Article on reincarnation

[Maeght]

You are not explaining 'Why' replication or reproduction takes place. Why do species live on and why does complexity arise?

Why do you think there has to be a why?

[torridon]

You are not explaining 'Why' replication or reproduction takes place. Why do species live on and why does complexity arise?

Yes I just did.  A cell divides because it has gotten too big to remain viable as a single unit. Molecules replicate to conserve energy.  Those are reasons why.

[Sriram]

Yes I just did.  A cell divides because it has gotten too big to remain viable as a single unit. Molecules replicate to conserve energy.  Those are reasons why.

No...those explain the mechanism.  Not why the cell or molecule needs to exist at all....and why organisms have replicated and reproduced to the level of humans.

I know you have no answer and like the others you can only say that the 'Why' is not meaningful.

[Enki]

No...those explain the mechanism.  Not why the cell or molecule needs to exist at all....and why organisms have replicated and reproduced to the level of humans.

I know you have no answer and like the others you can only say that the 'Why' is not meaningful.

Inasmuch as your question why has any significance at all, for heaven's sake you give me a cogent reason why cells and molecules shouldn't exist?

As to why organisms have replicated and reproduced, the answer is an evolutionary one. If they didn't then we would not be able to even ask the question.

[Stranger]

No...those explain the mechanism.  Not why the cell or molecule needs to exist at all....and why organisms have replicated and reproduced to the level of humans.

I know you have no answer and like the others you can only say that the 'Why' is not meaningful.

The question 'why' is ambiguous in English - it can mean "by what process?" (how come) or it can mean "for what purpose?" (what for)

The answers to your questions in the how come sense is well understood. To ask your questions in the what for sense is to make the significant and unjustified assumption that it has an answer.

In fact, it seems reasonable to assume that what for questions only became meaningful due to evolution. The process of natural selection (that you don't understand) turns how come questions into what for questions by the selection of traits that have a purpose; a function in the context of the environment, that helps the organism's survival and reproduction. These ("free floating") rationales can be seem by intelligent minds with hindsight but do not require a mind to conceive of them in order to exist.

For more detail, see From Bacteria to Bach and Back by Daniel Dennett.

[torridon]

No...those explain the mechanism.  Not why the cell or molecule needs to exist at all....and why organisms have replicated and reproduced to the level of humans.

I know you have no answer and like the others you can only say that the 'Why' is not meaningful.

What makes you think that molecules 'need' to exist; as opposed to just existing ?

[Sriram]

What makes you think that molecules 'need' to exist; as opposed to just existing ?

Scientists start with the assumption that there is no purpose to life and that material things can 'just exist'.  Therein starts the purely material philosophy of science.

Other people start by thinking that nothing can exist without a purpose and therefore they try to find a meaning and purpose to life in the world. 

Both are valid assumptions to begin with.....but what do we observe?

We observe that life has taken a very complex and sophisticated path leading to humans. In addition to that, we have eminent physicists supporting  the idea of Consciousness being fundamental in the universe. We also have phenomena like NDE's and reincarnation events (in the OP).  What does all this show? It clearly supports the second assumption of there being something more than chance driven material existence.

This should be clear enough for everyone...but no...not for science enthusiasts! 

So...what do they do? They dig in their heels and start arguing that there need not be any answer to the 'Why' question. NDE's are hallucinations. Reincarnation incidents are rubbish and made up. Things can 'just exist'. Evolution of complexity is entirely due to random variations and chance environmental factors....and so on and so forth! 

  

[torridon]

Scientists start with the assumption that there is no purpose to life and that material things can 'just exist'.  Therein starts the purely material philosophy of science.

Other people start by thinking that nothing can exist without a purpose and therefore they try to find a meaning and purpose to life in the world. 

Both are valid assumptions to begin with.....but what do we observe?

...

They are not equally valid assumptions, right from the start you have a distorted playing field.  If there is some grander purpose to things there needs to be some justification for that contention, you cannot just assume it.  You are starting with the conclusion and then trying to retrofit evidence so that it appears to justify the conclusion when in reality your conclusion was there right from the outset.  That thinking is all back to front and it typically blinds people to the true notion of evidence.  To be a true student of life you need to start with the evidence and follow where it leads not where you want it to lead.

[Gordon]

Other people start by thinking that nothing can exist without a purpose and therefore they try to find a meaning and purpose to life in the world.

If they do then they are begging the question. 

Both are valid assumptions to begin with.....but what do we observe?

We observe that the presumption of purpose is an unjustified assumption if it is based on reasoning errors, such as begging the question.

[Nearly Sane]

They are not equally valid assumptions, right from the start you have a distorted playing field.  If there is some grander purpose to things there needs to be some justification for that contention, you cannot just assume it.  You are starting with the conclusion and then trying to retrofit evidence so that it appears to justify the conclusion when in reality your conclusion was there right from the outset.  That thinking is all back to front and it typically blinds people to the true notion of evidence.  To be a true student of life you need to start with the evidence and follow where it leads not where you want it to lead.

It's also worth noting that science doesn't as a method start with an assumption that there is no purpose to life and that material things just 'exist'. It takes no position on these questions.

[Maeght]

Scientists start with the assumption that there is no purpose to life and that material things can 'just exist'.  Therein starts the purely material philosophy of science.

Other people start by thinking that nothing can exist without a purpose and therefore they try to find a meaning and purpose to life in the world. 

Both are valid assumptions to begin with.....but what do we observe?

We observe that life has taken a very complex and sophisticated path leading to humans. In addition to that, we have eminent physicists supporting  the idea of Consciousness being fundamental in the universe. We also have phenomena like NDE's and reincarnation events (in the OP).  What does all this show? It clearly supports the second assumption of there being something more than chance driven material existence.

This should be clear enough for everyone...but no...not for science enthusiasts! 

So...what do they do? They dig in their heels and start arguing that there need not be any answer to the 'Why' question. NDE's are hallucinations. Reincarnation incidents are rubbish and made up. Things can 'just exist'. Evolution of complexity is entirely due to random variations and chance environmental factors....and so on and so forth! 

  

Science doesn't do that.

Your evidence is just a mish mash of beliefs and unsupported claims which amounts to nothing much.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Scientists start with the assumption that there is no purpose to life and that material things can 'just exist'. 

I think the world of science and scientists has slipped into that since modern science starts as the endeavour of religiously and mystically minded men.

Many of todays scientists come to many conclusions about the universe that theologians came to centuries ago and not, solely or even mainly as ,say, Stranger will tell you by methodological naturalism either.

[Stranger]

Scientists start with the assumption that there is no purpose to life and that material things can 'just exist'.

I think the world of science and scientists has slipped into that...

As has already been pointed out, scientists do not start from that assuption, so they obviously haven't "slipped into" it.

Many of todays scientists come to many conclusions about the universe that theologians came to centuries ago and not, solely or even mainly as ,say, Stranger will tell you by methodological naturalism either.

Baseless assertions - how about backing them up?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think the world of science and scientists has slipped into that...


As has already been pointed out, scientists do not start from that assuption, so they obviously haven't "slipped into" it.

Baseless assertions - how about backing them up?

It's obvious that string theory, multiverses, simulated universes, intelligent creators et al have no experimental basis and cannot be tested experimentally.

[Stranger]

It's obvious that string theory, multiverses, simulated universes, intelligent creators et al have no experimental basis and cannot be tested experimentally.

What has any of that got to do with backing up either of your assertions?

ETA: You also didn't justify your bizarre claim that scientists had 'slipped into' an assumption that they don't make.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What has any of that got to do with backing up either of your assertions?

ETA: You also didn't justify your bizarre claim that scientists had 'slipped into' an assumption that they don't make.

I disagree.

[Stranger]

I disagree.

With what?

You made two assertions that you have totally failed to back up with any evidence and have accused science/scientists of 'slipping into' an assumption that plays no part part in the scientific method.

[Sriram]

I think the world of science and scientists has slipped into that since modern science starts as the endeavour of religiously and mystically minded men.

Many of todays scientists come to many conclusions about the universe that theologians came to centuries ago and not, solely or even mainly as ,say, Stranger will tell you by methodological naturalism either.

I agree with that.  Yes...many scientists in earlier centuries weren't such hardened materialists. Mendel was a friar and Darwin was being trained to be a priest. And many other leading scientists were not materialists eg. Max Planck. 

[Sriram]

They are not equally valid assumptions, right from the start you have a distorted playing field.  If there is some grander purpose to things there needs to be some justification for that contention, you cannot just assume it.  You are starting with the conclusion and then trying to retrofit evidence so that it appears to justify the conclusion when in reality your conclusion was there right from the outset.  That thinking is all back to front and it typically blinds people to the true notion of evidence.  To be a true student of life you need to start with the evidence and follow where it leads not where you want it to lead.

Evolution starting off with bacteria and moving to humans is good enough direction and purpose for me and most others. It requires and very narrow perspective to assume that all this is due to random variation....!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I agree with that.  Yes...many scientists in earlier centuries weren't such hardened materialists. Mendel was a friar and Darwin was being trained to be a priest. And many other leading scientists were not materialists eg. Max Planck.

yes and significantly Newton and James Clark Maxwell two of the Greats although JC Maxwell is not nearly as feted as I believe he should be. I wonder if that is down to his evangelical Christianity not fitting the paradigm picture of science/atheism.

[Stranger]

Evolution starting off with bacteria and moving to humans is good enough direction and purpose for me and most others.

Evolution didn't start with bacteria - neither did it 'move' to humans. What it did do was produce a very large variety of organisms, from the simpler to the more complex.

There is no evidence whatsoever of a fixed trajectory or aim - quite the reverse.

It requires and very narrow perspective to assume that all this is due to random variation....!

There is copious evidence that it is due to random variation and natural selection (that rather simple concept that you've repeatedly failed to grasp) and no evidence at all of direction and purpose.

[Stranger]

yes and significantly Newton and James Clark Maxwell two of the Greats although JC Maxwell is not nearly as feted as I believe he should be. I wonder if that is down to his evangelical Christianity not fitting the paradigm picture of science/atheism.

Vlad, you don't half talk drivel.

The point is that what a scientist personally believes is of no significance if they produce good science. I have no idea why you think Maxwell isn't considered as significant as he should be. He certainly was one of the great scientists and his work laid the foundation for Einstein's relativity.

[Maeght]

Evolution starting off with bacteria and moving to humans is good enough direction and purpose for me and most others. It requires and very narrow perspective to assume that all this is due to random variation....!

No, it requires a mind open to accepting the evidence and not imposing its preconceived ideas.

[Gordon]

Evolution starting off with bacteria and moving to humans is good enough direction and purpose for me and most others. It requires and very narrow perspective to assume that all this is due to random variation....!

Then you, and the 'most others' who agree with you, are wrong.

[Sriram]

You old school guys don't like the views of young scientists like Richard Watson and Simon Powell,then!??!