Vote

Which candidate would you vote for?

  • George W. Bush

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • John Kerry

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Ralph Nader

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Michael Badanarik

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
22,275
Location
I am omnipresent
My attitude is that I am deeply ashamed to live in this country, Clocker. That is not a comfortable place to be.

And for the record, I am looking into ways that I might make an extended stay in Canada. I might seek a master's degree from a Canadian school, and I've made my resume available for consideration by companies outside the US. I would basically need an employment offer in order to reside in Canada.

Per JSF's comments about Canada's health care system: I have catastrophic insurance only. Roughly 15% of Americans have no health care at all. Regardless of what you might of Canada's Socialized Health Care system, the fact is that free or near-free basic care IS available to everyone in Canada, which is a damned sight better than having to make an economic descion about your physical well-being every time you're hurt or ill.
 

Clocker

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
3,554
Location
USA
I'm sure a person with your intellectual superiority will not have a problem getting a job interview. Good luck, when you get to that point.
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
4,374
Location
Flushing, New York
I'm wondering how long it will be before the traumatized Kerry supporters file a lawsuit against the Bush campaign for causing them their trauma by winning the election. Don't laugh. It could conceivably happen, and there are juries stupid enough to actually award money in cases like this.

Merc,

Good luck if you're really serious about going to Canada. Regardless of who's President here a change of scenery might not be a bad thing for you. I've thought of eventually living in China if things in the US got really bad, or if Hillary Clinton wins in 2008.
 

RWIndiana

Learning Storage Performance
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
335
Location
Nirvana
Hey Merc, you may not have to go too far. It sounds like the blue states may secede and merge with Canada to form the United States of Canada. Since the blue states think that all us hicks in the red states are a liability to them, they are thinking they might just leave us behind to burn and die. Well personally that's just fine with me. Leave me my church, my gun and my pickup truck and leave me alone. Heh. :D
 

RWIndiana

Learning Storage Performance
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
335
Location
Nirvana
Okay so I don't have a pickup truck. lol. But I am so sick of liberal lunatics making fun of me, my family, and my faith. That is exactly why Bush won. People are tired of being condescended to.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
22,275
Location
I am omnipresent
RWIndiana said:
Okay so I don't have a pickup truck. lol. But I am so sick of liberal lunatics making fun of me, my family, and my faith. That is exactly why Bush won. People are tired of being condescended to.

Really? Because I'm tired of having my morality (or lack thereof) decided by legislation.
Hey, now that GWB is all set to protect us from abortions, homosexuals and a healthy environment, maybe now he'll get back to "fighting terror" by oppressing all the brown people overseas!
 

RWIndiana

Learning Storage Performance
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
335
Location
Nirvana
Har har.
I assume that in your opinion, legalized murder is a healthy environment. Hmm... seems to me that it's a might bit unhealthy to be an inconvenience to anyone, even if unintentionally and innocently. Not to mention that the person whom I have inconvenienced might have played a direct role in putting me in that position in the first place. Well now, that sure is a healthy environment.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
22,275
Location
I am omnipresent
Sigh. I'm going to reply to some obvious trolling. Most people here know my opinions on these subjects and would doubtless not engage me on the subject.

Apologies for dragging the very interesting discussion about the foundations of morality off-topic.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm all for abortion. I think it's a great idea.
No, I'm not kidding.

I don't think most people should have children. That's not a political statement. The human beings on this planet consume, and will continue to consume too much of its resources. In the long run, that means we will either need to voluntarily reduce the number of humans (through a humane method like abortion, or by greatly increasing our use of contraception) or enter a prolonged period of withering and starvation.

I don't buy the argument that a a fertilized egg, an embryo or a fetus is necessarily the same thing as a human being, either. IMO higher brain function is an essential part of humanity, and if I recall correctly the ability to respond to sensory input doesn't happen until around the middle of the 3rd trimester (maybe Adcadet will come around to correct me if I'm wrong).

Yes, I think abortion is a humane option. It's humane to kill dog and cats and deer, when there are too many of those, if it's done in the right way (I'm not thrilled with the idea of hunting, but a bullet is a better fate for a game animal than starvation). It's humane to kill fetuses when there's no one to spend ~12 - 18 years nurturing them.

I might suggest that if a mother even THINKS she might not be fit for motherhood - whatever the reason - she might be doing that collection of cells in her womb a favor by ejecting them. It is utterly unreasonable to force someone to take up the responsibility of parenthood before that person is ready. It is equally unreasonable to expect a mother to carry a fetus - and all the physiological changes that occur with it - to term when she does not want to have a baby; it's doubtful that person would make the sorts of choices that would be condusive to good fetal development.

I believe that a woman who chooses to terminate a pregnancy is making a responsible choice that she is entitled to make. Having a bunch of people tell her that she's a "murderer" is not helpful to that decision; it might prevent her from making a rational choice.

Sometimes anti-choice activists make claims that there are options besides abortion: adoption, foster care etc.
Which in the US, works really well if your baby is born white. And not so well if it's some other color. Even so, let's just be realistic and say that an abandoned baby has a very good chance of ending up a ward of the state (either because they were abandoned at birth or because mommy couldn't be bothered to care for them) and a drain on public coffers in more-or-less the same way the residents of a prison are.

And if I generalize one step further I might even say that many of the same people who think every zygote that manages to cling to a uterine wall should be born, are people who dislike the sorts of social programs that might make a parentless child's life better. Which is its own, ironic humor.

In short, I think the anti-abortion position is its own special kind of irresponsible and represents another attempt to force a particular type of morality on everyone else in our society.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hopefully everyone else can ignore what I have no doubt will be a minority viewpoint here, and RWIndiana can find some other topic to troll on.
 

Gilbo

Storage is cool
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
742
Location
Ottawa, ON
It's necessary that I expand on some things I said earlier. The following posts demonstrate ignorance (I mean that in a naive sense, not as an attack) of some very important aspects of Western history. Interestingly the aspects that are apparently unknown are exactly the fundamental evolutions in thought that are responsible for the existence of the United States of America. What follows is long, but concise. I swear. Please read on:

First, JSF said:
I reject your implied premise that only secularists are capable of moral decisions. Secularists lack a common authority to establish a basis for morality. What is moral to one secularist is immoral to another. There is only moral chaos in such a society. How can some secularist accept the murder of the unborn innocent and not shed a tear? How can some secularists support euthanasia? Tolerance for pornography, tolerance for the abandonment of natural law regarding marital union is the corrupt legacy of a secular society. America’s centrist values far exceed those of your self-centered, de-humanizing society. You may have acceptance in your corruption of Canada, but leave us alone.
And RWIndiana said:
If the people of this country vote to give benefits to hetros and not to homos, that may not be "fair" in a secular sense, but that is what the majority has chosen, and therefore I don't see how it can be called "unfair" either. The question would be whether it is constitutional or not, because unless we view everything through the prism of a single religion, we will never be able to agree on what "fair" is. Secular societies can't agree on what fair is either, and have also persecuted religious people; killing, maiming, and torturing Christians. This sort of thing still goes on today in China, for example. I'm sure many secularists believe this is fair since they think that Christians (or other religious groups) are a serious threat to an "enlightened" society. Yet other secularists believe this is not fair.
So what exactly is "fair?" Is it possible to discern this without a solid base to start from? What should our laws be based upon? Is there such a thing as an evil or criminal act which should be legislated against? After all, the idea of evil stems from religion.
That last sentence is tremendously Nietzschean of you RWIndiana. In fact that entire post is rather Nietzschean, but don't worry I'm sure your God won't send you to hell for just sounding like Nietzsche ;). In the interest of an historical allusion, I'm going to agree with you entirely. Rational people have no idea what EVIL is. However, we do have a very good idea of what bad is. You see, while two guys getting it on for all their worth is probably a little gross to many other men, and is, without a doubt, EVIL, it is not actually bad in any manner that is of any consequence. I'm making a distinction that most people don't, but it is a very valuable one for people in this discussion to understand. Something that is bad, negatively affects an individual or individuals. Something that is EVIL sends you to hell. Now, going to Hell is a personal choice that even God himself allows all of mankind, Christian or Atheist, but doing something that is just old fashioned bad is going to hurt people, which has all sorts of consequences that matter on this planet.

Incidentally, EVIL is also, traditionally, the label used by people to describe something which terrifies them, but doesn't fit under bad. They just say its evil, and pray everyone will just leave it at that.

Before I continue into the more important aspects of my point however, I want to point out a little confusion JSF and RWIndiana have entertaining throughout this thread. You're confusing rationalism with secularism. A secular individual is not necessarily rational. Also, many rational people believe in God, even the Christian God. Those secular people, committing those crimes that you allude to, were also condemned in my original post. I don't think anyone will disagree with me when I slide the National Socialists, the Bolsheviks, the Chinese Communist Party, and all those other zealous activists under the partisan rug. Now on with what matters...

1. Background:
It is imperative to recall two crucial assumptions upon which the validity of democracy as an engineered, political system rests. Afterall, democracy, as a designed system, is only valid if the principles upon which it was premised hold true and if it can satisfy the end for which it was designed, just as a tool's utility is derived from its ability to effect its purpose. Additionally the people wielding any tool must understand the rules under which it was designed to operate, and the purpose it was designed for, otherwise they are almost certain to injure themselves or, even worse, innocent bystanders.

1.The first assumption upon which the democratic system's utility depends is the affirmation that all human beings are rational creatures, and are capable of making decisions with this faculty (i.e. not only knowing rationally what they should do, but capable of directing their will in such a direction). I'm not making this up. This belief was so firmly held by the thinkers that (re)birthed democracy that they didn't even worry about it, which, in retrospect, may have been short sighted.

2.The other assumption is actually the ultimate legacy of modernity: Reason will prevail over all things. The moderns didn't only mean that we would eventually understand the fundamental laws of life, and of existence, but that we would understand the very laws of human nature as well. These sciences are presently known as the Social Sciences, and economics is the most well known, but sociology and psychology are also daughters of this movement. Consequently, they knew, without a doubt, that reason would allow us to reconcile all individuals' interests. We could accomplish such a miracle because human beings were reasonable, and they were quantifiable (you're not a Christian nihilist are you?). Such was their faith...

Democracy requires both of these beliefs of its disciples. Why? This is crucial. You see, an irrational individual can have beliefs that are irreconcilable with the common good. A rational person cannot (we're going to leave out nihilists for the sake of argument, and, besides, they didn't exist when democracy was envisioned). The crucial point I'm trying to make here is that democracy is not just about the will of the majority as so many people seem to think. Many Muslims and Christians, today, are absolute, archetypical examples of individuals whose beliefs are entirely irreconcilable with the best interests of human beings. Even if they were the majority and everyone believed as they did, they would still be wrong to put their beliefs into law in any Western democratic state --and anyone who took the time to think critically, and rationally about things would know it. In fact irregardless of their beliefs they should legislate and vote rationally, while acting in their personal lives by their morality, and allowing others to act by their's to the extent that they harm no one, excepting the actor and/or another consenting adult. I don't mean to use Muslims and Christians as an example with any prejudice, but overzealous Christians and Muslims are simply the most adequate example of our time, and I would be dancing around the elephant in the room if I substituted any other group for an example.

2. Morality:
This leads nicely into another important issue that I didn't get across in my first post. Above I implied that a rational creature would be capable of recognizing that the beliefs of overzealous Muslims and Christians were wrong --even if such overzealous individuals represented the majority, even if the critic was himself Muslim or Christian. It all goes back to a very interesting individual who was, once, in a similar position as that hypothetical, poor rebellious critic might be. He is very likely the founder of your faith RWIndiana and JSF. I will tell you that rational people are indeed moral, and that they're moral in a sense that Martin Luther himself --one of the most fervent Christians, and without a doubt the most evangelical in history-- could identify with (by the way, I mean the white one --not to take anything away from the black one).

Luther had the courage to stand up against every other European, all Catholics, and tell them that, if one considers the Bible, if one considers the revealed nature of God, it is impossible to escape the conclusion that every Roman Catholic is wrong. Martin Luther was one of the most knowledgeable Bible scholars of the last five centuries. He also possessed an incredibly critical mind and without a doubt a capable, and yes, rational, intellect. His reason pointed out a very elemental, rational necessity to him --a rational necessity so simple, so fundamentally necessary that it was doomed to change the world. In fact, it probably changed the world more than any other thought in the last five hundred years. You see, in anticipation of good German tradition, Martin Luther began the liberation of the human mind.

Luther concluded several interesting things, but one is particularly relevant to our discussion. It was the idea that "if God knows me as well as I know myself (maybe better), then do I just have to do good to get into heaven? Or do I actually have to be good." It was an innocuously simple question, but it is at the center of why I said no religious individual can ever be moral (although Luther himself was unable to carry his idea to its logical, inevitable conclusion). You see, if I don't break a commandment because devils are going to poke my ass, and flamebroil me for eternity, how exactly does that make me good? Really, what I'm saying is that I'm a big pussy and I'm scared shitless of barbecues. Luther realized that a moral decision is only truly moral if one chooses it freely (Tannin got right to the point with his post, by the way --sorry if this unnecessary, but the history is part of an overall point I want to make at the end). Doing the moral thing because one is threatened with punishment is not moral. It is self-interested. True morality is doing what is right even if God says he's going to personally drop you right into the very bottom of Hell to party with Judas, Brutus, and Cassius (that last sentence is me interjecting, not Luther, but God will, by God, get an earful from me if I have to betray my 'liege' to save the life of a homosexual and He tries to give me some time with those three.) True morality is having the courage to stand up to God as a Man (yes, with a capital) and tell him he is full of shit, if it comes to that.

What Luther said understandably scared a lot of people. Most Christians knew deep down that the only thing that kept them in check was the two-sided promise of Heaven for not-EVIL actors, and Hell for EVIL actors, but suddenly they realized that if God was omniscient, which he obviously was, that he was going to see right through their act! However, even more terrifying than the promise of Hell for just about every person on the planet, regardless of whether they behaved or not, was the idea that their 'loving' God created them, knowingly, in full consciousness, just to send them to fry in Hell for eternity. The answer to Luther's question walks ahnd in hand with predestination, and he wasn't afraid to be reasonable and point it out. How could God be so cruel to only impart his Grace on so few...

Now, here's the irony. Do you know what offered Christians potential security from this doom? This is rich considering Evangelical Christians today. It was reason, from the mouth of Immanuel Kant the founder of Universal Human Rights. This didn't surprise anyone at the time, because reason was so obviously the God given characteristic that seperated man from beasts and everyone knew beasts couldn't go to heaven. Now, even if you didn't have God's Grace to make you good, you could do it yourself. Your reason could allow you to recognize your freedom, and, in that freedom, you could use reason to choose morally. The most crucial thing Kant did was rediscover free will and end the terror of predestination (temporarily anyway, damn materialists --and Christians were so happy before Luther had to be honest and intelligent and ruin everybody's party). The essential law that Kant pointed out was necessary for rational beings was called the categorical imperative, and its implications are so far reaching I won't even mention them. Suffice it to say that reasonable people have a very specific grounding for their morality.

3. Conclusion:
Other than establishing that there is a unanimous, unshakeable foundation upon which rational morality is derived, I wanted to point out a couple of things. First of all, only American Christians are making the arguments you make, and the act of making them betrays that, not only are they uneducated about the history of Western thought in general, but they are uneducated about their own religion. Most people, including most Americans and Christians in other parts of the world, innately understand much of what I have said above. Most people don't need to read Kant or Luther. It's bred into their bones, but there is something about the indoctrination of Christians in some areas of the States that removes even the basic subconscious awareness of these things. Again it's like the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and Modernity never took place! It terrifies me that five hundred years of brilliance and blood may all be for nothing.

Arguments like "Secularists lack a common authority to establish a basis for morality. What is moral to one secularist is immoral to another. There is only moral chaos in such a society." only even exist today because we don't study the most basic, most important elements of the history of western nations. No remotely educated Christian would have considered making such an argument even two hundred years ago because it was so obviously false as to be laughable. Not to mention the fact that one of the greatest Christians in history, the saviour of most American Christians, personally birthed the essence of the arguments I have abbreviated above.

Just because you believe in God doesn't mean you have to check your head at the door, or vote with the Bible quote of the month. Your ancestors were given as much freedom of choice, as regards their morality, as was possible with consideration for the safety of others. If you do anything less today, you betray the very existence of yourself and your entire faith.
 

Gilbo

Storage is cool
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
742
Location
Ottawa, ON
1. Wow, my post was even longer than I thought it was. Necessary though.

2. Thank you Mercutio for making the post on abortion. I was beginning to feel obligated, but you hit most of the important points. I'll commend your post if no one else will.

For what it's worth, I think you're a good man. And I just want to say that I also understand how hard it is to justify one's opinions when opponents, by divine right, don't feel the need to justify their's.
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
4,374
Location
Flushing, New York
Very eloquent Gilbo. I'm just curious though why a rational (by your definition) person like Martin Luther would even believe in God, heaven, or hell? I've yet to find any convincing reasons to believe the Bible is anything other than an elaborately written history book. If God existed at all, I'd say he was conjured by ETs to give a fledging but promising species a common belief under which to unite.

You might find this thread interesting if you haven't read it already. I wrote a very long post in response to one of Merc's rants against GWB. The substance of that post is quite a bit similar to what you just wrote in that I felt that dogmatic thinkers are inherently not rational (I used the term ignorant instead). Enjoy.
 

flagreen

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
1,529
jtr1962 said:
Very eloquent Gilbo. I'm just curious though why a rational (by your definition) person like Martin Luther would even believe in God, heaven, or hell?
How is believing that there is no God any more rational than believing that there is a God?
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
4,374
Location
Flushing, New York
flagreen said:
How is believing that there is no God any more rational than believing that there is a God?
A belief in God requires faith. Faith is something that only exists in the minds of man, and not in the material world. Therefore, God does not exist.

QED.
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
4,374
Location
Flushing, New York
And I'm sure all the believers here will think I'm going straight to hell for my last post. :diablo: No matter. It's probably infinitely more interesting than the other place anyway.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
22,275
Location
I am omnipresent
That post was exquisite, Gilbo.

flagreen said:
How is believing that there is no God any more rational than believing that there is a God?

Well the classical argument against the existance of an unknown, unseen diety is Occam's Razor, which states: "Do not multiply entities unnecessarily."

Or in other words, don't assume an additional level of complexity exists until you've accounted for everything else.

Or even better: The simplest solution is usually the correct one.

Why make the universe more complicated by factoring an unknown, unseen, unidentifiable Higher Power?

Another question that might be asked is, why do supposedly rational Believers believe in the unknown unseen power they put their faith in, and not any of the OTHER One True Gods of the many faiths among mankind?
This is something that has (really!) puzzled me for some time.
 

flagreen

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
1,529
jtr1962 said:
flagreen said:
How is believing that there is no God any more rational than believing that there is a God?
A belief in God requires faith. Faith is something that only exists in the minds of man, and not in the material world. Therefore, God does not exist.

QED.
I agree that faith only exists in the minds of men. However it cannot be proved through the use of logic combined with the presentation of evidence direct or otherwise that there is no God. Therefore to "believe" that there is no God is just as much a matter of faith as to believe that one exists. In fact the only rational conclusion one could reach without the use of faith is that one simply does not know whether there is or is not a God. In which case one may wish to keep an open mind on the subject - just in case if you know what I mean. :)
 

Gilbo

Storage is cool
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
742
Location
Ottawa, ON
In the vein of less serious musings, I'm happy to contribute some of my less serious and dangerous thoughts:
[Hell is] probably infinitely more interesting than the other place anyway.
I agree. In Dante's Divine Comedy that theory is certainly born out. Hell is actually by far the most interesting book. You know, if you're a virtuous 'pagan' you don't actually get sent down into the nastier parts of Hell. You get to hang out in 'Limbo' with a lot of pretty damn interesting people. Nothing nasty at all gets done to you, and you can run around and do whatever you feel like. In fact, if I remember correctly, virtuous pagans get whatever they envisioned the afterlife to be. Damn those lucky Muslim martyrs! (Although I guess they might count as heretics not pagans --can a Christian tell me, technically, what happens to Muslims?) Sounds like a good ticket eh?

Personally, I'd rather hang out with Homer and Virgil or Socrates and Aristotle than Aquinas and St. Bernard any day of the week. Some parts of Hell aren't so bad. The lustful (who aren't rapists just fornicators and unfaithful people) just do kinky things to each other 24/7, because, I assume, God thinks it'll get boring eventually :eek: --if the Bible doesn't demonstrate that God isn't in touch with humanity the 2nd Circle of Hell (where the Lustful go) certainly brings things into doubt. Helen's there if you're interested :). If she really is better looking than Angelina Jolie, I think damnation might be worth a look.

Paradise is incredibly boring. I don't even recommend reading any of the books but Hell unless you have a serious, deep interest in Catholic theology in particular or Christian theology in general, but Hell, it's not so bad. (The Sayers translation is the way to go I'd say, published by Penguin's Classics. She preserves much of the rhyme and rhythm of the Italian original --scandalous that it was written in Italian...-- and it is well commented which is handy since Dante counts on readers knowing the characters, which most of us today would not.)

One thing I've always wondered about Paradise is whether Luther and the Popes sing each other's praises. Dante had the Dominicans and Franciscans harmoniously praising each other (rather optimistic I must say), but I just can't imagine Luther and the Popes putting up with each other. Luther was one stubborn, feisty man. He's probably wondering why American Christians are worrying about the morality of atheists when they should be converting/burning Catholics. Any good Christian knows that heretics need to be dealt with firmly and quickly, but atheists, pagans, and agnostics are nothing to worry about. I suppose after the Reformation God had to chop Paradise in two to keep his followers from murdering each other....

Luther singing the Pope's praises, I'm so curious I just might convert. I'd have to see that to believe it. (Doubt it would be anything like Helen though...)
 

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
4,374
Location
Flushing, New York
flagreen said:
In fact the only rational conclusion one could reach without the use of faith is that one simply does not know whether there is or is not a God. In which case one may wish to keep an open mind on the subject - just in case if you know what I mean.

You're right, Bill. I can't conclusively prove God doesn't exist. However, Occam's Razor makes it highly unlikely that he/she/it does exist given that the probability of a simpler solution is more likely. Therefore, it is more rational to not believe in a God than it is to believe in one. You can chose to believe in God and still be rational in much the same way you can play the lottery to become rich and believe it not to be a complete waste of money. Perhaps 1 in a few million times you would actually be right. Ditto for a belief in God. You're merely playing the lottery that a more complex solution exists than the ones sicence has conjured up. I don't know about you, but I like it when the odds are in my favor.

BTW, another thing puzzles me. Why do most of the religions these days which incidentally all claim to believe in the one and only true God (in itself a contradiction since at most one can be correct) not believe in multiple dieties? Why must there only be one? I never could reconcile that one myself.

I found this and thought it was relevant:

The Babel fish, is small, yellow, and leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it.It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centers of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish. Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything that mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn´t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don´t. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn´t thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

Anyone ever see a Babel fish? :mrgrn:
 

flagreen

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
1,529
Mercutio said:
That post was exquisite, Gilbo.

flagreen said:
How is believing that there is no God any more rational than believing that there is a God?

Well the classical argument against the existance of an unknown, unseen diety is Occam's Razor, which states: "Do not multiply entities unnecessarily."

Or in other words, don't assume an additional level of complexity exists until you've accounted for everything else.

Or even better: The simplest solution is usually the correct one.

Why make the universe more complicated by factoring an unknown, unseen, unidentifiable Higher Power?

Another question that might be asked is, why do supposedly rational Believers believe in the unknown unseen power they put their faith in, and not any of the OTHER One True Gods of the many faiths among mankind?
This is something that has (really!) puzzled me for some time.
Inevitably these discussions all lead back to the creation of the Universe. After all "nothing" exists outside of the Universe nor before it's creation. Occam's Razor is of little help in explaining how a Universe could be created from absolutely nothing. And yet modern science tells us this is exactly what occurred.

If anything Occam most likely would find the creation of the Universe by a Deity theory to be in perfect in accordance with his Razor since mere mortals such as we cannot truly grasp the concept that something could be created from absolutely nothing. So we're back to having to say we just don't know.

Another question that might be asked is, why do supposedly rational Believers believe in the unknown unseen power they put their faith in, and not any of the OTHER One True Gods of the many faiths among mankind?
Yeah that has always bothered me as well. Personally I believe that if there is a God (and I chose to believe there is - it's only sensible to do so) that he is universal to all. I think people get in trouble when they try to define him or speak on his behalf as this inevitably leads to conflict. Though to their credit some religions are beginning recognize that their "God" is the same God other religions worship leaving only the matter of how he should be worshiped open to question.
 

flagreen

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
1,529
jtr1962 said:
"You're right, Bill. I can't conclusively prove God doesn't exist. However, Occam's Razor makes it highly unlikely that he/she/it does exist given that the probability of a simpler solution is more likely. Therefore, it is more rational to not believe in a God than it is to believe in one."
See my reply to Merc directly above regarding Occam's Razor.

What is the simpler solution you speak of above? How is believing that there is no God simpler than believing that there is? Because something is easier to believe does not make it simpler. It may make it easier - but not simpler.
 

Buck

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
4,514
Location
Blurry.
Website
www.hlmcompany.com
Interestingly, with Occam’s Razor principle (the principle of parsimony) regarding life evolving by chance, the odds of a simple protein molecule developing in this way is one in 10^113. For all 2,000 proteins working as enzymes that are needed for a cell’s activity to occur by chance, the odds are one in 10^40,000 according to Hoyle. Apparently, any event that has one chance in just 10^50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening.

In this thread faith has been mentioned a few times, most recently with the quote: “…for proof denies faith…” It is important to separate faith and credulity, as they are completely different, at least according to scriptural definition. According to the Bible, faith is based on knowledge or evidence. Hebrews 11:1 states: “Faith is being sure of the things we hope for” or as another translation mentions: “Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for.” So, we need to be sure or be assured (the literal meaning for the Greek word is “a sub-standing” or as translated in Latin substantia; substantiate). This idea of evidence correlates with the rest of the Bible, since Proverbs 14:15 says “Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps.” At 1 Thessalonians 5:21 the apostle Paul wrote: “Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.” Thus, we put faith or trust in God because of evidence and accurate knowledge that we have already discerned.

It would be similar to trusting a friend, or putting faith in their ability to help us. Our trust in them is based on evidence – “he’s a reliable friend; he always come through on what he says.” Although we may ask a friend for something that they have never done, the history between us proves that he can be trusted.
 

Gilbo

Storage is cool
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
742
Location
Ottawa, ON
Fred Hoyle's inordinately quoted statistics regarding the mathematical probability of evolution are tremendously misleading. His numbers, if they're even remotely correct (critical literature appears to be limited to serious scientific journals, which are expensive) represent the probability of the spontaneous, instantaneous evolution of a microorganism and all its consituent parts (It might even be for a macroorganism. I can't recall...). His numbers presume the nonexistence of evolution. Essentially, we are talking random, spontaneous, chemical creationism!

To rephrase it, Hoyle is asking what are the odds of the spontaneous creation of life without God, not what are the odds of the evolution of life without God.

His calculations also make an even more ridiculous presumption: that there is only one possible functional protein sequence for a given task. In reality there is an infinite number of sequences and conformations available to catalyze any given reaction. Of course, the number of practical solutions for life as we know it --that is molecules consisting of chains < several thousand residues long-- is only a large fraction of infinity ;). Now, even if you only use proteins with the 20 alpha amino acids used by most life on earth you'd have an incredible number of options, but hell, you could probably evolve perfectly capable proteins if you only used arginine, aspartic acid, phenylalanine, proline, and serine. That's only five. Any chemist will tell you that in earth's ancient oceans you would have found a nearly infinite variety of amino acids available for combination...

To make matters worse. Hoyle presumes every residue in the chain has an identity that is of consequence. The converse is actually true. Most proteins contain a majority of residues whose nature is not critical to the function of the protein. There are also degrees involved. Even at a critical point in the protein, like a catalytic site, many alternate residues will preserve function, if not ideal activity, because many amino acids share similar chemical properties.

Even more importantly, he also presumes that protein molecules are the only molecules capable of catalyzing reactions. The contrary has been established for decades. For example RNA molecules are used to accomplish a myriad of chemical functions in all living organisms.

Hoyle's lack of appreciation for basic Biochemistry and Cell Biology is so profound that there are countless other objections to his various theses. The facts that he is describing the odds of spontaneous, chemical creation not evolution, and presumes that only one possible combination of residues is available to accomplish a task pretty much nail the coffin shut on his 'mathematical' argument all by themselves. In fact Hoyle performed a very deceiving, interesting mathematical trick. He used the very diversity of the chemistry at the foundation of the existence of life that enables and effects evolution, to produce equations which pretend to forbid its applicability on earth. It's really very clever. It is one of the most brilliant examples of statistical manipulation I have ever seen. Personally, I have always thought that Hoyle's statistics emphasize the significance of the evolutionary process.

It is important to note also, I suppose, that Hoyle was not actually anti-evolution. He just wanted to say there wasn't enough time for it on earth. His theory was that life evolved elsewhere in the cosmos over a much longer time period than has passed, as yet, on earth, and we got colonized by it. Interestingly, more and more evidence is being brought to light of organisms that are likely to be able to survive, virtually indefinitely, in the harsh environment of space.(1)

Reductive conditions are also common in space (as they were on earth before oxygen producing life forms became prevalent). Reductive conditions encourage the formation of complex, life-related macromolecules like DNA, RNA, proteins, and lipid-related molecules. In the end this supposedly anti-evolutionary research is only giving evolution more breathing room by extending the acceptable time frame incredibly. Not only does it extend the time frame, but it is improving the odds of the potential of evolutionary success astronomically (literally), because the quantity of variation allowed across the entire universe (or even just our arm of the milkyway) is ridiculously large compared to the earths ancient, reductive oceans (although some experimental evidence suggests that the earth's oceans would have been much more than enough by themselves --you can fit a lot of organic molecules in an ocean).

It is worthwhile to note that the space-borne branch of evolutionary theory is highly speculative. We have evidence for little beyond the possibility. At least the field has a leg up on the creationists in that respect. And before anyone argues, I'm going to point out that positive evidence is different from negative evidence. The latter is an oxymoron. Lack of evidence allows a competing hypothesis; it does not support it. Creationists characteristically lack an apprehension of this distinction.

Another important thing for people living today to understand is that evolution is a field which is advancing incredibly rapidly. Just like religious fanatics said Newton was wrong, and Galileo was wrong, the anti-evolution religious lobby will be, in the long run, useless, because scientists will get to the bottom of things eventually. (I know this is a fallacy. I don't intend it as a proof, but as an historical reference to introduce a broader point.) It's just the way science works. Scientists can't benefit from divine revelation, and so must progressively advance knowledge over time. It is understandable that people who hold to religions of the book lack a respect for this, because they have had all the answers since the day they opened the Bible. The refinement of evolution is inevitable however. Like evolution, it is a process which requires time. Science itself is a beautiful example of the veracity of the principles of evolution. Additionally, the theory of evolution certainly isn't in any danger of running up against the limits of fundamental physics like quantum mechanics, or astronomy have. It operates in across a range of reality where science is presently 100% diagnostic. Evolution may end up looking very different in the end than it is does today, but it is already obvious that humanity will not have to resort to Magic or God to explain things. Again, religious people tend to forget history for some reason.

On that note, many reasonable Christians learned long ago to be of two minds about existence. I'd date it from Copernicus. On the one hand science 'proves' many things that contradict the word of God, and reasonable Christians accept this in a limited, practical sense, and you'll understand why in a moment. On the other hand they accept that the word of God is true, and peacefully ignore the scientists, because, in the grand scheme of things, to believers anyway, science doesn't matter --it's just another human invention, and they can use it, and live with it, without doubting their faith. It's all about tolerance, which is a Christian characteristic that, as I have pointed out in earlier posts, American Evangelists have lost. Creationism is silliness. If you're going to have faith, just have it. The 'proofs' of man and science should be inconsequential in the face of the Word of God to a true believer. (I think RWIndiana very capably pointed out this piece of common sense earlier).
 

flagreen

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
1,529
Gilbo,

Good post. Personally I see no conflict with believing in a God and accepting the theory of evolution or any other scientific theory for that matter. In fact I find it very easy to believe that if God could create the Universe he certainly could have created the process of evolution to populate it with life as well.

The conflict between creationism and evolution imho is really more accurately described as a conflict between evolution and what various religions claim to be the "word of God".
 

CityK

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
1,719
Good grief this thread has exploded since I read it last. Looks like it might be a good one for Saturday morning.....given right now I have no time for the old in and out, just time to check the meter.
 

Buck

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
4,514
Location
Blurry.
Website
www.hlmcompany.com
Gilbo said:
If you're going to have faith, just have it. The 'proofs' of man and science should be inconsequential in the face of the Word of God to a true believer. (I think RWIndiana very capably pointed out this piece of common sense earlier).

The problem Gilbo is what you define as faith. I defined faith according to God's Word, not man's. If you're going to believe in God and the Bible as his word, wouldn't you believe and follow what it says? If you don't believe in God and his word, then don't. It's very simple. Or, I suppose, you could assume that there is a God, he created mankind through the theoretical process of evolution, and then left us to fend for ourselves.
 

Buck

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
4,514
Location
Blurry.
Website
www.hlmcompany.com
Gilbo, you seem to know a lot about cells (something I'm not too familiar with), could you explain how proteins, amino acids, RNA and DNA work together in a cell?
 

Gilbo

Storage is cool
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
742
Location
Ottawa, ON
could you explain how proteins, amino acids, RNA and DNA work together in a cell?
I can certainly give a brief (I guess it depends on how you define brief) outline. I've actually studied this stuff for several years now, so I can go on for a long time. Luckily I enjoy it immensely.

The big thing to appreciate is that the system is astoundingly complex. The face of Cell Biology has changed entirely in the last decade. The biggest surprise has been that the elements of life, from the genetic code itself to the functional units of cells, are messy, unelegant (inelegant? --the word is practically an onomatopeia) machines. This contradicts the older vision of them. They were supposed to be fine-tuned by evolution --mean machines. A computer programmer, for example, would be shocked by all the 'dirty hacks' a cell employs and that it often doesn't do the same thing the same way twice. Things could be done so much more simply, so much more cleanly, and certainly more consistently. There are often all sorts of blatantly unnecessary stages involved in the simplest processes. The unnecessary complexity and lack of consistency in accomplishing related tasks is one reason biochemists and cell biologists almost unanimously believe in evolution. Life on a cellular level has its moments of elegance that inspire you to believe in a God, but it also has moments where you shake your head and sigh that, if anyone actually designed life, then he was totally mad. Interestingly, evidence is coming to light that, by doing things in a round-about, apparently unnecessarily complicated way, life may actually be evolving (or be designed, depending on your beliefs) to evolve even faster. Many of the subtleties of these complexities appear to enhance the likelihood of positive or neutral mutations while stacking the cards against problem mutations. There may be a method to the madness that we are beginning to decode.

DNA, as you're probably aware, stores the cell's information. It has a backbone made of sugar molecules joined together by phosphate molecules, and each sugar molecule is attached to one of 4 bases. Every protein sequence is encoded here for example (with some exceptions). But DNA also encodes other information. For example there are regulatory sequences of such variety in DNA that the molecule can interact, directly, or indirectly, with just about every class of compound in the cell, from metal ions, to protein, lipids (a family of molecules that include fats), or any number of intermediates of metabolic processes.

The exceptions are that mitochodria, little organelles (think mini organs that exist in cells) in which numerous critical life-sustaining reactions are carried out, and chloroplasts, other organelles in which photosynthesis and related reactions occur, actually have their own genomes. The relative completeness of these genomes varies among organisms. In most higher animals these genomes are invariably incomplete to some degree and many proteins necessary to these little creatures are actually encoded in the host cells genome. These mini-organisms actually carry out their own division with their own seperate mechanisms.

Protein is the next well known class of molecule. Proteins constitute the majority of functional molecules in a cell. Not only do they catalyze the reactions necessary for life, but they can work like conveyors, structural support, doorways, pumps, signals --they can pretty much do anything imaginable. Nanotechnologists are really trying to make proteins. Proteins are made up of strings of amino acids of which there are typically twenty in the vast majority of living things today. Some bacteria use additional ones that most life forms do not. There are also other amino acids that aren't used in proteins, but are important for other things. All amino acids have an identical three atom backbone with a side chain. The side chain can be anything (which is why there is an infinite variety of amino acids), and it modifies the chemistry of the molecule. It's the characteristics and arrangements of these side chains in a protein molecule that lets it work its magic.

RNA, like DNA, is composed of sugars linked by phosphate molecules. RNA uses a slightly different sugar than DNA. Again, 1 of 4 different bases is attached to each sugar residue. RNA uses the same bases as DNA excepting one. RNA is considered to have been a very important molecule in the earliest stages of life. It was then replaced by superior, more specific, but less flexible solutions (DNA and protein). However, many of the oldest, most crucial functions of life are still carried out by RNA molecules, and some viruses encode their genome in RNA instead of DNA. RNA is used in cells for widely varying purposes.

The pervasiveness of the molecule is best illustrated by example (which will also illustrate my point about unnecessary complexity). When a cell wants to produce a protein it copies the appropriate DNA (gene) into RNA. The RNA is then cut up to remove certain sequences, and then put back together. This is done by other RNA molecules which are mixed up with small proteins. This is one of those odd, apparently unnecessary steps that I was talking about. Why not just encode the right information in the first place? The edited RNA is then processed by other RNA containing molecules, which recruit yet other RNA molecules to bring amino acids in to be linked up so that a protein is eventually stitched together. Every group of 3 bases in the RNA codes for an amino acid. There are, therefore, potentially 64 (4^3) codes for amino acids, and while we only use twenty amino acids we use all the codes except three. This means that there is overlap, and here we have an example of apparently useless redundancy. For example, there are 6 different ways to say Leucine in RNA-speak. The codes are tremendously well-conserved between organisms and virtually all life on earth uses the same ones. This has been cited as indicative of design, despite the odd redundancy. Conservation of these codes is absolutely crucial, as changes would break the system. Recent analysis has compellingly indicated that the codes are allocated with respect to certain patterns that appear to play a role in enhancing both the rate and quality of evolution.

Lastly, the protein can be, and generally is, modified before being carried off to wherever it needs to go. Once again this modification seems unnecessary. Why not just create exactly what you need in the first place? The one possible advantage is that each additional step increases the rate of variation and differentiation. Things that are crucial to the speed of evolution.

After all this the protein gets to work doing whatever it is supposed to be doing, and life goes on. Control of what proteins get made and in what quantities involves a whole host of molecules, some of which are proteins, but many of which are not related to the so-called macromolecules discussed above. Signalling between cells and cell regulation illustrate better than anything else the apparent randomness that is the cell's recruitment process for functional molecules. You have amino acids being used as neurotransmitters (gamma-Aminobutyric acid) or hormonic growth factors (L-Thyroxine). You have cholesterol derivatives as bile salts (Glycocholate) or steroid hormones (Testosterone). You have fatty acids deeply involved in inflammatory processes (the prostaglandins and leukotrienes). Just about every compound in the body seems to have at least several, often unrelated effects (which is why drugs invariably have so many side effects). Life at its most basic level is really quite a crazy mess.

Overall, a tremendous number of the cellular processes of which we have detailed knowledge are ridiculously complex. Cells, in many ways, are like Rude-Goldberg machines. They aren't clean, they aren't elegant, and they have ten different ways of accomplishing the same thing --all of which are unintuitive and madly complicated. This very complexity may have its own function. As we begin to appreciate its subtleties we are beginning to realize it has characteristics that may advantageous for evolution with respect not only to rate, but the quality of variation.

Okay guys, I promise I'm not going to make another ridiculously long post for at least a couple days. You managed to hit me with my future field of work, biochemistry, and my largest interest, philosophy (particularly moral philosophy), in one thread.
 

Buck

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
4,514
Location
Blurry.
Website
www.hlmcompany.com
Thanks for the explanation Gilbo. There seems to be a great deal yet to learn about the cell; and whoever spends time in the field will have an exciting time with the subject.

The interaction between DNA, RNA and protein seems very tight (yes, from a design standpoint, I would say like teamwork). Basically, if you take one of these three away from the cell production process, life would grind to a halt. I remember in the 80s that the theory of RNA being the first self-replicating cell was popular, but that seems to have faded away in light of new discoveries.
 

RWIndiana

Learning Storage Performance
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
335
Location
Nirvana
Gilbo, some of the things you have said seem contrary to certain things I have learned in pre-med school. I won't get into it because it's been a while, but I would like to know where I can find more information on this. I also wonder why people think that evolution is going in a positive direction when just a few thousand years ago, 400 years was considered middle age. It is my theory that the "gene pool" has aged and become contaminated, because that is the only way that the average age of human beings has been universally reduced. Obviously we are living longer today than we did a few hundred years ago, but that is most likely due to healthier lifestyles and better medical practices.
As far as unnecessary processes in the cells, first of all, we don't actually know for certain that these are unnecessary. Second, many of these processes occur in fractions of a second, and are not nearly so cumbersome as it may sound. Complex, yes, but also incredibly fast. Much redundancy is necessary in DNA replication, or horrible mutations could result. I forget the actual numbers, but DNA contains an amazingly astronomical amount of information. This fact alone makes it inconceivable that DNA is replicated so quickly and accurately the way it is. Any mutation in a daughter cell almost always results in cancer. With trillions of cells in our body, many which rapidly divide, added to the incredible process of DNA replication, it is truly amazing that we don't all die of cancer before our teenage years.
I understand why some people think cells are overly complex. However, I also believe that the argument is somewhat comparable to asking why our computer needs this chip or that resistor, or why we can't just hook the hard drive directly up to the monitor.
Anyway, like I said, I am pretty rusty on this stuff. If you could point me to information that may be helpful, I would appreciate that.
Wow, this topic has come a long way from the topic of voting.
 

Gilbo

Storage is cool
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
742
Location
Ottawa, ON
It's worth mentioning that pre-med cell biology classes are grossly over-simplified. I took a class called "Advanced Medical Cell Biology" that was ostensibly very advanced (4th year level). It was a joke compared to the introductory Cell Biology class in the biochemistry faculty (2nd year level), let alone the more advanced classes that followed it up.

Unfortunately, I don't think you're going to find much good information on the internet. Most university sites that provide information restrict access to confine traffic to individuals in the faculty. I would also be wary of the accuracy and completeness of a lot of internet sources. Although many excellent journals offer online access, you have to be a paying subscriber, and you generally need a very solid grounding in molecular biology to understand them. If you haven't heard of the wikipedia I would try there, at least for very basic stuff. MIT's Open Courseware (one of the best ideas in recent history if I might add) might have information as well.

The best place to go though would be the library of a nearby University. They'll have collections of relevant literature in the form of journals and copies of the textbooks used in classes taught there. Or you could buy a textbook, but I don't think it would be worthwhile just to satisfy your curiousity. They're not cheap. (If you were to go that route I would recommend Biochemistry 3rd Edition by Matthews, Van Holde, and Ahern. It's a rather complete reference for everything an undergraduate Biochem student would learn, and its as up-to-date as text books on the subject get. I've gone through several biochem references over the years and it is without a doubt the best I've encountered.) Modern cell biology and biochemistry are so inter-related that a biochemistry textbook is essentially a cell biology reference that doesn't dumb things down.

Of course, if you have any questions I'd be happy to answer them, although it might be a good idea to start a seperate thread.

I did not mean to suggest that cells are inefficient. Although, due to their evolutionary heritage it is inarguable that they are doomed to inefficiency in some respects --regulation of osmolarity is one of the best examples. If life had been designed to live in, for example, the ocean, it wouldn't have to expend so much energy maintaining solute concentrations. I just wanted to point out that many systems are not intelligently designed given their purpose. I think the gene expression example I gave illustrated my point rather well (especially considering it is the pathway that makes life what it is).

Incidentally, this:
Any mutation in a daughter cell almost always results in cancer.
Couldn't be farther from the truth, sorry, but you have been misled. Cancer requires a very specific set of mutations taking place in very specific genes (these genes have been termed oncogenes in light of their involvement in the disease). For example, if genes regulating apoptosis (cell suicide) aren't knocked out, a cell that develops cancer-related growth characteristics will realize that it has become cancerous and will commit suicide. If the cell can't kill itself because these genes are knocked out, it can activate other genes to tell the body's immune system to do the job. These genes have to be knocked out too. It's also important to consider that the odds of a mutation landing in a cancer-related area of the genome are extremely remote given the relative mass of unrelated DNA. Of course, given enough time and encouragement, one cell is going to win the lottery.

You are correct that the cell is very efficient at preventing mutations though. The chance of an error during replication of the genetic code is only between 10^-9 and 10^-10 per base. It is by far the most accurate known enzyme-catalyzed chemical process --mostly thanks to numerous 'proof-reading' mechanisms. The error rate, based only on the kinetics of the copying reaction, is closer to being between 10^-2 and 10^-3 per base. These figures are for E. Coli by the way. The enzymes that perform this task in people (DNA Polymerases alpha and delta) and eukaryotes in general are less adequately characterized presently.

I also wonder why people think that evolution is going in a positive direction when just a few thousand years ago, 400 years was considered middle age. It is my theory that the "gene pool" has aged and become contaminated, because that is the only way that the average age of human beings has been universally reduced.
You know I am going to tell you that this is extremely unlikely. I'm not even going to argue with except to mention that, given the absence of selective pressure, the relative proportion of genes in a gene pool will remain constant over time --they don't age, or get diluted or anything like that. Please don't take offense, but I am shocked that people believe stuff like this. Any talk of gene 'contamination' or 'dilution' scares me.
 

Gilbo

Storage is cool
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
742
Location
Ottawa, ON
The error rate, based only on the kinetics of the copying reaction, is closer to being between 10^-2 and 10^-3 per base.
What I meant by this was that the error rate if all the process did was copy, would be in the stated range based on the thermodynamics (I should have said thermodynamics over kinetics in my previous post) of the reaction.

This emphasizes the amount of additional effort the cell puts in to make sure everything is perfect.
 
Top