The Native Americans call God "All That Is."

After reading this awe-inspiring, exquisite discussion of, well, all that is...I see nothing that is mutually exclusive here.

"Life is the consciousness of the universe"... Beautifully put, and somehow elementally true. Remind me to read this again right before I die.

Why is it so easy to believe there is other life out there, but not a complex life that gave us life? Especially when everything is so in order. I'm not dissing anyone's beliefs, but what he describes is the same way many people describe "The Creator".

Most eloquently stated.

Eloquently argued, Mark. I don't agree with it all (We all have to have our creation myths), but appreciate how well it was written.

"....he idea of a God having made everything would actually be a let-down, wouldn't it?"..Mark Hughes

Unless you mean by god or God the very Thing this Everything is a part of.

This is fantastic, Mark. It reminded me of two things:

Bill Bryson's excellent book, "A Short History of Everything" and the defense of science series Michael Shermer has written.

No offense to Roger, but sometimes (like here) I find his reader's comments surpass the journal entry.

I've heard it said that we are hydrogen that, given enough time, has begun to think about itself.

What miracle could be more awe-inspiring? This comment is one very long, well written description of such things. As such I appreciate it for what it is, the conclusion rather badly misses the mark I think.

A fine summary, yet the teleological approach to life is a problem. The power of the simple law of average is better used in casinos and bingo parlors than in understanding more complex things like biological life and universes and such. Biologists have learnt up to this point by not simply giving a scenario and then tossing in a few incantations of "the power of the law of averages compels you! the power of the law of averages compels you!".

It is interesting that there are those who derive, from the "law of averages" the conclusion that the universe is a veritable hothouse of sorts, teaming with life. Are these same folks aware of the track history of life on this planet (pardon, while I introduce a scientific perspective - that is, one based on observation)? On this planet, where we know life exists, life has been almost completely obliterated. 90-95% of all life that has ever existed no longer exists. Not a good track record for the universe as hothouse theme, is it.

I think better minds have suggested that life is something that should never have occurred. For life is - in fact - self-devouring, for its own sake. It eats to live and lives to eat. That is really it for understanding life. The rest of inquiry must concern itself with how.

Which is what this post seems to be suggesting is the whole point of the universe and life and everything. Which seems a tad religious - sorta like, the whole point of human history is to identify the righteous who will then spend eternity singing hymns to god. Really?

Exactly! The ultimate arrogance among humans is that a human created us and this universe. But then again, these religious folks are the same ones that imprisoned a genius for discovering the world was round, not flat, and who continue their religious wars and dismiss evolution amidst a mountain of facts. I'm happy to soak up this amazing life and turn back into dust.

It's interesting to see people's reactions to this - I agree that the idea of some cartoon character whipping up the Universe would be a big let down.

I visited the Creation Museum in Kentucky a few years ago (morbid curiosity) and went to the exhibit in their planetarium. I was subjected to 15 minutes of propaganda ('this fact has big bang theorists running scared!') but the most offensive part of it all was the idea that 'all of this was created by God for his beloved creatures'.

I found that especially offensive because often atheists are seen as 'arrogant' or 'worshipping themselves', but what could be more arrogant and self-centered than thinking the entire vast wonderful Universe exists just so a few billion people on one planet have stuff to look at at night?

And seriously, why go through all that trouble if the one planet is all that matters anyway?

I find that the best minds of all have suggested that not only should life in fact have occurred, but that it occurs a lot. Sagan and Hawking come to mind rather immediately.

Seems to me that one is greatly missing the point if you don't see that the point is that life forming around the universe and being on millions of worlds will happen even if 99.9% of all star systems lack life.

Consider that we've only looked at around 500 total planets or what we think are planets so far, and already we have found one planet that we strongly suspect supports some type of life, and one moon (in our own solar system) that could very likely support some sort of life. We also suspect that perhaps at least one other planet in our own solar system may have contained some form of life, and another is at least a decent candidate.

Things like that -- combined with the whole casino law of averages business that suggests in a universe this size even 0.01% life means a few millions worlds worth of living critters -- are perhaps why some of those better minds in fact think we are far from alone in this universe.

And sure, I'm aware of the history of extinctions on our own planet. Yep, pretty much almost every living species has been wiped out in one way or another, and the universe is such a hostile environment that it's always sending a rock flinging our way to knock the crap out of Earth and exterminate most anything that walks or crawls. Time and again, our planet has been battered and bloodied, nature doing its damnedest it seems to stop this thing we call life.

And here I am, typing away about it on my laptop computer, sending these thoughts out across the world in a blink of an eye with technology that is incredible to consider, adding comments to a thread that includes a big photograph of deep space. Because I'm alive, because you're alive. Because despite that 95% mortality rate of species and despite the fact every odd is against us throughout time, and despite every statistic you mention is true and seems to suggest we never shoulda made it out alive, here we are. Alive.

It's amusing that the casino-odds argument was followed up by pointing to... odds of species survival. I am not clear how it was irrelevant at the start of the comments, but became relevant when it seemed (wrongly) helpful. But that's often how statistics and odds and probability are -- irrelevant until it's relevant to our own point... ;)

I also find it odd that anyone would note that life exists to perpetuate itself -- yes, indeed, to eat to live, and to live to eat -- and yet then reject that this very clear and basic notion of "purpose" (to apply a word for it, since that's what words are for and sometimes a "point" can exist without intent of existing, as I'm sure it does with regard to any "point" or "purpose" of existence for the universe) might apply to the rest of nature.

It's not internally consistent, I feel, to argue in favor of the notion that everything alive around us concerns itself with survival (what you are really saying when you say "eats", since the reason to eat is to survive, and survival of the individual could be said in most cases to in fact serve an even more basic "point" -- perpetuating DNA), and then to argue against the notion that this applies in some basic way elsewhere. I did not prescribe intent or purpose as a governing pre-existing condition to the universe or life, I rather purpose that it is in fact within their fundamental nature, simply the way that the laws of nature themselves work, that is a single process of self-perpetuation of its own condition.

It is a process that, set into motion, always is. Would you argue, for example, that the process of water evaporating from lakes and rivers and oceans, turning into clouds, raining back down on Earth, etc doesn't really happen, since it appears to be basically a self-perpetuating cycle in nature? But of course, that condition is inherent in the very existence of water in the context of our world -- and the context in which any natural thing or cycle exists will define it to a large extent, as will the simple nature of the thing itself.

It simply is what it is, its condition is what it is, and its cycle is what it is. It doesn't require an "intelligent designer", it doesn't require some higher ultimate "goal" or sense of meaning to its purpose as we'd prescribe it from a human perspective. To fail to see this, and to ignore that such cycles and inherent condition exist in nature aside from the condition of living things, is a bit myopic, isn't it?

These things aren't a tad religious in terms of anything you likely suspect or mean when you say "religious". The fact of natural cycles is just that, a fact. The fact of the nature of our universe is just that, a fact. The fact of evolution is just that, a fact. The fact of human consciousness is just that, a fact. And within the context of this universe and natural cycles and evolution of life and consciousness and likelihood of other life among the stars, yes we are the only means by which this universe and its cycles can be understood or observed -- meaning we, living things, can see and think and understand, and without that there'd be nothing and nobody aware that the universe even exists, right?

As such, I don't see why there is any problem of understanding what I mean or the nature of it, or that it's not religious or implying a supernatural element, and it's not applying human standards to anything beyond the human condition itself. I think the big mistake some people often make is to act as if "nature" is something apart from ourselves, as if humans are not animals that exist entirely and inseparably from nature. We are undeniably part of the universe, we were undeniably born within those stars, and we undeniably will revert back into the planet and the universe some day.

Those connections cannot be severed, although yes they can be ignored and denied. I don't see the value or point in doing so, however. But I do see the point in admitting and embracing our place as part of the universe, and realizing how incredible and wonderful that place is. The natural world is what it is, and our place in is what it is. We should accept that, understand it, and be proud and filled with awe by it.

Mark Hughes,

So, are you now claiming that the law of averages does not apply, or that it still does? Because, allow me to point out, that my example of the law of averages argument is based not on whimsy or wishful thinking but on scientific knowledge - that is, what we know. Whereas, your example depends on, well, grade 3 math.

Re the possibility of other worlds that are more evolved, more intelligent, more hung, better dressed, better with the chicks etc etc - believe what you want if it makes you happy. Just, dont call it science.

Your other points I have addressed in my previous post. However, you apparently had trouble with my pointing out the purpose (and purposelessness) of nature. Again, believe what you want if it makes you happy. But, as far as we know, life is what I described it as being (subjectivity aside). So, what is so wonderful about that (digital technology aside)? Only one who is so detached from the violence and pitilessness of nature would feign wax eloquently about it (again, subjectivity aside).

And, speaking of irony - I find those that go on the most about the possibility of life in the universe ironic. Allow me to repeat that: here they are on a planet teaming with life yet they are trying to peer over the horizon in search of it. If this was driven by interest in life you would think the millions of species by which they are surrounded would be enough. Somehow it isnt. Which strikes me as a disconnect. A "somewhere over the rainbow" mindset. Which is fine, and wonderful, and can make for interesting fiction sometimes. Just, dont call it science (or confuse it with scientific thought - ie TTOE).

Mark Hughes,

And why do I bother to address you? One reason is because I see a disconnect between the truth seeking spirit of scientific inquiry and what I see as the vapid worship found in the "awe" of the universe, and of life itself. You seemed quite intent on impressing me with the awesomeness of life, or the universe, or something like that. What is awesome about it? That it's big? (which reminds me of a Monty Python skit). Oh so very big? Full of distance and burning gases and whatnot? That it's mysterious? That it remains a backdrop for our imaginations? Fine. That's it? Life. Ok, so there could be a lot more bacteria in it that otherwise thought?

Now, this is going to sound like I am down on life, bitter, gloomy-gummed. Nope. But I think that to express the complete picture our language must be equipped to express the paradox that is life as we know it (fictional accounts aside). The closest I have seen is "bitter-sweet", though I dont think that captures it; but it's that idea.

I think that a person finding meaning in loving another discovered everything that is worth knowing, missing nothing worth knowing, though he lived tens of thousands of years ago. He also discovered the peril in loving something that is transient. Nothing has changed. Connecting with the human experience is the joy and pain and beginning and end of human fulfillment.

Humans live in a paradox. Our desire does not belong in this universe, yet here we are and here they are. Worshipping that fact by wishing for more of it for its own sake lacks any indication of insight to me. It is a very American perspective.

And it is cheating to find meaning in life (on the broader, objective scale) by claiming other life forms far far away have perhaps got it nailed down.

BTW - while I write this am listening to Neil Young's Hey Hey My My (Into the Black) from Rust Never Sleeps. Now there is a sound that seems to justify all of it. And it is an example of what I was talking about above: the lyrics are true, yet the sound is no less because of it; in fact it is more.

Anyway, I just dont buy this "gosh arent we lucky? gosh isnt it all so amazing?" sentiment. I mean, I do, but it is a very subjective and selective perspective.

I mean, when you consider:

The vast (to say virtually all) of human history has been a smorgasbord of well, what every animal with a central nervous system must experience - a struggle to survive, a relentless and unceasing boredom and monotony punctuated only with the almost endless variations of pain and torment - with the lone exception of course that humans know that all of their pains are ultimately futile and that they, along with everything else, will be annihilated. That for almost all living things on this planet the pains undertaken to prolong and pass on DNA (the great, apparently "awesome" cycle of eat until eaten) was eventually annihilated (I need to practice its spelling so will use it repeatedly.. the h trips me up for some reason) by a random rock that spun through almost empty space.

And I am "lucky" because I am part of this totally pointless orgy of pain? The universe is "awesome" because there may be millions of worlds undergoing equally pointless pain orgies until they are mindlessly obliterated (hell, at least a god annihilates knowingly, with prejudice. This "awesome" universe cannot even offer that much).

It is "amazing" that we made it out at all? Re-eally? Made it out of what exactly? Nah. We're still in "it". We are among the 5% awaiting our turn to join the previous 95%.

To borrow from a name that seems to garner some recognition on this site, Werner Herzog, in his memoir on Fitzcarraldo, at least had the wisdom and insight, born from his experience, to acknowledge "(t)he jungle is obscene", and that he goes against his better judgment to embrace it. His insight into the universe may therefore be on a firmer foundation, though I have not heard it (and your comment that "better minds" subscribe "immediately" to the idea of a heavily populated universe is mere fan-boyism.. trust me, there are some very fine (though perhaps not as widely broadcast) scientists who prefer the old fashioned scientific method re this issue, and who thus avoid the bandwagon populated by the Hawkins etc. Mark: being a scientist and having an educated perspective on your specialty does not make one prescient nor omniscient (I know, you find irony here...) It is also unfortunate that these rightfully revered and honoured scientists should make such fantastic remarks since the gullible will merely latch onto such utterances as though gospel via their reputations in other matters.)

No, you cannot have your cake and eat it too, Im afraid. You poo-poo the gods of formal religions (specifically Christianity) yet merely replace Yahweh with the universe. You think it is "awesome" that death signifies (for you) a rejoining and eternal reunion with the almighty cosmos? So, "you" are merely a collection of atoms (assuming you meant your atoms will be in union)? Even if you were simply a collection of atoms, like a leaf, your atoms would decay forever, to use the vast timeframe of the universe as context, relatively instantly. Wow how fantastic. And this makes all the suffering worth it, to you (not your own suffering, I mean of the millions of worlds you lust after).

So again, why bother to point this out? Because religious folk, as much as we like to poke fun at them, have likely figured out as much, as did the many god-fearing and worshipping masses that have passed before. That a god, even an apparently very temperamental and well, let's be honest, bit of an asshole god, seems better than an indifferent universe, where the outcome is no different. And as a species, or at least as a civilization, we need to come up with much better than simply trading blind god-worship with blind universe-worship (which is really just a sophisticated and expanded example of animism) or face the reversion from the *catholic* gospel according to *Mark* (Hughes - see what I did there?) to the more traditional Catholic version, complete with its nonsense.

I started writing out responses, and then stopped when it hit me that the vast majority of your comments I had to quote to respond to were in fact just trite, simplistic, disingenuous, hyperbolic, and myopic.

So I stopped and thought "why waste my time arguing with someone who has nothing more to add to discussion than banal strawman misrepresentations to make up for their lack of a more consistent, intellectually honest point? You seem to just be slinging some sort of hipster "too cool to like/agree with anything" 'tude as if it's gaining you some irreverence-cool-points or something.

So by all means, argue about how supposedly "better minds" agree with you until someone points out they in fact don't, and go ahead and misunderstand simple odds and statistics application to my actual points (as opposed to the silliness you prop up and argue against with my name hastily written across it, I guess), and puff up about how us pointy-headed intellectuals and "MISTER scientist" types ain't so gosh-darned smart (while somehow trying to simultaneously posture as some sort of whiz in those same departments anyway).

Go ahead and do all of that, because really now, that's the stuff people do when their arguments and points don't stand up all on their own merit. Which means they aren't comments worth treating seriously, beyond at least kindly pointing out to the person why their comments are lacking in substance, and pointing them on their way to try and pick dumb e-fights somewhere else. Thanks, and bye.

I am earnest and up to the task of debate, though our friend, Mark Hughes, apparently is not (note how the losers always eventually would make it personal). If anyone would care to actually debate, please feel free.

Best,
Scott

Scott, why are you on such a downer with life?

"And I am "lucky" because I am part of this totally pointless orgy of pain? The universe is "awesome" because there may be millions of worlds undergoing equally pointless pain orgies until they are mindlessly obliterated"

Grab your self a drink and a smile buddy, get yourself to the beach, or Disneyland everyone loves Disneyland, even ET I'd put money on it.

Christianity in particular has come under the chief complaint that, if there is a god, then how does one account for so much pain and suffering in the world, even in the natural order of things. Christian apologists such as, for example, CS Lewis (who wrote a book with the subject and title: The Problem of Pain) have gone to great lengths to find a reasonably suitable (at least, for them) answer to this question: they certainly did not consider it trite.

Since I have identified the sort of thinking expressed in the original post of this thread as not scientific but religious, I have put to it the same question that reasonable people put to the Christian apologist: how does the so-called majesty and awesomeness, the design and marvel of the universe account for - that is, justify - the problem of suffering and pain and doom (for it offers less than religion in the sense of afterlife) that is the lot of every living thing within it?

It would seem to me that only a very religious and devout mind would suggest that such a question is trite and meager.

Anyway, it can be interesting, to a point, to witness the gymnastics that religious apologists are willing to go to to answer The Question. But at least they are made of stronger stuff. Would be that a Universe-apologist made of at least similar stuff come along to answer the question.

Methinks this may be a place for this discussion, and that it's possible I have spent more time on this than the forum (though certainly not the question nor the argument) warrants.

Scott, what I took from Marks post was nothing close to religious.

One can contemplate our place in the universe and be in awe of it without it being religious.

I am going to quote you here;

"Re the possibility of other worlds that are more evolved, more intelligent, more hung, better dressed, better with the chicks etc etc - believe what you want if it makes you happy. Just, dont call it science."

The following link regards the LHC (Large Hadron Collider, bit 'science' experiment you may have heard of, key word 'science') and breakthroughs concerning parallel universes (or "other worlds"). Please explain to me how that isn't science?
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre69j35x-us-cern/

And I quote you again;

"And, speaking of irony - I find those that go on the most about the possibility of life in the universe ironic. Allow me to repeat that: here they are on a planet teaming with life yet they are trying to peer over the horizon in search of it. If this was driven by interest in life you would think the millions of species by which they are surrounded would be enough. Somehow it isnt. Which strikes me as a disconnect. A "somewhere over the rainbow" mindset. Which is fine, and wonderful, and can make for interesting fiction sometimes. Just, dont call it science"

How is the search for extraterrestrial life not scientific? Please explain that one to me because I don't quite understand your reasoning.
Also the fact you have called the search for life off of our planet ironic is, well moronic.
There are plenty of people researching the vast amount of life on our planet why can others not look for life off of it? To seek the answer "are we alone", "is our planet unique" is ironic?! Please.

And this is where your outlook on life takes a much more, disturbing turn;

"what every animal with a central nervous system must experience - a struggle to survive, a relentless and unceasing boredom and monotony punctuated only with the almost endless variations of pain and torment"

Have you ever been to a zoo Scott? Ever seen a monkey swinging on a tyre and eating a banana? Ever seen tiger cubs play fight? Do they look like they are having a bad time? Has life treated them unfairly by merely bringing them into exsistence?
Your life may be relentless and unceasingly boring and monotonous, mine however is not so please do not speak for me.
I take great enjoyment out of my family and friends and the interests that I share with them. If your life is a struggle to survive, my sympathies, but like I said, please do not speak for me as a living creature with a central nervous system.

I'd like to say that, I agree with you, maybe life wasn't meant to exist. Equally, maybe the universe wasn't meant to exist. Either way it doesn't matter, I feel lucky it is here and I am definately going to make the most of it.

Oh, I see a very narrow question that actually needs a response, since it might make a casual observe think there's a point being made.

If one thinks there is a valid argument in standing in front of a waterfall, shaking a fist, and saying "Oh yeah, well what about my PAIN?!" then I have bad news for you -- you aren't making a rational point. The fact that positing the existence of a self-aware, conscious, MORALLY IDENTIFIED omnipotent creature does then raise the question "why would an all-powerful, individually sentient, morality-inducing being allow pain and suffering" does not thus mean that physics and nature and scientific events have to likewise "explain themselves" to angst-ridden questioners.

How does someone correctly identify the fact that it takes "gymnastics" by "religious apologists" to answer such questions, and fail to notice that people made of "stronger stuff" don't try to offer up absurd answers to "why do I HURT so much" pleas directed at the Big Bang and natural phenomena?

You are asking for PURPOSE, for MEANING, and thus demanding RELIGIOUS and PHILOSOPHICAL ANSWERS from outer space, stars, singularities, and physics... and pretending it's a "gotcha" moment.

It seems to me that only a religious, devout, and glaringly inconsistent mind would suggest such questions are anything remotely legitimate. It is nothing but pretending that the existence of suffering, pain, violence, etc somehow DEMAND existential answers and REASONS for existing, and claiming that there can be no wonder and awe at the nature of existence itself because YOU are personally focused on the pain and demanding that pain and suffering have to negate every other consideration for everyone ELSE, and must be answered with a MORAL answer (one that is morally acceptable in YOUR view, that is).

So why, then, doesn't the reverse instead apply? Why can't all the people staring at the stars, and the incredible scientific facts of existence, at waterfalls and whatever else people might deem "awe-inspiring" and "majestic" etc, and demand that YOU explain why, if everything just sucks so much and is all angsty and pain and violence, is the pain and violence so small and short-lived in comparison to the eternalness and long-term reality of space, stars, physics, and natural phenomena?

And mind you, answer with PURPOSE. EXPLAIN yourself! And explain why you are so religious and "purpose in life" driven, why you think there must lurk "reasons" and "moral distinction" in these things, since at the core of your complaint is a big, glaring insistence of a VALUE JUDGMENT -- that violence, pain, and suffering are all so heavy-duty that it makes you say "how dare y'all talk about majesty and wonder in reality and the universe when there's all this dark angsty stuff going on??"

None of it makes much sense, and when it comes running out the gate framed in snide attempts at insults and condescension as it did up front, it seems sadly clear that it's from someone wrapped up in "this world is so painful to my soul" Debbie-Downerness, proudly displaying their badge of hip-cynicism and assuming it's a club to swing around in search of a target. And such folks are usually spending a great deal of their time looking for a target, because that kind of self-righteous hip "life=pain" belligerence is ALWAYS needs targets to assert its "kewlness", right?

It's trite because it's not intellectually deep, and it's not even really honest in regards to reflecting something that let's anyone really know or understand the person espousing that sort of need to crash parties to assert that now's no time for a party. You aren't this angsty and "I stare into the abyss of life" pretentious, it's a cheap fake identity that is worn by people still searching for their own real identity and unfortunately at a point in life where they are convinced that they can best define themselves by just attacking how other people define THEMselves.

Suffering happens, pain happens, it is part of the process of life. If someone identifies the entirety of existence only through the pain and suffering, though, it makes little sense since they are selecting one part of life as the standard by which all else is judged, in a moral context of sense of purpose. If the argument is, as it must be, that suffering of anyone means we all suffer, that the existence of suffering itself anywhere is the key identifier of EVERYone and EVERYthing else by extension, why doesn't this standard logically apply to HAPPINESS, joy, and pleasure? And to lack of feeling either way, to apathy, etc?

It's a personal judgment and not a logical one. I don't assign greater value to one or another -- I am not judging this or that particular experience or emotion or sensory perception out of context, I am speaking about the nature of how we came to exist, and the processes by which the universe is born and continues, and our natural place within it. Being "in awe" is not a value judgment of "right or wrong" about existence and the universe -- no value judgment is necessary or possible. How you feel about it is simply a personal emotional and intellectual reaction, entirely subjective, and not the basis for making demands of reason and judgment on another person's regard for the natural world's existence.

The LHC is not about "finding other worlds", and it isnt about "finding" parallel universes - the existence of parallel universes is introduced as a possible theory to explain observed phenomena.

Mark Hughes wrote:

"Oh, I see a very narrow question that actually needs a response, since it might make a casual observe think there's a point being made.

If one thinks there is a valid argument in standing in front of a waterfall, shaking a fist, and saying "Oh yeah, well what about my PAIN?!""

Mark Hughes, the above quote is how much I read of your recent post. Reason being it is abundantly clear that I am not speaking of my individual ego or suffering, but that of all life. All life. For the past hundreds of millions of years and all life in the future. Now. If that is trite, then that is an opinion. Stop making it personal and read what I wrote and I will be sure to read, and engage, your entire future efforts.

Perhaps this will help: Mark Hughes, what exactly is trite about the suffering that is the essence of life? Do you disagree that suffering is the essence of life? (I do not use "essence" in a subjective sense, but in the objective, observable, universal, predictable sense - iow, as a fact. Or do you not think living things suffer, primarily suffer).

Scott,
Please read my post again, I never said the LHC was looking for other worlds. What I actually said was
"The following link regards the LHC and breakthroughs concerning parallel universes (or "other worlds"). Please explain to me how that isn't science?"

So you are right, the LHC's sole purpose is not to find other worlds, which isn't what I said anyway.

It's purpose is to answer the fundamental questions of science. And there are plenty of theories out there by some very great minds that believe our universe isn't the only universe that currently exists. So, yes, the LHC is not looking for other worlds, but it's certainly not not looking for them. There is every possibility that what comes out of these experiments is proof of universes other than our own, is what I was getting at.

"The following link regards the LHC and breakthroughs concerning parallel universes (or "other worlds"). Please explain to me how that isn't science?"

They are not discovering parallel universes or other worlds, therefore, the experiments are not *breakthroughs*. Typically, the term *breakthrough* is used when pertaining to the thing being sought after. The process is scientific, but the incorporation of other universes is in theory only, as a suggestion, hardly mapped out, hypothesized and tested. Actually, they have very little idea how to explain what some test results have been. And it is an even further trip to link this to life on other worlds, and even further beyond that to argue how life on other worlds is even good or relevant. So I think we`re a little off the mark here. Thanks for the input though.

Best,
Scott

Scott, it's very obvious that your posts went to great lengths to try your best to come off snarky and personally insulting.

You need to not make transparent denials and accuse others of being "personal" when your remarks are little more than a combination of subjective views about life asserted as facts, some misunderstanding of and misrepresentation of basic science, disagreement just to be disagreeable and cheeky, and a whole lot of trying to frame every comment to fit the immature notion that one scores points online through trying to squeeze a witty insult into every sentence.

That is the essence of what you wrote, and now I feel my initial reaction of ignoring you as a troll was the right one, so I'll return to that after all: As the saying goes, don't wrestle a pig, you just get dirty and the pig enjoys it.

I read all of the comments here with fascination. Though ideologically I agree with Mark in finding much in the universe to be in 'awe' about, I find Scott's opinions articulate, interesting and very valuable. I do not think they are 'trite', as Mark has mentioned, but maybe that's because of the stark (and very interesting) contrast they bring to my own views.
Scott, I find your views that 'all is suffering' very Buddhist in nature. I am sure you would reject this label, given that it seems you disapprove of looking through any lens without science as the frame. However, the First Noble Truth in Buddhism is indeed that "all is suffering". The very goal of Buddhism is to eliminate suffering, and if you look at many practicing Buddhists around the world as examples, you would have to be 'myopic' indeed to not see that it must be working.
You have a very nihilistic view (I won't say pessimistic, because I cannot propose to assume how your ideological views affect your own personal life and happiness). You seem to dismiss life on other planets because it is 'self-devouring'. This is an interesting point, but I am of the belief that only the most basic of life-forms operate on this level. The more cultured we get, the more interested in our surroundings and origins we become, the more willing we are to sustain our own life for as long as possible, and therefore the life of those that in turn sustain us. Do you really believe that no life on other planets could have reached and surpassed this stage? That they hypothetically could become a sustainable life-form where they promote life in themselves and around them?
This all stems from my own interest in Buddhism, and, of course, we can only hold such conversations in hypothetical terms. However, I do wonder why you quickly dismiss the endless possibilities of life out there. It may be idealistic, but I like to imagine that there are populations out there in the universe who aren't one whit like us. I think it is entirely possible for civilizations to avoid beginning growth out of the superstition, violence, bloodshed, ennui, sweat and tears that ours did.

Nina

It is hard to find an in road to engage your opinion, since it is comprised of a very selective and ambiguous use of anecdote with a healthy helping of "believing". My argument or position is rather all encompassing, it is a philosophical position that is based on observation and experience of many minds down through the ages. Using anecdote fails to grasp the argument at its most basic and useful level. So, Buddhism, along with many other things, can be used to alleviate immediate and temporal suffering, but Buddhism etc exist because of the reality of suffering.

But it I disagree that such discussions may only occur on the hypothetical level. In the scientific process, theory is always informed by tested hypotheses: that is the cycle of reason. That is the scientific process. I think many people have no concept of what the scientific process is, how it works, what its goals are, how it achieves success. Often, it is confused with fantasy - as though it were merely an opinion. It is actually a very rigorous and conservative process. It moves incrementally (as Einstein said - a dwarf standing on the shoulders of giants), cautiously, when it moves successfully. A theory that cannot be informed is bad theory. Or it is a fact or a belief.

You say I "only" wish to use science as the frame through which I look. Not to split hairs, but I actually wish to use reason to be the frame through which I develop a world and life view. Obviously, the scientific process is one based on a rigorous process of reason. But reason is also found in Buddhist thought. Reason is found everywhere, though reason is different from rationale. Whereever reason leads I wish to go. Reason provides opportunity, usually. Reason is progressive, always.

50-60 to over 100 years ago the popular imagination was interested in science, how science may be used not *just* to solve pragmatic problems and improve life but also how it may open up new worlds of wonders. From this frontier came magazines, nature shows, movies and literature inspired by the potential and genius of science. Then, subtley but gradually, the scientific began to be replaced with the fantastic. Now, to a large degree, wizards and magic have replaced science and reason. Why? Because science is hard work, and it is not entertaining. It connects you with reality, and people dont want that. They want to daydream.

HP Lovecraft apparently understood this. Thoughout his private letters he predicted that modern societies will revolt against reason and science and will pull over themselves the shroud of ignorance science and reason attempted to remove, with all its superstitions and wishes and nonsense, and rush back into a dark age of credulity. Because reality and truth is hard and it directly offers no escape. This scenario is actually an example of the term you introduced - "nihilism". Nihilism observes the truth and responds by escaping, usually into self-obsession. Nihilism seeks oblivion, because it cannot answer satisfactorily the problem of reality, it seeks to destroy it. I fail to see how my position is nihilistic. In fact (again, according to what the term means), it is obviously the opposite. I am not running from the question but am pursuing it. And I do believe there are better *solutions* or ways of coping with life, for humans (pardon my centrism), that utilizes reason and eschews credulity.

Other than that, Nina, feel entirely free to hold whatever set of wishes and beliefs you want. Whatever they are, they are not based on knowledge nor understanding of life as we know it. But, if you are intrigued by the world(s) of possibilities, why do you not entertain the equally-real possibility that other worlds and entities do exist, and they are terrors to humanity (the position taken by Lovecraft)? Why do you not also believe in elves, leprechauns, that the world of Tolkien actually existed, dragons, dwarfs and wizards? There is a whole alternative world of possibility to explore via fantasy. Why not believe that long ago, on this planet, there lived a race of humans so advanced, peaceful and spiritual, intelligent and noble, who had conquered disease and banned war and hatred, who lived in harmony with all other creatures, who built space ships and sailed away promising to return again and gather us all home to paradise? As entertainment it is fun and escapist.

Science, Im afraid, is more rigorous, serious, concerned with hypothesizing and testing theories of the probable. The worlds it has opened up are astonishing, fascinating, much more than any world of make-believe.

Below is a link to a quick blurb on a similar topic, explained by a brilliant mind - Dr Richard Feynman, on the likelihood of UFOs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLaRXYai19A&NR=1

And here is quick blurb on the scientific process, that I outlined above

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0&NR=1

These essentially distill my argument to the quick and dirty, at least the scientific prong, though not the philosophic.

In this quick review and commentary on a book by Feynman it is suggested that curiosity about the world has been replaced, in many, by the desire to be right. I would amend that and say that many more perhaps would settle for not being able to be proved wrong.

Another of many videos from this wonderful thinker and communicator I am sure I could add to this thread, that underline what I have been saying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkhBcLk_8f0&feature=related

Anyway, the amount of attention on having to *prove* what science is and that the essence of life is suffering really deflects from the actual debate. If you know nothing about the scientific process or about philosophy then you merely have beliefs. Good for you, godspeed, but not conducive for discussion.

The question I pose and want people to try to answer is how is this attempt to deify the cosmos any more successful in accounting for, and providing meaning to, the main dilemma inherent to the human condition?

Here is a recent video by Richard Dawkins.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vueDC69jRjE

Pertinent to this thread, note the question at the 1:20 mark and how Dawkins responds. Clearly, there is no controversy in remarking his opinion is a belief. He incorporates science into his answer,but clearly he is able to differentiate between the opinion and belief aspect of his answer and the science of his answer.