h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Yes the irony is pretty delicious.

Oxygen exists for a purpose?

A bit back-assward if you ask me. The air was not filled with oxygen expressly to accommodate air-breathing creatures. Rather, the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere caused (by a long and complex process) the evolution of various oxygen-breathing animals...many of which died out. (So presumably oxygen wasn't for them?)

OK...so we can have a long ontological argument about *why* there is oxygen. (Because there are stars...because there's gas and gravity...because there was a Big Bang...and so on.) But surely it would be perverse to stop at some arbitrary point and say 'God dunnit!'?

How odd, anyway, to assume that *we* are the purpose of the universe.

There are few dispositions which do not survive a full acceptance and encompassing of evolutionary thought (in the spheres of both the biology and physics), nor whose flaws are so ruthless exposed, as the assumed self-importance and arrogant assumption of ordained purpose for humanity, or our appointed elevation amongst species. It is small wonder that it is these are the very traits that so frequently underlie the arguments of our opposition.

Not that I'm calling Warner arrogant, or self-important etc,I ought to make that clear and save future misunderstandings. But they did say oxygen exists for a purpose, which I think characterises the deep misunderstanding that is typical of the religious mindset.

In my view, all that we know of ourselves, our world and our cosmos should humble us and lead us to awe on a daily basis. All the more so because we know because of the growing body of knowledge that shows why these things exist, how they came to be and therefore our position amongst them.

It is the archetypal religious human-centric egotism that believes that the universe *had* to be designed around us rather than us evolve around how the universe developed in the earliest time after 'the big bang'.

They will say the Earth was designed and placed where it was revolving around a sun of the right energy-dissipation that everything MUST have been set up to allow us to live comfortable...of course that's after we found out that the Earth was not the centre of the universe and the Catholic Church stopped persecuting and putting people under house-arrest who said the Earth was not the centre of the universe.

It is so much easier, it would seem, to many people to rationalise everything being designed around us because it says so in a religious book rather than spending a bit of time researching evolution, biology, chemistry, relativity, gravity etc and it really doesn't need that much investigationn to get an appreciation for peer-reviewed theories that are far better explained and researched than the solution which is: it says so in my religious book and then trying to mould everything around that 'fact' even if it screams out as not being in any way fitting in with current scientific theories which have been proved as far as possible correct.

>>It is so much easier, it would seem, to many people to rationalise everything being designed around us because it says so in a religious book

In fairness - it does seem to be a natural way for humans to think. Because we are social animals, much of our brainpower is devoted to thinking about our fellow humans' motives. We extend this assumption of Purposefulness - erroneously - to the non-human world.

Oxygen is the by-product of photosynthesis

the purpose of oxygen is we have to breath plant s*it every moment of every day of our lives

thanks God, not only are we not the centre of the universe but we live in a giant plant fart

Lord Melyn of Buttermere and guests were discussing Darwin's time at Cambridge this morning:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/darwin/inourtime.shtml

In those days, becoming a vicar was simply what respectable gentlemen did. It didn't necessarily implie a strong belief in god. They had plenty of time to pursue other interests - such as collecting beetles.

'lo all,

Butting in late here with a few random thoughts.

>He must of thought about 'spiritual matters' alongside his publishing of 'theory of evolution'.

Indeed, he had a lengthy exchange with the American evolutionist and Christian Asa Gray - available online.

>Of course, it is possible that he died in a state of disbelief, but I see no evidence of that.

In his autobiography, he describes himself as an agnostic. Whether you regard this as a 'state of disbelief' could form the basis of a long and tedious debate, but for most of his adult life, Darwin had no strong opinion on the existence or non-existence of God.

>>> You 'know' this how? <<
>The same way that I know that I'm attracted to the opposite sex for a purpose.
>The same way that I know that there's oxygen in the air for a purpose.
>The same way that I know that there's night and day for a purpose.

That doesn't actually seem to answer the question. How do you know that all these things have a purpose?

Was Darwin eccentric? Depends what you mean by eccentric. I'm told he was a semi-recluse in later life, and his children, on visiting a friend, once asked 'Where does your Dad do his beetles?' On the other hand, some other legendary scientists were raving nutcases.

I wonder - given that the universe has a purpose - *why* does the universe have a purpose?

Gif

Also coming in late. Early on it was claimed that some populiser of science held that
>> Darwin didn't want to upset people <<

Of course, this is just popularising, or story-telling, even by the original person quoted, because how could anyone know what someone else's intentions are? Even if the subject him/herself avows a particular intention or set of intentions, they cannot be certain about these intentions, or about which of their conflicting intentions was uppermost on any occasion or over a particular period of time, let alone someone else knowing them. If that popularising person is claiming seriously to know such stuff as fact, they are merely sloppy thinkers with large degree of arrogance. Unless they're just trying to tell a story for the hard of understanding.

It becomes no more valid than a casual opinion, forgivable no doubt in a populariser if it helps some people understand something - in other words it could arguably be of heuristic use, and heuristic use only. But it cannot, except by chance, be a statement of fact.

There is no evidence here, in the matter of intentions, that can help us in the matter of truth or falsehood. We don't even know whether the popular folk-theory of intentions leading to action is itself correct. Indeed, there is some evidence from brain studies at Cambridge that it may be false, that an action-event in the brain may precede any so-called intention event.

I leave the free will-determinism conundrum, which is also of fundamental relevance, to one side for now.

Questions: Do you always know for certain what your intentions are? Do you ever know?

Charlie's Playhouse Resources has just released their latest review of kid's books on evolution

Available in pdf here -- http://www.charliesplayhouse.com/resources.html

Sample review:

Life on Earth: The Story of Evolution
By Steve Jenkins, Houghton Mifflin, 2002.


"It’s tough to get children to imagine a world without television, let alone one without life, but this oversize picture book for older readers makes the overwhelming concept easier to grasp. The main text, in large type, outlines evolution in simple, clear terms: the principal theory of how life began, Darwin’s contribution, how mutation and even extinction have contributed.
Jenkins’ paper-cut spot art, with captions in small type, provides most of the specifics. There’s no sense of scale in his pictures; the bee and the rabbit are the same size. But his paper cuts are extraordinary all the same, jam-packed with pattern and variegated color. Some of the art is just flashy and gorgeous: a double-page spread filled to the edges with animals and plants
(there’s an identification key at the back); a spectacular spread showing 19 of the 300,000 beetle species. Other pictures greatly extend the text--among them, a full page comprising small coordinated pictures that dramatize the natural selection of frogs. But the last double-page spread is, perhaps, the best. Jenkins makes the history of evolution even more accessible by placing important events on a time-line ribbon that represents a 24-hour day. Clever, eye-catching, and extremely effective.
Review by Stephanie Zvirin"

Choose from a selection of 89 books, any of which is guaranteed to brainwash young minds with evil, satanic, atheistic Darwinianism

New balls please http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F19585?thread=6204592&post=73903870#p73903870

The Mark Steel lecture on Darwin is entertaining and informative, though I suspect probably more of the former than the latter for most participants in this thread. Though I have to say that his 'pub quiz' analogy for how Darwin might have felt is a good one....

http://www.marksteelinfo.com/audiovideo/default.asp

Lots of other good (but off topic) stuff there too. And best of all, it's legal and free to download.

Jabberwock - if we're going to play that game, we'll first have to prove that Darwin existed at all. And that solipsism is false, and that there's no Cartesian demon. And so on.

Otto Fisch

Tedious argument doesn't interest me, I'm afraid. That's why I pointed out the matter of opinion that I did, and why I do not wish to open the discussion in order to enter into fruitless debate about the further opinions contained in your list. There is no reason why we must discuss the topics you raise, nor to view the matter as a game, further than this simply being your opinion.

Neither does being offensive interest me. I apologise to Otto Fisch if my tendency to swift response has led me to cause any offence.

Well that was brief and eventful.

I was so hoping for some intelligent, or at least interesting, attempts at answers to those two...

>>Questions: Do you always know for certain what your intentions are? Do you ever know?<<

Ah well

We'll always have parrots

And finches.

>>Questions: Do you always know for certain what your intentions are? Do you ever know?<<

It depends entirely on what level the question is being asked - is it a deep philosophical question, a shallower philosophical question, or a practical question?

The point I was trying to make (possibly unsuccessfully) is that raising questions of whether it is ever possible to know our true intentions, the intentions of others, or whether there is really such a thing as intentions as commonly understood, is not really at the right level for a discussion about the life of Darwin. If *those* deeper questions are admitted, it rather prevents any other discussion getting going at all.

But, if we are to drift down that route, my tentative view on a shallow philosophical level is that there is such a thing as intentions, that they're morally significant independently of the outcome of actions, and that broadly we can know what the intentions of ourselves and of others are.

It's true to say that humans have a great capacity for excuse-making to justify their behaviour, and that this excuse-making can, at times, extend even to self-deception about one's true motives. If this is true, it much cast a measure of doubt on *any* intentions and motives that we have as individuals, and that others have, and on our and others capacity to understand them.

To that extent, it's true to say that we cannot be 'certain' of motivations, but my view is that this measure of irremovable doubt does not justify the stronger conclusion that we are widely and routinely wrong about our motivations and that of others. I don't agree that it's arrogant to presume (with an appropriate measure of caution) to understand and articulate the motivations of another person or people. It might be 'sloppy thinking' to assume that everyone's motivation is obvious and identical to what one's own would be, but it's certainly not 'sloppy thinking' to engage in the exercise at all. Otherwise what would be the point in the study of history?

Understanding motivation and intention is how we get by in the world dealing with other persons. Without that insight, it's pretty much impossible to predict or understand the behaviour of others, yet it's apparent that that's what we do on a regular day-to-day basis. People who lack some of the ability to read or predict some intentions and motivations (which could be called empathy), such as those with autism-spectrum conditions such as Asperger's Syndrome who struggle to follow emotional clues and cues, often find mainstream society difficult and confusing for exactly those reasons.

Hi Otto Fisch,

About intentions. (post 118)

That is a very interesting post, and I agree that intention is one of
the most important aspect of our lives, whatever 'side or camp' we
belong too.