Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 8,101-8,150 of 12,463

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "You seem to have missed the point of the question, a question any school boy with 'basic' scientific knowledge may ask."

Which again is the problem. Sometimes you need to teach why the question is wrong rather than try to answer a wrong question.

cHriS wrote: "It is not an unreasonable question to ask. And if you had understood the 'basic' question you would have understood that the question was about the speed of light."

I understood the question, but it implies the existence of an "edge" to the Universe. Since the Universe is formed of "space/time" then any "edge" would have to be the point where space "stops" yet if space "stops" which direction is this "stoppage" in? If there is a direction there is space therefore it is not an edge.

Using nonsensical questions to cast doubt on the sense of science is inherently flawed.

As for the "speed of light" compared to the expansion of the universe, you are talking about the horizon problem which is well known. If and when the recession of distance galaxies due to space/time expansion exceeds the speed of light, they will disappear over the horizon, however the galaxies have never exceeded the speed of light, nor has any light ray. Space itself has been expanding and the light has travelled at the exact same speed through it all of the time. At the point that the light ray seems to accelerate beyond our vision, light rays here will seem to do the same to that point, so at the "edge" there is no weird occurrence. Just the same as when a ship dips below the horizon it does not fall off the edge of the world, just as we do not fall off just because the ship cannot see the shore anymore.

cHriS wrote: "Since no one knows if there is an edge to the universe, the question refers to the light and what would happen IF there is an edge."

However, your question assumed the existence of an "edge" and yet the very definition of an "edge" in those terms is nonsense based on much outdated theories of absolute space. Exactly how do you define this edge? It is the same nonsensical question as "if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into" and "if the universe came from a tiny point, where was that tiny point?" Both questions are valid questions that a schoolboy may ask, but both are based on the intrinsic assumption that there exists an absolute framework of space and time that everything operates within. This was disproved by the relativistic theory.

cHriS wrote: "Since, for the most part the expansion of the universe is greater than the speed of light, that is the answer."

The wrong answer. As nothing special happens to the light rays at this "edge" because at that point the speed of light is normal and it is us (or rather us being observed billions of years ago) where light would seem to be travelling beyond light speed.

cHriS wrote: "I watched a TV programme this week with Prof. Brian Cox taking questions, and that very question was answered."

Appeal to authority?

Hopefully though you read your own link and can understand now why your original question was nonsensical.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "I am quite right in my assessment..."

Repeatedly claiming to be right does not make you right.

cHriS wrote: "are you doing a u turn?"

No, you are not understanding the answers.

cHriS wrote: "Or would you like to give you reply to the question about the speed of light and what would happen if there IS a point at which our universe ends. "

Done. As for the point where the universe "ends", in what way do you mean? The question itself requires a definition. If you are talking about the cosmological horizon, the answer is that the universe doesn't end there because at the point you are talking about, you can see a different "edge".

There is a related but different "edge" which questions what happens if the expansion of the universe continues to accelerate until the horizon gets smaller and smaller, known as the "Big Rip", however again this doesn't involve physical edges but what will happen to particles when the expansion becomes much faster trillions upon trillions of years into the future.

Personally I think the best hypothesis there comes from the inflationary/vacuum-state idea which postulates that the universe is not yet in it's final ground energy state, so when the universe cools enough there may be another vacuum phase state change leading to a new form of universe with a closer to linear expansion acceleration. Needless to say this would be bad for us, but is likely to occur so far into the future of the universe that all stars will have probably burnt out anyway.

cHriS wrote: "And on the subject of expertise.

A Christian scientist said on TV last Sunday morning... because science does not recognise 'the soul' god it is something science should not comment on. "

Which is a statement on his belief in souls and gods, not on his scientific expertise. In answer I would say that science is the discipline of acquiring knowledge of reality and by his argument perhaps religion should stop commenting on what is real?

[Gary]

Drew wrote: "This is a useless thread, people who believe in God are not going to be convinced to see reason and those who don't believe in God won't let their good sense be undermined by illogical ideas. Give it up people! "

Maybe, but the main reason I post is to counter the repeated false claims made about science compared to religion. In the past I have done this and given someone the help to recognise their doubts and to choose to open their minds beyond their youthful indoctrination. I wish there was someone there for me when I first had doubts, someone who could have shown me that having doubts is not a sin or crime of the soul.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "I'm really not arguing that "atheists" deny the existence of God. I can, however, understand why people might think some "atheists" actively deny God ... or all atheists, if one is prone to overgeneralization."

In fact I imagine that some atheists do "deny" the existence of god, at least in words if indeed not in the mind. I also think there are a few who do "believe" in the non-existence of god. In fact I have debated a couple, mainly because they claimed to be "atheists" and yet clearly believed in other phenomena with no evidence.

So yes I can see that it can happen, yet I find that most religious people tend to see the lack of belief as being equivalent to the belief in the lack, however I would say that this is extremely uncommon. This belief also leads to the common idea that god's existence or non-existence is a 'binary' question, which is definitely not the case, no matter how vaguely the term 'god' is defined.

As for "tactics obscuring the point" I quite agree, which is why I prefer to engage and discuss rather than attack. I reserve my more confrontational rhetoric to answer confrontational rhetoric, though sometimes I feel it is easy for a religious person to not realise how confrontational a certain claim may actually be to someone who does not hold the same basic assumptions, just as I can see how non-religious rhetoric can seem a lot more confrontational than it is intended because it's mere existence can feel like a personal attack on a cherished ideal.

[Adilite]

I prefer world without religion.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Don't think this is Godwin's, I'll explain, but if your eyes cross at glimpsing the words "Nazi" and "holocaust" ... look away."

:-) I'd say you are right. Godwin's is specifically relating a trait to Hitler or the Nazi's to link that trait to an example of 'evil'. Like calling vegetarianism evil because Hitler was a vegetarian (apparently true?) or that gun control is evil because Hitler came for people's guns (demonstrably false).

Thank you for the link though, it is a fascinating article and quite moving.

Shannon wrote: "I don't think this fits Godwin's as I truly don't know how to feel about the article. I'm not using it to make a point or to "bolster" and argument with comparison and exaggeration. I found it to be pretty thought-provoking and don't quite know how to feel about some of the things referenced. (I'm guessing the "sign" he received will make some non-believers choke. I, myself, am not sure how I feel about that "sign" and how I feel about his choice.)"

Personally I understand about "signs" it's just believing they are deliberately sent by an entity to inform us that I don't accept. However, I don't think 'signs' are important, I think signs are moments of epiphany where we link some occurrence to our thought processes and decision making. For example, I realised I was in love with a girl I was seeing once because it was reported that a girl had died on the Scuba dive she was meant to go to. This made me realise my feelings so was a sign to me, but I do not think that god drowned someone else just to tell me how I felt about her.

Shannon wrote: "I'm just sitting back on my sofa and thinking about ethics and morality and choices. Further, I'm thinking about what makes us human, humane. Is it about meaning? I think so ... and don't think that needs to be connected to all things spiritual. Fascinating though, the decisions that can be made within meaning.

I just found it and find it ... challenging, on a certain level."

First, I to am not trying to use this as a point, but I am interested in the discussion. Being a non-theist for many years the whole question of ethics, meaning and happiness are ones I have thought about extensively. I guess the only reason I would not have described the article as challenging personally is because by being a non-theist I have had these challenges personally.

The arguments of "meaning", "happiness" and "purpose" have, as you say, come up here and elsewhere. Generally religious people tend to use them like it is some kind of ace card, obviously I don't agree - but I can articulate why.

To my mind having an outside entity imbue you with purpose does not really give you purpose but instead loans or imposes it from above. The same with meaning. (I guess both words address the same point.) One of my initial 'doubts' with religion was the recursive question involved with "why are we here?" People tend to view the non-theist as being purposeless or empty, yet the only answer I ever received as a Christian was that we are here to (a) serve God and (b) love each other. I guess the concept of being created simply to serve a being so powerful that there was no service I could do that would be meaningful became deeply unsatisfying.

The article does go into a lot of questions I have asked myself as a non-theist. Yet here I find more satisfying answers as a non-theist.

Happiness. Quite correctly the article points out the well known behavioural trait that happiness comes from successfully satisfying desires. This is well known in the observation that "money cannot buy happiness", certainly money can help because money can satisfy desires, but once those desires are sated then we need new desires to sate to achieve happiness. Meanwhile a poor person can become very happy if they have the opportunity to sate their desires.

This all leads to meaning and purpose. These desires I spoke of in the previous paragraph do not have to be carnal, sinful, lustful desires, and indeed because such desires can be relatively simple to sate so can they become jaded quickly. However, because of our evolution as social animals that form complex communities our desires can become far more intricate, selfless and profound.

So it is that the desire to teach becomes one that can be sated in a different way every day, or to help others with their problems, or to protect and defend others. Each of these desires is intrinsic to our evolved conscience and this inbuilt reward system helps our species become more than the sum of its parts.

So to me I find the concept of our meaning and purpose being to "serve" an entity because we were created as subordinates deeply unsatisfying and as immoral as imagining that other humans may have been specifically created to serve me (i.e. women being created to be my companion, or other races being created to serve my race.)

However, meaning and purpose we can get from something greater than "ourself", and that is "ourselves". By defining our own purpose and meaning within the structure of our society we can find meaning and purpose without being told what to do. This indeed is the lynchpin concept of a democratic society, that we each can choose how we get meaning. If ultimately the only meaning we find is to make ourselves transiently happy then we will only ever have that happiness, but if we define our purpose to help others be happy then we can enjoy the rewards that this will bring us because it is written into our very DNA because a species that can help each other will always be better than a species composed of selfish individuals.

As I say, not an attempt to prove a point but an attempt to show a non-theistic view of purpose and meaning. I hope it interested you.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "It definitely made me look twice. In addition, I'd never really thought about that before. The idea that one could clone a Neanderthals given that they're not human. It made me start thinking about ethics and how that would be decided. "

It's an interesting question. Generally the ethical objection to human cloning comes from the "playing god" argument, which could be said for every scientific development since fire (and probably has been.) Also a certain amount of concern over the touchy subject of human sexuality and sexual guilt comes into play.

However, what are the ethical arguments for or against human cloning? I can think of a few pro and a few con. How do people feel about the morality of this concept?

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "However, what are the ethical arguments for or against human cloning? I can think of a few pro and a few con. How do people feel about the morality of this concept? "

Don't have the time to read the post about meaning and happiness right now. In a rush and want to think and digest.

This, well, this I can take a quick stab at.

My first thought regarding human cloning and ethics deals with the life that person would have. I don't think we're that great with cloning. Right? I have, I think, memories of a sheep stumbling around and dying. Taking the "playing God" aspect out of the equation, would we be cloning a human in order to learn about cloning or to help us in some way, only to bring a person into the world who would be sick and who would die an horrid and untimely death, due to our playing with life and not knowing the consequences?

Going to the article I read this weekend ... and another I looked up subsequently... Regardless of whether or not a Neanderthal is human, other scientists were quoted as having concerns. What if this baby, when born, had no immunities to our illnesses? What if being impregnated with an Neanderthal put the life of the mother at risk? What if the baby/child/adult is treated horribly due to being different?

Human or not, is it right? But, then, I'm against cloning sheep to wobble around and die a nasty death. I'm also against animal testing. I can't even eat chicken off the bone without crying. So, ....

I think the ante is upped when we talk about cloning actual animals and beings. Yes, I know some are cloning their pets or some such thing. I'm guessing advances have been made. But, I find it more than a bit sketchy, even when talking about a pet. My cat died a few years ago. I loved her. She led a good life. If someone walked up to me and said s/he'd clone her for free, I'd say no. In my mind, it's not about playing God. It's about ... the natural cycle of life. Things live. Things die. It's part of life, our existence. It's horribly sad x1,000,000. But, ... Are we so freaked out by death that we can't accept it? What would the psychological and sociological implications be for a society that couldn't accept death and needed to clone pets and humans? Do we know?

Now, cures ....

As a teacher, I've heard all about the books that have come out regarding cloning. I've read some. Hey, not even cloning. Couples who get pregnant for the express purpose of harvesting marrow or organs for a sick child. Fantasy and SciFi books about cloned humans who we use as slaves or for spare parts. Granted, we have no right to tell people whether or not they can conceive and the books are fiction. However, I wonder if we're advanced enough, morally, to do something like this.

Cloning. When we already treat people horridly who are the least bit different than we are .... When we already treat people who are different or lack power as our slaves .... Did you hear about the huge prostitution ring that was busted here last week? Very young women, illegal immigrants, taken and held as sex slaves. It boggles my mind when I think what we'd do to clones.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "This, well, this I can take a quick stab at."

As quick stabs go, it was fairly comprehensive! :-)

I do acknowledge your arguments about the treatment of the resultant clone human/Neanderthal but I think that should be treated aside from the general question. I think the treatment and dehumanising of people is a separate case to the ethics of cloning, after all as you point out we cannot treat naturally born humans as equal depending on their sexuality, race etc. so that is a different question. (But still a valid point).

Your point on cloning pets/people is not entirely connected I feel. When it comes down to it genetically identical twins are still different people, and they've usually had the advantage of growing up together. A clone is not a copy of a person, just a person with identical genetics but potentially a different upbringing and environment which can result in a markedly different person. There is the dystopian future idea of cloning for parts, but again that kind of ethic is already explored with the existence of the current illicit organ trade.

More relevant I feel is your points about the genetics of a reconstructed Neanderthal. Indeed cloning is not perfected (and varies in success from species to species), but human evolution literally has to run to keep still. New viruses, parasites and bacteria evolve to take advantage of genetic flaws, so perhaps the recombined Neanderthal would indeed be at risk of biology. Further where would the Neanderthal's mitochondrial DNA come from? The mother? Could this put the child at odds with their own DNA?

Certainly the technical problems are incredible and I feel you have hit on the most important point. Certainly human cloning has a lot of potential to save lives in the future and improve the quality of life, but cloning a being that will be almost certainly be a thinking conscious being carries the responsibility to try to ensure that this being has every chance at a good quality of life. If this cannot be assured for genetic, medical or social reasons then it is unethical to proceed.

[[deleted user]]

In addition, regarding cloning and ethics ....

Would it be right to clone humans in order to ... what? Learn? In order to save another human or humans? Is it moral to clone someone in order to save someone else? I heard on of my students throwing this idea around last year. Was this the plot of a book? I can't remember.

Let's take my cousin who has terminal liver cancer. Nice guy. Singled dad and only 44. If possibly, would it be moral to clone him, in order to harvest a liver for him ... or ... for his parents to raise him again if a transplant isn't an option? What if he could be saved by marrow, not a new liver? Would it be moral to clone a human for his/her marrow? Exact match. Think of the problems they're finding with some people and marrow. The African American who married the person of Asian and Middle Eastern ancestry. I've seen in the news that there are problems finding marrow and organs for the children born to people of different races, specifically races that have been mixing in this way only recently. Would it be right? On the one hand, yes, we want to help this live people who we can see and touch and love. Shouldn't we do everything we can in order to help them? Well .... I'm left wondering what it would be like for that person, that person who was created for the sole purpose of saving another. Again, ... what would the psychological implications be?

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Would it be right to clone humans in order to ... what? Learn? In order to save another human or humans? Is it moral to clone someone in order to save someone else? I heard on of my students throwing this idea around last year. Was this the plot of a book? I can't remember. "

First there is a good reason to clone a human, and that simply is pure science. Pure science often leads to technology and applications that we cannot even imagine that can help us every day. The basic technology involved in particle accelerators led to MRI scanners that can diagnose illnesses much better than X-rays, and much safer.

The question is whether this potential unknown benefit is overwhelmed by known or potential problems with the resultant person. Lets face it the ethics have already been answered to a certain extent by fertility treatments. We already have people in the world born through scientific manipulation of human reproduction, so how different would a clone be?

Fortunately the tissue matching issue of the rest of your post is unlikely to be an issue thanks to the inefficiency of the idea. What we are almost capable of doing now is harvesting stem cells and then using a bio-printer to 3d print a cloned replacement organ. This has no moral implications of creating a new living person and has life saving implications of unimaginable levels. It also means that cloning a human replica to use for harvested organs would not only be unethical, but also completely uneconomical and long term compared to the bioprinting solution. Yet techniques learnt in perfecting a human cloning technique could lead to breakthroughs in the advancement of this science. Yet again you are right, is it worth the potential suffering of a potential person to save others?

[Luke]

Personally, I would rather live in a world without religion.

[Maria]

Gary said: "...having doubts is not a sin or crime of the soul."

That particular comment means a lot to me.

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "Gary said: "...having doubts is not a sin or crime of the soul."

That particular comment means a lot to me."

I hope in a good way.

To me doubt is true humility while faith is the ultimate arrogance.

There is of course a difference between faith and trust. Trust is acknowledging potential doubt and choosing to trust anyway, but that trust can be subsequently be found to be misplaced. Meanwhile faith, at least perfect faith, suffers no doubt, so any breaking of trust is blamed on the faithful, not the subject of that faith.

[Maria]

Yes, in a good way. It alleviates a little of the guilt I feel when I start to question things I've been taught all my life. It allows you to take the blinders off, so to speak, and see where some things just don't make sense.

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "Yes, in a good way. It alleviates a little of the guilt I feel when I start to question things I've been taught all my life. It allows you to take the blinders off, so to speak, and see where som..."

I recall that guilt all too well, and the other unpleasant experiences that went with personal epiphany. My sympathy.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: "Wow...!

Has anyone else heard about the Harvard professor who is discussing finding an "adventurous" woman to have a Neanderthal's baby? I saw an article online via The Daily Mail and am somewhat..."

............. not only that but it is also possible that we will have a real live Woolly Mammoth in about five years, according to a programme I watched late last year on the BBC.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/09/17/s...

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "The question is whether this potential unknown benefit is overwhelmed by known or potential problems with the resultant person. Lets face it the ethics have already been answered to a certain extent by fertility treatments. We already have people in the world born through scientific manipulation of human reproduction, so how different would a clone be?

Fortunately the tissue matching issue of the rest of your post is unlikely to be an issue thanks to the inefficiency of the idea. What we are almost capable of doing now is harvesting stem cells and then using a bio-printer to 3d print a cloned replacement organ. This has no moral implications of creating a new living person and has life saving implications of unimaginable levels. It also means that cloning a human replica to use for harvested organs would not only be unethical, but also completely uneconomical and long term compared to the bioprinting solution. Yet techniques learnt in perfecting a human cloning technique could lead to breakthroughs in the advancement of this science. Yet again you are right, is it worth the potential suffering of a potential person to save others? "

Agreed! Regarding the mother and her DNA, .... I can't remember this part of the article as well and don't have the science base to fully understand it. However, it did say something about the scientist being able to manipulate the DNA to make it take a Neanderthal "turn" or something like that. It wasn't as easy as mixing the Neanderthal DNA with the human DNA. Something was to be done to make the traits more the former. (I didn't know that was possible.)

Regarding the tissue matching information you posted, .... I didn't know about this. Although, if I'd really thought it through.... I know I read several years back that people having babies with an interesting racial mix should definitely save their children's umbilical cords and pay for them to be frozen. So, duh, that would be for stem cells, right? Jodi Picoult is a local author, and I have her book in my head ... the sick daughter and the daughter they conceive in order to save her ... drama, sorrow, and a court case ensue.

Regarding cloning humans (...or Neanderthals) to learn, .... Again, I'm very uncomfortable with this. I don't really see it in the same light as fertility treatments. Yes, both would be conceived through science. But, for me, one would have to consider one's intent. It's not, in my opinion, about the science alone. With fertility treatments, we have a person or a couple who can't conceive but want to have and raise a child in a loving home. You're still bringing a human into the world with the intent to cherish the child, love the child, and care for the child. Then, we have the idea of cloning a human in order to ... learn for science. Would this clone have a loving home, with a parent or parents who raise him or her? Or, would the clone be raised by scientists? Even if we were to clone a human for a person or couple who can't conceive, .... Hmmm.... Clone what person?

This takes me into a different place altogether. Now my American Indian side is coming to the fore. There are American Indians who hate the idea that remains of ancestors are dug up, regardless of what is learned. Hate the idea of the bones of ancestors being kept in labs or museums, hence the movement to reclaim remains and bury them with cultural ceremonies, etc....

Who has the right to a person's DNA? Would we only clone humans who agree to donate their DNA to science in order to conduct this experiment/study? No connection with the clone after that point. Or, would someone agree to allow him or herself to be cloned for a childless person/couple? Or, would a childless person be cloned and raise his or her clone as a child?

Or, ... would we, like with the Neanderthal DNA, attempt to clone people who lived in the past and are long dead? If that became the case, would it be ethical to take that step? Did that DNA belong to the person or not? Would it belong to us simply because we unearthed it and the person is dead? How could we take that DNA and use it in such a fashion, when it might go against the beliefs, culture and wishes of the person?

(Organ donation. That's were my mind just went. Even though I'm a believer, I'm also an organ donor. Signed and everything. I know some who won't sign up. They think it's gross, in some instances. In others, they're afraid they won't go to heaven, etc.... I don't hold with either sentiment. Wonder what native people's think about organ donation. Ultimately, even though I see of the value of it, am a donor, and have talked with people about the importance of being an organ donor, it's voluntary. OH! I forgot! I know a bunch of people who are afraid doctors would let them die if they saw they were donors. I've argued against that possibility, too. So, there are religious reasons and "reasons" that have nothing to do with religion that stop people from being donors. Again, we allow for choice. If we allow live humans to choose what is done with their body, their DNA, shouldn't we respect the dead? If we don't know whether or not they'd donate, we have no right to take their DNA. Right...?)

It gets more than a bit sketchy, in my mind.

Then, if "we" were to agree with the cloning of Neanderthal's and humans, we would have to have a better idea of what could go wrong, as you mentioned. Problems with immunity and disease? Possible psychological issues that might come from being conceived in order to learn and help others? What would be responsible?

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "............. not only that but it is also possible that we will have a real live Woolly Mammoth in about five years, according to a programme I watched late last year on the BBC.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/09/17/s... "

Even this concerns me ....

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "cHriS wrote: "............. not only that but it is also possible that we will have a real live Woolly Mammoth in about five years, according to a programme I watched late last year on the BBC.

ht..."

Cloning mammoths sounds cool, but cloning people, even extinct ones concerns me.
Seems like a can of worms we may not be ready to open.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Cloning mammoths sounds cool, but cloning people, even extinct ones concerns me. Seems like a can of worms we may not be ready to open. "

Yeah.... Both concern me.

On the one hand, I can sit back and experience the wonder involved. Wow! Imagine that we have the science, the technology, to make this happen. Yes, it does sound cool. In addition, I'd have to be a pretty cold person to say I'm not interested in helping people live better and longer lives. What if cloning people helped us better understand how the human body works, which could lead to a cure for who knows what disease. But, ....

Would it be cool to bring back animals that are extinct? Yes.

The question, though, is whether .... Both could be good things for several reasons. But, would it be right?

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "As I say, not an attempt to prove a point but an attempt to show a non-theistic view of purpose and meaning. I hope it interested you. "

I definitely find the article, your post and the discussion quite interesting. This is harder for me, harder than the ethics involved in cloning. That was something that, boom, was right in my head as soon as I read the article and your post. This ... is something I've been ruminating on for a lot of reasons.

First, I think we're largely on the same page, even though you're a non-believer and I'm a believer. How to explain that?! ;)

I rather like your thoughts on happiness and meaning and how we are programmed through our DNA to work together, help one another, etc.... If I recall correctly, I've heard some non-believers claim there is no meaning to our lives, no higher meaning, at least. We're here to live. We will live and will die. An eat, drink and be merry sort of attitude. Organisms that are here to satisfy our basic needs. I find that idea as unsatisfying as you likely find a believer's idea regarding serving others since "God" said to do so.

I saw a program recently that explored the concept you're discussing. The idea that our DNA, evolution, etc... make us social beings who work together, for the group.

Having said that and while this idea makes sense to me, I find myself getting a bit nervous. My science knowledge just isn't that strong. So, for example, while this makes "common sense" to me ... I feel like there's this elusive thing, moving around in the background, that I can't quite discern. In part, I think this is due to my lack of scientific knowledge in general. Unlike the discussion of cloning, all the parts and pieces of this aren't popping immediately into my head. And, what if I'm missing something. (I am reading a science-type book though, regarding history and DNA and migration. Attempting to stretch myself.)

I don't see this concept, DNA programming, as being separate and apart from "God" ... but, I understand what you're saying. This is one of the things that had me sitting back on my sofa.

You're right in what you said, regarding the Christian and Jewish faiths, maybe the Muslim faith, too. The idea, I think, behind the three is that adherents are to "serve" and obey "God" ... meaning is found through such service. Further, there are the 10 Commandments, which outline God's laws. You've brought this up before, as have others. When does one simply obey these dictates? When does one exercise his or her own morality?

I'm in that weird place ... of being raised, religiously, quite differently from a lot of believers, I think. I've said it before ... while my mother believed in "God" and talked with me about "God" and encouraged my belief, she didn't raise me to think I had to follow one faith and only one faith ... one set of ideas and only one set of ideas. The Bible as the absolute word of "God" that can't be questioned. She's the one who insisted our confirmation class learn about a variety of faiths before we said yes to being confirmed. Took us to meet with clergy and practitioners of other faiths or had them come to us. Found readings of different faiths, etc.... Discussed the role of women and the fact that men wrote the holy books and .... Further, I've got the American Indian ancestry going on at the same time.

So, as a result, while I believe, I don't follow a particular path as demanded by a particular church. I have always felt "God" ... felt "God" as a source of energy ... binding us together. Within the native culture, I've always connected with the idea behind the circle of life, everything is connected and can impact everything else. Through my United Methodist upbringing (... which in and of itself, in New England, at least, promotes questioning), I came to feel it important to do good for others. Is that the same as serving God? How to explain...?

Whether believers or non-believers would agree with me, I developed an idea that "God" wants us to experience love and acceptance ... to be cared for. Where did that come from? In part, it came from the experience I had when I almost got hurt as a 5-year old ... the feelings I had when I experienced the "light" I saw and the "people" in the light. Did it also come from religious teachings? I don't know. But, my feeling was ... "God" is this light ... or is in this light ... and the meaning for God is love and acceptance and giving care ... so, we should live in the same way ... and have the ability to do so given that we're humans and not light. We can care for our fellow humans. Is that serving God because a priest, pastor, etc... told me that's my duty? Or, is it something else?

In a way, to me, it seems very similar to what your discussing ... being programed to work together. Yes, I understand your argument is different, as yours only deals with DNA and mine has a link to the feelings I've always had for and about "the light and the people in the light" .... I truly know we're coming at this from different perspectives, one has a supernatural element and one doesn't. Putting that aside, they do seem somewhat similar ... a programing to work together and for one another.

Oh, man. I feel like I'm rambling. The science aspect throws me. The "oddities" of my upbringing further confuse it. And, it's difficult for me to express something I've always felt and "known" on a very elemental level. Something I've known, like my own name, but can't adequately describe or prove.

So, all of this is somewhat of a jumble, which makes thinking about it and attempting to write about it hard.

But, the other thing in this, the article, etc... is the "sign" and the man's choice. Again, this is something you and others have voiced in the past. When to follow the Commandments and when to exercise your own morality ...? Interestingly, this article spoke to me in a way that your posts didn't.

Story. Story is part of the key for me. That's one of the reasons why, the other day, I asked MadgeUK about examples of non-believers being hurt, harassed, etc... in the same way that other people have, in order to understand their fears and not wanting anyone to know they're non-believers. I needed a story. A story to relate to. Yes, I can learn from reading certain things, questions and facts and figures. But, for something to really reach me, I need to feel it. Often, I can do that through story, the stories of actual people and what they've gone through.

So, there I was, reading this story about a man who was faced with a horrific decision. And, ...! It went straight to something we've talked about. In the end, he decided to follow the Commandments.

I wouldn't have chosen to do so. (Thunder and lightning crash through my ceiling.) I'm not judging him; we don't have all the facts and the full story. Etc... But, I saw his choice and what I would have chosen. Polar opposites.

I was raised to always protect the children first. Always! I can't tell you how huge that is ... to me, my upbringing, my family. I could go on for pages. We just heard stories about my grandfather, who died when my mother was very, very young. She'd never heard the stories before. They involved how protective he was of young children, even children who weren't in the family ... even when he was very young. My mother said it struck her as if it might be a genetic trait. I also know, if that scenario happened in my family, my parents wouldn't have put that piece of stone on the table and pointed out the importance of honoring them. No. They'd have hidden it or not brought them home. They'd tell me to get myself in a car, on a boat, or on a plane and get myself gone. For them, it would have been, solely, about saving me and my child. Period. It's always about saving the children.

But, heck .... Where does that come from? Our DNA? The way we're raised in our family? An American Indian idea of looking toward the future generations? I don't think it came from the Bible. I mean, there's not a commandment about caring for and protecting children, above all others. Yes, the New Testament paints Jesus as a man who cares for children, allows them to come to him, and speaks about not leading them astray. But, to my memory, Jesus is the only person in the Bible who stresses the importance of children and caring for children. (Or, is my memory failing?)

At any rate, this story and his decision hit me in a different way than I've been before. He made a decision based on his religious beliefs. I'd make a decision based on my upbringing and what I was raised to value. (It didn't and wouldn't occur to me to go to the Commandments.) But, .... What is truly the difference between the two? Both are based, I think, on how we were raised and on what we value. Which is right? One or the other? Both?

Further, I began to question my choice. Because of the religion...? No. I started thinking about elders and how elders should be treated and cared for. I thought about an Alaskan tale, a cautionary tale, regarding elders and a tribe who leaves them to die. Two Old Women: An Alaska Legend of Betrayal, Courage and Survival Is it right to sacrifice elders in favor of babies and children ... in favor of the larger group? Is there another way, besides sacrificing your child or your parents?

Ugh.... I totally and completely don't know. But, ultimately, it came to me that my conditioning (which isn't based in religion) to always protect babies and children, regardless, might be as knee-jerk as this man's conditioning to obey the Commandments. It's different. There's a different basis. But, neither is questioned.

These are some of the reasons I found this article to be challenging.

Will stop before this becomes even more muddled.

[Maria]

Shannon. You are definitely rambling. Stop. Do you post here while drinking?

[[deleted user]]

Maria wrote: "Shannon. You are definitely rambling. Stop. Do you post here while drinking?"

I don't drink, Maria. But, thanks for your concern.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "First, I think we're largely on the same page, even though you're a non-believer and I'm a believer. How to explain that?! ;)"

First let me say that I appreciate the thought and detail that went into that post, though it makes it a challenge to discuss clearly :-) If I seem to cherry pick a couple of quotes to respond to I am not meaning to pick apart your thoughts, just to address those points I feel I don't want to miss out.

In answer to your comment about being largely on the same page, well all I can say there is that I personally think ethics have nothing to do with faith, though I can see why an ethical person would be attracted to faith if they are taught that having faith is an intrinsically good thing.

As for purpose and meaning. I think the problem there is that believers tend to think that meaning and purpose needs to be an absolute value, and if its an absolute then it needs to be externally applied otherwise how can that meaning be absolute to everyone. So when they look at those without faith they then see those without purpose or meaning, or indeed only the basest meaning or purpose based on hedonism. This then often leads to the assumption (often repeated on GR threads) that non-believers therefore are hedonists, rapists, murderers etc.

(I know you are not one of these who suggest this, I am simply showing I actually understand the logic of people who do, which is faultless except it's based on certain assumptions.)

To me though, and I think to many through the ages, an externally applied purpose or meaning is ultimately unsatisfying, but the search for meaning and purpose is almost universal. Even the most devout religious people go far beyond the commands and laws of their religion and actively seek to propagate their religion (sometimes with what others would see as moral activities, sometimes with violence or other actions others see as immoral).

It is easy to understand why a social animal would develop this intrinsic instinct to want to have meaning and purpose, because in that way societies are built. However, though because it's a need, it is assumed that the source needs to be external, yet in fact only the society needs to be external, the meaning can be internal, and in fact I think that the only meaning and purpose that can truly fulfil someone is one they find for themselves. Be it a doctor finding their purpose to help the sick, the policeman to defend the innocent, the soldier to protect or the entertainer to bring people happiness.

The concept explains so much about us, and not only about how it works, but also how it can be manipulated, subverted or abused. This has happened throughout our history and I am not singling out religion here, but all sorts of ideologies have hooked into our need for purpose, for community and for identity. Nationalism and colonialism are just two other examples of where that need has been used to suppress one group to elevate another using the intrinsic need for purpose to unify it.

Shannon wrote: "My science knowledge just isn't that strong. So, for example, while this makes "common sense" to me ... I feel like there's this elusive thing, moving around in the background, that I can't quite discern. In part, I think this is due to my lack of scientific knowledge in general."

I don't think science is the issue here as much as realising the difference between "common sense" and "reality". What people tend to forget (and Creationists and their ilk take advantage of) is that common sense is actually a whole group of intellectual shortcuts that we use to go about common tasks in the day so that we don't spend hours working through every decision. Common sense helps people live their lives and make quick and usually safe decisions, but the problem is when you mistake 'common sense' for meaning 'always right'.

Look outside of science and I am sure you can still find lots of places where common sense would actually give you the wrong answer. It just tends to happen quicker in science because with science we leave behind the limits of human perspective quite quickly. Common sense tells us that a dropped ball falls toward the Earth, science tells us that actually the Earth also falls up to the ball, but by a minute ratio compared to the ratio of the ball's mass to the Earth.

Shannon wrote: "Unlike the discussion of cloning, all the parts and pieces of this aren't popping immediately into my head."

You see that would worry me far more than actually having to think about it. The same "common sense" moral shortcut that you arrived at your concern for cloning, where does it actually come from? I am not saying it isn't justified, but then some people feel the same sort of "common sense" moral concern regarding gay marriage, or interracial unions etc. I feel that "common sense" morality is inherently dangerous because our intrinsic prejudice can inform our decision, leaving our comprehension to then try to justify it.

Shannon wrote: "I don't see this concept, DNA programming, as being separate and apart from "God""

Fair enough, it doesn't mean that a god did not create this trait on purpose for this end, but it also does not need a god for the idea to work either.

Shannon wrote: "I'm in that weird place ... of being raised, religiously, quite differently from a lot of believers, I think."

I had the same. The problem wasn't that though, the problem was still the idea that faith was important. In fact it is often viewed as more important than what you have faith in. My parents were fine with whatever faith I chose, but when I lost faith at all they reacted badly.

Shannon wrote: "I have always felt "God" ... felt "God" as a source of energy ... binding us together."

Can you imagine if that feeling wasn't external, but instead was your desire for community bringing you together rather than an external force binding you together?

Common sense tells us that we wrap up warm to keep the cold out, science tells us cold doesn't exist and in fact it is our heat escaping that we feel as cold.

Sorry science analogy I know. How about heroes and celebrities? How many people have been inspired by people who turned out to be corrupt, petty or just human? Did that make their effect on others any less real? Where did that effect come from, from the will of the celebrity, or from the combined will of those who imbued that celebrity with the attributes that they honoured?

Shannon wrote: "Yes, I understand your argument is different, as yours only deals with DNA and mine has a link to the feelings I've always had for and about "the light and the people in the light" .... I truly know we're coming at this from different perspectives, one has a supernatural element and one doesn't. Putting that aside, they do seem somewhat similar ... a programing to work together and for one another."

You see I don't think the argument is that different, the only difference is whether there needs to be an external entity to impose purpose, meaning, morality, community etc. or whether that entity is a consequence of our own desire. If we love because of a magical mystical force, or we love because of a neurochemical feedback system, does that make any difference to the feeling of love we feel?

Shannon wrote: "The science aspect throws me."

I can understand that, but I find often it's because people stick science in a little box that says "this is for science stuff" and don't realise that science is about literally everything. But it is far more careful and exacting than "common sense".

Shannon wrote: "When to follow the Commandments and when to exercise your own morality ...? Interestingly, this article spoke to me in a way that your posts didn't. "

That's easy to see why. You can see a difference between when to exercise one's own morality and when to use the 10 commandments, however to my eye I see that as an illusion. If you pick when to use one or the other, what are you using but your own morality, even when you believe you are favouring to choose the commandments over it you are still making a moral choice to override your moral choice.

That may seem strange but it is these illusions that make faith influencing morality so dangerous. What happens when your faith in the first commandment overrides your morality to allow people freedom of choice? Are you then not morally responsible for your decision to deny others their gods?

Shannon wrote: "Often, I can do that through story, the stories of actual people and what they've gone through."

Anecdotal evidence is always powerful, which is why they are often used to manipulate people, even to manipulate ourselves by 'confirmation bias'. It's like the smoking lobby protesting that someone smoked 100 a day until they were 90 and were fine. In the end stories tell us more about what we already believe rather than what we can learn from reality. Take the story of the good Samaritan, was that a story about how good may be found in everyone, or a story about how prejudice people were at the time against Samaritans? How would the "good Muslim" or the "good Atheist" story compare in Texas?

This doesn't say that story doesn't help. Most of science is about trying to link data together so it tells a story. The difference is to remember if that story is about something rare or common.

Shannon wrote: "I was raised to always protect the children first. My mother said it struck her as if it might be a genetic trait."

Well if it was a religious trait it wouldn't really explain how certain other animals care for their young. Moreover, from an evolutionary point of view, how likely to survive is a species that persecutes their young, especially if that species has young that are born weak and dependent for years?

Shannon wrote: "Jesus is the only person in the Bible who stresses the importance of children and caring for children."

I've said it elsewhere, but I'll say it again. The most horrible irony is that the message of Jesus as a social reformer of the time and lesson to the future was great, unfortunately the message was superseded by his deification. Look at the highly Christian parts of the US, most of which would probably call Jesus both Hitler and Stalin should he come in disguise with his message of meekness and caring for the poor, ill and refuting the wealthy and self serving priests.

Shannon wrote: "Both are based, I think, on how we were raised and on what we value. Which is right? One or the other? Both?"

I would say both, because ultimately both are based on the moral instincts we inherit as humans. This can be demonstrated clearly when looking at sociopaths that have that intrinsic morality damaged. We are generally brought up by humans with moral instincts, instincts that then supplement our own, and our culture.

Shannon wrote: "Is it right to sacrifice elders in favor of babies and children ... in favor of the larger group?"

You see people expect a dispassionate "science" answer to say yes, yet I am sure the story tells a perfectly logical reason to say "no".

Just briefly, two reasons no. First is that elders often have skills and experience, without which the children may be doomed anyway, but second and more important is the basis of our instinct for fairness and justice. If members of a community saw a group being sacrificed against their will, a group that they would one day be members of, then the group becomes fractured and loses its strength.

In essence I see morality and ethics being far more important when we our complicit in it's structure rather than having it imposed from above. Is that not the whole point of democracy? If you base your ethics on "why" rather than "who told me" then you take personal moral responsibility.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "..."

Apologies if the above may seem terse at times, but I kept running out of space :-) I feel I could have wrote a book or at least a few chapters inspired by your musings :-)

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "cHriS wrote: "............. not only that but it is also possible that we will have a real live Woolly Mammoth in about five years, according to a programme I watched late last year..."

What about a manned mission to mars. It is said that the first manned mission may be a one way trip only.

Should that be a concern, anymore than cloning?

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "What about a manned mission to mars. It is said that the first manned mission may be a one way trip only.

Should that be a concern, anymore than cloning? "

When they say "one way trip" the plan was to send enough equipment to mine water and establish the basics of a colony as it would still be a lot less mass than the fuel required for the return trip. It would also be volunteers who would be willing to take the risks and forsake coming home for the chance to be the first human colonists of another world.

I personally would find such an offer extremely tempting, though I don't know if ultimately I'd have the courage.

The difference I guess between cloning and a one way Mars trip is that the latter would have a choice while the former does not.

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "What about a manned mission to mars. It is said that the first manned mission may be a one way trip only.

Should that be a concern, anymore than cloning?"

I'd not heard about that. I see a possible difference. I assume the astronauts chosen would be volunteers. Even if a person volunteers his/her DNA for cloning, the clone would have no say in the matter. Nor do children born without science. However, I wonder if scientists would want to track and study the clone throughout his/her lifetime, etc.... What if the clone, at some point, didn't want that? Would follow up study be voluntary or not?

That's the difference I see at first blush.

Regardless of whether or not it's voluntary, would it be ethical?

[Travis]

Gary wrote: "cHriS wrote: "What about a manned mission to mars. It is said that the first manned mission may be a one way trip only.

Should that be a concern, anymore than cloning? "

When they say "one way tr..."

Tough choice...do I want a cloned mammoth or a Mars colony..?
Could we go to Mars and then clone a mammoth there?
Then everyone is happy.

Plus, if the mammoths go on a rampage, it's just Mars that gets stomped on.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Regardless of whether or not it's voluntary, would it be ethical? "

Conversely would it be unethical to deny potential volunteers the choice just because it makes other people uneasy?

Added to the fact that if a sustained colony was established, for the first time ever no planetary disaster could wipe out the human race.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Conversely would it be unethical to deny potential volunteers the choice just because it makes other people uneasy?

Added to the fact that if a sustained colony was established, for the first time ever no planetary disaster could wipe out the human race.
"

Regarding your first question, it might be unethical to deny volunteers the choice because the tax payers who will be asked to fund their mission feel it's unethical. I don't know.

Regarding colonization and sustained colonies, .... I'm not a fan of colonization for obvious reasons. I could ask ... is it ethical to colonize?

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: Which again is the problem. Sometimes you need to teach why the question is wrong rather than try to answer a wrong question.

A question is a question, you do not have wrong questions. You may want to ‘teach’ why the question can’t be answered directly, but that does not invalidate the question.

Gary wrote:I understood the question, but it implies the existence of an "edge" to the Universe. Since the Universe is formed of "space/time" then any "edge" would have to be the point where space "stops" yet if space "stops" which direction is this "stoppage" in? If there is a direction there is space therefore it is not an edge.

It seems from your reply that you did ‘not’ understand the question. Either that or your original reply was incorrect and so you are trying to apply a smokescreen. It other words you are deflecting by telling us all about space/time and the horizon problem.

It was a simple question with a simple answer.

QUESTION: What happens when light gets to the edge of the universe?

Light does/could not get there, regardless of space/time or the horizon problem etc. and regardless of whether there is an edge or not (which some cosmologists think there is, anyway).

Why?

ANSWER: because the universe expands faster than light.

The initial expansion of the universe was much faster than the speed of light (the inflationary period), and so the ‘edge’ has probably always been receding faster than the speed of light.

Gary wrote:However, your question assumed the existence of an "edge" and yet the very definition of an "edge" in those terms is nonsense based on much outdated theories of absolute space. Exactly how do you define this edge? It is the same nonsensical question as "if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into" and "if the universe came from a tiny point, where was that tiny point?" Both questions are valid questions that a schoolboy may ask, but both are based on the intrinsic assumption that there exists an absolute framework of space and time that everything operates within. This was disproved by the relativistic theory.

You seem to be showing contempt for folks who may want to ask such questions as those that you have illustrated.

These questions are only nonsensical to you. Science has conflicting views about the universe and what you have suggested is only one theory.

Gary wrote:Appeal to authority?

When I suggested that what I said was also said on live TV by Prof. Brian Cox, your response is ‘appeal to authority’. Are you suggesting that Prof. Cox is an ‘irrelevant’ appeal to authority because he is not an expert, or because there is no consensus among experts in this subject matter?

I am sure you would not want to demean Prof. Cox so you must think that there is no consensus on this subject, and you would be correct.

Gary wrote:Hopefully though you read your own link and can understand now why your original question was nonsensical.

I really don’t believe you mean that sentence to sound arrogant and I think that is where you ‘fail’ in some debates.

I believe you really do think that you have ‘now’ corrected me on my lack of understanding, as you do with others on other topics. But this does make you come across as arrogant, and wanting to sound superior.

Gary wrote:Done. As for the point where the universe "ends", in what way do you mean? The question itself requires a definition. If you are talking about the cosmological horizon, the answer is that the universe doesn't end there because at the point you are talking about, you can see a different "edge".

This is where I wonder if you are not understanding or just putting up that smokescreen, because you did not reply correctly previously.

The question is about ‘light’ reaching the edge of the universe… NOT where is the edge of the universe. Since the light will never reach that point, we have an answer.

Of course if you agree that there is no consensus among experts on this, then we are, in a way both correct because I am understanding from a different expert than you are.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: Regardless of whether or not it's voluntary, would it be ethical?
. ..."

I don't think it would be any more or less ethical than that of Louise Brown. She was born in 1978 and was the first test tube baby.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "Conversely would it be unethical to deny potential volunteers the choice just because it makes other people uneasy?

Added to the fact that if a sustained colony was established, for t..."

Well, on Mars there aren;t any natives to exploit...

That we know of!

The ethical consideration on cloning makes me think, as long as it's a volunteer process I wouldn't have too many objections.
If it's your DNA being used, that seems fair.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Well, on Mars there aren;t any natives to exploit...

That we know of!"

Yup. That we know of ... ;)

It still makes me nervous. What if there were other life forms? Would we choose not to colonize? If Mars didn't work for us, would we attempt this on another planet, years in the future? Would we decide not to attempt colonization if life already existed there?

It wouldn't even necessarily be a question of exploitation, though, I suppose that's always an issue if one is going to move to another's home without permission. But, .... Separate and apart from that, as Carl Sagan said, if intelligent alien life existed, they'd likely not come here for fear of infecting us with who knows what ... just as the Europeans did to the American Indians.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Well, on Mars there aren;t any natives to exploit...

That we know of!"

Yup. That we know of ... ;)

It still makes me nervous. What if there were other life forms? Would we choo..."

If/when we find other life, then we can worry about it, until then, it's really not a concern.
Bit like worrying about highway traffic when your car is still in the driveway.
if intelligent life comes here, then we can worry, as we then become the 'indians'.

[Rajat]

neither of the worlds would last very long....

[Gary]

Rajat wrote: "neither of the worlds would last very long...."

Why? The world has gotten along fine before most religions were invented, and has survived religions rising and falling. Each religion falling into disuse has not ended the world, so why would all of them?

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "A question is a question, you do not have wrong questions. You may want to ‘teach’ why the question can’t be answered directly, but that does not invalidate the question."

Yes it does. "Why did you murder Bob?" is there a point to defending yourself from this accusation if Bob isn't dead?

Questions often contain assumptions, sometimes hidden, that make answering them correctly almost impossible without explaining why the question is wrong.

It is also a favourite apologist trick to ask a rhetorical question which contains assumptions.

cHriS wrote: "It seems from your reply that you did ‘not’ understand the question. Either that or your original reply was incorrect and so you are trying to apply a smokescreen. It other words you are deflecting by telling us all about space/time and the horizon problem."

So I, as a person with years of study of cosmology, try to explain to you why the assumptions were wrong, and you accuse me of deception because you think the answer is too complex?

Then later you accuse me of arrogance? :-D

cHriS wrote: "It was a simple question with a simple answer."

Maybe a simple wrong answer.

cHriS wrote: "QUESTION: What happens when light gets to the edge of the universe?

Light does/could not get there, regardless of space/time or the horizon problem etc.

That part is correct, but light not getting there is the horizon problem. A light ray from here will never be able to reach there because there will always be more space. However, that does not effect light that is there.

cHriS wrote: "and regardless of whether there is an edge or not (which some cosmologists think there is, anyway)."

Citation needed.

(Noting that there is a difference to the 3dimensional space edge that your question implied and boundary conditions which are projected onto a multidimensional model which light cannot pass over.

cHriS wrote: "ANSWER: because the universe expands faster than light."

Wrong. If you don't believe me, believe Einstein. You are imagining that light cannot keep up with the expansion of the universe, but at the point the light is at the expansion of space is not FTL and instead it would appear to be FTL where we are. So light behaves the same here as it does there with no mysterious edge.

Your idea is based on classical ideas of an "absolute space" which Einstein disproved.

cHriS wrote: "The initial expansion of the universe was much faster than the speed of light (the inflationary period), and so the ‘edge’ has probably always been receding faster than the speed of light."

Wrong. The 'inflationary epoch' was hypothesised to be an era where space expanded faster than the speed of light because space itself had different properties. It then slowed and the energy of that slowing was emitted as the "Big Bang Fireball" that we now see as the CMB. It did not carry on at the same speed as the whole point of the inflationary epoch is to explain how the temperature of the universe in one direction is almost exactly the same as in the other which would be impossible as information cannot transfer between two points FTL.

cHriS wrote: "You seem to be showing contempt for folks who may want to ask such questions as those that you have illustrated. "

No, I am showing contempt for people who make claims about the limitations of science without actually understanding the science. Asking questions is not the issue, denying the answers or making up your own to suit your own level of comprehension is.

cHriS wrote: "These questions are only nonsensical to you. Science has conflicting views about the universe and what you have suggested is only one theory."

Ok so now you know better than Einstein & Hawking? The "Theory" that proves you wrong is called the "General Theory of Relativity" and though incomplete it is still regarded as one of the pillars of modern Physics.

cHriS wrote: "When I suggested that what I said was also said on live TV by Prof. Brian Cox, your response is ‘appeal to authority’. Are you suggesting that Prof. Cox is an ‘irrelevant’ appeal to authority because he is not an expert, or because there is no consensus among experts in this subject matter?"

Neither, I am disputing your use of Professor Cox as an authority based on your understanding of what he said.

cHriS wrote: "I am sure you would not want to demean Prof. Cox so you must think that there is no consensus on this subject, and you would be correct."

There is a wide consensus on relativity. It is used in the calculations for GPS in mobile phones, missiles and navigation systems across the world.

cHriS wrote: "I really don’t believe you mean that sentence to sound arrogant and I think that is where you ‘fail’ in some debates. "

You have tried to tell someone trained in a field about what that field, making frequent basic errors that show your lack of understanding.

You repeatedly sniff at the works of science from climatology through evolution to physics and imply that if it doesn't make sense to you then it's just a guess.

You accuse people who disagree with you and take the time to explain why, first of deception and then of arrogance.

Physician heal thyself.

cHriS wrote: "I believe you really do think that you have ‘now’ corrected me on my lack of understanding, as you do with others on other topics. But this does make you come across as arrogant, and wanting to sound superior."

No I honestly don't think I have effected your lack of understanding as I don't think you want to understand because that would require you to review your prejudices and I don't think you're ready for that.

As for sounding "superior", I am not the one refuting the work of tens of thousands of hard working scientists, including some renowned as geniuses of their time, based on whether or not it makes sense to you. Neither do I expect you to take my word for when you are wrong, I try to carefully explain why you are mistaken, while fully respecting the fact that if you are not a physicist then I wouldn't expect you to know.

cHriS wrote: "This is where I wonder if you are not understanding or just putting up that smokescreen, because you did not reply correctly previously."

No. You were using an ancient view of the universe as absolute space and time, I am using the modern established theory of General Relativity. The smokescreen is your own lack of knowledge. This is nothing to be ashamed of, unless you try to claim that what you do not know is therefore meaningless.

cHriS wrote: "The question is about ‘light’ reaching the edge of the universe… NOT where is the edge of the universe. Since the light will never reach that point, we have an answer."

Light is at that point, and to that point's perspective we are at the place that the universe is expanding FtL. I know it's a hard idea to grasp (seriously, that is part of the difficulty of physics) but your idea is based on applying classical physics to a non-classical universe.

The reason I say "where" is because in absolute space there would be a problem. In relativistic space/time where doesn't matter because the "edge" that we see from our "centre" is their "centre" and we are their "edge".

cHriS wrote: "Of course if you agree that there is no consensus among experts on this, then we are, in a way both correct because I am understanding from a different expert than you are. "

No. You're using concepts of space and time from ancient Greece, updated by Newton and then replaced by Einstein.

Again it's the question that is wrong which is why you don't understand why your answer is wrong because you are assuming that Professor Cox and others are also using Euclidean space, they are not.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "I don't think it would be any more or less ethical than that of Louise Brown. She was born in 1978 and was the first test tube baby. ."

That's an interesting point about the ethics of cloning. So far we've considered whether the clone would suffer, we haven't looked at the consideration that the clone may be glad at the chance to exist.

After all this is related to the ethics of genetic screening. Some disabled groups find the idea sinister that we could one day screen out defects, as this is a value judgement on their quality of life.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "If/when we find other life, then we can worry about it, until then, it's really not a concern.

if intelligent life comes here, then we can worry, as we then become the 'indians'. "

Regarding your first point, I do see what you're saying. However, humans have quite the track record regarding colonization. Lots and lots of evidence regarding how we think, what we choose to do in certain circumstances, and the ends to which we're willing to go. Having the DNA of people who fairly recently paid a huge price as a result of colonization, I worry about it, even now.

If intelligent life came here with their version of small pox, etc..., yes, we'd become the American Indians, so to speak.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: It still makes me nervous. What if there were other life forms? Would we choose not to colonize? If Mars didn't work for us, would we attempt this on another planet, years in the future? Would we decide not to attempt colonization if life already existed there?

It wouldn't even necessarily be a question of exploitation, though, I suppose that's always an issue if one is going to move to another's home without permission. But, .... Separate and apart from that, as Carl Sagan said, if intelligent alien life existed, they'd likely not come here for fear of infecting us with who knows what ... just as the Europeans did to the American Indians. .."

Again I have just watched a programme about life on mars and the consensus is that it is more likely than not that there ‘is’ life on mars. Not the little green men but a bacteria-like living organism. The big question is, is this life the same as basic life on earth or not. If it is not, then this adds to the ‘we are not along’ premise.

If it is the same, were these micro organisms transported to or from mars on meteorites. Experiments have been done to prove that they could survive the trip.

I don’t think those who want to explore other worlds will see infection as a reason for not exploring. Like going to mars, they will try and minimise the risk but the risk is still there, and other intelligent life would think the same if the benefits out weighted the risk.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Regarding your first point, I do see what you're saying. However, humans have quite the track record regarding colonization. Lots and lots of evidence regarding how we think, what we choose to do in certain circumstances, and the ends to which we're willing to go. Having the DNA of people who fairly recently paid a huge price as a result of colonization, I worry about it, even now.

If intelligent life came here with their version of small pox, etc..., yes, we'd become the American Indians, so to speak. "

I quite agree with that, after all 'those that do not learn from history'.

It seems extremely unlikely we need to worry about destroying life on Mars by colonisation, especially not conscious life, but I think there is caution to be held about destroying clear evidence of fully extraterrestrial life. The discovery of which would tell us a lot more about the likelihood of other intelligent life in the Universe.

If Mars had its own abiogenesis and we could show evidence of even extinct life that was completely different to terrestrial biology (perhaps utilising different amino-acids for its DNA or even having completely different replicating molecules to DNA) then we'd know a lot more about how likely other planets are to harbour life. The only difficulty here is that it is likely to be extremely difficult to classify and identify alien life if it is sufficiently different to terrestrial biology. (For example its a lot harder to classify between bacteria, viruses and chemical processes such as polymerisation or fire that people may think.) Yet finding such life would tell us if life is likely elsewhere, and also demonstrate that the Earth isn't as "special" as humans have arrogantly assumed through the ages.

The trouble is finding such life with probes might be too hard and we may never be sure, finding life with astronauts would be much easier, but risks contaminating the evidence with our own biology. So colonisation may actually sacrifice one of the most important discoveries in history.

Of course, it could also be a moot point. Mars and Earth are close enough that Mars rocks have been blasted off the surface and have made it to Earth. Though it's harder to get things off the Earth and outward from the sun, it's not impossible that terrestrial biology may have already contaminated Mars, let alone any germs we missed on the probes.

However, the point is valid. So far we only have a sample size of "1" for how likely life is to appear, though since it appeared very quickly after the Earth was stable enough to support it, it suggests that it's either not hard, or a step that requires a young planet. So though we may not go "War of the Worlds" on Martian indigents it doesn't mean that there will be no consequences to colonisation.

[cHriS]

I find this quiet interesting.

Nasa has a tradition at mission control that it’s controllers have a supply of peanuts to eat during missions. They eat peanuts because it will bring ‘good luck’.

Just google nasa and peanuts for more info.

If you run the word ‘tradition’ through a thesaurus you get an alternative word, ‘belief’.

Science and belief can go together. I wonder what would happen if the peanut belief was ended. : )

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "Science and belief can go together. I wonder what would happen if the peanut belief was ended. : ) "

A pointless waste of the NASA budget will be closed up? :-)

Religion, superstition and science may be practised by the same people, it doesn't make them "go together" :-D

Scientists, even NASA scientists, are people too! :-)

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "So though we may not go "War of the Worlds" on Martian indigents it doesn't mean that there will be no consequences to colonisation. "

I fully agree. For that reason, colonization makes me uncomfortable.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "I fully agree. For that reason, colonization makes me uncomfortable. "

I can understand that, but it is also important not to base morality on our instinctive feelings. After all there is a good chance this is a lot of the source of humanity's racism, homophobia, misogyny and other prejudices.

At the moment I would count myself as uncertain, but if forced to decide now I'd likely come down on the side of colonisation. The potential benefits for conscious beings outweighs the potential risks for beings that are incredibly unlikely to exist. Not only would it make the human race far less likely to be wiped out all at once, but living in a forced enclosed environment may teach the rest of us ways to live within the means of our own environment.

In the meantime I am more intrigued by the two asteroid mining company start-ups.

[Travis]

Gary wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Science and belief can go together. I wonder what would happen if the peanut belief was ended. : ) "

A pointless waste of the NASA budget will be closed up? :-)

Religion, superstit..."

Unless, they are worshiping the peanuts, I think we can still trust NASA to concentrate on science.

Though, if NASA is starting a religion, shouldn't it be based around Tang?

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "I can understand that, but it is also important not to base morality on our instinctive feelings. After all there is a good chance this is a lot of the source of humanity's racism, homophobia, misogyny and other prejudices."

Please notice I said colonization makes me uncomfortable.

Yes, that's my instinctive feeling, based on years and years of evidence of colonization on the part of humans.

However, I only said it makes me uncomfortable. And, ... given my background, I know that plays a part and could, potentially, skew my logic. Fully aware.

I honestly don't know what side I'd come down on, if forced to choose. However, given my background, I'm guessing I might come down against colonization. Circle of life and all that. It's something I actually hold with. The idea that we'd do something that would benefit conscious beings, aka us, even if there was a chance we'd risk other life, conscious or not, disturbs me. Greatly. How selfish can we be as a species? To do something that might risk other life due to the great benefits we'd reap ....

Of course, we'd also need to discuss how we define life. It wasn't that long ago that some slaveholders considered people from Africa to be less than human. I hear the present ruler of Egypt considers Jewish people to be born of apes and pigs. At what point would we, to benefit ourselves, label life not as significant as our own?

While my instinctive feelings are definitely at play, evidence of humanity's lack of morality and poor choices regarding "others" are also at play.

Further, I must say I find this a bit ironic. Some would say we've destroyed the planet we have and are continuing to destroy it. Pollution. Global warming. How horrid! Right?

Why in the world would we think we have any business going to another planet? We talk, scientists talk, NASA talks, about how horridly humans have treated and are treating the planet. We had Kindergarteners bawling and having nightmares 10 years back because of videos they saw of polar bears on melting sheets of ice! How dare we not recycle, etc...? We're harming life.

Now, some of the selfsame people, who make this argument, might say we should go to Mars, even if there's a risk to what "life" might exist on that planet. Will they say non-concious life isn't as important as conscious life? Then, we have your argument regarding the difficulty of classifying life. Hmmm....

Makes me uncomfortable.