Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss discuss Something from Nothing

Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss recently sat on the stage at the Australian National University to discuss "something from nothing." What follows are my notes from that conversation. (9) Dawkins offers two methods for illustrating the long periods of time that are critical to understanding natural selection. (13:30) The key idea is that we might be getting something from nothing. Life comes from non-life. Matter appears to come from the lack of matter. (14:47) We are dealing with the new version of "nothing." (16:00) It is plausible that everything started with no matter,and maybe no loss. It might not violate any laws for matter to come from the lack of matter. Especially in physics, scientists have learned to ignore the common sense. The total energy of the universe might be "zero." It might nonetheless be a bubbling brew of virtual particles, and this offends some people. (20) Krauss: The universe doesn't care what we like or what we understand. We need to deal with this. (21) Dawkins: Natural selection has equipped us to be bad physicists and we have to work to overcome this. (22) Space is curved, but we cannot visualize this. Our picture of natural/normal reality is myopic. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingRichard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss discuss Something from Nothing

Morality without religion

In this TED talk, primatologist Frans de Waal asserts that human morality has evolved, and that the existence of morality doesn’t depend on religion. He observes that “humans are far more cooperative and empathic than they are given credit for,” and that they are, in many ways similar to other primates. From de Waal’s experiments, one can learn that chimpanzees (who have no religion) often reconcile with one another after fights. The principle “is that you have a valuable relationship that is damaged by conflict so you need to do something about it.” What are the “pillars of morality,” that which morality is based on? Reciprocity (fairness) and Empathy (compassion) are two constants. He indicates that human morality includes more than these two factors, but not much more. Check out the beautiful 1935 video of chimpanzees at the 3:35 min mark; they cooperate in synchronized fashion to pull in a heavy box of fruit. Then check out at 4:20 what happens when one of the two chimps is not hungry, thus not motivated to work hard. This is incredible footage that will remind you of a species you often see in the mirror. What makes the uninterested chimp to work at all, according to de Waal, is receipt of a past or a future favor, i.e., reciprocity. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingMorality without religion

The constant quest for transcendence by half-bee humans

Contrary to what so many of us want to believe, humans are not wired to act only as individuals; we are also wired to be intensely social. In his March 14, 2012 TED presentation, Jonathan Haidt characterized humans as half-bee. We aren’t completely socially integrated like bees--our social side clashes with our individualistic side. These two aspects of what it means to be human—our proud individualism and our craving to meld our selves with each other in large social groupings--often conflict with each other. As a result, human “hives” (the many types of human social groupings) don’t run as smoothly as the hives of true bees. Haidt argues that the scientific study of this inner-conflict offers us powerful insights into such things as religion, existential angst and warmongering. Haidt began his 18-minute talk by asking for a show of hands. How many people in the audience consider themselves to be "religious?" Only a few raised their hands, yet a strong majority of the audience members declared themselves to be “spiritual.” Why is it that that so many people who don’t consider themselves to be religious do consider themselves to be spiritual? [More . . .]

Continue ReadingThe constant quest for transcendence by half-bee humans

I’m still struggling to understand the alleged logic of the Easter sacrifice

Tonight, more than 35 years after completing 12 years of Catholic education, I find myself re-visiting the claim that it was God's gift to humankind to allow Jesus to die. Specifically, I'm re-reading my earlier posts on the "illogic of atonement" and the application of the "moral accounting metaphor."   I believe the latter theory would actually shed light on why an omnipotent God couldn't simply snap his fingers and forgive humans, instead of sacrificing his son.  Then again, none of this would explain why a God would blame all of humankind for the allegedly bad act of Adam and Eve, especially when their alleged transgression was trying to partake of knowledge of good and evil.  That doesn't sound like a crime to me. In fact it befuddles me.  Hence, I'm not a Christian. Rather, as usual, I'm looking at Easter from the outside in.

Continue ReadingI’m still struggling to understand the alleged logic of the Easter sacrifice