The Big Questions: Meaning, Purpose, Life after Death, Evolution and Its Implications

The Big Questions?

A friend of mine recently posed to me the following questions as part of an on-going discussion:

Why are we here? Do we have a purpose?

What happens to us when we die?

Is there any guiding force in our world today? (also addressed: Is a Personal God controlling all things behind the scenes?)

Does science hold all the pieces to the puzzle?

If evolution is true what creatures are we seeing develop out of nothing these days?

If evolution is true should we let the sick die and have no healthcare, just let the strong survive?

I decided to answer these questions in such a way that I might make my answers readily available to anyone else who asks similar questions or who may ask me again in the future.

My answers are lengthy, but still feel abbreviated to me. Oh well, I am who I am. ;)

Q#1. Why are we here? Do we have a purpose?

There are many different ways to interpret and to answer or not to answer these questions.

1.1. We are here because our parents had sex. Right? . . . End of answer?

But I maybe you want a greater or “ultimate” reason. Right?

- - -

Language: I will preface my comments by saying that sometimes language seems to break down at the “ultimate” level. After all, words are not themselves the things to which the words refer. Words are but signs, tokens, memes, stimuli, pointers, patterns connected to other patterns. Words are but parts of a whole, and the juggling of a few parts cannot “fully” or “ultimately” or “exactly” describe the whole. In a sense, all words are metaphors. This too is metaphorical.

- - -

Concerning what answers there may be, I am going to start with the big picture, and I am going to start from a contemplative Christian’s perspective first, even though I consider Christianity false except in symbolism, just to attempt to show that the ultimate answer or lack of an answer is pretty much the same with or without the God concept – that there may be no ultimate answer to an ultimate why question.

1.2. “Why is God here? Does God have a purpose?” (temporarily assuming a personal God exists)

Have you ever asked this?

What was your answer?

Even in Christianity, IF one were to ask enough questions, the existential dilemma would boil down to this, since everything comes from God and depends on God: “Why is God here? Does God have a purpose?”

So, temporarily assuming there is a personal Christian God, . . .

The answer is this: There is and can be NO REASON whatsoever for God’s existence. God simply IS.

That is it. There is no answer to “Why is God?”

A person may consider the whole question “Why?” to be pointless or meaningless when used at the ultimate level. “Why?” asks for reasons; reasons involve causes; . . . but causes are senseless at the ultimate level, because for any cause, one can ask for the cause of that cause. IF one wants to avoid an infinite and arguably meaningless loop, one may say that the ultimate cause is un-caused, which is like saying there is no reason and there is no answer to any ultimate “Why?” And one can say, “The universe simply IS without cause and is the ultimate source and being and all,” just as easily as one can say, “God simply IS without cause.” The advantage to using the non-theistic language is that nobody really doubts the universe exists, except a person who doubts anything exists. So the “God” language may be an improper, meaningless, and unnecessary addition, used only because people who do not think so thoroughly sometimes feel better when they vaguely imagine a personality, like themselves but better, to be in charge.

Again, assuming there were a personal God . . .

Does God have a Purpose?

Here are two answers.

1. No, there is no purpose for God’s existence. ‘He’ simply is what ‘he’ is. “I am that I am.” ‘He’ does nothing but express ‘his’ nature.’ He IS for no reason and his existence is pointless. There can be no purpose for something un-caused, and one should not say, “His purpose is to be,” because being is not itself a purpose.

2. Yes, there is a purpose for God’s existence. God’s purpose is to BE what ‘he’ is. . . .

But note that this same purpose can at any time be attributed to anything, regardless of whether or not one even imagines that God exists. If the statement, “His purpose is to BE what he IS,” is valid, then it is just as valid or even more valid to speak only of things we know exist and say their purpose is to BE what they are. Again, the theistic language adds no ultimate meaning or purpose.

Even within theism, God had no choice as to ‘his’ existence. Nobody said, “God, do you want to come into existence?” ‘He’ couldn’t help it.

God had no choice regarding ‘his’ character or development or anything. Nobody said, “God, what kind of character/nature do you want?” He simply IS.

In a sense, existence is ultimately pointless for God. He can only be what he is. He doesn’t really have any choice but to be what he is.

In other words, the existential dilemma of a life with no “creator,” which some average Christians think only atheists have to face, would have to be faced by the very God of those who imagine there is a personal God. IF life without a creator is pointless, then God’s life would be pointless.

Everything else that exists is an outgrowth of God, a part of a ‘plan’ which is merely an expression of his nature. All concepts must ultimately derive from him, i.e. from his nature. All features and possibilities of life stem ultimately from ‘him’ and are simply aspects of the nature of God, or the nature of existence. Even ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are ultimately but aspects or perspectives within a system ‘he’ created or manifested; they are but manifestations of his un-chosen nature.

If God created a ‘world’ or many ‘worlds,’ then created individuals might have relative temporary roles, missions, purposes, but there is no ultimate point for the entirety except for all to be what it is. We could say, “Our purpose is to serve God,” but we would be serving something that is itself pointless, un-created, un-caused, having no ultimate purpose or meaning. We could say, “Our purpose is to glorify God,” but we would be glorifying what is itself pointless, purposeless.

If such a God creates, there is no reason for it or point to it; it would merely be part of God being what he is.

Also,

·      Would God really think, see, hear, have eyes, have a mind?

·      Why would God have eyes but nothing to see?

·      When would he develop eyes?

·      Will one admit that things must evolve even in a theistic universe?

·      Why would God create?

·      Where would his ideas or inspiration come from?

·      Does he have needs?

·      Where would he create? There would be no place except within himself. Does this not lead to pantheism – everything existing within God and being a manifestation of him?

* In summary of this section, whether or not one posits a “God,” we all ultimately exist for no reason whatsoever. We simply are, as an expression of the nature of reality. We may serve relative goals, aims, powers, purposes, but there is no ultimate purpose.

1.3. “Why is the universe here? Does the universe have a purpose?”

These are the same questions as before, only without ‘god’ language. And the answers, too, are basically the same.

1.3.1. Definition: For clarity’s sake, let me state that I am defining the “universe” as . . .

“what is and/or becomes, what exists, all, reality, everything, all that is/exists/becomes, the all-encompassing, the entirety (including what-is-not, for those who believe that to some extent what-is-not can actually have bearing on reasonable discussion).”

For those physicists, like David Deutsch, who posit a “multiverse,” I would make no change to the theory, but would only suggest a change in terminology for the sake of simplicity and clarity – that your word “multiverse” (the all-encompassing) be replaced with “universe” and your word “universe” be replaced with “cosmos” or “sub-universe” or some other term to denote the status of a subset not equal to the entirety. Otherwise, for those who prefer to keep the word “multiverse,” please understand that when I use them term “universe,” I intend to refer to your term “multiverse.”

This is the least problematic and most helpful language to use, since practically no one concerned will deny that what-is IS, and we can start with something the existence of which is acknowledged – the universe, what IS – rather than a debated hold-over from ancient religions, the concept of a personal god. Also, if there were a personal god, then it/she/he would necessarily be included in the definition of “what IS,” and would, thus, be included in the definition of the universe. Again, “universe” is a better term than “god” for this reason.

The universe simply IS.

There is and can be NO REASON whatsoever for the existence of the entirety. This simply IS. It is, was, will be – to whatever extent anything ever is, was, will be. That is it. This is it. The universe is uncaused.

1.3.2. Does the universe have purpose?

Here are two answers.

1. No, there is no purpose for the universe’s existence. It simply is what it is. “I am that I am.” There can be no such thing as purpose in absolute terms, only relative purpose within a larger purposeless system.

2. Yes, the purpose of the universe is to BE.

The universe/entirety had no choice as to its existence. Nobody said, “Universe, do you want to exist?” It could not help but exist.

The entirety had no choice regarding its character or development or anything. Nobody said, “Universe, what kind of character/nature do you want?” It simply IS.

Since the universe, by definition, means everything, in some sense it matters not whether we call it “eternal” or withhold that adjective. The universe may be said to have a “beginning,” as in common interpretations of big bang theory, but even if this is so, It is as eternal as anything is or can be, and nothing could be greater. This is a semantic matter. It is still uncaused and the only ultimate reality. Even if “eternal” were withheld in one sense for semantic reasons under the suggestion that there is no such thing as “eternity” in the infinite sense, it would still be eternal in the sense of “encompassing all time.” One might also state, “The universe is always infinite in as many ways as it is possible to be infinite.”

1.3.3. Big Bang and Other Theories:

According to typical big bang language, the universe had a definite “beginning,” but such a “beginning” does not preclude the use of the term “eternal,” as I just explained it.

Other potential semantic misunderstandings seem noteworthy, too.

Allow, for argument’s sake that the big bang theory turned out to be the right theory and there was a big bang. Such may not necessarily be ‘the’ start of ‘the’ all-inclusive universe, but could just as well be described as an event within the life of the larger Universe, or “the most recent measurable ‘start’ of what is currently measurable in this system within which we operate, which is itself within larger parameters of the All-encompassing.” This is to say that some physicists propose that the big bang for this particular universe or cosmos was still an event within a larger all-encompassing universe. Some would say it is a “beginning” for this particular cosmos/system, but not for the universe that contains everything.

Also, since Einstein included space and time within the universe, it is still not possible to speak of any time when the universe did not exist. Thus, even within the big bang theory, the universe is “eternal” in the sense that It exists “for all time” and in the sense that time is but an aspect of It. How meaningful is it to say time had a beginning when it is impossible to speak of a time before the beginning of time? Let each decide. The kind of “beginning” a physicist may refer to in positing a big bang is not really the same kind of beginning as we typically think of beginnings, which are usually on a continuous line.

Also, a scientist who says, “In the big bang, the universe came from nothing,” may be using accurate data but poor word choice in describing the big bang. For example, there was no “nothing.” One should not say that a “nothing” existed and then the universe came from that. If “nothing” existed before the universe, then the universe would include “nothing,” since the universe includes all that “exists.” In other words to say that something came from “nothing” implies that nothing is a thing from which something can come, which is a contradiction. Note also that the word “came” implies some kind of directionality, which is misleading, since there was no directionality except within the universe.

Re: “nothing” – The same points hold true when someone suggests that in quantum theory, matter and antimatter particles are “created in pairs all the time out of nothing (i.e. vacuum) and cancel each other out with no effect on the universe.” “Created” is simply metaphorical language and is misleading, because it causes some people to imagine that a personality must have created them, which is not what quantum theory posits. It is poor word choice. So is the word “nothing.” There has been an old and lengthy debate in science on whether the vacuum is empty or full (a plenum). Any vacuum that exists is, by the fact of its existence, part of the universe and cannot be called “nothing” in any ultimate sense, but only in a misleading and relative sense. A vacuum is theoretically “empty” of certain detectable particles or is a lowest possible energy state, but no “vacuum” is ever truly, completely empty, and vacuum itself, as used in physics is actually still a “thing,” in the sense that it has existence, it is within space-time. So anyone who calls a vacuum “nothing” is dangerously playing with words.

Other than as a metaphor, a scientist also cannot logically say the universe "appeared," as if it were an event in time, for appearance implies an observer, and there was no observer; otherwise the observer would be part of the universe, which is all that is, and then the universe could not be said to have “begun” at the big bang. Also, it could not have been an event in time, since time was defined as part of the universe, something within the universe, in both the big bang theory and in my definition.

A scientist cannot logically say that is was "made," for that implies (to anyone not recognizing the metaphorical speech) that something existed before it, and both by definition and by the theory, there was no “before.” “Made” is a poor word choice.

Additionally, I should state that the big bang theory is but one of several current theories held by professional, respected physicists. Examples:

a. Cambridge University mathematical physicist Neil Turok thinks that “the Big Bang was big, but it wasn't the beginning . . . . He theorizes that the universe is engaged in an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction: There have been many Big Bangs, and there will be many more” (“Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning,” by Brandon Keim, Wired News, 2008-02-19. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/02/qa_turok?currentPage=all).

b. “The big bang could be a normal event in the natural evolution of the universe that will happen repeatedly over incredibly vast time scales as the universe expands, empties out and cools off.” (Sean Carroll, Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Chicago, and Jennifer Chen, graduate student, cited here: “Physicists Say Big Bang was 'Nothing Special',” by SPACE.com, 27 October 2004, 1:59 am ET. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/big_bang_041027.html .)

c. Multiverse Theory. e.g. One proponent is Oxford physicist David Deutsch. “A growing number of physicists, myself included, are convinced that the thing we call ‘the universe’ — namely space, with all the matter and energy it contains — is not the whole of reality. According to quantum theory — the deepest theory known to physics — our universe is only a tiny facet of a larger multiverse, a highly structured continuum containing many universes.” (Frontiers magazine, December 1998. Reposted on his personal web site - http://www.qubit.org/people/david/Articles/Frontiers.html.). Again I note that the terminology is but a matter of semantics and the term “universe” or “multi-cosmic universe” is just as good a term as “multiverse” for describing the reality within this system.

d. String Theory. Here is an entertaining 20-minute TED talk by Brian Green, “Brian Greene: The universe on a string,” filmed 2005 and posted 2008. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/brian_greene_on_string_theory.html.

Other related posts/articles/videos:

“Big Bang Cosmology and Atheism: Why the Big Bang is No Help to Theists,” by Quentin Smith. (Professor of Philosophy at Western Michigan University.) Free Inquiry magazine, v18, n2. http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/smith_18_2.html.
Murray Gell-Mann: Beauty and truth in physics," TED Video, 16:02, "Armed with a sense of humor and laypeople's terms, Nobel winner Murray Gell-Mann drops some knowledge on TEDsters about particle physics, asking questions like, Are elegant equations more likely to be right than inelegant ones?" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuRxRGR3VpM&feature=channel -

In a sense, existence is ultimately pointless for the universe. It can only be what it is. It doesn’t really have any choice but to be what it is.

In another sense, the universe is awesome, and “being itself” is the point, the greatest point imaginable.

Everything else that exists is an aspect or manifestation of the universe, a part of the entirety, an expression of the nature of the All.

Individuals have relative temporary roles, missions, purposes, but there is no ultimate point for the entirety except for all to be what it is.

If there were a personal “God,” such would add no value whatsoever to the whole and would only create silly problems which I’ll discuss below under Q3. And even if it were theoretically true, it would still be the case that the entirety ultimately exists for no reason whatsoever, from no cause whatsoever. We ultimately simply are.

1.4. Now, within the universe is there meaning/purpose?

Yes and no. The answer is different for different individuals.

Do I have a purpose?

1.4.2. Does a flower have purpose?

Yes and No. Depends upon perspective.

No. The flower simply is/becomes what it is/becomes. It is an aspect of an uncaused universe; as an uncaused phenomenon, the universe as a whole is meaningless.

Yes. The purpose of a flower is to bloom, to blossom. .. to serve in the reproductive process of the plant, etc.. (or imagine it from a bee’s perspective.) Although the entirety is uncaused, within the entirety operates the law of cause and effect. One thing leads to another. Everything is interrelated. All parts/aspects/components of the universe have meaning in relation to one another.

1.4.3. Do I have a purpose? Yes. My purposes include, but are not limited to, these: to ‘blossom,’ to live, be the best I can be, to contribute to society, to have children, to serve worthy goals, to reflect other aspects of the whole, to perform personal functions within larger systems, etc..

Is my life meaningful to me? Yes. Very much so.

Do I have values? Yes. Strong ones. Life, love, knowledge/ understanding/ learning/ teaching, honesty, joy, sharing, etc.

Do I have goals? Yes. One conscious aim is to understand what I am, what we are, what This is. One aim is to love, for love helps create beauty, harmony, and joy. One aim is to work for the well-being of myself and all around me. All these aims appear good for myself and for those around me. My smaller aims include finishing my college degree, maintaining good relationships with my closest friends, maintaining food, clothing, shelter, having joyful experiences, spreading knowledge/education, etc.

1.4.4. Meaning?

Here is something I have already written on the topic:

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Meaning, Will, Life

It seems that whether something is special or insignificant/meaningless depends on perspective, ... that something can actually be both. The terms seem relative to me, like most language. Meaning exists in one's mind; so if you assign meaning to something, it has it. The earth is a "pale blue dot" from one perspective; but it's larger, deeper, subtler, and more complex than most people can get their little minds around from other perspectives. Seeing things from different perspectives may give important insight. Even if it is impossible for the universe as a whole to have any meaning or purpose other than simply to be what it is, individuals within the web of existence may have relative goals, aims, purposes, or meanings within the smaller systems they live in or “games” they "play." Individuals which have an innate Will to live/participate, to whatever degree of consciousness, will continue to do so, just because that Will is there, even if that will is "merely" a natural feature of their chemical make-up.

I have such a Will. I feel it, sense it. And even if it originated as an ‘un-chosen’ aspect of myself, I embrace it. I ‘choose’ to embrace it. I relish it even. If it was ‘determined,’ then I embrace that determination, and relish it as well.

I could theoretically cease to participate [in (identification with) my present form], but the energy or atoms currently employed in this little system called “Matt” would presumably continue to participate in the world after the Matt system dissolves. I have a Will to continue to participate as "Matt" while I can, and I have chosen to try to enjoy the whole thing as much as possible, to understand This/It/Myself/Us as much as I can with as much beneficent pleasure as possible. -- similarly to the old sat-chit-ananda being-knowledge-bliss trilogy/trinity of Hinduism.

1/30/2007 10:29 AM - 29 views - 7 comments (follow link to see comments)

http://www.xanga.com/WindOnReed2/566736448/meaning-will-life.html

- - - - - - - - - -

I realize that i am part and manifestation of a Whole, the Universe, the All. What is called ‘Matt,’ as a system, a persona, was born and changes and may well one day be dissolved, but what i am ultimately “grounded in” and am manifestation of is the eternal All. So each individual is in a sense both mortal and immortal, depending on whether “i” indicates the small ego (mortal) or the larger entirety/universe of which every ego is an inseparable part (eternal). We can view each other as individuals or as interconnected parts/aspects of the whole. As “individuals” we are not truly separate entities, but we are all interconnected and interrelated, a whole.

1.4.5. What are you? What am I?

Are you able to satisfactorily define yourself and say what it means to exist?

What were you and where were you before you were born?

You have no separate existence apart from the entirety. You are not truly separable from your environment, nor is your environment separable from you. From some perspective(s), there is no “you” or “i.” From some perspectives there is a you, from some there are yous plural.

You are in some ways your body. And what is that? It is earth and sky; the plants and animals you have eaten are earth and sky too, and they have partly become you and you in turn give back. You are wind and water and atoms and subatomic particles ever in flux, in systems comprising what is called by your name but simultaneously shared with your environment in interconnected systems, ultimately inseparable from the larger all-encompassing system, which is universe as a whole. Your individual atoms get replaced by different ones over time. You not the same you from moment to moment. Was there ever a you that was the quintessential you? What year, what day in your life were you at your best?

“Most of the cells in your body are not your own, nor are they even human. They are bacterial. From the invisible strands of fungi waiting to sprout between our toes, to the kilogram of bacterial matter in our guts, we are best viewed as walking "superorganisms," highly complex conglomerations of human, fungal, bacterial and viral cells.”

“. . . individuals can have very different responses to drugs, depending on their microbial fauna.”

“More than 500 different species of bacteria exist in our bodies, making up more than 100 trillion cells. Because our bodies are made of only some several trillion human cells, we are somewhat outnumbered by the aliens. It follows that most of the genes in our bodies are from bacteria, too.”

(“People Are Human-Bacteria Hybrid,” by Rowan Hooper, Wired News, 02:00 AM Oct. 11, 2004 PT,

http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,65252,00.html.)

Do we know ourselves, really? Can we even see what we are made of? How well are we acquainted with the deep workings of our brain chemistry?

You are the mind part of your body, too. What is that? More of the same. To whatever extent you are your thoughts and senses, you are a reflection of your environment. What is in your mind is, in a sense, what is outside your mind. For example, if you are reading this sentence, the same words i am speak-writing are in your head at this moment, and we are This together. You are your thoughts that clash and flow. You are one and many. You sometimes fight yourself. You are capable of holding a conversation with different aspects of your own personality. You are light, electricity, chemistry, particles and space and time, bits of shifting interconnected systems. You are your struggles and triumphs, but these are not yours alone either; others are inextricably tied up with you. You are a system of systems, and you are within systems which, in turn, are within an all-encompassing System. You have no independent existence, but are a manifestation of something much larger and as eternal as eternal gets, the universe. It can be considered richly meaningful or pointless, depending on the individual, and at the same time words are not adequate to really describe it.

Here are a few interesting recent articles:

"Dan Dennett: Can we know our own minds?" - TED Video - 23:34 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjbWr3ODbAo&feature=channel

Discover Interview: "What Makes You Uniquely "You"? Nobel laureate Gerald Edelman - your brain is one-of-a-kind in the history of the universe," by Susan Kruglinski, Discover Magazine, published online January 16, 2009. - http://discovermagazine.com/2009/feb/16-what-makes-you-uniquely-you

"Think Animals Don't Think Like Us? Think Again: One extraordinary parrot helped shatter our preconceptions about animal intelligence," by Irene M. Pepperberg, Discover Magazine, published online January 20, 2009. - http://discovermagazine.com/2009/feb/20-think-animals-dont-think-like-us-think-again

"The Brain How Google Is Making Us Smarter: Humans are 'natural-born cyborgs,' and the Internet is our giant 'extended mind,'" by Carl Zimmer, Discover Magazine, published online January 15, 2009. - http://discovermagazine.com/2009/feb/15-how-google-is-making-us-smarter

"Is Quantum Mechanics Controlling Your Thoughts?: Science's weirdest realm may be responsible for photosynthesis, our sense of smell, and even consciousness itself," by Mark Anderson, Discover Magazine, published online January 13, 2009. - http://discovermagazine.com/2009/feb/13-is-quantum-mechanics-controlling-your-thoughts

" Vilayanur Ramachandran: A journey to the center of your mind," TED Video, 25:32, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl2LwnaUA-k&feature=channel

1.4.6. Amid such wonders, what do we really control? - Determinism and 'Free' Will:

You have control over certain things, right? However, you have no control over the part of you that has the control.

Did you choose this life? ... choose to be born? ... choose to be human, to have desires? Do we choose our nature, our instincts? Why are 6-month-old babies able to swim instinctively? How do ants know where to go on missions? How do insect colonies know how to cooperate and built complex hives and such? We do not even consciously control our own heart beat or our own breath the vast majority of the time. We do not control our own subconscious minds! What desires do you have? Did you choose them? People do not choose desires; people simply experience desires. All choices are merely between competing desires, yet the desires themselves are not ultimately chosen. Did you choose to be attracted to women, or did it simply happen to you? Did you choose your parents? Did you choose what ideas you were exposed to growing up? Did you choose to like or dislike chocolate, or did it just happen? Do you choose what to dream at night? Did the human children who were born into cannibal societies choose their fates? Do Muslims and Mormons and Jews and Catholics and Protestants choose to be born into families where they will be exposed to the “true religion”?

"Before we are conscious of wanting to do anything — wave at a friend, open a book — the brain regions needed to perform the activity are already ablaze. The notion that any of us is the Decider, the proactive plotter of our most lubricious desires, scientists say, may simply be a happy and perhaps necessary illusion."

(quoted from "Birds Do It. Bees Do It. People Seek the Keys to It," by Natalie Angier, NYTimes, April 10, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/science/10desi.html and posted on my blog, 2007-07-15, “Choices? Determinism” – http://www.xanga.com/WindOnReed2/604121252/choices.html )

Consciousness seems but a beautiful shimmer on the surface of a great and deep sea of existence.

Here is a nice excerpt from the film "Waking Life" on the subject of "Free Will" and Physics:

"In a way, in our contemporary world view, it is easy to think that science has come to take the place of God. But some philosophical problems remain as troubling as ever. Take the problem of free will. This problem has been around for a long time, since before Aristotle in 350 B.C. St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, these guys all worried about how we can be free if God already knows in advance everything you're gonna do. Nowadays we know that the world operates according to some fundamental physical laws, and these laws govern the behavior of every object in the world. Now, these laws, because they're so trustworthy, they enable incredible technological achievements. But look at yourself. We're just physical systems too, right? We're just complex arrangements of carbon molecules. We're mostly water, and our behavior isn't gonna be an exception to these basic physical laws. So it starts to look like whether its God setting things up in advance and knowing everything you're gonna do or whether it's these basic physical laws governing everything, there's not a lot of room left for freedom.

So now you might be tempted to just ignore the question, ignore the mystery of free will, say "Oh, well, it's just an historical anecdote. It's sophomoric. It's a question with no answer. Just forget about it." But the question keeps staring you right in the face. You think about individuality for example, who you are. Who you are is mostly a matter of the free choices that you make. Or take responsibility. You can only be held responsible, you can only be found guilty, or you can only be admired or respected for things you did of your own free will. [I disagree with that previous sentence.] So the question keeps coming back, and we don't really have a solution to it. It starts to look like all our decisions are really just a charade.

Think about how it happens. There's some electrical activity in your brain. Your neurons fire. They send a signal down into your nervous system. It passes along down into your muscle fibers. They twitch. You might, say, reach out your arm. It looks like it's a free action on your part, but every one of those - every part of that process is actually governed by physical law, chemical laws, electrical laws, and so on.

So now it just looks like the big bang set up the initial conditions, and the whole rest of human history, and even before, is really just the playing out of subatomic particles according to these basic fundamental physical laws. We think we're special. We think we have some kind of special dignity, but that now comes under threat. [I disagree.] I mean, that's really challenged by this picture.

So you might be saying, "Well, wait a minute. What about quantum mechanics? I know enough contemporary physical theory to know it's not really like that. It's really a probabilistic theory. There's room. It's loose. It's not deterministic. And that's going to enable us to understand free will." But if you look at the details, it's not really going to help because what happens is you have some very small quantum particles, and their behavior is apparently a bit random. They swerve. Their behavior is absurd in the sense that its unpredictable and we can't understand it based on anything that came before. It just does something out of the blue, according to a probabilistic framework. But is that going to help with freedom? I mean, should our freedom be just a matter of probabilities, just some random swerving in a chaotic system? That starts to seem like it's worse. I'd rather be a gear in a big deterministic physical machine than just some random swerving.

So we can't just ignore the problem. We have to find room in our contemporary world view for persons with all that that entails; not just bodies, but persons. And that means trying to solve the problem of freedom, finding room for choice and responsibility, and trying to understand individuality."

(video excerpt available on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VxQuPBX1_U)

I do not feel like determinism is some kind of "threat," as if finding this out changes who we are. In fact, the law of cause and effect is one of the foundations of the relative meaning we can find in life. I will paste here something I wrote years ago:

Free Will and Determinism:

I think the problem of free will is another linguistic problem, a misunderstanding. Do actions have consequences? Do you believe in cause and effect? If not, so what, the universe is meaningless, as things happen for no reason/cause. If yes, you are really a determinist. By definition, effects are determined by their causes. Thus, anything having causes is determined by those causes. That is pretty simple.

It is almost always meaningless for us to speak of an event (within the universe) which has no cause. For any event which we imagine, we presuppose that something, some set of influences, caused that event. To say that an event just occurred, with no preceding influences, defies our logic. Therefore, we should either admit that we believe all events to be determined by their causes, or else admit that things can happen senselessly for absolutely no reason whatsoever, and, thus, cannot be controlled.

Just because an event has cause(s), does not mean we are aware of the cause(s). Just because events are determined by causes does not mean we are aware of how they are determined. Our unawareness accounts for the way things (i.e. future things) appear “undetermined,” “open to possibility.”

The “freedom” of one’s will is a relative matter which depends on perspective. I should also say that “will” seems hardly separable from “desire” or “attraction.” People do not choose their will/attraction/desires. People notice/feel/recognize that they have a certain will/attraction. The desires either have causes in our selves and in our environment, and the desires are determined by these causes, or else the desires are uncaused and exist for no reason. Either way, they are not “free” in the sense that you choose them.

However, once we notice that we have will/desires, we may talk about our relative freedom to pursue those desires, to pursue the fulfillment/realization of our will. “Freedom” should be used only to refer to our relative ability to pursue desires without obstruction. “Freedom” is the relative absence of perceptible constraints.

Again, “free” is a relative term. You cannot simply be “free”; you must be free FROM something. John says, “I’m free!!!” Mary says, “Free from what? Free from financial obligations, free from demands on your time, free to pursue your desires without someone hindering you?”

“Choice” is a process in which we take action after becoming aware of multiple imagined, theoretical, future scenarios. The action we take is determined by our desires. If our choice is not determined, if it has no cause, then it is certainly not “free” in any meaningful way, and we have no control over it.

Possibilities are imagined scenarios. Potentiality (in typical usage) is never “real” until it is put into action.

There is no good reason for determinism to make us feel bound, to make us mope around, griping that we have “no choice”, that we "have to be and stay this way," that there is "nothing one can do" about the way things are or will be! That is shortsighted and foolish. In fact, the laws of cause and effect are the only reason we could ever have hope. Every action has a consequence. Therefore, we can and should choose/perform those actions which will bring the results we desire. Without cause/effect determinism, life would lack meaning. You might choose to tell the truth, but an uncaused lie may pop out of your mouth instead. Or a star may suddenly be born from your ass. What kind of life would that be? [I cannot, btw, logically deny that this could happen, no matter how improbable I consider it.]

Is it not short-sighted to say, “Everything is determined. Why should I try?” Don’t be silly. You should try because every action has consequences, and those consequences affect you.

The belief that our choices are determined by processes of which we are unaware does not actually remove from our lives the process we call "choice." We still face multiple, conflicting desires which must compete for fulfillment. You still must face the questions, “What am I?” “What do I want?” and “What shall I become?”

Enough about that subject.

Every individual with a good brain is capable of creating meaning and developing his or her own concept(s) of purpose. Every individual has his/her own values. Some values are very common; some are practically ubiquitous. One does well do look from many perspectives. To the extent that meaning and purpose rest upon values, and values depend on the individual, meaning and purpose can be considered largely an individual interpretation of the world.

Often, to me, every flower, every petal, every ‘atom,’ every subatomic ‘particle,’ every person, every fraction of every second is deeply RICH, pregnant, full of meaning, valuable, serving a unique role in or manifesting a unique aspect of the entirety.

At other times I would prefer to practice non-thinking.

The silence of the mind, too, is priceless.

And sleep is one of the greatest gifts of life.

Still ...

1.4.7. * We conscious beings are all aspects of the universe knowing itself.

Either ...

There is/are no God/Gods. We are all aspects of the universe knowing itself.
There is/are God/Gods within the universe. In this case, both we and the God(s) are aspects of the universe knowing itself.
God IS the Universe. “God” and “universe” are both words to describe the entirety. The Gods (plural) are forces/aspects of/within the universe, manifestations of God. We are all aspects of the God/Universe knowing itself.

#1 and #3 are really the same thing, only semantically different. Perhaps #3 is more poetic. I do not find worthy evidence for #2. But no matter which is true, the same statement follows.

Further, as we consciously participate in our world, we are altogether creating the world every moment. What is my society like? Part of that depends on what I say and do. I, along with every other person/thing, help to make the world what it is and will be. The power to consciously participate in the creation of the future can be both exciting and meaningful, despite how much seems beyond our control from many perspectives.

1.5. "Is Life Meaningless without a Creator?"

Christians frequently pose the question of purpose/meaning to atheists.

Often, not necessarily always, the assumption underlying the question is something like this:

“Because Christians believe God created the universe and every individual, this gives unique purpose, meaning, and/or value to their life. The purpose of every Christian’s life is to ‘serve God.’ Atheists’ lives must be meaningless, because without a creator there would be no meaning/purpose.”

This assumption is misguided. Those who think life is meaningless without a creator would do well to note that their God’s life would then be meaningless, since he is not said to have a creator himself. And serving a pointless being would be pretty pointless itself, no?

1.6. Atheists who are excited about life:

Contrary to what plenty of average religious fundamentalists erroneously think, neither atheism nor a scientific view inevitably lead to sadness.

The following is cut and pasted from the blog of Mano Singham, January 2, 2009. He is a theoretical physicist and Director of UCITE (University Center for Innovation in Teaching and Education) at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. He is the author of two books, including Quest for Truth: Scientific Progress and Religious Beliefs (2000). URL – http://blog.case.edu/singham/2009/01/02/atheism_and_meaning .

- - -

That search for meaning in the absence of god can produce wonderful results. In the British TV program The Root of All Evil, the writer Ian McEwan says:

We are the very privileged owners of a brief spark of consciousness and we therefore have to take responsibility for it. We cannot rely, as Christians or Muslims do, on a world elsewhere, a paradise to which one can work towards and maybe make sacrifices, or crucially make sacrifices of other people. We have a marvelous gift, and you see it develop in children, this ability to become aware that other people have minds just like your own and feelings that are just as important as your own. And this gift of empathy seems to me to be the building block of our moral system.

If you have a sacred text that tells you how the world began or what the relationship is between this sky god and you, it [often] does curtail your curiosity. It cuts off a source of wonder. . . .

Richard Dawkins adds:

By disclaiming the idea of a next life we can take more excitement in this one. The here and now is not something to be endured before eternal bliss or damnation. The here and now is all we have, an inspiration to make the most of it. So atheism is life affirming in a way religion can never be. Look around you. Nature demands our attention, begs us to explore, to question. Religion can provide only facile, unsatisfying answers. Science, in constantly seeking real explanations, reveals the true majesty of our world in all its complexity. People sometimes say "There must be more than just this world, than just this life." But how much more do you want?

Atheists have one huge advantage over religious people that more than compensates for the fact that they are not handed a philosophy of life by religion. Because they do not have to deal with all the intractable logical problems that belief in god entails and for which religious believers have to repeatedly invoke the 'mysterious ways clause' and shut down further investigations, they are free to pursue intellectual inquiry with no restrictions. Unlike religious believers, on the road to increased knowledge they do not have to obey signs that cordon off some areas saying "No admittance by order of religion." They are free to go anywhere and explore and investigate anything. The world is wide open for them.

And that is a wonderfully liberating feeling.

- - -

Atheistic, agnostic, and/or pantheistic scientists often have a very inspiring sense of awe and/or even reverence in view of the amazing nature of the universe:

“Beyond Belief: Science, Reason, Religion & Survival,” a science conference at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, November 5 - 7, 2006. I was often inspired by the lectures given by various famous scientists and their frequent sense of awe at the nature of the universe and life. - http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-science-religion-reason-and-survival .

Neil Tyson - "The Universe is in Us..." - 3:45 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLvh64sMrWY

Richard Dawkins. “The universe is queerer than we can suppose.” Video. Lecture. 22 minutes. July 2005. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/richard_dawkins_on_our_queer_universe.html.

"The Search for Truth..." - YouTube excerpt - Neil deGrasse Tyson expresses the sense of awe and joy he derives from his scientific investigations of the cosmos. This is a video excerpt from the last two minutes of the episode "Beyond the Big Bang" from the History Channel series "The Universe." - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_seCklvygI

www.ted.com posts 20 minute lectures by famous people. Many of the lectures on biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, psychology, etc. are fascinating and inspiring. Check them out. Download them and then watch them later at your leisure or during a meal. [This is a great way to get in touch with what is happening in the world and hear from some of the most important thinkers right in your own living room.]

"The Big Question - Why Are We Here." (Richard Dawkins) - 23:34 - Aug 30, 2007, Channel 5 Documentary, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8572351836469636547 - (available for download)

1.7. Negative Aspects of Life, or Things Which Render Life Meaningless for Some:

Of course, there are also plenty of negative aspects of life in this world that a person could dwell on, whether Christian or atheist or other, and there are plenty of things or aspects of life that anyone could call “meaningless,” depending on one’s perspective. I will explore some ideas that depress people, and then I will suggest that one is certainly able to find meaning, love, joy, and purpose despite all these things, even embracing the knowledge of them with streams of tears or times of deep sadness, but it is an individual matter within each psyche.

I will ask LOTS of questions. They may seem rhetorical, and most readers would skim and skip, and that is fine, but each question may really be worth something if pondered on its own, genuinely, if or when there is “time.”

Looking at the future of the universe and the fate of the human species scientifically, here is an interesting little excerpt from the current (January 13, 2009) wikipedia.com article, “Meaning of Life,” the section on “The Big Bang and humanity's fate in this universe:”

“However, no matter how the universe came into existence, humanity's fate in this universe appears to be doomed as —even if humanity would survive that long— biological life will eventually become unsustainable, be it through a Big Freeze, Big Rip or Big Crunch. It would seem that the only way to survive indefinitely, would be by directing the flow of energy on a cosmic scale and altering the fate of the universe.” (from Nikos Prantzos; Stephen Lyle (2000). Our Cosmic Future: Humanity's Fate in the Universe. Cambridge University Press. )

If all recognizable life forms in the universe will eventually die, does that render life meaningless?

Also, the world is full of tragedy, heartache, sickness, death, suffering. A huge amount of apparently senseless pain marks life on earth. Children are born maimed or mentally handicapped or disfigured, and through no possible moral fault of their own. Some of the most beloved people in history were murdered before their time. Natural disasters alone have killed who knows how many people in history. Babies are born dead. Babies are born with two heads, babies with eight appendages, babies as Siamese twins, babies with hair all over their bodies and faces – innocent babies. Parents accidentally run over their children. Soldiers may kill or rape innocent people. How many women in history endured unwanted marriages or loveless marriages? Psychopaths may torture people for fun. How many humans, whether kind people or cruel, have died slowly of starvation? Any account of the meaning of life must take all these things into consideration. See Haught’s essay, “Meaning and Nothingness: A Personal Journey,” link below, for a few other examples of sufferings/atrocities that challenge our ability to claim life has any inherent fairness or justice: e.g. Was Thomas Jefferson’s verbiage realistic when he wrote of the “inalienable rights” with which “all men are endowed by their creator”? What God-given rights were assured the six million Jews sent to Nazi death camps? What purpose did they serve?

Words do not adequately convey the reality of these questions. To give just a fraction of reality to them, one would do better to watch “Schindler’s List” (1993, Steven Spielberg), “Life is Beautiful” (Italian: La vita è bella, 1997, Roberto Benigni), or another truly gut-wrenching movie or documentary (such as of the Vietnam War) and THEN read and address these questions, and probably actually discuss them with another human being.

“As we learn scientific facts we realize that both the cosmos and our biosphere seem utterly indifferent to humanity, and care not a whit whether we live or die” (Haught).

No matter what religion anyone is, everyone must admit that the vast majority of all humans who ever lived went through life in ignorance of any ultimate truth, knowing no real facts of the origin of the universe, god or gods, or their own species, usually not only laboring under ignorance, but under outright falsehood. The vast majority of people, if not all, in recording history have labored under false religion/philosophy or no religion/philosophy. How sad is this fact? Can life as a whole or “truth” or “justice” have real and deep meaning if this is the case? Did a god knock an anti-Christian Paul down in the road in order to convert him and reveal the “ultimate truth” to him, yet not bother knocking down every other theoretically precious man, woman, child on the face of the earth to reveal “the truth” to them? Did a god reveal himself to Muhammed, but not bother revealing himself to everyone else? What could be the fairness, justice, meaning, or purpose of such?

Even within many religious views, the vast majority of humans will have lived and suffered pointless lives in ignorance of, or opposition to, the “truth,” only to then go to hell and suffer again, perhaps indefinitely. Such is the case in Christianity, in which “Many are called but few are chosen” (Mt 22:14), or “Wide is the gate and broad is the path that leads to destruction, and many there are who enter on it” (Mt 7:13). If this were true, could any god have been a “good” steward of his own work? Especially given the fact that regardless of any god(s)’s existence or absence, the entirety and/or any god(s) cannot have even been created with any ultimate purpose or meaning to their own lives, but only the? How many think they will be one of the few to get into Allah’s heaven, or the American Southern Baptist Yahweh’s Christian heaven?

What was the purpose of each one of the dinosaurs? Why did any pterodactyl ever exist? The dinosaurs and countless species have gone extinct. Does anyone truly mourn their demise? Does anyone cry all night? Who would mourn for us should we all be gone in 200 years? Who mourns my/our great, great, great, great grandfather? Does anyone even miss him? Was his life in vain? Is mine? Is my writing futile? Silly?

And some people have worked for fame, immortality through great deeds or works of art. Yet no matter how much we may admire the art and the deeds, the doers and creators are themselves dispersed. They are among us still, but they are unrecognizable as humans.

What is the purpose of a cow? Pick a real cow and ask yourself, what is that cow’s purpose? Is there meaning in spending a few years of days and nights doing nothing but chewing grass in the pasture, sleeping, maybe occasionally having a sexual encounter? . . . Is the purpose of E. coli bacteria to glorify god or reflect the intrinsic beauty of the entirety?

Was life meaningful for the little ant someone squished 3 years ago in a back yeard in East Texas at 10 AM on a Satrday morning? Was life meaningful or rich with purpose for the kitten that was tortured by a trouble little boy, or for the boy?

If the whole of life includes such violence and senseless, useless pain as all these paragraphs barely hint at, can the universe, gods or no gods, be said to be good, fair, loving, caring, compassionate, meaningful or purposeful as a whole?

Life feeds off life. You cannot even live without murdering/killing/destroying LIFE. Even the vegetarians are willing to murder plants. How many animals have died in order to feed that fat-assed chump whose presence you can barely endure? Life is destruction. Every moment is one thing's birth, another's death.

Was life meaningful for the miserable slave who eventually gained his freedom and was converted to a false religion in which he rejoiced greatly and to which he devoted himself wholeheartedly?

Is life meaningful for chimpanzees? Was it in the old days, when the jungles were bigger? What has been the individual purpose of each precious chimp?

Have you ever considered that at some point in our evolution, the most peaceful species in earth's history may have been killed off ruthlessly by rougher species, and we may well be descended from the nastier of two choices (on multiple occasions)? But then, so what? Good people can be born of fools, right? [Put in a religious mythical context, Cain killed Able, right? And where are Able's children? There are none. Maybe neither Cain nor Seth was as sweet as Abel. So were the "fittest" the "best"? Not necessarily.]

What was the meaning, purpose, or value in the brief existence of EACH INDIVIDUAL Australopithecus africanus, each Homo habilis, each Homo erectus walking around about 1.75 million years ago, each Homo ergaster, each Homo heidelbergensis, each Neanderthal (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) that lived a brief life 50,000 years ago, each Cro-Magnon human 30,000 years ago? Were their lives rich, beautiful, deeply spiritual? Did they glorify God? Did they look forward with eager anticipation and prophesy the eventual revelation of Re, Osiris, Isis, Inana, Baal, Sargon, Marduk, Hammurabi, Dionysos, Zeus, Zarathustra, Yahweh, Moses, Cyrus, Buddha, Socrates, Plato, Christ, Peter and the glorious papacy to represent Christ on earth, the eternal blessed Virgin Mary, Muhammed and the final revelation of God, Joseph Smith, David Koresh? Are the meanings and purposes of humans over various times and cultures easily comparable – the Homo sapiens sapiens living in Borneo in the 1800’s, the Australian aborigine, a native American, a Thai girl sold as a prostitute, an American CEO, a crack baby, an American Pentecostal evangelist, a toothless withered Tibetan widow, a retarded boy in Pittsburg, an ignorant 1^st century Palestinian Jew, an ancient Mongolian warrior, Steven Weinberg, Adolf Hitler, a poor Egyptian in 4500 BCE? Have you ever in your life seen another human who seemed to you to belong to a species other than your own?

Are you even able to contemplate the value of these real, flesh and blood lives? Or are they merely words now?

Think about the most hurtful, grotesque, evil, painful, torturous, ugly things you have ever experienced, seen, heard, read of. Are they full of meaning, purpose, value? Are they precious? Are they worthless, insignificant?

Funny?

And what if any wish were possible? What if we could all evolve into an omnipotent super persona who decided to revisit all history of all life in a fantasy and “redeem” every moment of suffering of every sentient organism from post-human artificial intelligences on distant planets by 2810 to rats, roaches, plants, and microbes? Would there be any meaning in this? If everything that anyone considered negative could all be erased, would that make it better? What if every animal and plant were given individual eternal life and all its desires? Would that have meaning? If every suffering dog were rescued and given a palace, and if even the mean primates were forgiven their harmful actions and were given estates and gardens for ever, with parties everyday, and the best food and play? And what would people do in paradise every day? Would it be meaningful in paradise?

Life, God, the Universe is “willing” to sacrifice countless 'individual' human, animal, plant lives in vast, intertwined games of competition. Constant slaughter. Yet despite it all, life always renews itself, it finds ways to thrive. It strives to overcome itself. It dies and is reborn always. Life feeds off of life. Conscious and unconscious. And This, . . . it all simply is.

Even if we embrace suffering and evil, the question of whether life affords meaning, purpose, value, love, joy, etc. is a matter relative to each individual consciousness. For myself, I find both meaning and meaninglessness in life. I find purpose, value, love, joy, as well as their opposites or absence. Another feature of life is that not everyone even needs meaning or purpose consciously to be happy. Give a dog food, sleep, protection, and loving attention from yourself or another animal, and watch it thrive. Humans can be the same at times. Getting “lost” (or found?) in work, or play, or meditation can be a very healthy experience. Another quirk: I personally find meaning in meaninglessness, when I understand it. I can find purpose for myself amid purposelessness. I can even “choose” to embrace and enthusiastically, passionately participate in an un-caused, determined world. As I said above,

As we consciously participate in our world, we are creating the world every moment. What is my society like? Part of that depends on what I say and do. I, along with every other person/thing, help to make the world what it is and will be. The power to consciously participate in the creation of the future can be both exciting and meaningful.

No matter what things were like in the past, what is to prevent us from creating the best possible future for ourselves, our offspring, our world?

Every action has a consequence. This gives meaning to every action as it creates the new present.

Do you feel the Will to Life inside you? Do you feel the power, the heat, the energy? Can you almost hear the faint rumbling beneath the surface of all? Is it not silent yet louder than anything you have ever heard? I love to feel Life coursing through me.

The evil and suffering that have occurred and do and will occur do not prevent me from aiming for the highest goals I can conceive. I do and will work for love, for knowledge, wisdom, understanding, truth, joy, peace, harmony, education, the well-being of myself and the world in which I live. Sometimes I do not even need hope; I will switch off my silly hopeless thinker, or not, and I will WORK, I will live, and hope can follow me like a fawning puppy if it wants to, as I lead the way. Further, I even realize that the evil and suffering are part of ME and I am part of them; neither does this have the power to crush the Will to Life that is inside me. Nor has it the power to crush goodness or the love and beauty I sense in This moment. (Greetings Tralfamadorians!) And the Will to Life is not even “mine.” It belongs to the universe. So I need not fear losing it. It cannot be lost. My cousin shot himself. Did he lose the Will to Life? Or did he exercise his will to a different kind of life? Craig is gone, yet Craig is here still in different ways (see my journal entry for 2008, August 28, “Dreams, PawPaw, Resurrection, Spirituality”). I need not fear the dissolution of this body called “Matt.” Matthew Kruebbe did not exist in this recognizable way 100 years ago, yet that did not hurt myself or the universe. The same will be true if no “Matt” is recognizably present tomorrow or 5,000 years from now. Matthew is a temporal manifestation of the entirety. Does this trivialize an individual life? Not in the slightest. Back to evil: If evil killed all goodness, evil would become goodness, and then there would be only goodness. Do you understand the lesson of the joke? I need not fear evil. “Good” and “evil” are words, relative descriptive terms applied by individual minds which see from a specific temporal perspective. Does that mean good and evil are not real? No. Everything is real in some sense. Perspectives are very real, and good and evil are matters of perspective. Things are what they are. What we call them changes not what they are. To continue, from a perspective of racial justice, for example, the meaningless unjust world in which Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated is the same meaningful world into which he was born did great things and in which Barack Obama is becoming president of the U.S.A. next Tuesday.

So, . . . I need fear no evil, no death, no pain, no suffering, no failure. The Will to Life always wins. It is the universe. Now, even given all this, . . . I do on occasion despair, I do get depressed, I do feel sadness, cry, wrench my gut for the suffering of myself and my loved ones and even those I do not know, I do shun evil, I do fear pain, suffering, failure and try to avoid them even as I embrace their reality consciously. I do fail. I do despise this world for being so petty and limited and smaller than the greatness of the dreams within my little head. Yes, I fail. I die, too. But so what? None of these typically rules my life. I am ever crucified and ever resurrected. This Will to Life is ever within me, or rather I within It, and It is the universe. The entirety is beyond life and death, beyond love and hate, beyond good and evil, beyond knowledge or ignorance, beyond pleasure or pain, beyond why, meaning, and purpose. It is even beyond being and nothingness.

The end. ;)

1.8. Side Issue: Is the Universe God?:

I think it is an acceptable statement to say, “The universe is God,” as long as people understand that this is merely a semantic issue, a matter of definition, and is not even falsifiable. This linguistic move makes God demonstrably real, but this real God, i.e. the universe, is far more than a personality, although inclusive of all personalities as well as the apparently larger impersonal, and is far beyond the crude concepts of god(s) to be found in literal interpretations of ancient world literature, including the literal interpretation of much of the Bible – e.g. the personal author of the Mosaic law or the angry Yahweh who cannot forgive sins without blood sacrifice and who will cast into hell all who do not believe the stories about Jesus. God defined this way is not “supernatural;” God is Nature. Calling the universe God is logical enough if one removes all the old religious baggage; it becomes, as I said, merely a matter of semantics. What we have, then, is a scientific pantheism. A pantheism like Spinoza’s is acceptable to plenty of non-theists, even scientists, because it is based on reason and a choice of language, not superstition and private revelation. Others avoid it mainly because the word “God” is too easily associated with false religious ideas. (see "My De-conversion From Christianity," and scroll down to the section 2.8, "In the Beginning, Did God Think?"). I personally consider it acceptable, even fun, poetic, or naturalistically reverential, but in no way necessary, and I acknowledge that it is potentially confusing.

1.9. These are some links to a few other essays or posts.

* A really good TED lecture by Richard Dawkins. “The universe is queerer than we can suppose.” 22 minutes. July 2005. (available for download) - http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/richard_dawkins_on_our_queer_universe.html.

"The Big Question - Why Are We Here." (Richard Dawkins) - 23:34 - Aug 30, 2007, Channel 5 Documentary, (available for download) - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8572351836469636547 -

“Meaning and Nothingness: A personal journey.” by James A. Haught. -- http://www.geocities.com/investigatingchristianity/ (scroll down)

A Cambridge site’s essay on “Atheism and Meaning” in recent history – http://www.investigatingatheism.info/meaning.html .

“Meaning, Will, Life.” A short blog post. (Re: Meaning – relative and absolute; Determinism; Will; Desire; Positing a God doesn’t add meaning). 2007-01-30. http://www.xanga.com/WindOnReed2/566736448/meaning-will-life.html .

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Q#2. What happens to us when we die?

2.1. Transformation. . . . The same things that have always been happening. The sun ‘rises’ and ‘sets,’ people play ‘happy’ and 'sad' roles, organisms eat, new configurations arise and other ones disintegrate, lots of energy is interchanged. The difference is that after death these things occur without the pretense and without the illusion that we are somehow separate, independent beings. That temporarily relatively self-ish ego dissipates.

2.2. What happens to any animal when it dies? The same happens to us.

The answer to this question is observable in nature. Animals and other living things decompose when they die. They decay into their component parts. They dissipate into the world around them.

Humans are animals too. The fact that we are a different species does not do much to change what happens to us when we die. The persona decays into component parts. Parts and aspects of ‘individuals’ live on in memories, memorials, and memes.

Their genes have usually been copied and live in other forms – children, grandchildren. To whatever extent we are genes, we can sometimes have quite long lives.

Their thoughts/ideas, character traits, habits can also often have very long lives in other people, as memes, as patterns taken up by many different forms.

· More on memes at http://www.xanga.com/WindOnReed2/563506736/memes.html .

2.3. Physical immortality:

It may be the case that within 100 years scientific advances will enable bodily life to be prolonged indefinitely. Another possibility is that the brain will eventually be digitizable, enabling people to create electronic doubles and even for these doubles to live on a large internet.

"THE IMMORTALISTS" - A short film by Jason Silva. "A Meditation on the Will to Become Immortal: a love letter to science and philosophy that explores the idea of engineered radical life extension and biological immortality." - c. 8 min - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlOFBqDVfhE - [Jason's myspace: www.myspace.com/maxandjason]

"Aubrey de Grey: Why we age and how we can avoid it" - TED Video - 23:31 - http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/39 - OR on YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iYpxRXlboQ -

"Alan Russell: Why can't we grow new body parts?" - TED Video - 21:23 - http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/142 - OR on YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tijEl8I38mo -

“The Future Is Now? Pretty Soon, at Least,” By John Tierney, NYTimes, Published: June 3, 2008 (Re: Ray Kurzweil; Singularity; Human-Computer Integration).
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/science/03tier.html?th&emc=th, OR copied my blog post 2008-06-04 - http://www.xanga.com/WindOnReed2/660010290/the-future-is-now-pretty-soon-at-least.html ,

"Ray Kurzweil: How technology's accelerating power will transform us," VIDEO, Filmed Feb 2005, Posted Nov 2006 - 23:42 - http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ray_kurzweil_on_how_technology_will_transform_us.html, OR http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfbOyw3CT6A .

Ray Kurzweil: The Singularity Summit at Stanford - Ray Kurzweil's keynote address at The Singularity Summit at Stanford put on by the Singularity Institute in May 2006 - In 3 Parts on YouTube - (part 1 of 3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PWXrnsSrf0 - (part 2 of 3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSSYyFqpS3U - (part 3 of 3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYIj3VxSdzI -

“Human-Computer Integration.” (2 articles: 1. Monkeys control machines with their minds; 2. Robot soldier.) http://www.xanga.com/WindOnReed2/659246701/human-computer-integration.html.

Methuselah Foundation: Extending Healthy Human Life - http://www.mfoundation.org/index.php?pagename=mj_sens_sens -

Immortality Institute: Advocacy and Research for Unlimited Lifespans - http://www.imminst.org/ -

"Kevin Kelly: Predicting the next 5,000 days of the web." TED Video - 19:34 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDYCf4ONh5M -

2.4. Heaven and hell:

If taken literally, heaven and hell are superstitions going back at least as far as the Egyptians of the 3^rd millennium BCE and shared by many subsequent cultures and religions around the world, each culture/religion putting its own twists on the ideas. Heavens and hells exist as ideas in the brains of certain humans, but not in the places or manner they were thought to exist by the literal-minded among the ancients, those who thought heaven and God(s) were up in the sky and hell was directly beneath the earth in a geocentric universe with a stationary earth.

2.5. The Immortal Soul:

The idea of the immortal soul also goes back at least as far as ancient Egypt of the 3^rd millennium BCE. This idea, too, was adapted and modified by many subsequent cultures and religions, including Christianity. The original development of the concepts of “soul” and “spirit” was based on primitive reasoning that is now outdated.

Understanding the history behind the terms “soul” and “spirit” reveals some problems. In the ancient societies from which we derive our ideas of soul and spirit, the words for “soul” and/or “spirit” are exactly the same words that were used to refer to air, wind, breath. Why?

Ancient people believed in cause and effect. Sometimes causes and effects were visible, sometimes not. Cultures developed linguistic terms to indicate things/forces which were invisible to the naked eye, yet were still discernable from their effects – like thoughts, breath, and air/wind.

One of the questions they attempted to answer was, “What makes people/animals alive?” “What makes us move and think and act?” People noticed that when someone dies, he/she stops breathing. Thus, they concluded that the invisible breath/wind was what made them alive AND conscious. This was the case for the Jews, Greeks, and Romans from whom we have derived our ideas, and this becomes obvious when we study their languages.

Romans:

"Spirit" comes from Latin (Roman) spiritus (breathing, breath, breeze). The verb form is spiro, spirare – to breathe. We see it in our word “respiration,” breathing. The Romans had another word, animus, which we also sometimes translate as "spirit" or “mind.” Animus is from anima (wind, breath). We see it in our word “animal,” literally a breathing thing. The Greek word anemos also meant wind.

Hebrews/Jews:

The Hebrews had a word nephesh (something that breathes) from their word naphash (to breathe). The ancient Hebrews believed that man was dirt which El/Yahweh had shaped and breathed the air of life into:

Man = dirt + wind/breath/air (see Genesis or Ecclesiastes).

Hebrew has another word, ruwach, which meant "wind" and by association "breath." This wind/breath/ruwach blew the leaves and the clouds and gave people thoughts and emotions. When you see the word "spirit" in the English Old Testament, it is really the Hebrew word “ruwach.” In fact, even every time you read the word "wind" in the English version of the Old Testament, it is really the exact same Hebrew word, ruwach!! The ancient Hebrews made NO linguistic distinctions at all between the wind that blows locusts (Ex. 10:13), and clouds (1 Kg. 18:45), and dust (Ps. 18:42), or the wind that we breathe, and the wind that they thought was responsible for thoughts and emotions like jealousy (Num. 5:30), wisdom (Ex. 28:3), anguish (Ex. 6:9), anger (Ecc. 7:9), a troubled mind (Job 21:4). They thought that all of these phenomena were caused by the mysterious wind force – invisible air. And some came to believe that air was "non-physical" simply because they could not see it.

Greeks:

The New Testament contains two important Greek words relevant to our discussion: psyche and pneuma. The English translated psyche as “soul,” and pneuma as “spirit.” But this might be misleading. Psyche is Greek for "breath", from the Greek verb psychein (to breathe, blow air). We see it in our word "psychology", because the Greeks over time decided that our air/breath was also responsible for our thinking ability (like the ancient Hebrews). Pneuma means "a blowing, a breeze, wind, blast, breath, odor" and comes from Greek pneo (to blow, breathe). In fact, the Greek word for your lungs was pneumon. We see it in our word pneumonia.

What is the point? My point is that we now know that air (spiritus, anima, ruwach, psyche, pneuma) is made of the same stuff as our bodies and everything else. Just because air is invisible does not mean it is of some separate substance. We also know that air, our breath, is not of itself alone the thing that allows us to think and feel emotions. The ancients had a flawed basis for assuming that the seen and the unseen were two separate substances. Nobody ever should have developed the notion that the mind is some “non-physical” thing.

2.6. The mind-brain part of the body: If by “soul” someone means “that which thinks,” then this “soul” does exist and is a physical part of the body.

The mind is best described as a physical thing; emotions and thinking are physical, chemical, electrical processes of energy transference. Seeing, feeling, smelling, tasting, hearing, and thinking are all physical processes with which the mind is involved. The most ready conclusion is that the mind is a physical part of our body which shares in the physical processes of the body.

Sample argument against the idea that the mind is not physical:

The mind includes thoughts, perceptions, will, emotions, memory.
Chemicals, food, drugs, and electricity influence/affect thoughts, perceptions, will, emotions, memory.
Therefore, chemicals, food, drugs, and electricity influence/affect the mind.
For there to be interaction/influence between two things, they must have something in common, a common aspect to their nature, or one could not touch, move, influence, affect, sense, or in any way be aware of the other.
Mind must have something in common with chemicals, food, drugs, and electricity.
Chemicals, food, drugs, and electricity are called “physical.”
Mind has something in common with physicality, and it, therefore, cannot not be a substance truly separate from the physical world.

If you take a certain drug, it will change your thinking process. Chemicals can and do make you feel love, affection, sadness, happiness, indifference, pleasure, pain. Why? Because you are made of chemicals. Drugs can cause you to see and hear things that other people do not see or hear. Why? Because they are chemicals, and you are chemicals.

[Books on DMT, Ketamine, LSD, psilocybin, and such are fascinating. A few recommendations:

DMT: The Spirit Molecule: A Doctor's Revolutionary Research into the Biology of Near-Death and Mystical Experiences, by Rick Strassman MD. (2000)

Ketamine: Dreams and Realities, by Karl Jansen. (2004)

The Doors of Perception (1954) and Heaven and Hell (1956), by Aldous Huxley. Two famous essays, available together from Perennial Classics. Paperback. (2004)]

If thinking were a “spiritual,” “non-physical” process, then why would physical chemicals affect your thoughts or even destroy them? Depressed or manic people can take pills to change their mood, their temperament, because mood and temperament are physical conditions.

Our thinking starts to deteriorate at the same time as our brain starts to deteriorate in old age. As people’s brains decay, their memory and thoughts decay also.

[I’ve seen my own grandfather die with Alzheimer’s recently. But even apart from Alzheimer’s cases, one can observe the decay of thought processes, the disintegration of the mind-body, the self, the ego, before the process of death is even finished.]

In the same way, our mind and thoughts grow and develop as the rest of our body grows and develops. The health of the body and the health of the mind are so interrelated because the mind is not separate from the body, but is a part of the body. If you start poking holes in your brain, do you think your thoughts will go on as normal because they are really spiritual? If you do, I dare you to try it and prove me wrong.

Dogs, cats, monkeys, and other animals have thoughts and emotions too, even if they are not quite as complex because of genetic differences in their DNA. Yet many Christians deny that animals have souls. Why?

[Elephants seem to be aware and mournful of death and the visible bones of dead relatives in the place where those relatives died have an observable emotional effect on elephants.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1526287/Elephants-show-compassion-in-face-of-death.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8209

http://www.pulseplanet.com/dailyprogram/dailies.php?POP=1868

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1227900.stm

Chimpanzees, dolphins, and elephants appear to be the closest to humans in their thoughts and emotions. Chimpanzees’ brains seem to be developed to the level of a very young human. Note, too, that the capabilities (and/or IQs) of various human brains differ widely within our species. Of course, those humans who are least capable mentally are often considered diseased or handicapped, but even they are still a natural percentage of our species.

Related: “Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior,” NYT, Dr. de Waar, http://www.xanga.com/WindOnReed2/666217096/beginnings-of-morality-in-primate-behavior-nyt.html. 2008-07-15.

Since the rest of the body cannot survive even if the mind/will desires it to, this shows that the mind/will is not ultimately more powerful than the body, but it only part of it, and ultimately the weaker part since the rest of the body obviously decays despite the mind /will. Since the body decays, despite being stronger, why should one imagine that the even weaker mind/will has power to survive apart from the rest of its body?

I see no reason to conclude that people have a “non-physical” soul or spirit which is not made of the same stuff that makes up everything else. I also see no reason to imagine that people are immortal and continue ever to sense and think after death. Seeing, feeling, smelling, tasting, hearing, and thinking are all physical processes, and have not been shown to be otherwise. Our bodies/brains can sense light and objects because both the sensor and the sensed are physical. If our minds were not made of ‘matter,’ or of that which also makes up matter, they would have no way to sense or contact material things. And minds are obviously able to interact with the rest of the body; so if minds were immortal, then we could reasonably expect the minds of dead bodies to continue to speak to us through living bodies. I have never seen this happen. I think that if my grandfather were still alive after death, he would love me enough to speak to me.

For more on the soul, here are some links:

“Science of the Soul.” NYTimes. 2007-06-26. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26soul.html
A blog post on neuroscience. “Move Over Evolution.” Aug 17th, 2008. By Rodrigo Neely. The Edger. http://www.xanga.com/WindOnReed2/672702117/the-edger---neuroscience.html, or http://theedger.org/2008/08/17/move-over-evolution/ .
An old post of mine called “Choices,” about the brain, consciousness, and determinism. http://www.xanga.com/WindOnReed2/604121252/choices.html .
Secular essays and posts on the topic of the soul. Go to http://www.infidels.org/ , and type “soul” in the search box.
www.ted.com has interesting 20-minute lecture on this topic by various leaders in the field.
“Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior,” NYTimes, Dr. de Waar, http://www.xanga.com/WindOnReed2/666217096/beginnings-of-morality-in-primate-behavior-nyt.html. 2008-07-15.
Discover Interview: "What Makes You Uniquely "You"? Nobel laureate Gerald Edelman - your brain is one-of-a-kind in the history of the universe," by Susan Kruglinski, Discover Magazine, published online January 16, 2009. - http://discovermagazine.com/2009/feb/16-what-makes-you-uniquely-you
"Think Animals Don't Think Like Us? Think Again: One extraordinary parrot helped shatter our preconceptions about animal intelligence," by Irene M. Pepperberg, Discover Magazine, published online January 20, 2009. - http://discovermagazine.com/2009/feb/20-think-animals-dont-think-like-us-think-again
"Born believers: How your brain creates God," 04 February 2009, by Michael Brooks, NewScientist, Magazine issue 2694. - http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126941.700-born-believers-how-your-brain-creates-god.html?full=true
"The Brain How Google Is Making Us Smarter: Humans are 'natural-born cyborgs,' and the Internet is our giant 'extended mind,'" by Carl Zimmer, Discover Magazine, published online January 15, 2009. - http://discovermagazine.com/2009/feb/15-how-google-is-making-us-smarter
"Is Quantum Mechanics Controlling Your Thoughts?: Science's weirdest realm may be responsible for photosynthesis, our sense of smell, and even consciousness itself," by Mark Anderson, Discover Magazine, published online January 13, 2009. - http://discovermagazine.com/2009/feb/13-is-quantum-mechanics-controlling-your-thoughts -
"Kevin Kelly: Predicting the next 5,000 days of the web." TED Video - Filmed Dec 2007. Posted July 2008. - 19:34 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDYCf4ONh5M -

2.7. Dealing with Mortality/Death:

2.7.1. I will quote myself again:

I am not saying that mortality is necessarily easy to accept for all people, but mortality is much harder to accept when we are presented shaky promises of eternal life either in the sky or in some fantastic unseen dimension. It is perhaps easier if we think of death as merely the changing of our energy into other forms. And it is logical to think so.

Note also: If you are inseparable from the Whole . . . then you might choose to identify with the larger/ultimate ‘self’ rather than with the smaller, temporary system in which your ‘individual’ consciousness resides/consists. Even if somewhat poetic, it is still not illogical to consider yourself to be a manifestation of a self-existent universe encompassing everything possible and imaginable.

But it does seem that most people wish to retain their “finite” perspectives, attempting to prolong and augment them indefinitely.

(My essay on "Dualism And The Mind-Body Problem")

See also section 1.7. and my response to things which some people consider meaningless.

2.7.2. As with other aspects of life, some people are better at handling reality than others.

2.7.3. Another fairly healthy way of thinking of death is to realize that we face nothing that is not common to all persons of all history. Death is no untrod path. My great grandparents faced it, as did all before them. We will merely follow in their footsteps. Even those ancient Hebrews who did not believe in resurrection would use the metaphor, “He slept with his fathers,” to describe death.

There are also plenty of historical examples of non-Christian individuals who met the transformation of death and the dissolution of ego calmly, peacefully, or heroically.

2.7.4. * The ancient Epicureans had some very healthy things to say about death, too.

“Death is nothing to us.” No worries.
We are not afraid of our previous non-existence before we were born, and we should, therefore, have no fear of returning to that state in which we existed before birth.
Although the process of dying may hurt as long as one is alive, death itself cannot be painful, because the sensing apparatus necessary to register pain will be dissolved. Do what you can to ease the process while living, and there is nothing to fear in “death itself.”
Everyone who really enjoys a good, peaceful, dream-less sleep could just as well look forward to the serenity of death with no qualms whatsoever, viewing it as comparable to beautiful sleep.

For an introduction to Epicurean thought on death, a nice starting point is the Roman poet Lucretius’ work, On the Nature of Things (Latin, De Rerum Natura), book 3, especially 3.830-1094.

2.8 Christianity's Death of the Ego and a Better, Universalist Interpretation of Christianity:

One thing that I have often thought interesting is that probably every Christian I know is quite egoistic, psychologically hung up on ensuring their imagined eternal survival, and it seems to me that usually they think this includes their mind, will, and emotions.

I find this ironic, since one could readily make the argument that Christianity calls for the death of the ego and the survival not of the individual mind at all, but only of the spiritual part of a person or of whatever has been conformed to the nature of God/Christ. Consider the following excerpts:

Matthew 16:24-25 - "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it."

John 3:30 - "He must increase, but I must decrease."

John 12:24-25 - "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abides alone: but if it dies, it brings forth much fruit. He that loves his life shall lose it; and he that hates his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal."

Romans 8:29 – “For those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son.”

2Corinthians 4:16 - "For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day."

Galatians 2:20 - "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me."

Galatians 5:24 - "And they who are Christ's have crucified the flesh . . . "

Philippians 3:8 - "Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,"

Colossians 2:13 - "And you, being dead in your sins and the un-circumcision of your flesh, he has enlivened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;"

Colossians 2:11 - "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:"

Colossians 2:20 - "Wherefore if you be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, . . . "

2Timothy 2:11 - "It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him:"

One could make the argument that only Christ/God lives forever in Christianity. In a way, Christians do not really get eternal life. They must die to self. They must lose their ego. They must become something different – Christ. They must “be conformed to the image of his Son.” Again, the Galatians quote could be taken pretty seriously, "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me.” In this verse, it is Christ that lives, not Paul. Nothing that is not conformed to the image of Christ survives death.

Some interpreters distinguish between “soul” (Greek, psyche) – which they consider mortal, consisting of the mind, will, and emotions – and “spirit” (Greek, pneuma), which they consider immortal. They may cite Hebrews 4:12 among other verses. (A quick Google search turned up this link, for example - http://www.greatbiblestudy.com/soul_spirit.php ). This may well be the atypical view for average Christians, who often do not delve into doctrines and frequently enough are hardly even familiar with the Bible itself.

The Bible, however, is a collection of many books written by many people, and it is open to many possible interpretations. Someone may cite the related passage of Romans 6:1-12 and suggest that Christians do not completely die to their ego, but only to “sinful” parts of it. Any Christian desperate for his/her ego to live forever could probably find a way to justify it.

Anyway, the Christians I know are not really dead to their ego, not even to the “sinful” or petty parts, and they are certainly not “conformed to the image of Christ” in any sense but perhaps a poetic sense, allowed a liberal and symbolic interpretation. I spent 23 years as a very devout Christian living among other Christians and visiting many churches and conferences across the country, but never once did I meet anyone who I can honestly say came anywhere close to being “conformed to the image of Christ” (as is presented in the New Testament taken altogether in a literal fundamentalist interpretation).

In many, perhaps most, cases, Christians (except for the liberal ones) seem to me worse off and more egoistic than plenty of non-Christians, thinking life would be completely meaningless if their specific personal ego were unable to live eternally.

I do recognize, however, that in plenty of communities in the U.S., and for plenty of people, Christianity as seen through local churches and people has been the only philosophy even attempting to offer them meaning or help them with problems. Of course such people, especially if not well-read, could think that their life would be meaningless without Christianity and the survival of their personal ego.

Another irony is that this same concept, interpreted liberally and symbolically, poetically if you will, could be applied to all people, all things, regardless of religion. We all “die in the flesh” constantly, but live ever in the eternal “spirit” (which is ‘wind/breath,’ and is realistic only as a symbol of the substance(s)/ ‘energy’ of the universe). Any human who “wakes up” from the “sleep” of “selfish” living (“death” metaphorically) and realizes that he/she is not really separate from “the All” (or “God,” if you prefer) but is one with the interconnected web of Life, and who learns then to see through greater eyes, from larger perspectives, can be said to “die to self” (the small self, the “flesh”) and be “reborn” into an “eternal” life (the life of the whole, the All). I think it is noteworthy that some early Christians interpreted the resurrection of the Christ as a ‘spiritual,’ rather than physical, phenomenon, possibly even emphasizing a symbolic rather than grossly simplistic, “literal” interpretation. It is too bad that the cruder view won out, as one might have expected from people influenced by a form of Judaism which had evolved to adopt the concept of a physical/bodily resurrection in “the last days.”

The “soft” interpretation of “death to self/ego” can simply refer to the experiences of all people (including atheists, philosophers, and people of various traditions) who realize that there is far more to life than living merely to fulfill the desires of their own ego and immediate body. Such people can and do “die to self” in the sense that they now serve greater, “higher” purposes, like seeking the well-being of others (or even the entire community, species, or planet), loving others, devoting their personal resources to education, service, volunteer work, and/or special causes, etc..

2.9. Kurt Vonnegut’s “Tralfamadorian” view of Death:

Vonnegut, Kurt, Jr. wrote an excellent little novel entitled Slaughterhouse-Five (1969). In it, the main character is kidnapped by aliens who have an interesting perspective.

Seeing in 4 dimensions:

“He said he had been kidnapped by the Tralfamadorians on the night of his daughter’s wedding [1967]. He hadn’t been missed, he said, b/c the Tralfamadorians had taken him through a time warp. ... The creatures were friendly, and they could see in four dimensions. They pitied Earthlings for being able to see only three. ...

“The most important thing I learned on Tralfamadore was that when a person dies, he only appears to die. He is still very much alive in the past, so it is very silly for people to cry at his funeral. All moments, past, present, and future, always have existed, always will exist. The Tralfamadorians can look at all the different moments, just the way we can look at a stretch of the Rocky Mountains, for instance. They can see how permanent all the moments are, and they can look at any moment that interests them. It is just an illusion we have here on Earth that one moment follows another one, like beads on a string, and that once a moment is gone it is gone forever.

When a Tralfamadorian sees a corpse, all he thinks is that the dead person is in bad condition in that particular moment, but that the same person is just fine in plenty of other moments. Now, when I myself hear that somebody is dead, I simply shrug and say what the Tralfamadorians say about dead people, which is ‘So it goes.’”

(Vonnegut pp.26-27)

There are many other priceless quotes and sentiments in the book, but this one passage will suffice to explain this view.

I use fiction here to make this point because I think it is a fun and interesting idea. More than that, I think it is profound and beautiful.

2.10. Rather than say more, I will stop here and simply answer/address questions/comments.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Q#3. Is there any guiding force in our world today?

3.1.

There are many guiding forces in the world today. I have read of four natural forces, for example: gravity, electromagnetic force, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, etc. These appear to be un-caused aspects of the nature of the universe; they are used to explain cause and effect within the universe. We can lump these four forces under the single title “nature” if we wish.

At a different level, humans, teachers, governments, concepts, philosophies – all of these can be considered guiding forces, too.

I do not really understand the intent of your question.

Do you mean to ask whether there are any guidelines for behavior?

3.2. Do you mean to ask whether there is a personality (a god, for example) controlling all events from “behind the scenes”?

If this is your intent, here is my reply: I think there is no personality consciously guiding ALL events. I am not even sure it makes good sense to imagine a personality (i.e. a personal “god”) governing “all” events. A personality has moving component parts, desires, will, emotions, character, thoughts. In other words a personality itself is the result of events within the personality, subtler than the personality itself – events which are beyond the personality’s conscious control. Therefore, it would be misguided to suggest that such a personality could control all events, since it could not even fully control itself or chose its own nature or the “laws” governing its own being. We would still have a situation in which impersonal law(s)/nature would be the ultimate guiding force(s), not a compound personality. And impersonal law(s)/nature would still be un-caused. The universe as a whole simply IS what it is, at the ultimate level. Only within the universe, viewed from certain perspectives, does un-caused “law” manifest cause and effect relationships. Additionally, in a sense there is not necessarily any way to conclude that the law(s)/nature of the universe cannot change over time, but it is a funny feature of language that if universal law(s)/nature change(s) over time, we might just as well say that it is the eternal law/nature of the universe that the universe can manifest change within itself, if viewed from certain perspectives.

Theoretically, our measured-as-of-yet “world” could all exist inside a machine or system or game controlled by a personality or even multiple personalities, who themselves exist (along with the world(s) they control) inside a yet-larger universe. I do not concern myself with such possibilities; such contemplation would quickly seem a waste of time to me, if indulged in detail (except possibly for entertainment’s sake). If there be any personal god(s), I would be glad to know it/them if it/she/he/they should ever wish or be willing to reveal its/their divine nature(s) to me. Still, however, such personal god(s) would be but aspects of a larger whole, called the universe, and ultimate reality would be beyond its/their control. Whatever they would control, they would control according to their nature, or the ultimate nature of the universe as a whole, which they would have no way of choosing.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Q#4. Does science hold all the pieces to the puzzle?

It depends on what the puzzle is? Is there one puzzle or many? To which puzzle do you refer?

“Holding” all the pieces to any puzzle is only possible if the puzzle is smaller or somehow less complex than the holder of the pieces. And “holding” implies a kind of distinction between the puzzle and the holder, whereas if you are talking about the “ultimate” puzzle, distinctions between the puzzle and the holder disappear, and we ARE the puzzle, part of the puzzle.

By “the” puzzle, I could assume you mean the entirety, which I call the universe. It makes no sense, I think, to speak of holding all the pieces of the universe, or “knowing” “everything” about the universe, except to say poetically that we all are manifestation of the universe, and by being it, we hold the pieces to the puzzle.

Also, it may sound overly simple or playful if I said, “Science knows what is knowable.” i.e. I could play and say that the word “science” comes from either the noun form or the substantive participial form of the Latin verb “scire” – “to know”; thus, science, scientia, is, at its root, “knowing,” or “knowings,” or “knowledge.” In that sense, science knows all that is known. It would be a true statement, according to etymology; but it is quite playful.

Whatever pieces of the puzzle “science” does “hold,” you will never know except to the extent that you know science. – another playful statement.

What do you think of this TED lecture by Richard Dawkins, “The Universe Is Queerer than We Can Suppose”? (22 minutes. July 2005.)

– http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/richard_dawkins_on_our_queer_universe.html, (available for download),
OR in 3 parts on YouTube:
Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba3tlR5tPRI ;
Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6CSM-ienRM ;
Part 3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgTPS9nyUF0 .

It is one of my favorite TED talks.

Before I give any further attention to your question I think I will wait for you to see the lecture and also rephrase your question or elaborate. You may be wanting to get into epistemology, and that will be a great big can of worms. We can do it when the time comes.

Or you may mean, “Is the scientific method the only valid method of inquiry?”

My answer would be, "I don't think so." It is not always possible to do experiments for every question. But in general I do believe in looking for evidence as much as possible.

"The Big Question - Why Are We Here." (Richard Dawkins) - 23:34 - Aug 30, 2007, Channel 5 Documentary, (available for download) - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8572351836469636547 -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Q#5. If evolution is true what creatures are we seeing develop out of nothing these days?

5.1.

Where did you get the idea that evolution predicts or describes “new creatures developing from nothing”? Seriously. Did you read this somewhere? Where? If someone said this, who said it?

First, as far as I know, evolution does not suggest that creatures are coming from nothing or will necessarily ever be coming from nothing right before our eyes. I think that the question itself betrays a lack of familiarity with the arguments for and evidence of evolution. It seems to me that you are doubting evolution precisely because you have never seriously looked into the topic. ... And reading Christian apologetics certainly does not count as seriously studying evolution. Happily, there is a great solution to this.

Before you do anything else related to this topic, ASAP go to http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=DB23537556D7AADB and watch the entire “Made Easy” series posted by the user named Potholer54. Each video is only about 10 minutes in length. It is best to open each one in a separate tab and pause each until the entire thing has loaded. I think videos 4-9 (plus “Errata 2”) will be SO very helpful for you, and they are entertaining anyway and short.

You would also like http://www.youtube.com/user/Potholer54debunks, in particular the 3 videos of the “Creationist Junk Debunked” series, as well as “Carbon Dating Doesn't Work – Debunked.”

Popular Christian talk is full of myths, misinformation, and outright lies about evolution, and the videos above will at least prevent you from falling prey to certain misinformation or unawareness (such as appeared in this question).

5.2. Web Resources Covering Evolution (Generally):

The Universe “Made Easy” series posted by the user named Potholer54 on YouTube. Each video is only about 10 minutes in length. http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=DB23537556D7AADB

“29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent, Version 2.87, Copyright © 1999-2006 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D., [Last Update: June 19, 2007], http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/.

Panda’s Thumb. A science and evolution weblog that also handles creationist propaganda. It has extensive archives available for searching by topic. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/.

The TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy. http://www.talkorigins.org/.

TalkDesign. A web site responding “to the "Intelligent Design" movement of creationism. It is dedicated to: 1. Assessing the claims of the Intelligent Design movement from the perspective of mainstream science, 2. Addressing the wider political, cultural, philosophical, moral, religious, and educational issues that have inspired the ID movement, 3. Providing an archive of materials that critically examine the scientific claims of the ID movement. - http://www.talkdesign.org/cs/.

AntiEvolution.org “provides concise and accurate information for those who wish to critically examine the antievolution movement.” - http://www.antievolution.org/cs/.

Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks, a site created and maintained by the National Center for Science Education. The site thoroughly examines the Ben Stein independent documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” (2008), which published lots of bogus and misleading ideas about science and evolution. http://www.expelledexposed.com/.

One may also check the daily or periodic science columns of various on-line news organizations, such as the BBC, the New York Times, Discover Magazine, etc. If one were to be very serious and have sufficient time, one might keep up with scientific journals themselves, but a person almost has to be a professional to do so. Usually news organizations provide information sufficient for a person to do further research on any particular subject.

5.3. IF you meant to ask, “Are organisms still evolving”?

Yes.

Various organisms have evolved even within the last few decades and continue to evolve. Evolution is most easily observable in species that reproduce quickly. One brief generally known example of recent evolution is the fact that bacteria develop genetic immunities to certain antibiotics.

Despite the fact that evolutionary biologists generally expect evolution to occur slow processes over quite long periods of time, there are enough organisms that reproduce much more quickly than humans, so that evolution as actually been witnessed and documented, even to the level of speciation, i.e. the development of new species, both naturally and in artificial lab experiments.

To put it in different words, evolution is a fact. What is a “theory” is that all life forms, every single one, must be explained the same way. It makes sense, the necessary processes themselves have been verified, and there is plenty of evidence in the fossil record and from genetics to support the theory. The only thing that cannot be done is to replicate all of world history and four billion plus years of evolution . . . in the laboratory.

You can do your own google search for “recent evolution” or “recent speciation” and start reading some of the articles that look interesting and are from scientific sources. Here are some of the most interesting and relevant links I have looked at:

“Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution,” 1995-1997, by Mark Isaak, [Last Update: October 1, 2003] – Includes a brief debunking of the creationist claim that "Evolution has never been observed," along with other misconceptions – http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe.

"Observed Instances of Speciation," posted by David Bloomberg, abbreviating Joseph Boxhorn. A summary list with examples from 1905-1990. – http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/speci.htm. His source is this one:

“Observed Instances of Speciation,” by Joseph Boxhorn. Last Update: September 1, 1995. Includes MANY well-documented examples of actual observed speciation, i.e. the evolution of new species, as well as an explanation of what speciation is and how it is determined. If pressed for time, scroll down to section 5 and just start reading the summarized examples - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html.

“Some More Observed Speciation Events,” by Chris Stassen, James Meritt, Anneliese Lilje, L. Drew Davis. 1992-1997. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html.

"Detecting recent speciation events: the case of the finless porpoise (genus Neophocaena)," J Y Wang, T R Frasier, S C Yang and B N White. Heredity (2008) 101, 145–155; doi:10.1038/hdy.2008.40; published online 14 May 2008 at http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v101/n2/abs/hdy200840a.html .

"Rethinking classic examples of recent speciation in plants," by Gottlieb, L. D., New Phytologist, Volume 161, Number 1, November 2003 , pp. 1-12(12). Blackwell Publishing. Abstract Summary on-line at http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/nph/2003/00000161/00000001/art00003.

"Recent speciation in the orchard oriole group: Divergence of Icterus spurius spurius and Icterus spurius fuertesi," by Baker JM; Lopez-Medrano E; Navarro-Siguenza AG; Rojas-Soto OR; Omland KE, in AUK 120 (3): 848-859, July 2003. Abstract on-line at http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/histcomp/coalesc/node/1422.html .

5.4. “Recent” Human Evolution:

For a general introduction, as with just about any topic, a person can simply read the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution). You might also quickly view “Human Evolution: Intermediate Forms” at TalkOrigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex3). The shortest and easiest visual introduction I know of is a 10 minute video, part of the “Made Easy” series posted by a user named Potholer54 on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=DB23537556D7AADB).

When speaking of human evolution, “recent” can mean “within the last 10,000 years. Human evolution is a very fascinating topic. Here are some worthwhile resources:

Greg Cochran and Henry Harpending. The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution. (January 26, 2009) Basic Books. 304 pages. Ref: http://www.amazon.com/000-Year-Explosion-Civilization-Accelerated/dp/0465002218. Here is the initial review at amazon.com:

Resistance to malaria. Blue eyes. Lactose tolerance. What do all of these traits have in common? Every one of them has emerged in the last 10,000 years.

Scientists have long believed that the “great leap forward” that occurred some 40,000 to 50,000 years ago in Europe marked end of significant biological evolution in humans. In this stunningly original account of our evolutionary history, top scholars Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending reject this conventional wisdom and reveal that the human species has undergone a storm of genetic change much more recently. Human evolution in fact accelerated after civilization arose, they contend, and these ongoing changes have played a pivotal role in human history. They argue that biology explains the expansion of the Indo-Europeans, the European conquest of the Americas, and European Jews' rise to intellectual prominence. In each of these cases, the key was recent genetic change: adult milk tolerance in the early Indo-Europeans that allowed for a new way of life, increased disease resistance among the Europeans settling America, and new versions of neurological genes among European Jews.

Ranging across subjects as diverse as human domestication, Neanderthal hybridization, and IQ tests, Cochran and Harpending's analysis demonstrates convincingly that human genetics have changed and can continue to change much more rapidly than scientists have previously believed. A provocative and fascinating new look at human evolution that turns conventional wisdom on its head, The 10,000 Year Explosion reveals the ongoing interplay between culture and biology in the making of the human race.

"Human Genome Shows Proof of Recent Evolution, Survey Finds," by Scott Norris, National Geographic News, March 8, 2006 - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html .

"Very Recent Evolution: Up To 10 Percent Of Human Genome Has Changed," Scientific Blogging News, July 11th 2007 11:00 PM - http://www.scientificblogging.com/news/very_recent_evolution_up_to_10_percent_of_human_genome_has_changed .

"Human Genome Reveals Signs Of Recent Evolution," by Jennifer Barone. Discover Magazine. (Human Origins / Human Evolution: 43.) Published online January 4, 2008. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jan/human-genome-reveals-signs-of-recent-evolution.

"We are all mutants now," Steve Hsu, Professor of Physics at the University of Oregon, blog, Dec 11, 2008 – http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2007/12/we-are-all-mutants-now.html.

"Recent Evolution in Humans," Steve Hsu, Professor of Physics at the University of Oregon, blog, Dec 17, 2008 - http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/12/recent-natural-selection-in-humans.html.

"Cavemen: They're Just Like Us," by Jessica Ruvinsky, Discover Magazine, published online December 21, 2008. (Top 100 Stories of 2008 #8). “Neanderthals were a sophisticated bunch, according to new research.” - http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/008.

"Selection Spurred Recent Evolution, Researchers Say," By Nicholas Wade, NYTimes, December 11, 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/science/11gene.html.

"Are Humans Evolving Faster? Findings Suggest We are Becoming More Different, Not Alike," University of Utah Press Release, Media Contacts, Dec. 10, 2007 - "Researchers discovered genetic evidence that human evolution is speeding up - and has not halted or proceeded at a constant rate, as had been thought - indicating that humans on different continents are becoming increasingly different." - http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=120607-1.

*[primary source] : Williamson SH, Hubisz MJ, Clark AG, Payseur BA, Bustamante CD, et al. (2007). “Localizing Recent Adaptive Evolution in the Human Genome.” PLoS Genet 3(6): e90. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.0030090. Available on-line at http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030090

"Did Early Humans First Arise in Asia, Not Africa?," Nicholas Bakalar, National Geographic News, December 27, 2005. - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1227_051227_asia_migration.html.

5.5. Here are some great articles on science, genetics, evolution, etc., truly worth spending some time with, in order to understand what is happening in the world today, where we have come from and where we are headed. These are so fun and fascinating:

"Transfer RNA - Evolution's Historian," Scientific Blogging News, March 7, 2008, 09:54 AM. - http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/transfer_rna_evolutions_historian.

"Is That a Dead Mouse You're Cloning?" by Jennifer Barone, Discover Magazine, published online January 12, 2009. -- “Researchers clone living pups from long-dead, frozen rodents.” -- http://discovermagazine.com/2009/feb/12-is-that-a-dead-mouse-you.re-cloning.

Top 100 Stories of 2008 #8: "Cavemen: They're Just Like Us," by Jessica Ruvinsky, Discover Magazine, published online December 21, 2008. "Neanderthals were a sophisticated bunch, according to new research." - http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/008

Top 100 Stories of 2008: #9: "Your Genome, Now Available for a (Relative) Discount," by Kathleen McGowan, Discover Magazine, published online December 21, 2008. "The first cost around $1 million; now, it's more like $200,000." - http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/009.

Top 100 Stories of 2008: #29: "A New Law Bans Genetic Discrimination: After over a decade, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act becomes law," by Karen Wright, Discover Magazine, published online December 17, 2008. - http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/029.

Top 100 Stories of 2008: #41: "A Synthetic Genome Is Built From Scratch: The art of recreating an entire bacterial genome," by Jocelyn Rice, Discover Magazine, published online December 14, 2008. http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/041.

Top 100 Stories of 2008: #90: "The Platypus Genome Is a Mash-Up of Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals," by Jane Bosveld, Discover Magazine, published online December 7, 2008. - "One animal, three completely different ancestors." - http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/090.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Q#6. If evolution is true should we let the sick die and have no healthcare, just let the strong survive?

No.

You tell me. Should we do away with health care?

If you pay close attention to the information and links I have been providing, you will quickly see that you can go ahead and drop the “If evolution is true” part of the question. Evolution is true. So, . . . do you now think we should let the sick die and do without healthcare?

Do you really wonder whether we should give up caring for the sick? Is this a sincere question?

I ask only because I think your heart would already know the answer were you actually faced with the question in real time. Misguided fundamentalists often vainly imagine a correlation between evolution and immorality. Such is far from the truth.

Watch this entertaining 10-minute video, “Atheists are immoral – debunked” - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94f2h-5TvbM, which addresses this specific question among others, and tell me if you still have questions. Don’t skip it! I think it is informative, and it is more fun than reading 100,000 pages written by me.

Unfortunately, lots of people think the answer to your question is “yes,” because only because they lack understanding and they listen to misleading fundamentalist Christians and people like Ben Stein who spew ignorant anti-evolution propaganda.

Also, to be more precise, natural selection does not suggest that only “the strong” survive. It suggests that the “fittest” survive. The cooperation of many weaker organisms can overpower a single organism that is stronger if compared one-on-one. The ability to cooperate can itself often be a test of fitness.

Love and compassion, while not practiced without fail, are characteristic components of the human species (and other species) in general, regardless of religion or lack of religion, and have played an important role in helping us (and other species) to survive. Love and compassion are not concepts that are somehow contrary to evolution. They are themselves a result of evolution. The same goes for cooperation.

Also, the well-supported and currently-scientifically-unchallenged theory of macroevolution and the facts of microevolution are descriptive, not prescriptive. “Evolution” does not tell people how to behave, much less suggest that people ought to be mean or avoid helping the sick.

Note also how many Christian fundamentalist anti-evolutionists in the U.S. tend to vote Republican and oppose universal health care or government aid for impoverished people. Yet they are simultaneously foolish enough to think that knowledge of evolutionary biology necessarily leads people to be negligent of others, to refuse to care for the sick, to be nothing but bad. What do such people think when they favorably compare themselves to those “evil” evolution-believing Democrats who . . . surprise, surprise! . . . vote for universal health care, make environmental issues a top priority, and champion human rights!?

Be sure to read the sections below, especially on Dawkins and Darwin.

6.2. Hitler, and Common Misinformation:

Some theists have claimed that knowledge of evolution leads to evil eugenics and the kind of behavior displayed by Hitler and the Nazis before and during World War II. This is an ignorant belief. Ben Stein’s documentary “Expelled” is a good (yet horrid!) example of this kind of foolish propaganda. See this post for an explanation - http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/hitler-eugenics.

The same kinds of theists also tend to make other ignorant claims, like “Atheism leads to people like Hitler.” If you ever hear such, please set the person straight. Hitler was NOT an atheist. In fact, he claimed to act in accord with “God's will,” and most Nazis were Christian. Hitler publicly and repeatedly associated atheism with communists and Jews; he opposed and blamed all three groups. The anti-Semitism of the Nazis stemmed from a long tradition of anti-Semitism within Christianity.

Many Christian writers and preachers labeled the Jews "God killers" – such was merely Christian anti-Semitic propaganda. Look into the anti-Semitism of Martin Luther some time. Of course I am not suggesting that all Christians are anti-Semitic, but a strain of anti-Semitism has a very long history in Christianity, probably going back at least to the second century, if not the first. I do not have a source list handy, but lots of literature has been published on this topic. e.g. The Causes of Anti-Semitism: A Critique of the Bible, by Arthur Blech. (2006) http://www.amazon.com/Causes-Anti-semitism-Critique-Bible/dp/1591024463.

SS soldiers wore "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles. This German phrase means “God with us” (see also Matthew 1:23). Here is a picture of one - http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/2002/nov02/carrier.php. Here are a couple of sources on Hitler and his beliefs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm.

Spurred on by others’ attempts, I now have my own unpolished collection of Hitler quotes on this topic, which I compiled from doing keyword searches of his book Mein Kampf and from his speeches, revealing his attitudes on religion and his use thereof; if you ever want it, just say so. To me, he sounds far more like the American religious right than anything else in current US politics when it comes to religion.

6.3. Misunderstandings of Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene (1976):

Concepts such as “the selfish gene” have also been misunderstood by ignorant fundamentalists who have not read Dawkins’ book and too often only know about Richard Dawkins from fundamentalist propaganda. Richard Dawkins does not advocate selfishness. Consider the following quote:

“It is possible that yet another unique quality of man is the capacity for genuine, disinterested, true altruism. I hope so, but I am not going to argue the case one way or the other, nor to speculate over its possible memic evolution. The point I am making now is that, even if we look on the dark side and assume that individual man is fundamentally selfish, our conscious foresight – our capacity to simulate the future in imagination – could save us from the worst selfish excesses of the blind replicators. We have at least the mental equipment to foster our long-term selfish interests rather than merely our short-term selfish interests. We can see the long-term benefits of participating in a “conspiracy of doves”, and we can sit down together to discuss ways of making the conspiracy work. We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination. We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism – something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.” (Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, pp. 200-201, 1999 new-cover reprint of 1989 edition)

This is a man who hopes for altruism, hopes for humanity’s rise out of selfishness, and believes in human potential.

By the way, the book quoted here is a wonderful and very entertaining work, having earned a place on my all time favorites list, and I most highly recommend it.

I also recommend the following. Among other things it will give you a better understanding of the high standards of morality upheld by the best scientists:

"The Big Question - Why Are We Here." (Richard Dawkins) - 23:34 - Aug 30, 2007, Channel 5 Documentary, (available for download) - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8572351836469636547 -

"Nice Guys Finish First," (BBC "Horizon" television series), 1987 documentary by Richard Dawkins discussing selfishness and cooperation, arguing that evolution often favors co-operative behaviour. (available for download) - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3494530275568693212 -

6.4. Darwin and Sympathy:

For those who may have heard misrepresentations of Darwin, consider the following quote:

“The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.” (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871. Vol. 1, Chapter 5, p. 162, available on-line at http://books.google.com/.)

Consider this one as well:

“Nevertheless the first foundation or origin of the moral sense lies in the social instincts, including sympathy; and these instincts no doubt were primarily gained, as in the case of the lower animals, through natural selection.” (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871. Vol. II, p. 394, available on-line at http://books.google.com/.)

Darwin considered sympathy the “noblest part” of human nature. It should now be very clear, then, that Charles Darwin himself, as well as the more recent Richard Dawkins, would in no way advocate abandoning the sick or abandoning health care. I am confident that practically every scientist in the U.S.A. would agree.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I expect it will take you some time to work through these essays and the links. I hope you will have found this helpful. Please let me know if you find any errors, as I intend to post this for the use of any others who may ask similar questions.