I agree with you there to a point. We are arrogant. We're also spoilt, entitled, lazy, uneducated, disconnected and delusional. But we also are imaginative, inquisitive, empathetic, logical (mostly), artistic, creative and so much more. We do need direction and guidence, but we only have to look to ourselves and our own history, as the answers we seek can be ascertained through reflection on ones past. No one is going to help us but ourselves. But i believe we humans possess the ability to step up on our own, cut the umbilical cord to our primitive past that has us clinging to an old & out dated belief system, and start participating in a brighter future for all human kind by venturing out into a vast and mysterious universe as we try to grasp its infinitely random, complex and unending enormity of such magnitude, that all words fail to describe its monstrously gargantuan size. Now, just to make it clear, i dont believe religion is a healthy or helpful option for anyone. its not because i dont believe in giants, virgin births, opression of others, talking snakes, sexism, burning shrubs that talk, owning woman as property, unicorns, child abuse or magic. although these are all good reasons, it's not my reason. My reason is that any institution that teaches blind acceptance and encourages its followers not to question or demand substantiated evidence, stunts capacity for reasonable inquiry and oppresses the natural human instinct to understand and learn. If you dont question what you believe, how can you be certain its true at all? For do you just believe it to be true because you were taught it was true and never looked any further? It's a tad odd that one would see the need to suppress their true self and hold onto an archaic notion that if they dont live by the commandments of a certain religious novel, they will be denied the reward of an afterlife filled with candy canes, care bears & cookies, and instead be chucked into some demonic fire pit to be tortured for eternity. doesnt seem much of a choice to me. Ultimately its an out dated tool used thousands of years ago by Kings and Emporers as an easy way for them to control the uneducated masses and give a simple and easy answer to existence and anything they couldnt explain. We dont need stagnant thinking or blind belief We dont need a two thousand year old book telling us how to live in the 21st century. We have out grown and advanced beyond the need to depend on, or live our lives according to an old myth that, no matter how much its edited/revised/redacted and modernized, simply has out lived its purposefulness to the human race. We as as race, are defined not by who or what we are as individuals, nor as a community. We are defined by our most fundamental & unique quality; Exploration. We are natural explorers, conquerors of all that we survey, always pondering whats over the next horizon and beyond. we mapped our planet, we mapped our solar system, and now just starting to explore and map our own galaxy, all the while looking beyond even that, out to the unknown black abyss that is the rest of the universe, and dreaming about the insurmountable possibilities it contains. If there ever was a meaning for our existence in this universe, i believe its this: To explore, to experience, and to feel. But thats just one of my theory on our purpose for existing Will leave you with this thought though; "Suppose that we are wise enough to learn and know, and yet not wise enough to control our learning and knowledge, so that we use it to destroy ourselves? Even if that is so, knowledge remains better than ignorance. It is better to know, even if the knowledge endures only for the moment that comes before destruction, than to gain eternal life at the price of a dull and ogreish lack of comprehension of a universe that swirls unseen before us in all its wonder" TL;DR: TB;SS (Too Bad, So Sad)
nice post hatter, the pursuit of truth imo should b not just a greater focus than faith but should be the greatest focus of mankind.
I would argue that we, along with everything on this planet, have a distinct, inate purpose. The purpose of balance. Science again and again shows just how "fragile" this ecosystem we call home is. Do the predator and prey not naturally sustain each other to some level (without the involvement of humans)? Do wildfires (not caused by involvement of humans) not take an overgrown area of flora, burn it, and out of the ashes comes a richer product? The only problem with humans is that we constantly seek to out-compete our natural balances. The elements and natural predators were bested by shelter, fire, and weapons. Disease was bested by medicine. Natural disasters are the only major "threat" left that humans face, but there are projects and ideas being put in place to "comabt" these disasters. So, in a sense, you could say that knowledge isn't helping us, but rather it keeps pulling us away from the natural balance of the world. What good will knowledge be when there is no world to live in? This is not to say that we should live in ignorance, but rather it is to say that knowledge isn't any better. Ignorance of knowledge doesn't help solve the problems we have created as a species, nor does knowledge of ignorance lead us to any solution that would equally solve our problems. The ignorant use ignorance to avoid problems, the knowledgeable use knowledge that in effect amplifies or creates more problems. The true sense of religion is one of reconnecting to something higher than ourselves, and I would argue that the natural balance of the planet is higher than us. The word of religion does not require rituals nor worship nor God, those have become the connotations of religion through association. Both the ignorant and the knowledgeable have deluded that fact. But anyways, why are we here now? The human species has clearly disrupted the natural balance of the world on many levels, so we have strayed from that purpose. We have, instead, created a new purpose that is bound to fail: to explore, conquer, and escape the reality of death. Many see the planet as failing, and wish to find a new sanctuary among the stars to escape the seemingly inevitable desolation of the earth. But when/if they do find a new home elsewhere, I see the cycle would repeat itself. We have perverted our purpose, and I can offer no solution to return to it other than to completely reverse what we humans have created.
1. Planets aren't perminant homes. For the human race to perpetuate it has no choice but to explore other worlds. The notion that we need a perminant planet to reside on is the kind of thinking we need to change. Humans have an innate ability to adapt to other enviroment, so there are alternative solutions always. You see the human species as over stepping its bounds and reaching too far? I see that as a wanting for stagnant growth and a contentment for our species to keep the same pattern of destructive behaviour seen day to day. Your view, while rational and educated, is why i state that the way our species views its existence needs to change. We consume resources to live, but merely existing to consume is no existance at all. Neither is confining one self to one location a smart choice for the perpetuation of a species.
Yeah i disagree too, firstly u make a few too many statements which imo can only be validified by true knowledge (& i'm not just talking science here). Perhaps if u had true knowledge & could understand it u could b certain what was right or wrong or otherwise and act towards the higher benefit of all or a few or whoever but until that time you're just taking a stab in the dark n hoping what you say is good for you & them to have faith in. Secondly science could possibly give us balancers like immortal & indestructable trees which have no negative affect on ecosystems or figure out ways to reduce pollution to the extent in which it doesn't effect nature and give us so much more on top of that perhaps we could create our own planets even to improve it one day in the future...nature's not perfect either.
I would like to focus most on your point that the human species has the inate ability to adapt to other environments. I will say that may have been true at one point, but now we make everything adapt to us. Hell even the definition of nature, while it keeps changing, adapts to fit our needs. We don't adapt anymore. Your view is for the contuation of our species, mine is for the planet, an entire ecosystem. You, and others with similar views, put humans on a higher pedestal than anything, including the earth. Why is that? I would argue that knowledge has deluded the human species into becoming ignorant in just how small it is. And when you say that merely existing to consume resources is no way to live, I ask you what a way to live is. Do the birds and the bees and the cats and the dogs and the fish and the turtles not live content lives just by consuming resources? They face fear for survival more often, but does that make us better? I say again, the view that humans are more superior than anything is ignorant. We might have superior means of acheiving goals, but we do not have superior motives. We create and destroy to fit our needs and what we think is best for the world, but how did we become so deluded into thinking that we know what is best for the world? Your view makes it seem like the human species is on the brink of extinction (like in Interstellar), and that we have no choice but to find another suitable place to destroy. I have no objections to finding other planets, but why should humans, a force of destruction as it is now, be allowed to go to another world? As i see it, we don't have a sound motivation to go. I see it as a means to escape the consequences of what has been done to earth rather than face it and accept responsibility. And that there is ignorance.
You say that I would need true knowledge to be certain of what is right and what is wrong. Who determines what true knowledge is? And then you also say that I need to be able to understand it, which (and i may be misinterpreting it) seems to be attacking my character. Whatever the case may be, you seem to think that only humans can have this true knowledge. I would disagree and say exactly the opposite. I would say all wild animals have this true knowledge and understanding, and humans (along with things altered by human interference, such as domesticated animals) have lost that knowledge. All it takes is a bit of reading and experience outdoors to recognize this. I think, for you, I would suggest the books "Desert Solitaire," "Walden," and "Pilgrim at Tinker Creek" to begin with. In each you can find a moment or moments in which a wild sentient being acts in a way that alludes to some ancient, primal knowledge. But you are right in me saying that I am just taking a stab in the dark. After all, doesn't the human species do that all the time? And it takes faith to follow through and find out whether or not it is a shot in the dark. But I will say that my shot in the dark has a more sound motivation than the majority of what science has developed. I say it is for the benefit of the world, not just us, and I think that logically and rationally holds up. I have no doubt that science can produce great things, but science needs discernment, the "should you do it" argument. Scientists get all caught up in whether they can, most don't stop to think if they should. The immortal and indestructible trees benefits who primarily? Humans. Fauna and flora alike rely on the life cycle of trees to survive, so that includes the death of the organic material. Reducing pollution would be great, but it doesnt fix the problem of uncontrollable consumption of resources, nor do I think there could ever be a way to reduce all pollution. After all, accidents do happen and we can end up with oil spills. What makes humans entitled to possibly create planets? Have we shown enough responsibilty as a species to handle that and not mess it up? And who would it be better for? Again, i would see that as escaping the consequences of what humans have done to earth. You are right in saying that nature isn't perfect, for we are a part of nature. However, i assume you mean aside from humans. But who decides what is perfect? And did I say it was perfect? Does it have to be perfect? I argued that it has balance, a way to keep things controlled, and humans have disrupted that balance with so-called knowledge. The world doesn't have to be perfect, but it does need to have balance, natural balance.
I'm not saying its just u but all percieving life that currently lacks true knowledge and idk if ne person, creature, plant, bacteria or virus, etc will b able to understand it or not, limited by perception as we & other life seems to.currently be, but if they can it would b of more benefit then faith in a widely accepted ignorance like religion. When/if true knowledge is figured out no1 determines it as true knowledge can not be limited by perception...i don't think science has in anyway validated itself entirely either but do think its far ahead of outdated things like religion for the simple goal it has that doesn't accept anything but absolute truth. You are limiting urself to faith as far as i can tell which is imo the biggest folly of mankind...and yes i think its possible for even trees to b able to b sentient & unable at this stage to communicate it with us & by no means do I put humans alone as the top dogs with the right to rule over nature...i've spent more of my life outdoors than indoors having grown up on farms and have studied and worked in horticulture for the majority of my adult life, and in my sparetime i do alot of personal research into philosophy, sociology, religion & sciences(especially physics & psychology) which is why i've found reason to think no1, not me, not the animals, not tree's, not u or any1 in society to have a validifiable answer or expressable understanding. Who's to say we are not entitled to mess with nature either...who's to say balancing nature doesn't involve its destruction and recreation time & again... I'm not discluding any possibility & therefore can open my perceptions to any truth but u seem to be by accepting faith entirely confining your possible answers only to what is contained within the limits of faith. This is why i believe our greatest priority should be the search for absolute truth & not faith. Edit - P.s. Perhaps we could change the need for the reliance on dead organic matter with further research. And yeah i think humans aren't responsible enough atm to control our own planet let alone create another but who's to say we won't be able to in the future? Who's to say we can't eliminate accidents? To me u're thinking inside a box...i might be thinking way outside it atm but it's this kinda curiousity & willingness to explore it that might change our understanding of existence and give us the ability to find out exactly what it is and why it is.
Id just like to say I don't think we're here for any reason, we're just here because we are here. Our purpose is to exist or whatever we chose our purpose to exist is. I don't think purpose is a pre determined thing for each person it's what you decide yourself to be the purpose of.
First off, I want to say that I am not limiting myself to anything, not even faith. I am looking at the patterns of life on the planet with and without human interaction before and after events such as the industrial revolution. I have found that there are balances in the world for everything. Everything except humans. To your point on religion. Perhaps you missed what I said in my original argument about religion not be restricted to rituals or God. Religion is a reconnecting to something higher than us. People have perverted that meaning into one of ignorance, but those who look at religion in only that view are in fact ignorant as well. If you would like me to clarify this more later, I will. To the point on trees, they are actually sentient. There are interesting studies that have found that trees can communicate with each other. Though you make the point that you have spent time outdoors being on farms and horticulture, I would like to point out that this adds to my point that humans don't adapt anymore, but rather they make the landscape adapt to them. And that can also be seen in your idea for not relying on organic material. To who does this benefit. All your points seem to only benefit humans. I'm trying to say that there is more than just us, that the earth is a giant ecosystem that needs balances in order to remain intact. You said that perhaps balance means destroying and recreating nature. This can be true, as in my original post about fires destroying and new life springs from the ashes. But that only works in isolated situations, i think. It requires life to be introduced into the area of destruction, as long as it can be habitable. Destroying a whole planet will not leave room for new life to come in. Think about how much each individual sentient being is important to the overall welfare of the planet. If it all goes away, then the earth would become as barren as Mars. In saying that we could be entitled to mess with nature, to eliminate accidents, etc. is to give humans an artificial purpose, unless you would be suggesting that humans were made for that purpose. If you would believe that we are the result of evolution, then we have no such artificial purpose, we developed with purpose that aids in the ecosystem of earth. Everything has a function, otherwise it can (and usually does) get taken out. Evidence of this can be found in something as simple as a cell or as complex as the human body. Now as to finding absolute truth, true knowledge, and understanding existence. My point has been that in our pursuit of these things, we distance ourselves from the time and place that we can find the "answers." Please refer to my original post for this, and I can clarify points that you would like clarification on.
U say how u've restricted urself to believe ppl have twisted religion, u say u've restricted urself to believe trees are sentient, u say u've restricted urself to believe there are things humans do that are not part of nature's balance, etc. It is this belief i disagree with not the possibility of whether u could be right or wrong & because i don't think i know i'm curious & want to find out...if i start believing i'm right & u r wrong it limits the true knowledge i can achieve into only one i can believe currently instead of one that is actual fact. You can have 1 or 200 different beliefs but it ends the same way, as limited parameters u have chosen. Via pursuing the knowledge over our belief we can go beyond what we currently percieve and find absolute truth imo, while opening up a much larger realm of possibility (but i, by no means, put faith into my opinion on this matter)
I haven't restricted myself to anything. I have a holistic view of everything i look at, which is the key to being a good free-thinker (not in the terms of being atheist). I take what i observe and make statements about that. It seems to me that in saying that you must pursue knowledge, you restrict yourself from looking back and questioning the need for the pursuit. Also, I think the original definition (from Latin) for belief is to love, or something like that. Just wanted to put that out there, not that it matters to your argument. Just a fun fact. Anyways, a fact in and of itself is a man made perception. So there can be no absolute fact, only a man made one. Truth is a man made concept as well, as are the opposites of those terms. As are faith and belief. So I would argue that the only way to get "absolute fact and truth" is to drop the human "perception" and join in the natural processes of the earth. Sometimes the things you are looking for are right in front of you, but you don't see them because you are deluded into believing that you have to look for them.