The Window For Consciousness To Survive
Gotta love Neil DT
Well sure, my understanding of software is probably better than most here, Chris and his microbiology, and so on. My friend and local restaurant owner John makes a great green peppercorn sauce. We all have our expertise. But as a group, I assert that we humans don’t know a lot more than we do know. You may be the top 10% of that human population, but even if you were at the very tippy top of our little heap, I claim you’d still have massive gaps in your understanding of how the universe really works. Gaps that you would paper over with faith that said gaps probably align with what you do know – and you’d continue about your day.
Definition. Faith: The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition or statement for which there is not complete evidence.
So given we all – as a species, and personally – have large gaps in our knowledge of the universe, and given that each of us seldom personally receives “complete evidence” for anything even in our daily lives, most of what we do is an exercise in faith.
This really doesn’t seem all that revelatory. I think the word “faith” might just make you a bit jumpy. 🙂
As for being tribal, I recall asking you initially – rather than telling you – about the mechanical universe thing. It was your answer that caused me to drop you into the “mechanical universe” bucket. If you’d like to change buckets, I’m completely fine with that.
Thank you for posting that interesting interview. Quite frankly, I was more impressed by the interviewer than by Dawkins. The interviewer was intelligent, incisive, and appropriately curious and asked the type of questions that should be asked in this type of interview. When he began “cornering” Dawkins with regards to Dawkins’ negative views of Islam, you could see Dawkins begin to squirm but unlike so many others, he did not recant his position. I’m surprised by the weak areas in Dawkins’ thinking though. As just one example, he claims at 1:13 that homeopathy is akin to superstition. He evidently is unaware of multiple double blind studies showing that homeopathy does indeed work (even though it obviously does not work according to chemical principles). These homeopathic studies include animal studies, refuting the claim that their effectiveness is only due to a placebo effect. It’d be interesting to hear a discussion between a consummate Christian apologist like Ravi Zacharias and Dawkins. Here’s an interesting little story about Dawkins.
The fact that Dawkins freely admits to using ridicule to attack religious beliefs weakens his position, however, at least in my mind. If he fully bases his position on science rather anything else, he should not have to resort to the emotion of ridicule. The “factual evidence”, as he calls it, should suffice.
I freely admit I often think Dawkins is quite frankly irrating and pompous . There’s certainly some of his personality and delivery I dislike.
However, I am willing to put up with that as I also respect his forthright logically reasoned views promoting critical evidence based thinking.
Updated recent evidence for how our collective conscience is evolving, faster in some countries than others.
Maybe a good way for our consciousness to survive, is for it to beamed from various humanless spaceships to nearby solar systems. Similar to Voyager I.
I hope we manage to pass on the essence of the best of humanity, Stephen Fry representing the UK would get my vote.
The curious thing about Dawkins is how often he contradicts himself without even realizing it. He says “facts are wonderful” but where is the evidence for that. Facts can be terrible. He says “scientific facts are beautiful” but there’s no evidence that scientific facts possess the characteristic of beauty. He advocates for exclusively evidence based thinking when, in fact, breakthroughs, innovations, and creativity have largely risen from intuition, not evidence based thinking. He decries emotion over logical thinking yet BALANCED emotions working in combination with logical thinking yield the highest level of human functioning. After all, if you accept evolution, why have we evolved with emotion? If you become purely logical, you eschew such traits as compassion and become cruel and hard. Pure logic is natural selection and survival of the fittest whereas adding an emotional component yields compassion and caring for those who are in need.
I might disagree with you also about how our collective conscious is evolving. To me, the evidence shows that, in many ways, it is not evolving but rather devolving. Look at the rates of anxiety, depression, and suicide in our world. Look at the rates of drug addiction, the percentage of children without fathers in their home, breakdown of the family structure, educational inequality, income inequality, political strife, intrasocietal conflicts (female versus male, young versus old, white versus non-white, liberal versus conservative, atheist versus theist, Muslim versus Judeo-Christian, straight versus LGBTTQQIAAP, etc.), the proliferation of health issues (from obesity to diabetes to autism), etc.
Throughout history, civilization has gone through cyclical periods of evolution and devolution. As Martin Armstrong says, everything is cyclical. During the rise of the Greek city-states and democracy, evolution. During the time of the barbarians destroying the Roman Empire, devolution. During the Dark Ages, devolution. During the Renaissance, evolution. Ask anyone who has been around for the past 50 years or more whether we are evolving or devolving. I’m pretty sure what their answer will be.
Quercus…. you asked …….“If you insist on a creator, why not say that God is spread equally into every little bit of the universe (including us)?”
That’s pretty much how I see it. Kind of like being a cell in a human body (one of @37.2 trillion). Not much glory there. And so……Believing that one is part of a larger enterprise is very humbling.
I guess if a person knew everything they won’t need faith, but I’ve yet to meet that person.
Cool, we’re on the same page.
It’s nice to be in good company.
“I guess if a person knew everything they won’t need faith, but I’ve yet to meet that person”
Just clarifying what you mean by “Faith” in this statement. Are you equating it with Religious Belief or that you expect/hope more scientific research and evidence will reveal more of the universe to us? Or something else?
I wasn’t familiar with the concept. I found a great introduction at