Now that we know life is a chemical reaction and not divine creation, does that some how make life less special?

 

Now that we know life is a chemical reaction and not divine creation, does that some how make life less special?  I think scientists have lost their empathy for living creatures when they think of life as only a cheap tool to manipulate, and to produce useful proteins.   What do you think?

 

Views: 342

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Well if we arent going to play god then who will?

not like there is an actual god to do it

It's not true that 'life is not being special'/'life is less special' if there's no supernatural agent pulling the strings. As others have mentioned, realizing that life is based in chemistry does not diminish it.

As an aside - I find it interesting that many theists will talk up the 'statistical improbability of life' yet do not realize that if life as we know it is so fantastically improbable...that very same improbability is a good independent basis for considering life special.

 

As for the video, it's good to consider the ethical implications of how we use scientific advances.  Whether this presentation attempts to tilt the viewer's opinion one way or another is a different question.

There are arguments and counter arguments...please talk straight...creation is science and it is truth...

To answer your question: No.
In fact, I see life as even more spectacular when it is a product of chemical reactions. What is so great about divine creation anyways? The way I see divine creation: You were made to make 2 choices (and only 2 choices), 1: suffer for eternity (hell), or 2: believe in fairy tales.
Just look at the universe. We are the only known intelligent life so far (according to us). This is an amazing thing which could have easily not occurred if the conditions on earth a long long time ago were even Slightly off from the setting at which life was able to start developing.

Your video is just a summary of how science has developed over the years. Yes there are ethical issues that arise, but these advances in science were bound to happen. Humans are both smart and dumb, this is just showing the smart side. (I am not referring to scientists as the smart side, just the advances in science which have been made. This versus advances in things such as... clothing fashion on runways... which I find utterly useless).

There are obviously both good and bad things that come from this. We all know that "with great power comes great responsibility" (spider-man). With the eel robot shown closer to the end, perhaps one day in the future, a baby that is bound to die could live on inside a robot (or cyborg by that time) with just it's brain and grow up to be a full grown adult (new body upgrades! woo!). Perhaps when the sun explodes, humans will have found a way to genetically modify themselves to be able to live without air and conduct space travel, resulting in the possible habitation of another planet in a different solar system. I would obviously miss our old "natural" selves if that were to happen, but this would call in the question between survival or extinction of our species.
The bad things that could happen: A religious extremist gets hold of brain controlling technology. We already know what happens from there. Upon the infinite number of bad things that could happen, they were already present for all the other advances in science since day one. The invention of the wheel - people using it to run over others. The invention of the light bulb - people using it to blind others. (lol....)


In any case, I digress.


I feel that as we advance further into each scientific field, we should try our best to stay sane and use this knowledge and power for the benefits of humanity. We humans are already capable of driving ourselves to extinction (which one could argue that we are already doing), so lets hope for the best and stay active on the decisions made (by government or w/e) which determine the paths our society follows.

We do not know if there are higher dimensions yet, let along what dark energy and dark matter is yet.

 

Top physicist still have no answer to the anthropic principle and why there is so little antimatter in the universe.

 

And in regard to quantum fields, why so little particles are spontaneously produced by the vacuum.

 

What science has made evident is both the existence of the universe and ourselves is one big mysterious conundrum. With this as a back drop it is presumptuous to limit life to what is scientifically observable. 

So...it's presumptuous to limit life to a the levels of observation that we know it exist?

Would it not be presumptuous to instead insert God and a spirtual dimension as explanations even though we have no evidence for either?  Even though they complicate the need for explanation rather than satisfying it?

 

Additionally, what other sort of observation beside the scientific is there when we're talking about the physical world and trying to provide an accurate, systematic understanding of it?

Take God out of the picture momentarily and just call it the truth.

 

Yet others call it God.

 

To be vehement, we're just some lucky sorts that wound up on the Brane membrane of the Multiverse in a Goldy Locks universe that is a complete conundrum to our understanding.

 

But to answer your question yes we would have to grow sensual organs that encompass the full eleven dimensions that string theory requires to have adequate physical observation.

That's our attempt with the LHC at CERNs, so to speak.

Peter you seem to know all about death and you state right out no life after death or a Divine Judgment (Jesus said  'every word' and even 'all thoughts' will be judged at -as He said ,'The Last Day') is a "fairy tale,'etc. 

So we propose you test your faith or belief -and that's all it is. Like we fairy tale followers,you are going on 'faith' as you or we have NEVER died!!! So when you do die and you will -all of us will -some sooner than others,then you can KNOW for certain if it is a 'fairy tale.' Well,if you are right you won't really know unless you are wrong then you will have a contrast!

 You seem willing to wait and see,or there is nothing to wait for, OK.It's not 'scientific' enough for you so then this is what you will follow.

Some will say this a fear statement.NO! It's a fact we all die and we don't know when.This is fact not fear! I use reality not fear. As it says, 'It is appointed for people to die once and after that the Judgment.'Or 'Don't boast yourself of tomorrow as you do not know what a day may bring forth.'I think death is very serious. I am not a gambler with death and what may be out there. You say 'nothing'- then you will have your grand chance to prove it-not to us or anyone but yourself,even then if you black out forever as it were then that's it.If you are sure you are right then no need to fear,of course!

Some scientists like our brilliant friend in the UK says he has come close to death and he knows life after death or even divine creation is a 'fairy tale. 'No,he has NOT died yet! He does not fear death that is very different than really dying. He is very much alive!It's just his opinion and that's all it is.I do praise his intelligence and accomplishments as all should and inspite of a severe handicap. He is an inspiration to all.

I know and have read after scientists that do believe in God,divine creation and an 'fairy tale' afterlife. So we have two sides. Both sides have an opinion. 

If you are right then both sides have no problem- party!!!,but if the other side is right...so I am covered on both ends- sleep deep or live on!

 

As weak as we are as humans we warn,but want all to have the freedom to decide.Your side must render your views too. Good! Both sides need to defend each others rights to believe as we wish.And to have the freedom to debate those issues,if we wish. Either way in the end  it's an individual matter.

Hi Daria,

All religions affirm life after death.I addressed life after death. I affirm life after death .As I posted it's an individual matter.This is MY choice not the 'worlds religions.'  'Holy Books' are there for those who wish to choose. My contention is we are responsible for our choices. If we are wrong then we bear that.

I do not believe in life after death to make myself feel good. I have a great life. I choose this belief on my own with no fear on my part. The scientists and doctors I know have told me the same thing.That ol' concept of we wish to believe in 'fairy tales' to make ourselves happy or to escape fear of death,etc.,is not true.

An atheist (a term-without the gods- used of the early Christians who were slaughtered by the millions for their faith) has made a choice not based on fear to make themselves happy there is no god,or Book so why do people who believe the opposite have to be fearful,wanting to be happy in an afterlife,etc.,etc. Neither side is superior-we are all human beings nothing higher or lower than that.

 

Oh,and it's actually 71 virgins(don't short them!),'12 young boys' and a 'mixed multitude' of M/F's!!! And' rivers of wine.'This is  their truth. I do not choose to believe it.Choice.

RSS

Blog Posts

What do you do with the anger?

Posted by dataguy on September 20, 2014 at 5:12pm 3 Comments

Aftermath

Posted by Belle Rose on September 20, 2014 at 2:42am 5 Comments

Ads

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service