Recently in Reglion Category

The release of SPORE makes me want to invest in a new PC for my home.  I haven't upgraded desktop hardware in quite a while and it is really starting to show.  I dislike playing games on my laptop so I have effectively quite playing PC games.  Overall that has been fine because I have been very pleased with the options available to me through both my XBOX 360 and my Wii.  However, SPORE has piqued my interest.  I have traditionally not been interested in simulation style games, but this one seems different.  I also am aware of the "intelligent design" aspect of the game although if you have payed attention to some of the creations that have resulted from the SPORE Creature Creator I think using the word "intelligent" may be pushing it just a bit.  This post, however, isn't really about video games, or building PCs or even a debate about ID so let's move on shall we?

Listening to other people talk about SPORE has gotten me thinking about the vastness of the universe.  By most accounts the universe is large on a scale that is difficult for the human mind to comprehend.  I find it impossible to express in words how small and insignificant a single human life really is when compared to what we accept as known existence.  Given that the universe is vast beyond measure, I find it completely impossible to accept the assertion that life only exists on one small planet orbiting a completely unremarkable star in a tiny corner of one of an unestimatable number of galaxies in a likely infinite universe.  Now, I will admit most of the size of the universe is derived through theoretical astrophysics, but let's assume one of two possibilities is correct:

1.  The universe is amazingly vast and possibly infite in size.
 
or

2.  Some extremely powerful being has created one hell of an illusion and the universe isn't as big as we think.

While it is certainly possible some omnipotent being (god or otherwise) created this reality solely for the us, humanity, I find it unlikely.  I am am certiainly a man of very limited intelligence and maybe I am just incapable of seeing the bigger picture but why create such a thing as the universe for only one species to experience?  It certainly does seem like an awful waste of space.

So, let's, just for the sake of argument, assume that option number 1 is true.  Now, given that the universe is huge, isn't it EXTREMELY unlikely that life only exists on one planet?  We don't even have to assume that the universe is infinite to come to that conclusion, just really, really big.  This is the idiot's (I'm the idiot FYI) introduction to the Drake Equation.  The best way I can explain the equation is that it is a mathematical theory used to describe the possible number of intelligent civilization which humanity might be able to encounter.  Of course the equation is completely conjecture but it is useful in one way.  Even taking an extremely conservative approach, mathematically the odds are pretty good that there is other intelligent life in the universe.  Simply put, the universe is just too big and there is too much stuff in it for humans to be the lone intelligent species.

Accepting this does not force one to reject belief in a omnipotent being or creator but it does call into question the idea that humanity is somehow the "favorite son".  I think that realization alone invalidates most terrestrial religions considering how many have humanity as the ultimate result of creation.  If Marvin the Martian was to come down and address the world from the National Mall in Washington how would that force theists to re-evaluate their position?

What I am getting at is that it seems the height of hubris and self-importance to think that in the vastness that is the known universe humanity is the ultimate form of mortal intelligence.  It is a comforting thought but completely illogical.  I also believe this kind of thinking severely limits the ability of humanity to reach its potential.  So many people willingly and happily box in their minds which makes it disheartening to think about what we could have accomplished by now if only we could free our minds from the tyranny of religion.

There's so much out there to be discovered.  How about we get to it?

I had a discussion yesterday that started out weighing the relative merits of private versus public schools and ended with a philosophical debate regarding faith.  The connection between the two topics is the "teaching" of intelligent design as a counter to evolution in a science based curriculum.  Obviously I am against the notion as ID is a philosophy and not a testable hypothesis.  ID can be "taught" (I hate using "taught" and "teach" with regards to ID as the words really should not be in the same sentence.) in philosophy or theology but it does not belong in biology.  However, since this is not a post in which I debate ID versus evolution, let's move on.

I think I have discovered a metaphor that describes the nature of religious debate.  Debating the existence of god is a lot like watching porn when you are alone.  Even though you will probably get all excited during the process, in the end you are left right back where you started only a lot more frustrated.  It is uncanny how the two things are alike. 

The reality of the situation is that no matter how compelling either argument becomes, it is never going to be enough to change the mind of the person on the other side.  At least that is my assumption.  Any atheist worth his salt knows that there is always the possibility that god exists and should be willing to concede in the face of overwhelming evidence. It is the understanding that god is not completely falsifiable that separates the atheist from the theist.  This also explains why atheism is NOT a faith. 

Faith is believing in something without proof as well as believing in something REGARDLESS of evidence to the contrary.  Otherwise, one would not need faith because the truth would be self evident.  The atheist, on the other hand, is defined by the lack of faith.  Atheism then cannot be a faith in itself.  The good atheist should not say "I don't believe in God" as this assumes belief without evidence.  The good atheist should say "There is no compelling or reproducible evidence that suggests god exists and thus I do not have faith in a god."  It is always possible that god will show himself one day and prove his existence but until that time the rational and logical conclusion must be that it is unlikely god exists.  This philosophy is NOT faith and should never be confused as such.

Personally, I am just overjoyed to have finally been able to liken god to porn.