Re: Godliness
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Russell Chapman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm - that would be Stones of Significance by our esteemed Dr Brin... Sorry for straying on-topic maru How DARE you! :-) -- Mauro Diotallevi Alcohol and calculus don't mix. Don't drink and derive. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Godliness
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 8:31 PM, Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jon wrote: I prefer a mundane god, myself, or perhaps a species evolving to the point of singularity and modifying its own genetic structure to self uplift in order to become transcendent. Jon M. Just a stranger on the Bus? Just a slob like one of us? Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Godliness
On Feb 27, 2008, at 10:17 AM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote: On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Russell Chapman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm - that would be Stones of Significance by our esteemed Dr Brin... Sorry for straying on-topic maru How DARE you! :-) Yeah. Next time change the subject line, okay? Sheesh! -- \/\/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Godliness
So how would you define your atheism? You phrase it like it's a belief. It's not. I spent a long time exploring my Christianity, and in the end found it empty. So I stopped believing. I do not believe in gods, ghosts, telepathy, bigfoot, bunyips or the loch ness monster. I think it likely on balance of evidence that all gods are human constructs (why else do they all act so much like people...). Maybe there's a creator or supreme being, but if there is it's truly beyond the petty super-humans of our myths. It makes no difference to me, anyway. Personally, it is my belief that there is no such being in the universe that is omnipotent, infinite, eternal and who created man in his image. Jon - Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Godliness
On 26 Feb 2008, at 01:10, Dan M wrote: So, given this state of the mundane, I hope you can see why I do not believe in a God rooted in the mundane. Neither do I. And I also don't believe in a god rooted in the transcendent :-) Or potting compost Maru. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Godliness
jon louis mann wrote: Well, I think that type of god would be a very poor excuse for God. It reduces God to the mundane, and removes the transcendental nature of God. Dan M. I prefer a mundane god, myself, or perhaps a species evolving to the point of singularity and modifying its own genetic structure to self uplift in order to become transcendent. Jon M. Hmm - that would be Stones of Significance by our esteemed Dr Brin... Sorry for straying on-topic maru Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Godliness
William wrote: Dan M wrote: So, given this state of the mundane, I hope you can see why I do not believe in a God rooted in the mundane. Neither do I. And I also don't believe in a god rooted in the transcendent :-) Or potting compost Maru. Oh, I _so_ believe in potting compost... Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: On Godliness
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 5:15 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: On Godliness Not that speculative fiction really influences my personal philosophy, but in reading Bank's Matter I am reminded why I doubt rather than I am assured that there are no gods. If you believe in some sort of technological singularity, its easy to imagine how an intelligent entity such as a human being can raise themselves to an existence that is well beyond what we now experience; sublimation or transcendence. And if one can raise themselves one level, what's to say that there are not many levels above our own? So that set me to wondering; would those of you among us that are religious consider the possibility that their supreme being(s) was at one time something similar to what we are today? Well, I think that type of god would be a very poor excuse for God. It reduces God to the mundane, and removes the transcendental nature of God. I think the question and the comments made within this thread of whatever there is needing to part of the universe assume a connection between understanding the universe and understanding what things are really like apart from us that the evidence is tending against. One reference that I find useful in considering this is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics which includes a partial table of QM interpretations. Reading through these various interpretations of QM and you get a wide variety of descriptions of reality. I can add a few more descriptions that would also be consistent with QM. This is not to say there have been no advancements in the understanding in the foundation of QM. There have been, including the work on decoherence that offers some hope of a QM theory of QM measurement (works OK as a toy model, but hasn't gone much furtherbut that's still not a bad thing). However, with all of these advances, the QM weirdness has not been eliminated, it's just been pushed to another corner. In the sciam website there was a discussion of a potential experimental test at the Plank limit that might be able to turn at least some interpretations into theories. But, further reading on this subject indicates that the same sorta thing that happens with decoherence will also happen here.the fundamental interpretation problem is not solved by turning the interpretation into theoriesrather the interpretation problem is merely stated in a new way. So, given this state of the mundane, I hope you can see why I do not believe in a God rooted in the mundane. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Godliness
On Feb 24, 2008, at 9:09 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: Ronn! You are well over a century late with that conjecture ;): http://lds.org/hf/art/display/1,16842,4218-1-5-143,00.html I made no claim concerning originality. from the website: As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be So why would there only be one? Or is there just one that's in charge? There's one god for Earth. Other planets each have their own gods. (That's not facetious; it's LDS doctrine.) -- \/\/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Godliness
On Feb 24, 2008, at 4:14 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: So that set me to wondering; would those of you among us that are religious consider the possibility that their supreme being(s) was at one time something similar to what we are today? When I was religious, that was the only possibility that eventually ended up making sense to me. And, of course, the LDS view isn't the only one -- Hinduism has had it for millennia. (Depending on the meritorious karma you've accumulated you can easily be reincarnated as a god in a future life.) And to those of you that are atheist; would you consider the possibility that there may be entities in the universe, evolved from lower life forms that could for all intents and purposes be considered gods? Yes, but those wouldn't be god as defined by the world's major deistic systems -- i.e., they would not have created the universe and everything in it. I'd be quite surprised if we lived in an otherwise sterile universe, actually; and given the age of the cosmos positing an ultra-advanced godlike civilization is no more mad than positing a civilization that hasn't yet got out of its equivalent of the bronze age. But those advanced civilizations still don't qualify as the gods of the old testament, the Koran or the Vedas. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Godliness
Yes, but those wouldn't be god as defined by the world's major deistic systems -- i.e., they would not have created the universe and everything in it. I'd be quite surprised if we lived in an otherwise sterile universe, actually; and given the age of the cosmos positing an ultra-advanced godlike civilization is no more mad than positing a civilization that hasn't yet got out of its equivalent of the bronze age. But those advanced civilizations still don't qualify as the gods of the old testament, the Koran or the Vedas. -- Warren Ockrassa i would also question whether such godlike beings would even bother to uplift lesser intelligences (let alone interfere in our destinies). imagine if social insects were uplifted, or cock roaches, or higher animal orders, such as rats... don't get me started on hybrid species... -- jon mann Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Godliness
Charlie wrote: Well, we are going to be unique in the universe. Evolution isn't going to follow the same path twice (if snowflakes are all unique, then intelligent life, which is much rarer, will be unique to a greater degree...) However, most atheists I know who have any sort of science education reckon it's probable that there are many inhabited worlds in the universe. I meant unique as in the only instance of intelligent life. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Godliness
Well, I think that type of god would be a very poor excuse for God. It reduces God to the mundane, and removes the transcendental nature of God. Dan M. I prefer a mundane god, myself, or perhaps a species evolving to the point of singularity and modifying its own genetic structure to self uplift in order to become transcendent. Jon M. Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Godliness
Max wrote: I wrote: Sheesh, we can't even remember lessons learned from a war a few decades ago and we're going to perfect godhood? 8^) Certainly we don't seem quite up to the challenge at the moment, but if Kurzweil's tracking for the upcoming singularity is correct we may have to sink or swim sooner than we think... Well let's hope they don't put Republicans in charge of passing out life jackets. (At GDC Kurzweil apparently said that those that can live to 2015 may probably live forever, I only wish I had been there to see his charts...) Have you read any of his books? They look to be very interesting. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Godliness
Charlie wrote: Of course I consider the possibility. In fact, given the size of the universe, I'd be surprised if there weren't some sort of transcendental or sublimed beings of mind or something. But that's a fair cry from saying that there's a being above and outside the universe that created the universe and meddles with our existence in a personal yet undetectable way, or indeed that any of Terra's religions are in anyway connected to such a being (whether supernatural or just really old). So how would you define your atheism? Just 'cause one can imagine something, it doesn't mean it's actually true, or indeed mean it isn't. There's a little thing called data. If we get some that shows that there may actually be transcendental races of Old Ones or whatever, then fantastic. Until then, it's fantasy, sci-fi, or wishful thinking. But then where would we be if we had _no_ imagination? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Godliness
Warren wrote: There's one god for Earth. Other planets each have their own gods. (That's not facetious; it's LDS doctrine.) Inhabited planets? Do they the gods get the planets when they're undeveloped and tend them like gardens? How are they dolled out? Doug Pluto! WTF am I supposed to do with that frozen PoS! Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Godliness
On Feb 25, 2008, at 8:03 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: Warren wrote: There's one god for Earth. Other planets each have their own gods. (That's not facetious; it's LDS doctrine.) Inhabited planets? Do they the gods get the planets when they're undeveloped and tend them like gardens? How are they dolled out? When I was being evangelized (is the that the word I want?) by my Mormon then-girlfriend and her LDS Brothers, I wondered about things like this. As I recall, mentioning the As man is, God was, as God is, man may become doctrine was considered bad form: I think some Christians used it as a bit of a cudgel to berate Mormons for their beliefs. Do any of the LDS folks on the list know if this is still the case: Is this something that was supposed to be kept within the Church, or is it general knowledge that Mormons have this doctrine? It does beg the question of whether there are GODs above all these men-become-Gods who make the assignments. Then again, perhaps by the time you've become a God, you have the power to do what our local God is reported to have done and you simply will your personal planet into existence. Pluto! WTF am I supposed to do with that frozen PoS! Maru God1: For my sake, this isn't even a planet! What kind of God to you take me for? God2: If that's the best planet you can speak into being, not much of one. Behold my lovely Saturn: with RINGs, even! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Godliness
On Feb 25, 2008, at 9:03 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: Warren wrote: There's one god for Earth. Other planets each have their own gods. (That's not facetious; it's LDS doctrine.) Inhabited planets? Do they the gods get the planets when they're undeveloped and tend them like gardens? How are they dolled out? Well, see, it's like this. God has a wife, and he and she engage in a kind of spiritual reproductive process which causes the birth of spirit children. These spirit children are born into mortal bodies and live out their lives on their god-parents' world. When they die, assuming they've kept in alignment with the deific rules, they will be reunited with their terrestrial spouses, whereupon they will be given their own planets. They'll then engage in the same cycle. Thus, under LDS doctrine, if you remain righteous and are sealed (married in a temple) to a spouse, when you and your spouse ascend to the highest plane of heaven, you will be given your own world to populate with your own spirit children born into mortal bodies. Presumably, therefore, god and his wife came into this planet via a similar means. The reason, BTW, that you and I and the rest of us don't remember being spirit children and living in heaven before coming to Earth is we pass through a veil of forgetfulness, which prevents our having absolute knowledge -- which would interfere with our free agency. Life on Earth is a kind of test, and you have the possibility to screw up (sin), though under LDS doctrine it's pretty hard, at least, to get yourself thrown into hell. God is cast as considerably more forgiving and tolerant than you typically find in ultra-right-wing systems. (Though he's still quite anti-gay. You can't be a practicing homosexual* in the LDS faith.) * Expert homosexuals, on the other hand, are welcome. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Godliness
Dan wrote: Well, I think that type of god would be a very poor excuse for God. It reduces God to the mundane, and removes the transcendental nature of God. Only to those that reach God's level of knowledge, eh? I think the question and the comments made within this thread of whatever there is needing to part of the universe assume a connection between understanding the universe and understanding what things are really like apart from us that the evidence is tending against. Huh? Needing to part of the universe? One reference that I find useful in considering this is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics which includes a partial table of QM interpretations. Reading through these various interpretations of QM and you get a wide variety of descriptions of reality. I can add a few more descriptions that would also be consistent with QM. This is not to say there have been no advancements in the understanding in the foundation of QM. There have been, including the work on decoherence that offers some hope of a QM theory of QM measurement (works OK as a toy model, but hasn't gone much furtherbut that's still not a bad thing). However, with all of these advances, the QM weirdness has not been eliminated, it's just been pushed to another corner. In the sciam website there was a discussion of a potential experimental test at the Plank limit that might be able to turn at least some interpretations into theories. But, further reading on this subject indicates that the same sorta thing that happens with decoherence will also happen here.the fundamental interpretation problem is not solved by turning the interpretation into theoriesrather the interpretation problem is merely stated in a new way. So, given this state of the mundane, I hope you can see why I do not believe in a God rooted in the mundane. So what are you saying Dan? We're at the end of knowledge? There must be a god because we're not smart enough? Imagine if you will, human beings with bio-computational implants that not only give them the memory and computational power of todays supercomputers, but the ability to network with others that have the same implants. Then try to imagine that that's just the very beginning. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Godliness
Warren wrote: snip Thus, under LDS doctrine, if you remain righteous and are sealed (married in a temple) to a spouse, when you and your spouse ascend to the highest plane of heaven, you will be given your own world to populate with your own spirit children born into mortal bodies. Yikes. Presumably, therefore, god and his wife came into this planet via a similar means. The reason, BTW, that you and I and the rest of us don't remember being spirit children and living in heaven before coming to Earth is we pass through a veil of forgetfulness, which prevents our having absolute knowledge -- which would interfere with our free agency. Life on Earth is a kind of test, and you have the possibility to screw up (sin), though under LDS doctrine it's pretty hard, at least, to get yourself thrown into hell. God is cast as considerably more forgiving and tolerant than you typically find in ultra-right-wing systems. (Though he's still quite anti-gay. You can't be a practicing homosexual* in the LDS faith.) Or African American up until a few decades ago, eh? * Expert homosexuals, on the other hand, are welcome. Those that don't need any practice, I take it. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Godliness
Jon wrote: I prefer a mundane god, myself, or perhaps a species evolving to the point of singularity and modifying its own genetic structure to self uplift in order to become transcendent. Jon M. Just a stranger on the Bus? Doug 'cept the Pope maybe in Rome, maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Godliness
On 26/02/2008, at 2:32 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: Charlie wrote: Well, we are going to be unique in the universe. Evolution isn't going to follow the same path twice (if snowflakes are all unique, then intelligent life, which is much rarer, will be unique to a greater degree...) However, most atheists I know who have any sort of science education reckon it's probable that there are many inhabited worlds in the universe. I meant unique as in the only instance of intelligent life. I know that's what you meant. And I know of no non-religious person who expounds that view. I was explaining both why you were both right and very wrong at the same time. The only people I've ever heard express the view that we must be unique were creationists (who also happened to be geocentrists, ie totally deluded...). Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Godliness
On 26/02/2008, at 2:54 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: So how would you define your atheism? You phrase it like it's a belief. It's not. I spent a long time exploring my Christianity, and in the end found it empty. So I stopped believing. I do not believe in gods, ghosts, telepathy, bigfoot, bunyips or the loch ness monster. I think it likely on balance of evidence that all gods are human constructs (why else do they all act so much like people...). Maybe there's a creator or supreme being, but if there is it's truly beyond the petty super-humans of our myths. It makes no difference to me, anyway. Just 'cause one can imagine something, it doesn't mean it's actually true, or indeed mean it isn't. There's a little thing called data. If we get some that shows that there may actually be transcendental races of Old Ones or whatever, then fantastic. Until then, it's fantasy, sci-fi, or wishful thinking. But then where would we be if we had _no_ imagination? Sitting in caves. Or possibly trees. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Godliness
Not that speculative fiction really influences my personal philosophy, but in reading Bank's Matter I am reminded why I doubt rather than I am assured that there are no gods. If you believe in some sort of technological singularity, its easy to imagine how an intelligent entity such as a human being can raise themselves to an existence that is well beyond what we now experience; sublimation or transcendence. And if one can raise themselves one level, what's to say that there are not many levels above our own? So that set me to wondering; would those of you among us that are religious consider the possibility that their supreme being(s) was at one time something similar to what we are today? And to those of you that are atheist; would you consider the possibility that there may be entities in the universe, evolved from lower life forms that could for all intents and purposes be considered gods? Doug GSV Heavy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Godliness
Doug Pensinger wrote: And to those of you that are atheist; would you consider the possibility that there may be entities in the universe, evolved from lower life forms that could for all intents and purposes be considered gods? Well, anything can be a possibility. So yes, I consider it a possibility. But on the other hand, have we any evidence of higher life forms? No. So I still don't believe in them either, be they man-become-god or your average spaghetti-dinner-become-FSM. I do find interesting the idea of gods in futurity... of working to become, in some way, gods ourselves and so I think there is a lot of good things to learn from the mistakes of the various deities that are worshipped today. Hopefully we aren't doomed to repeat those mistakes. (That's the plot of Zelazny's Lord of Light, among others.) -- --Max Battcher-- http://www.worldmaker.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Godliness
At 05:14 PM Sunday 2/24/2008, Doug Pensinger wrote: So that set me to wondering; would those of you among us that are religious consider the possibility that their supreme being(s) was at one time something similar to what we are today? You are well over a century late with that conjecture ;): http://lds.org/hf/art/display/1,16842,4218-1-5-143,00.html -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Godliness
Ronn! You are well over a century late with that conjecture ;): http://lds.org/hf/art/display/1,16842,4218-1-5-143,00.html I made no claim concerning originality. from the website: As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be So why would there only be one? Or is there just one that's in charge? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Godliness
Max wrote: Hi Max, welcome to the list. Well, anything can be a possibility. So yes, I consider it a possibility. But on the other hand, have we any evidence of higher life forms? No. So I still don't believe in them either, be they man-become-god or your average spaghetti-dinner-become-FSM. There was a quiz at an atheist website that someone here (I think) posted a link to and one of the questions had something to do with believing in the Loch Ness monster, the assumption being something to the effect that if you were smart enough to realize that there was not a monster in the loch, you should be smart enough to realize that there wasn't a god. Hold on, thinks me, we've had the loch surrounded for centuries, is that really a valid conclusion? If you were to shrink the a solar system with one planet full of (ostensibly) intelligent beings to the size of an atom and place it in some isolated spot on the earth. What conclusions do we think that that species could draw from their perspective? I realize that the analogy isn't perfect, but I believe that the point is salient; they wouldn't know sh** about the earth and we don't know sh** about the universe. And my point is that any conclusion that we are unique in the unimaginable vastness that is the universe for lack of evidence overestimates the utility of our perspective. I do find interesting the idea of gods in futurity... of working to become, in some way, gods ourselves and so I think there is a lot of good things to learn from the mistakes of the various deities that are worshipped today. Hopefully we aren't doomed to repeat those mistakes. (That's the plot of Zelazny's Lord of Light, among others.) Sheesh, we can't even remember lessons learned from a war a few decades ago and we're going to perfect godhood? 8^) Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Godliness
Doug Pensinger wrote: Hi Max, welcome to the list. I'm not that new, I just post extremely infrequently, leaving me most months as nothing but a lurker. If you were to shrink the a solar system with one planet full of (ostensibly) intelligent beings to the size of an atom and place it in some isolated spot on the earth. What conclusions do we think that that species could draw from their perspective? I realize that the analogy isn't perfect, but I believe that the point is salient; they wouldn't know sh** about the earth and we don't know sh** about the universe. And my point is that any conclusion that we are unique in the unimaginable vastness that is the universe for lack of evidence overestimates the utility of our perspective. Certainly. It's always important to consider how much you might not know. That doesn't mean you need to pre-assume anything about what you don't know, however. (The whole don't count your alien chickens before they are zygotes in a thick shell thing, you know?) I'm all for exploring the unknown-- projects like SETI and the Hubble telescope and whatnot. I just think we all have to admit that thus far results have been pretty scarce to come by and if we *seem* right now to be alone in the universe. I do find interesting the idea of gods in futurity... of working to become, in some way, gods ourselves and so I think there is a lot of good things to learn from the mistakes of the various deities that are worshipped today. Hopefully we aren't doomed to repeat those mistakes. (That's the plot of Zelazny's Lord of Light, among others.) Sheesh, we can't even remember lessons learned from a war a few decades ago and we're going to perfect godhood? 8^) Certainly we don't seem quite up to the challenge at the moment, but if Kurzweil's tracking for the upcoming singularity is correct we may have to sink or swim sooner than we think... (At GDC Kurzweil apparently said that those that can live to 2015 may probably live forever, I only wish I had been there to see his charts...) -- --Max Battcher-- http://www.worldmaker.net/ No Lifeguard on Duty in the Godhood Pool Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Godliness
On 25/02/2008, at 10:14 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote: And to those of you that are atheist; would you consider the possibility that there may be entities in the universe, evolved from lower life forms that could for all intents and purposes be considered gods? Of course I consider the possibility. In fact, given the size of the universe, I'd be surprised if there weren't some sort of transcendental or sublimed beings of mind or something. But that's a fair cry from saying that there's a being above and outside the universe that created the universe and meddles with our existence in a personal yet undetectable way, or indeed that any of Terra's religions are in anyway connected to such a being (whether supernatural or just really old). Just 'cause one can imagine something, it doesn't mean it's actually true, or indeed mean it isn't. There's a little thing called data. If we get some that shows that there may actually be transcendental races of Old Ones or whatever, then fantastic. Until then, it's fantasy, sci-fi, or wishful thinking. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Godliness
On 25/02/2008, at 5:15 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: And my point is that any conclusion that we are unique in the unimaginable vastness that is the universe for lack of evidence overestimates the utility of our perspective. Well, we are going to be unique in the universe. Evolution isn't going to follow the same path twice (if snowflakes are all unique, then intelligent life, which is much rarer, will be unique to a greater degree...) However, most atheists I know who have any sort of science education reckon it's probable that there are many inhabited worlds in the universe. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
