Yale Scientist abanding Darwin's Evolution

Originally Posted by iamthat

Way beyond my understanding. Microtubules? M theory?

Microtubules - a microscopic tubular structure present in numbers in the cytoplasm of cells, sometimes aggregating to form more complex structures.

They aggregate into particularly complex arrangements in neurons. It's the biological component of Orch OR where objective reduction of the wave function interacts with them via quantum entanglement. The 'receptor' of consciousness, or that's what Pernose & Hameroff posit. It's also where anesthetics interact, suppressing conscious awareness, at least the small 'c' consciousness. At least that's Hameroff's position and I don't have the molecular biology to understand one way or the other.

https://youtu.be/YpUVot-4GPM?list=PL...XfywQvhBzzdrQA

M Theory is String Theory plus one more spacial dimension. So it's ten spacial dimensions and one of time. The strings then manifest as membranes, or sheets, hence M(embrane) Theory. According to the theory our universe is one giant membrane, if you will. All mathematical, way above my pay grade and no way to test it.

Originally Posted by iamthat

I would suggest that in non-dualism Being (or the Self) is at the foundation of everything. Consciousness can look outwards to personality and form or inwards to Being. When consciousness identifies with Being then consciousness sees all things as the Self. Consciousness still functions in the worlds of form but knows that there is nothing except the Self.

Peace

I agree. I think Orch OR presents an interesting possibility of defining in terms of our objective reality the relationship or more appropriately interaction between subject and objects.

In my simple way I always thought the underlying Truth pursued by both science and spirituality is one in the same, however both 'sides' have a difficult time perceiving this. Each has its own form of dogma that sets in.

Honestly, I think it's beyond more than a loose conceptual grasp. Even if one could transcend in deep altered states and directly perceive it, in my mind it's doubtful the experience would have much real meaning or understanding to our mind.

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Honestly, I think it's beyond more than a loose conceptual grasp. Even if one could transcend in deep altered states and directly perceive it, in my mind it's doubtful the experience would have much real meaning or understanding to our mind.

Indeed, Advaita is more than just an intellectual understanding of the philosophy. One of the problems with the current interest in what is loosely called Neo-Advaitism is that people can intellectually grasp the ideas and repeat the words without having had any corresponding shift in consciousness.

Realisation of the Self is more than just a passing experience. It is a permanent state of Being. And yes, the mind may not understand it but consciousness still enjoys seeing all things as the Self.

Peace.

Originally Posted by iamthat

Indeed, Advaita is more than just an intellectual understanding of the philosophy. One of the problems with the current interest in what is loosely called Neo-Advaitism is that people can intellectually grasp the ideas and repeat the words without having had any corresponding shift in consciousness.

Realisation of the Self is more than just a passing experience. It is a permanent state of Being. And yes, the mind may not understand it but consciousness still enjoys seeing all things as the Self.

Peace.

Yup. Unless it 'clicks' on an experiential level it seems to me it's not wholly useful. That is it's only a belief and that leaves one open to all the ups and downs of the human experience. Until a shift in consciousness, from body-mind to awareness, becomes a lived experience instead of an intellectual exercise.

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Altair

Hello 7L..
I am familiar with panspermia, life could have come here from another place. The same applies to water. However, there's nothing to suggest this was *intentional* so I'm afraid it doesn't really give weight to ''nurtured nature'' here. And the oldest fossils are from micro-organisms billions of years ago, from there onwards we don't need external intentional beings to explain the organisms. The journey of life on earth, the diversity of species, can be explained through evolution by natural selection. This means that adding another variable into the mix, that of a creator god or alien intervention is simply non-parsimonious.

Hey there Altair :)...there is no proof laying around of anything conclusive one way or the other, granted. However cosmologists and planetary scientists who are looking purely at the odds can easily agree that the odds of directed panspermia would be immeasurably higher, astronomically really.

Because then 1) life and 2) intelligent life only would have to occur at least once, rather than assuming that outliers like Earth or wherever would all be capable of independently generating not just life at the simplest identifiable levels BUT ALSO intelligent life. The odds of this happening independently (including from random panspermia) in multiple places would be astronomically lower.

Not that one is more "true" or "correct"; only that one is immeasurably more likely to occur (or have occurred) than the other. If you are scientifically minded (logical, open-minded), you must strive to be open to what may run counter to our experiential observation. The whole of our quantum reality runs counter to this and I'm happy to say changes up all the time with even more new wacky stuff we'd never have expected or assumed, hahahaha!

In the Age of Aquarius (FF we are arriving at long last!!!), change truly is the only constant. Particularly, of the mind-bending, paradigm-shattering kind -- the same kind that induces mental breakdown or panic in so many on earth who cannot yet expand their consciousnesses to accept the unacceptable. For me, I find it deeply liberating and expansive, and I breathe it in like air and swim in it like the ocean. But I understand that many lack adequate water element in their constitution to emotionally ground them whilst in in the flow of change and flexibility. For others, they lack adequate earth to emotionally ground them with proper strength, but you've got that.

However that mind-bending change, that constant up-ending of all we "knew" to be true about our material reality is in fact the one fundamental truth we must accept going forward, not only regarding our material reality (as quantum physics shows us daily) BUT ALSO regarding our mental constructs and accepted truths about how the material realm works and how it came to be.

There are vast unknown stretches in our cosmological record and in our cosmological present, both. And the same likewise applies to our recent post-deluvian historical record. Prior to last big melt 10-12K years ago, we have nothing really of substance to tell us who we are or where we came from. So, the fact that what we know is partial in the extreme and perhaps partially or wholly wrong in many fundamental ways should also come as no surprise.

There is a lot of baggage involved in spiritual traditions and circles, and IMO much of it is not necessary. Unfortunately there have been many quacks and sensationalist people who made big $$ out of deliberately misusing science and knowledge. I'm not new to any of this by the way. In my late teens I had a period where I enjoyed conspiracies and pseudo-sciences, I listened to Coast to Coast, and I recall many interviewees mentioning how they went to hidden civilizations within mountains, or almost had a book finished on the ''real secrets'' of Ancient Egypt. Of course, it was always sensationalist and a desire to make good money out of it. When I began to read more of that over time I saw most of it for what it was.

I'm hoping people can start asking questions and ask why x is here and y is over there. If they asked such questions concerning species, why tigers have big fur over there, and less over here, or why someone else have that colour in the Arctic or another colour elsewhere, or why biomes, cultures and languages are different or similar, etc. etc. they might understand more about life on earth and our journey.

In general it's good to know more of our vast diversity of biology and culture, agreed, so long as we don't become fixed or arrogant in our presumed knowledge and take it as a given or an unchanging set of truths. I agree these things are complex and there are no pat or simple answers, nor any magic solution or quick fix.

We are forever learning and frankly, there are still vast tracts of our own human biology (much less neurology) that are unknown...recently several new organs were "discovered", LOL! Much less, knowledge of the Gaian biosphere and its workings...

More often than not humans add enchantment in the mix because our mind loves it. If anyone got any evidence than we can look at it, but it usually boils down to ''channelling'' and with that we can claim whatever we want. Or certain ''connections'' are non-existent upon investigation. Many of these ''New Age'' thingies cast a large shadow over spirituality IMO. You gotta bury to get the precious gems. And it [spirituality] is simpler than pop culture pretends and doesn't need ancient aliens, creator gods, dowsing sticks, and deformed skulls to be relevant, valuable, or truthful.

Altair, I would say this...the end of your age of innocence is not a bad thing but neither does it mean you must herald your personal age of cynicism and material reductionism, LOL.
It just means you are growing up, which let's face it, is challenging because now you'll have to start taking ownership of all that's within as well as all you do and say externally.

You're not asking so apologies and with respect, perhaps try to challenge yourself a bit more to keep an open mind whilst you retain a healthy skepticism. Place your skepticism equally on the state of our scientific progress over the last century and realise how far we have yet to go. Remember "the evidence" i.e., coherent, in-depth factual research, has only barely begun to arrive on almost everything having to do with anything AND much of it has been & will continue to be substantially appended & updated over time.

Nurture your water element and your heart -- allow yourself to be ok with your feelings (within reason, eh? ;) ). This will fortify your mental and emotional flexibility which are extremely powerful things to have in these times and as we enter the new Age more fully.

Peace & blessings
7L

[Altair]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Altair, I would say this...the end of your age of innocence is not a bad thing but neither does it mean you must herald your personal age of cynicism and material reductionism, LOL. It just means you are growing up, which let's face it, is challenging because now you'll have to start taking ownership of all that's within as well as all you do and say externally.

You're not asking so apologies and with respect, perhaps try to challenge yourself a bit more to keep an open mind whilst you retain a healthy skepticism. Place your skepticism equally on the state of our scientific progress over the last century and realise how far we have yet to go.

7L, I'm afraid I haven't really a clue what you're referring to here with innocence and cynicism. I've mentioned that life's journey can be explained through evolution by natural selection, and that this process requires no external 'source' of any kind, be it god(s), aliens, or something else. I am not a materialist and I see no inherent issue with *creation-free spirituality*, and neither do a number of spiritual traditions. If [1] Science can show us that species and environments change due to natural phenomena [fact], and without divine intervention [principle of parsimony], and if [2] There really is a spiritual component to existence, than it follows that...

This by itself does not mean there is ''creationism'' [assuming so would still be a gigantic leap of faith]. Possibly, and thus far nobody has made that suggestion, matter and 'spirit' [or 'soul'] could quite simply be radically different, one about change and form, whereas the other is neither. Actually, this eases various philosophical problems that we find in religious discussions. This is but one option I'm sharing, and with that I'm doing the work for others here, LOL..

Originally Posted by 7L

Remember "the evidence" i.e., coherent, in-depth factual research, has only barely begun to arrive on almost everything having to do with anything AND much of it has been & will continue to be substantially appended & updated over time.

The puzzle isn't complete but the building blocks and the process are clear and are understood, in particular to the topic here.

Originally Posted by 7L

Nurture your water element and your heart -- allow yourself to be ok with your feelings (within reason, eh? ;) ). This will fortify your mental and emotional flexibility which are extremely powerful things to have in these times and as we enter the new Age more fully.

7L.. you don't really know me so you can't assume these things about me. Feelings don't prove existence of god(s) or ancient aliens and neither do they prove that dowsing is supernatural, so I don't see how it relates to what I said.

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Altair

7L, I'm afraid I haven't really a clue what you're referring to here with innocence and cynicism.

Altair, hello there. This is what I'm saying...that you don't have to posit a false dualism between either this or that...all things may be "both/and". Also that you may consider that your "this" and "that" are themselves narrowly or artificially constructed and perhaps you should broaden your mental constructs to go beyond that which you find limiting in any direction. Say, if you find theology limiting and you find you are positing a "science v theology", then perhaps your duality is too limiting.

When apprehending reality and the unknown (LOL..both/and), one is typically always better served where you can pick 1) more than 2 "poles" of thought or perspective and 2) where you have not already "set up" 1 of 2 (or 2 of 3, etc, etc) as strawmen in your mind to be knocked down immediately and not genuinely considered.

This is a very broad and wholly impersonal recommendation. Regardless, like all recommendations, I offer it in your highest good but no acceptance is ever required and you are of course free to do with it as you choose.

I've mentioned that life's journey can be explained through evolution by natural selection, and that this process requires no external 'source' of any kind, be it god(s), aliens, or something else. I am not a materialist and I see no inherent issue with *creation-free spirituality*, and neither do a number of spiritual traditions. If [1] Science can show us that species and environments change due to natural phenomena [fact], and without divine intervention [principle of parsimony], and if [2] There really is a spiritual component to existence, than it follows that...

This by itself does not mean there is ''creationism'' [assuming so would still be a gigantic leap of faith]. Possibly, and thus far nobody has made that suggestion, matter and 'spirit' [or 'soul'] could quite simply be radically different, one about change and form, whereas the other is neither. Actually, this eases various philosophical problems that we find in religious discussions. This is but one option I'm sharing, and with that I'm doing the work for others here, LOL..

The puzzle isn't complete but the building blocks and the process are clear and are understood, in particular to the topic here.

Altair, LOL...let's not overstate our position. Our intellect and certainly our state of moral, ethical, and logical (and by that, I include equanimous and equitable) reasoning as a species is feeble and rather infantile. We are still in the early stages of learning and development as a species. Having said that, I never said directed panspermia was "God" nor "divine intervention".

Intelligent life, however, yes, that is implied by directed panspermia and no doubt were we that advanced all round, we would certainly look to do the same elsewhere if we could. I am not certain why you prefer it to be mostly or wholly "de facto" materialistic and also that you prefer it originated solely here on earth/ or only with random interference. Not certain why would you cherry-pick these over all other possible scenarios or combinations of possibilities? (Parsimony is something we humans may prefer but the universe itself has run on odds and chance and opportunity in each moment from the get go...all of which allow for intelligent intervention to bolster the odds. Certainly quantum reality has nothing at all to do with parsimony but rather is much the opposite...it has to do with the specific "what is" of this material universe and the way it is laid out in each moment.)

Nor am I certain why you assume that others have anything particular in mind when they say there are holes in our knowledge, in our records, in our understanding...and in the much higher odds against what you put forth having occurred without directed interference or guidance at any point in time ;) Playing the odds, cosmologists and planetary scientists would argue directed panspermia (from wherever by whom- or whatever) requires astronomically lower odds, hahaha. Even though yes we have very little evidence of anything beyond what is at hand (e.g., DNA can speak to only broad differences and some general timelines between species since the basic stuff of life is common to most of the universe, LOL).

7L.. you don't really know me so you can't assume these things about me. Feelings don't prove existence of god(s) or ancient aliens and neither do they prove that dowsing is supernatural, so I don't see how it relates to what I said.

Altair, with all due respect, I did not and am not assuming anything about you. I said here are some thoughts and of course, you are always free to do with those as you please, same as mentioned above.

We are strangers, and therefore all observations or thoughts shared are mine, are strictly impersonal and frankly do not relate to you personally, unless YOU personally feel they are helpful I cannot and do not know whether any of what I shared did or would relate to you. Only that, as I said earlier, these are things I've observed are broadly applicable to so many at this time, as we enter the new Age. Whilst trying to address my response to you, perhaps I needed to take time to clarify all this first a bit more, just as I've done here.

Which is this: the rigidity of thought, the inflexibility, the extremely tedious and limiting false dualisms and habituated expectations, demands, and patterns of thought and behaviour -- these really are problems of our modern day, as we move from the age of Pisces (patriarchal society and religion) to the age of Aquarius (transparency, ethics, communications, individual and collective human growth). And yes, I see it EVERYWHERE, LOL. And yes, the only solution at the individual (and collective) level is to develop emotional depth, resiliency, and maturity, alongside moral and ethical maturity/ownership. We have to be a bit bigger as people in order to sustainably evolve...we have to have the strength and generosity of heart to live with tangible and emotional sources of uncertainty, both, and also to still ride the windhorse of spirit toward growth, right-alignment, and I hope human evolution.

Now, IF you have ever experienced any rigidity or inflexibility of thought, or fear or habituated resistance to change of behaviour or mindset...then these observations I shared *may* be relevant to you personally. Of course, Only you would know that . Further, regardless if you have experienced any of these things, and/or have ever observed them in others, you are of course still free to disregard anything I say ;) and I certainly intend you no disrespect. However, given the circularity of the dialogue around these dipolar items...[religion] "versus" [science], etc...I wondered if you might find it liberating if I ripped off the conversational bandaid As in, throw out the "versus", first off. Then, you can throw out any forced constructs of duality, like [religion-science] -- you can simply get rid of that if it is limiting your thought in any way.

Instead, you can look at the broader meta levels of systems and information and look for what we know, what we do not know, where we find patterns, where we find holes, aberrations, mysteries, and challenges to our expected paradigms and our comfortable assumptions and expectations. Next, we can (importantly) revise how we feel or react to any or all of these things. Where we are triggered or insecure or angry or contemptuous. How these feelings and beliefs of ours align with hierarchies and structures in our society. Etc. All of these things within us impede truth and the flow of our journey, so without rigorous study of these things, it's difficult to make any progress regarding acquisition and revision of knowledge. And that's by far among the biggest traps we fall into as baby humanity learning to find our footing.

(p.s. that means "study of knowledge", for any of the Yanks, not rewriting the facts!)

Peace & blessings
7L

[Altair]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Altair, hello there. This is what I'm saying...that you don't have to posit a false dualism between either this or that...all things may be "both/and". Also that you may consider that your "this" and "that" are themselves narrowly or artificially constructed and perhaps you should broaden your mental constructs to go beyond that which you find limiting in any direction. Say, if you find theology limiting and you find you are positing a "science v theology", then perhaps your duality is too limiting.

I have explored the option others have put forward, where there is no ''this or that'' but evolution ''by design'' and with it some divine purpose, or ''nurtured nature'' as you and Greenslade have called it. The way in which it is presented is a Hegelian form of argumentation and I have explored why this is not necessary concerning this issue.

I have explained that the journey of life [i.e. not origins] can be explained through natural selection, thus not requiring any intervention from gods or aliens. At no point can divine purpose and design be observed in nature. You may believe that there are gods or is a god behind the scenes responsible for every change in nature, but frankly the natural explanation is sufficient. This is very simple but at the same time very difficult for many people to understand and a red pill to digest.

You talk much about a dichotomy that you perceive, however it would be a more meaningful dichotomy if there were equally valid options. This is not the case, and applying Hegel's synthesis solution is just creationism 2.0 [''intelligent design''/''guided evolution''] and leads to exactly the same issues as creationism. However, I can enjoy speculation too, and have been generous in that I even suggested a way out for religion, and have provided examples of paths where there is no creationism [such as Buddhism, Jainism], but they have been overlooked.

I recommend people to look into natural selection and pick any species they are interested in. It's of key importance as many of the assumptions discussed in spirituality - i.e. that there is some cosmic sense of ''justice'' and ''meaning''; that everything is ''linear''; and that divinity is ''human'' and ''creating'' - are certainly [some very likely] products of human imagination and projection, and/or the need for enchantment.

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Altair

I have explored the option others have put forward, where there is no ''this or that'' but evolution ''by design'' and with it some divine purpose, or ''nurtured nature'' as you and Greenslade have called it. The way in which it is presented is a Hegelian form of argumentation and I have explored why this is not necessary concerning this issue.

I have explained that the journey of life [i.e. not origins] can be explained through natural selection, thus not requiring any intervention from gods or aliens. At no point can divine purpose and design be observed in nature. You may believe that there are gods or is a god behind the scenes responsible for every change in nature, but frankly the natural explanation is sufficient. This is very simple but at the same time very difficult for many people to understand and a red pill to digest.

You talk much about a dichotomy that you perceive, however it would be a more meaningful dichotomy if there were equally valid options. This is not the case, and applying Hegel's synthesis solution is just creationism 2.0 [''intelligent design''/''guided evolution''] and leads to exactly the same issues as creationism. However, I can enjoy speculation too, and have been generous in that I even suggested a way out for religion, and have provided examples of paths where there is no creationism [such as Buddhism, Jainism], but they have been overlooked.

Altair, hello! To be clear, I am not talking about religion or God. You have limited the conversation according to your own biases, so for me, it would be boring and non-productive to explore the infinity of diversity (including us) that is Oneness with someone who is not comfortable talking about say the impact of inherent, pre-existing consciousness (including us) on the manifest universe, because it may and does trigger many folks.

To you, what I am saying is contribution by others (aliens or other intelligent life) is possible and cannot be ruled out. And in fact, according to cosmologists and planetary scientists, the odds of this happening anywhere in the universe are astronomically higher than life originating spontaneously into intelligent life separately all over the universe. I am not saying "must". I am saying it is possible, and cannot be reasonably or objectively ruled out. Your choosing to do so is based on your comfort zone and deals with concrete observation, and that's fine.

But your approach is not the most objectively complete assessment of the situation. I myself am comfortable with allowing for the possibility of the astronomically more likely occurrence, since I am freely able to accept that our knowledge of the facts is partial in ALL areas, be it cosmology or biology. I am comfortable with our evolving assessment of the facts being whatever it is. And I am also comfortable with our reality being whatever it is, as well, and not what I say it either must be or cannot be based on our evolving assessment of the facts I do feel certain things appear more likely given what we know, but that's it...and I allow for the very real FACT that there is much we still don't know. This is basically the position of most free thinkers and scientists, who don't feel the need to lock themselves into a fixed position. Some do, of course, and everyone has their reasons.

I recommend people to look into natural selection and pick any species they are interested in. It's of key importance as many of the assumptions discussed in spirituality - i.e. that there is some cosmic sense of ''justice'' and ''meaning''; that everything is ''linear''; and that divinity is ''human'' and ''creating'' - are certainly [some very likely] products of human imagination and projection, and/or the need for enchantment.

Altair...again, I see a lot of projection on your part, again into what I feel are false dualities. How are you served by seeing either yourself or others as belonging to these categories (some of which you clearly think are distasteful or beneath you, LOL)? I don't know you but if I observed another person doing this, it would appear to me that they are trying to pacify or calm themselves by positioning themselves with one side against the disdainful strawmen that they mentally and emotionally oppose.

I am not saying "it must be" one or the other. I am saying, the facts at hand are not to be reified and made "as a god". Just like idol worship, "the facts" and the intellect or mind present concrete things to which some will hand over their power and their judgment. For others, it is sex or money or power. Nothing and no one should be reified. Nor should they be used as mental or emotional crutches, taking the place of our own discernment and revision.

The facts may be our best guess at present for understanding the world, and that is fine and reasonable, but wise discernment should always be retained. For the facts (like theories) are forever incomplete, skewed, and (as quantum mechanics reveal) can never be purely objective -- they come into being in time and place through our observation and interpretation. I think and also certainly hope that as folks become more aware of the quantum nature of our reality, understanding the primacy and influence of the observer will allow folks to be more open-minded and less rigid regarding facts, mindsets, ideologies, and paradigms. Instead, we can employ greater humility and less hubris, taking more ownership regarding what we choose to believe AND to values or emphasise over others.

We gather and interpret facts as our cognitive and emotional capacities allow us to do so, concurrent with what is available at hand to observe with our limited human sensory apparatus. In however many billions of years (like 43 billion), no stars will be visible in the night sky due to the expansion of the universe. "The facts" at that time will tell us that our star system is alone in the universe and all we can measure and perceive will tell us the same. It will be impossible to arrive at anything approaching what we know to be truth now (that there are in fact billions of stars and galaxies) based on anything in the physical realm we can observe or measure, since the expanding visible universe will be beyond what can ever again be reached with the speed of light from our vantage.

At the present time, it is mostly our human limitations, our fears and our close-mindedness, our tendency to fixate and our lack of mental and emotional flexibility....but it is also our loss of earlier records and cultures buried in the mists of time, and also to some unknown extent, our inability to ever know truly all that has gone before & led us to this point.

Peace & blessings
7L

[Altair]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Altair, hello! To be clear, I am not talking about religion or God. I am saying contribution by others (aliens or other intelligent life) is possible and cannot be ruled out. And in fact, according to cosmologists and planetary scientists, the odds of this happening anywhere in the universe are astronomically higher than life originating spontaneously into intelligent life separately all over the universe. I am not saying "must". I am saying it is possible, and cannot be reasonably or objectively ruled out. Your choosing to do so is based on your comfort zone and deals with concrete observation, and that's fine.

It's naught to do with a ''comfort zone''. And I don't do origins of life, I mention that species and environments change without divine intervention. If micro-organisms came with a comet billions of years ago this does not change what we observe and how organisms have evolved.

Why not use a totally different example with Santa Claus?

If you receive presents with Christmas you may believe it is Santa that gave you the presents. However, we can check from which shops your presents came from and who bought them, and when. We can check from what materials they are made and look where that came from. Of course you may believe there is still a Santa around, who somehow slipped the presents in the shopping cart when customers look the other way. But there is simply no need to believe in Santa here.

It is similar with natural history on earth. One example: It's know why North and South America collided, and roughly when. Species of North America migrated southwards and those from the South also migrated northwards. Some managed to adapt to new environments and outcompete other species and diversify, others did not and died out.

Natural history is dotted with numerous examples, and none require intervention from gods or aliens with scifi tech. To believe that they play a part is not that different from believing that Santa really does exist and secretly puts presents in carts when people look the other way or has flying reindeer that we all conveniently don't see because we're watching Christmas movies inside.

Originally Posted by 7L

Altair...again, I see a lot of projection on your part, again into what I feel are false dualities. How are you served by seeing either yourself or others as belonging to these categories (some of which you clearly think are distasteful or beneath you, LOL)? I don't know you but if I observed another person doing this, it would appear to me that they are trying to pacify or calm themselves by positioning themselves with one side against the disdainful strawmen that they mentally and emotionally oppose.

Not at all. Humans are the only known species [left on earth at least] that believe in god(s), and claim the gods are ''creators'', speak and write, and look like humans. We are also the only species known that have a concept of happiness and suffering, and we consciously seek this thing called ''meaning'' in our lives and in the universe. Humans do teleology and project all of this upon nature and the universe. Carl Sagan summarizes it better than me here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIAN... index=25&t=0s

You are saying that I find these things ''distasteful'' or ''beneath'' me, which illustrates that you are not grasping what I am sharing here. Justice, meaning, pursuit of happiness are all valuable but to project them upon the universe is a human hubris.

Fact remains, we are not ''central'' in life's story on earth. A large comet could wipe us out, and all life above a certain weight, as they have done before. The species that survive will diversify and fill the niches. No species is eternal.

[7luminaries]

Altair, I just finished my post...you may need to take a fresh read and be sure you got all the last points.

Also that the most authentic and logical scientific approach does not eliminate possibilities but rather allows for them.
The authentic scientific approach does not say what "must be" or that "the facts" are ever set or certain.
It allows for more or less probable interpretations based on what are acknowleged to be partial facts and knowledge sets.
That is all it can ever be, and no reputable scientist would say otherwise.

To state it must be or cannot be is arrogance and hubris, in the face of what is still quite a paltry and feeble intellect and knowledge base (i.e., that of humanity and its knowledge base).

Now...
I have nothing in there about religion or God, except 1 sentence to say that "To be clear, I am not talking about religion or God". Yet, you are still talking to me about religion and/or gods .
Why? Those have nothing to do with my responses to you...so who is you are talking to about God and religion? And why? Is it for yourself, to calm and pacify yourself intellectually or emotionally?

I ask this innocently, as I've not said anything about that and have made it clear those potential triggers of yours have nothing at all to do with the content of my posts to you.
Therefore I am confused as to why you are not responding to what I've said to you but instead keep speaking about something I clearly said has nothing to do with my response to you.

My response is all about the reification of ideas, and how our knowledge of facts and systems and histories is partial.
That is why science caveats any theories or assumptions as just that, and based on more or less probable interpretations.
This is a statement of fact. Or as close to one as we can get, hahaha! If you can acknowledge what I am actually saying to you , then we can have a conversation.

Peace & blessings
7L