must be any kind of "blueprint", it just happened to turn out to be like that.
Not going to speak on behalf of other atheists, but I don't see the scientific interpretation of why the universe exists as being depressing, it's realistic. Also don't really see the religious interpretation as being optimistic, but would use the word 'fanciful'.
First and foremost, whether something is happy and optimistic is not an indication of whether or not that thing is any more likely to be true.
Secondly, I don't consider the scientific view of the universe to be particularly depressing. There is plenty to marvel at and be amazed at in out universe, be that gigantic galactic networks, life or matter itself. But there is also plenty of stuff which we find unpleasant.
All of this, IMO, is indicative of a "shit happens" worldview. I don't feel a need to assign responsibility to a magical deity for bad things or good things which happen. Things just happen with no grand higher purpose.
Again, you're arbitrarily applying meaning to something after the fact.
If we're the only ones it's because it just doesn't happen to have cropped up anywhere else, if not it's because its nothing remarkable.
You can't infer optimism or pessimism from either your view or mine but you're arbitrarily deciding that your view is positive and mine negative in order to bolster an empty and utterly baseless view that things have to have meaning.
Well if there were millions of intelligent life forms, it would tell us that they were very much part of the universe and intended to be there (if "intended" can ever be the right word). If there were that many forms of intelligence and consciousness, it would also raise the fundamental question as to why there was so much of it in the universe. Would it have a purpose of some description? The universe can function perfectly well without intelligence and yet if it was everywhere, it might suggest that it had some (yet to be defined) role to play.
On the second point, don't pessimists and 'half glass empty' people always claim they are merely being "realistic"?
Well I believe there have been a considerable number of scientific studies to try and ascertain whether atheists or religious people are happy or depressed - it's not hard to guess which group invariably comes out worse in the happiness stakes. Atheists might say they are merely being realistic, but that type of mindset doesn't necessarily lend itself to feelings of positivity and optimism about the future.