But even in the best-case scenario we will not survive the eventual death of our galaxy. Astronomers believe that our local group will end its life as an orphan in the universe, beyond sight or reach of any other object.
One day, the exponential curve of progress will stop. I wake each morning alive, and yet I know someday I will die. Am I a Cassandra because I recognize my mortality?
Ray Kurzweil, a futurist who believe that we are close to reaching a "technological singularity," is optimistic not because he believes in exponential progress, but because he believes that humankind will be preserved in the process. We'll just have to accept being replaced by the next model, because life will continue to evolve whether we like or not.
We can't selfishly say that the only legacy of life is the legacy of homo sapiens. We're just the ape that happens to be the best (by far) at making tools. But we are little more than one step in a great chain of accelerating change stretching back to the Cambrian. Just like industrious little bacteria-like creatures that banded together to form the first multi-cellular organism, we apes are on the verge of engineering the next great transition in the evolution of life.
All of this progress, however, requires that we avoid an accidental nuke-fest and promptly clean up the environment. And there's always the possibility that we could get hit by a cosmic bus.
We know our curve will end someday. But as long as we can manage to keep rolling, chances are, it won't be today, or any day soon.
[ add comment ] | permalink
Religion is the approach that starts with the answer, and science is the approach that is willing to consider all answers. When we genuinely ask the question “What is God?” and we seek an answer that is truthful, we are, in fact, asking a scientific question.
It is true that science is embedded in its social context, and that all truth-seekers carry inescapable biases, but those who take a scientific approach hope to remove their colored lenses and see the world as it truly is. A scientist is one who acknowledges that she doesn't know all there is to know, and that there will always be more to learn, and more to learn about the methods of learning.
Stephen Jay Gould argued that science and religion are “non-overlapping magisteria,” and scientific inquiry lacks the ability to undermine religious faith. But religious theories could not possibly be unfazed if it turns out that life originated in a pool of amino acids or from a comet born from a faraway star system. Truth-seeking is truth-seeking, and if one theory is correct, another one bites the dust.
Either life is guided or it is not. If a deterministic process originating from a cause in a long-past eon resulted in the human creative endeavor and technological progress that we see today, then life is not guided, in the sense understood by religion. As science has marched along, God's ground has grown smaller. We no longer need a 7-day creation story, or a cosmic egg, or the blood and guts of the Gods, because we have evolution. We no longer need Thor's hammer, because we have electricity. We no longer need to be people of the Book, because the people have the means to write a better book.
The philosophers of our age who have argued that religion and science are compatible seek refuge in a tiny corner of the map of possible Godly incarnations. The rational thinkers who advocate God's existence today all acknowledge that if God exists, she must be distant and limited by scientific principles. No serious scholar will argue for the biblical God of vengeance, they can only muster the will to advocate the existence of the miniscule God of a non-arbitrary first cause.
Why do we cling to this miniscule God? Why can't we see the ground shrinking before our feet and simply give up?
One way to cling to science and religion at the same time, like a child who wraps his legs around his mother while clinging to the door with his hands, is by redefining the very word “God.” This was Albert Einstein's tactic – he held fast to the notion of God as an metaphorical incarnation of a feeling of wonder. Privately, he acknowledged that religion was silly, but spoke publicly in slogans about a God who would not play dice.
This linguistic trick gets us no closer to the truth, and confuses the layperson who still understands God to mean Jehovah with a beard and robe. Why not simply call this thing “wonder” or “awe” or “the numinous” -- or even “the unknown”?
We can all experience ecstasy in the wonder of existence while limiting our factual allegations to those that have been earnestly examined, flawed though our efforts may be. The practice of science may seem dry and incapable of granting ecstasy, but we simply lack a widespread venue for ecstatic expression that is non-supernatural.
There is no better way to experience awe at the wonder of the universe and joy at our luck at being born on this extremely hospitable rock than by the practice of the science of astronomy. Music, meditation, and positive thinking are all practices informed by science and mathematics that have the power to grant ecstasy, and are in fact the tools utilized by religion to create the illusion of a divine gift of joy.
[ add comment ] | permalink | related link
Some nonbelievers make the mistake of labeling the wonder of the natural universe “God,” foremost among them Albert Einstein. Einstein once said,
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.
-- Albert Einstein, The World as I See It
So when Einstein uttered the famous words “God does not play at dice with the Universe,” he was not talking about the God of Christianity, or any supernatural entity; he was talking about his profound sense of wonder at the universe's mysterious order. Religious people do not mean what Einstein meant when they talk about God.
I, and most atheists, share Einstein's respect for the numinous. I feel an overwhelming, almost ecstatic, sense of wonder when I contemplate my incredible luck at being a collection of atoms that happens to have the gift of awareness. Most atoms are not nearly so lucky.
Religious thinkers wish for an almighty eye looking in on our little Earth, some cosmic and (more) wonderful force that sees and knows us. Somehow, they believe that only if we are being observed can we have meaning in our lives.
But we are the observers, not the observed. Doesn't this make life all the more wonderful? Wouldn't you rather be the watchmaker than the watch?
There is nothing else in the universe that can look, in or out, or anywhere (that we know of). We are the eyes that have popped into being in a flux of matter and energy, and that is the true wonder of life.
We are the eyes that can look out at the universe, and see it, and know it. Need proof? Just grab a telescope! You lucky son of a bitch, you can look out and observe the many-splendored landscape of stars. Just think, of all the wonder and order and beauty of galaxies and stars and nebula, you are the only one that gets to see it all. You hold the privileged place in the cosmos, because you are the eye looking out.
You read my words, you hear me speak, so you know that you know, and there can be no doubt of your experience. You think, therefore you are, and the thought that you experience is the most overwhelmingly fantastic thing that anyone has ever seen anywhere in the universe. Read More...
[ 1 comment ] ( 24 views ) | permalink
People say to me “What you are saying is a hard sell. You can’t comfort people by telling them there is no eternal life and that their concerns are puny compared with the immense emptiness of the universe.” It’s true – reality is so daunting it is an impossible sell. The biggest draw of religion is also its greatest drawback – the promise of eternal life. The problem is that it is false advertising, because we will not live forever, and our planet, our sun, our galaxy, will all eventually die.
This is incredibly depressing. How easy and comfortable it would be, by comparison, to just give in to peer pressure, and to relax into the feeling of the salvation offered by Jesus Christ (or whatever). And yet I cannot bring myself to do so. The truth, while daunting, to me is irresistible. I cannot take Pascal’s wager because I just don’t have the ability to choose belief. Maybe other people do, and if so, I have no trouble at all understanding their decision. But I do have trouble understanding how they have the ability to decide to alter their own perception.
Sure, I deceive myself, as I am sure we all do. I want to believe that my flaws don’t exist, and that I will live forever, and I make these denials with a sort of offhanded triviality. When I deny my impending death, it makes it easier to live day by day, but I still know that I will die. When I think about it, it bogs me down, but I cannot let go of my belief in my own death, as comforting as it might be to do so. The question of meaning in my life is not trivial; it is an all-consuming question. And so I cannot lightly relax and let go of my knowledge that I will die, because it clings to me like a child. My knowledge is precious to me. It defines me because it defines which actions I will take.
It is so easy to proselytize salvation – religion is compelling because it is easy and safe. Telling people they are loved and cared for and will live forever is fun because people like hearing those things. Telling people that they are alone and must struggle desperately to avoid their near certain doom provokes horror, which needless to say, people don’t like.
Why, you might ask, do I even want others to accept these depressing facts, making them unhappy and resentful? Read More...
[ 3 comments ] ( 53 views ) | permalink
Kinderlieb: Do you really think for most people being happy comes down to a choice?
Guanshi Edyo: It may not be choice that we are aware of, but we make many choices that impact our happiness.
Kinderlieb: Such as?
Guanshi Edyo: We make choices every day about our attitude towards the world, the people around us, and the circumstances of our lives. Negative thoughts cause negative emotion, so if we look at the
world and expect negative things will be unhappy.
Kinderlieb: Yes, but research shows that temperament is inborn, and within ten minutes of life, doctors can determine temperament, which correlates with measures of personality taken years later. So could some people be predisposed to unhappiness through a biological flaw?
Guanshi Edyo: Temperament only indicates an inclination - we can choose many of our individual thoughts, even if we genetically trend a particular way. I can choose to smile, which will trigger a happy mood in the moment that I smile; I can choose to repeat a positive mantra to myself, which will lead to positive emotions. I may have greater obstacles to overcome in achieving lasting happiness if my temperament tends to push me towards negativity, but that's the same as saying that genetically obese people have more to overcome in becoming physically fit, or that people with addictive personalities have more to overcome if they run into problems with substance abuse.
Read More...
[ 6 comments ] ( 38 views ) | permalink
Categories
