Welcome to the first post in the Project80 Blog! As this post will
cover a controversial, deep, and intense topic, I hope to get some comments and
student involvement. Here goes!
What is the purpose of life?
To fully comprehend and to even begin to attempt to answer this question, a
definition of life is necessary. So, what is life? Here’s my definition. Life is
any living thing that abides by the following guidelines: the organism must
contain DNA, adapt or evolve in a change in its environment, be self
replicating (either sexually or asexually), use energy (metabolize), and be
sentient. Life consumes water, contains cell(s), and produce gas(ses) as well
as heat. These definitions will
help us to try and find the purpose of life, for, exemplified by all the
definitions above, life does not simply apply to humans. One must include
bacteria, fungi, reptiles, mammals, birds, etc. Thus, a strict biological
scientist might declare that the purpose of life is simply to reproduce. Most
biological functions of all organisms point to faculties that allow and help
reproduction.
However, I do not believe
that this is the only purpose for humans. Evolutionarily (or perhaps
religiously…whatever floats your boat), humans have become the most intelligent
beings on earth (that we know of). Like all other organisms, humans can
reproduce. However, in addition to this requisite, we also have incredibly
complex brains, which allow us to carry out abstract thought: concepts such as
philosophy, questions of morality, etc. So why would we “be granted” this
intelligence and yet have no reason to use it?
Neil deGrasse Tyson, a famous
atheist scientist, puts forth another interesting perspective. He notes “How about human life itself? If you are religious, you might
declare that the purpose of life is to serve God. But if you’re one of the 100
billion bacteria living and working in a single centimeter of our lower
intestine (rivaling, by the way, the total number of humans who have ever been
born) you would give an entirely different answer. You might instead say that
the purpose of human life is to provide you with a dark, but idyllic, anaerobic
habitat of fecal matter…”
Tyson concludes that true scientists must state
that there is no greater purpose or special meaning to life, and that a belief
in God and or a greater purpose to our existence is not necessary to explain
our existence and is therefore unscientific. Therefore he believes that the
true scientist must be an atheist. Do you agree? Do you think that he is
entitled do make this statement?
Sources:
image from: harmoniaphilosophica.wordpress.com
That is only true if the true scientist is a scientist in everything that he does. It is very possible for a person to keep their religion and their work separate. Clearly, atheism is not a prerequisite to being a scientist. Whether or not it is a requirement to be the perfect scientist is still up in the air, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteReligion is not simply the belief in a "greater purpose." Religion as an institution (churches, ministers, etc.) created this concept of serving God as our purpose in life to attempt to explain our physical and sentient existence when science and logic could not. These institutions did this with force and under the guise of faith which has allowed the now refuted theories they established to continue to survive. These elements of religion as an institution are what a scientist must ignore to truly understand life and its purpose with all the information we have today.
ReplyDeleteHowever, a scientist can maintain religion if a more pure definition of religion - spirituality - is used. Belief in an almighty or collective power that might explain the so far unexplained can be a valid theory until science can definitively prove otherwise. The only trait that is required of a scientist is the ability to keep an open and logical mind that can entertain any theory and adjust as new data and discoveries become available.
This is blog assumes that God has a singular purpose for everyone. What if every organism is different so that they can all come together to form creation.
ReplyDeleteMy actual view is simply that religion and science cannot mix. I think that David S. may not have considered religion as a whole when speaking about its history.
In the end religion requires a leap of faith. This leap can be taken willingly, because of upbringing, or because people feel they have to (deathbed prayers). But in the end they basically call on the role of the undefinable or unquestionable. I agree that science must consider the possibility that a God/Gods/Higher Power exists. But because it can never be excluded as a theory it makes little sense to use logic to either question it or believe in it.
I think that some may argue that at its heart the universe is undefinable, and therefore believing in concepts like matter or the universe are inherently undefinable. As long as the human mind contains less information than the information needed to describe the universe, we will always view the universe as unexplained.
I find it hard to argue with this.
I would just like to propose the baseline that Science and logic are also beliefs like religion. For instance, schizophrenics believe that their world and their talking spirits are reality, so there is always the possibility that we may be deluded. Thus, logic and our senses essentially become a belief. Mr. De says that religion requires a leap of faith, so does science. I think it is possible that science can mix with religion. Just like if you ask me why a pot of water is boiling I can answer. 1) Because I want some hot water 2) Because I turned on the stove 3) Because the heat is making the water molecules move very excitedly and breaking hydrogen bonds in the water. All 3 might be valid answers, science just seeks to find a specific type of answer. Aggregated, religion can coexist with science, atheism is not a prerequisite for being a scientist simply because science does not seek to prove or disprove God.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the purpose of life, I summarize the works of Immanuel Kant. Kant says that humans are not superior due to intelligence but because they can experience and act on morality. Monkeys are more intelligent than insects, but can be treated the same way because neither "have" morality. Because we have morality while other animals do not, we have moral obligations, unlike others and thus we do not have the same "biological" purpose as other animals, solely existing to reproduce, etc. For instance, psychopaths who are not capable of morality often think in terms of basic needs such as food and water rather than religion, despite being intelligent. So we cannot look at humans the same way as animals because we are capable of morality.
ReplyDeleteHey bro, I think you better leave Kant out of this. Philosophy only goes so far, it "Categorically Impairs" your argument. There now exists data that animals do have morals, depending on your definition of morals. But ideas like help the weak, don't hurt children, and monogamy certainly exist in nature. Plus Kant never came up with a working model of morality. Maxims=not so much.
DeleteAnd who said that the purpose of humans is defined by their morals?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI feel as though now, more frequently than in past generations, the greater science community, including Neil himself, is not expressly advocating the necessity for all scientists to have their beliefs rooted in atheism, rather the modern science community is geared in the direction of some sort of aggressive agnosticism, where more and more members of the science community in 2013 don't rule out any possibilities of any higher power or ideas, and they seek to impose that notion upon peers and laymen, expressly saying that even with the human race's vastly calculated view of the universe, we still know very little. Neil DeGrasse Tyson had appeared in a few interviews, trying to deflect the use of this very quote as a strict advocacy of atheism in the science community. He claims that the quote in its original state was purely a statement of logic that was blown out of proportion by countless pretentious atheist fanatics on the internet. His own view speaks more to the aggressive agnosticism that is taking over a good number of today's free thinkers.
ReplyDeleteI think that makes sense.
I think that defining life as having sentience may not be what you meant, unless you mean something different than my understanding of the word. Humans are certainly sentient, and dogs seem to me, but I'm not sure about bugs and I'd certainly think something without nerves couldn't be sentient.
ReplyDeleteAs for Tyson's statement--if you are approaching ALL of your existence from a scientific point of view, then he is correct. Supernatural beings are untestable (unfalsifyable) and therefore out of the realm of scientific understanding. In order for something to be in domain of science, it must be testable. Most people do not approach their lives from a purely scientific viewpoint--it simply takes too much time to test everything. As De said, to completely describe the universe, you must have a system larger than the universe...this is obviously impossible. Science does not strive for perfect knowledge; but rather approximations of reality that have predictive value.
Several good books have been written on this topic. Finding Darwin's God (http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501) is one I'd recommend.
I know of some people that are clearly not sentient.
DeleteHowever as far as we know a Bacteria wouldn't 'say' anything. It's can't answer that question.
ReplyDeleteOn different topics. If you believe, as many scientists do, as I have heard Neal outline on a Comedy Central show, that there are infinite universes. There for all things are possible. There is a universe where I don't write this comment. There is a universe where I am blue. So to say there is not God is to deny this belief in infinite universes. If there are turely infinite universes there has to be one for which God created it. If there is no God, than the number of Universes are finite, not in-finite. Neal's argument defeats itself.
Also, If the universe is just an incredibly improbable accident, or I should say, life in this universe is an improbable accident. An unassociated confluence of the right atoms in the right place at the right time. if you believe that and that we can track those atoms through the laws of physiscs then nothing any of us do or say or think can have any meaning. Now you may hem and haw, but dig into it for a second. IF the universe got its start at the big bang, and all the atoms and matter got going on some course and it is that accident that led eventually through the laws of physics to where we are now. What I or you say is simply because the atoms were arranged for that to happen. What we think is simply the confluence of atoms in our brain creating electrical signals that create the event of thought. We can't even say, "well i think life has meaning, I decide life has meaning, there for life has meaning." It doesn't, it can't, that thought, that decision is simply an accident of atoms. And if nothing means anything. Nothing. then the only rational option you have is hopeless despair. You have no ground on which to say "I hope" because it doesn't mean anything.
but we know life has some meaning. We've been searching for it for eons. By posting this blog you are searching for it. So there has to be something more than just an accident of atoms. With out meaning you can't say something is right or wrong. You can't condemn a villain (take Hitler, or Polpot, or which ever side of the US political debate you are not on). You can't celebrate a hero, like the guy who landed the plane in the hudson, or Abe Lincoln, or the 2004 Red Sox. We know there is right and wrong. So there has to be more than just an accident of atoms.
i will close with this. Science doesn't tell us Why. It tells us what and how. We often use why. Why does an apple fall when it detaches from the tree? it's easier parlance. But science can't tell us why. it can tell us how, or by what mechanism, but it doesn't give those actions purpose. Even in the social sciences or psychology. Why did that guy in Connecticut shoot all those children. A psychologist can tell you theory of by what developmental/psycho-social/evolutionary-psychological/chemical imbalance mechanisms in his brain/family life those actions were brought about. (now that's a convoluted sentence; diagram that students) But they can't give you a reason. They can't give that event purpose. They can't answer Why?
No a scientist does not need to be an atheist by prerequisite. And many if not the majority of the greatest scientists in history would agree, because they believed in a God.
The Merrimam Webster dictionary defines scientist as "a person learned in science,especially natural science. A scientific investigator" Why in the heck would a scientist need to be an atheist to be a true scientist. Isn't a scientist just another man among men? Do other investigators need to be atheists ? Does a police office need to be an atheist ? What about an accountant?
ReplyDeleteScientists say the universe began with an explosion or big bang. Have you ever seen order result from an explosion ? If I set off a nuclear bomb a million times how many would result in order rather than chaos? Our universes creation and order must be the result of at least a little Devine intervention. A good scientist would keep that in mind.
The most important scientist ever ( I know that is debatable, but for the scope of broadness in different fields physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist and theologian, who has been considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived and the fact that he invented calculus itself) Newton believed in God he is the paragon of a scientist. Therefore atheism can't be a prerequisite to being a scientist.
ReplyDeleteAlso Dr. Tyson is an astrophysicist. Not a life scientist. He is not qualified to dictate what other scientists believe or not about life or God.
In closing in my opinion a "true scientist" technically should be a gnostic (it is possible to know if there is a God), but not have decided on the atheist/theist argument. If one enters into experiment with a predetermined opinion they are biased and my misinterpret results of any such experiement (real or thought). One could argue that a scientist could be agnostic (we cant know if there is a god) but isn't thinking all questions are answerable and searching for said answers sort of the point.
My research is now mostly clinical, but I am still a scientist. I am a gnostic theist. I think we can know there is or isn't a God and I personally believe in a creator.
-Asked to remain anonymous: Submitted to De
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf you have netflix, watch 2 documentaries: "The Afterlife Investigations" and "Afterlife". the first talks about the Scole Experiments the second is about thsoe who experienced life after death. Throws an interesting twist to your query. It doesn't discuss religious issues, but and interest tangent since religion has so much to do with beliefs of teh afterlife.
ReplyDeleteDr. Charloette Shealy