I read a post over at What Worries Jeff Dee? dealing with life, and the purpose of it.
What is the purpose of life? Is there purpose in it? If so, is it subjectively or objectively determined?
Well, if The Merovingian is correct, purpose is merely a label ascribed to the relationship between cause and effect, which means that the "purpose" of which people speak is merely a deterministic outcome linearly based on caual factors.
Or, he and I, as well as the overly pretentious Architect, are full of shit :P
In all seriousness (sorry, just re-watched the Matrix Trilogy), I'm of the opinion that there is no purpose inherent in life.
From an evlutionary persspective, our main drive is to procreate, and, psychologically, we have a heirarchy of needs (Maslow, was it?)....but purpose?
Not the way I see it. There is no purpose. It just is, and it is up to us to define one for ourselves, if we choose to do so. Does this depress me?
No, but suppose I can understand why religion is so attractive ;)
Showing posts with label denial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label denial. Show all posts
Thursday, February 4, 2010
The Atheist Experience: Global Warming Denial and God Belief
The Atheist Experience: Global Warming Denial and God Belief
The Atheist Experience blog has been updated with a post regarding Rush Limbaugh, who, after identifying himself as a creationist, stated, "I simply cannot accept the fact that we would be created to do things that would destroy our environment..." (apparently he has never heard of pollution, industrialization, holes in the ozone layer, forced extinctions, and the (egregiously!) fallacious nature of arguments from incredulity)
Don, who posted the blog, went on to postulate why it is he feels that the religious are the most vocal when it comes to global warming denial. For me, the issue is not one of motivating factors in the denial (one of which religion may be) but rather, the denial itself, and how it comes to pass. The unfortunate thing here, is, religious or non, most people seem to come to decisions regarding these sorts of issues based not on the actual science, but what they hear in the media and read on the internet/hear from friends.
A few convincing soundbytes and it's over, which is really sad, and must be inordinately frustrating for those hard at work on these issues.
Sadly, I was one of these people for a while there....so I can understand how it easy it to fall into the trap. The important thing to remember is that the science should speak for the science. Analyze the data yourself, be critical of the methodology and the concluisons but go to the data itself, not an intermediary.
Go the the source, folks, go to the source.
The Atheist Experience blog has been updated with a post regarding Rush Limbaugh, who, after identifying himself as a creationist, stated, "I simply cannot accept the fact that we would be created to do things that would destroy our environment..." (apparently he has never heard of pollution, industrialization, holes in the ozone layer, forced extinctions, and the (egregiously!) fallacious nature of arguments from incredulity)
Don, who posted the blog, went on to postulate why it is he feels that the religious are the most vocal when it comes to global warming denial. For me, the issue is not one of motivating factors in the denial (one of which religion may be) but rather, the denial itself, and how it comes to pass. The unfortunate thing here, is, religious or non, most people seem to come to decisions regarding these sorts of issues based not on the actual science, but what they hear in the media and read on the internet/hear from friends.
A few convincing soundbytes and it's over, which is really sad, and must be inordinately frustrating for those hard at work on these issues.
Sadly, I was one of these people for a while there....so I can understand how it easy it to fall into the trap. The important thing to remember is that the science should speak for the science. Analyze the data yourself, be critical of the methodology and the concluisons but go to the data itself, not an intermediary.
Go the the source, folks, go to the source.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)