Life on Mars (General)

by Carl, Sunday, August 03, 2008, 22:39 (5753 days ago) @ dhw

Dwh feels the discovery of life on Mars would change nothing in our discussions, since we would all just adapt it to our own beliefs. I agree. We all bring a bias to these discussions. My bias is toward the natural explanation, and I will lean that way in the absence of powerful proof. 
The existence of life on Mars would make a deliberate creation of life on earth less likely and push the scenarios toward some intrinsic property of matter itself, with an inevitable spontaneous genesis of life on earth under the early conditions. This raises again David's question of "why should matter be that way" and takes us back to the Big Bang and the physical constants. At that point my screen goes blank. 
 If life on Mars were extinct, that would also favor spontaneous genesis. I think it unlikely that God would deliberately create life there only to allow it to die, but I also do not think it is productive to even speculate on why God would do something, since we probably would not be able to comprehend his motives even if we could know them.
It is possible that the universe is an impersonal billiard table, with the balls moving where they must according to natural laws. Even if it were designer created, such a universe would be indistinguishable from an atheist's universe. It is also possible that God chooses to tinker from time to time. How would we know?
Dwh also asks: "If it's design, what is the nature of the designer?"
All we can know is the evidence of what we see. Humans may appreciate a beautiful sunset, but nature is mostly cruel as seen from our perspective. The constant drive to eat and fear of being eaten is almost universal. Why rabies, for example? 
But I also believe that as a product of our culture or evolution, there is a basic (culturally defined) decency in most human beings. One proof is that we all recognize the exceptional monster when we see one. Regardless of the nature of the designer, we should respond to that decency. Many reasons were given in the ethics discussions, but to me it just a matter of faith. No proof. Just faith.
Dhw asks :"To put it baldly, if the designer isn't interested in me, why should I bother about the designer?"
My best guess about afterlife is that there isn't any, just sweet oblivion. But if there is one, I have faith that it won't be punitive. I say faith because I have plenty of religious dogma to contradict me, and nothing to support me except a conviction that a being powerful enough to create the universe would not be petty enough to punish me for being human. I also agree that, if there is a spark in us, it also exists in other animals, but again, no proof.
I disagree with Dawkins because he finds it necessary exaggerate the progress of science in order to attack religion. I make a distinction between atheism and anti-religion. Most of us are not of the intellectual caliber that requires full scientific objectivity in our lives. A little self delusion is not the end of the world. To deny comfort to the worried parent, frightened soldier or grieving widow in pursuit of atheistic orthodoxy is mean spirited.
Regarding "why bother about the designer", it boils down to faith. We may disagree about religion and science, but we all have a personal sense of right and wrong. If we follow that sense on simple faith, even if we can't prove it is necessary, I don't think the designer will be too upset with us.