Life on Mars (General)
Carl asks: "How would the discovery of fossils of primitive life on Mars affect this discussion?" - I'd really like to know your own views, but here for what they're worth are mine. Firstly, as I see it, this discussion centres on two questions which I don't want to separate: 1) Are we the product of accident or design? 2) If it's design, what is the nature of the designer? - If fossils were discovered on Mars, pro-designers can argue that there is no reason why the designer should have confined its attention to one planet. Alternatively, as David says, once the designer had set up the mechanism, it could work independently anywhere, given the right conditions. Atheists will continue to argue that given the right conditions, non-living matter will spontaneously assemble itself into living organisms, so you don't need a designer in the first place. Verdict: no change. - But for me, the argument in favour of design becomes of almost secondary importance in relation to the nature of the designer (which of course doesn't apply if one believes that life is the product of chance). To put it baldly, if the designer isn't interested in me, why should I bother about the designer? If there was once life on Mars, it raises precisely the same issue you raised in relation to the dinosaurs: humans are just one of many projects. It suggests that like other forms of life, we'll be around for a while, and then we'll become extinct. - I find this perfectly conceivable, even on a personal level. Why should I survive my physical body? If I really am to survive (see later), so too should dinosaurs, my neighbours' dead dog, the mosquito I just killed in my bedroom. The spark of life is in all creatures, and animals other than ourselves (we tend to forget that we're animals) have characters just as individual as ours. Religion is based on anthropocentrism, and for me, the discovery of fossils on Mars would be another blow to that concept or, as David puts it, "the religious conceit that God made the Earth only for his human subjects". If we're just part of a gigantic game, and each of us leaves the field for ever at the final whistle, it simply makes no difference to me whether we were designed or not. - But...there's always a but...David in his response to George under Sermon Part 2, on Friday 01 August at 19.45 has once again drawn our attention to Near Death and Out of Body experiences, to the work of Pim van Lommel in this field, and to his own book Science versus Religion, which comprehensively covers both the scientific and non-scientific evidence for design, and which I personally found immensely instructive even if I can't go along with all the religious implications. Unlike George, I can't dismiss the evidence for these experiences, any more than I can dismiss every single account of other psychic phenomena, not to mention the vast range of emotional and aesthetic experiences that seem to transcend our physical context. Even if fossils of primitive life were indeed found on Mars, there would still be that powerful niggle of doubt: maybe humans are unique; maybe the designer just kept on fiddling around, here there and everywhere, until it managed to come up with us ... the closest it could get to itself. And so maybe we do command its special interest. - To sum up my response to your question, Carl: if fossils were discovered on Mars, I don't think it would change anything at all in the fixed beliefs of theists or atheists, and I would continue to vacillate in my agnosticism. How about you?
Life on Mars
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.
Life on Mars
by David Turell 
, Tuesday, August 05, 2008, 21:47 (5752 days ago) @ Carl
edited by unknown, Tuesday, August 05, 2008, 22:43
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 think there is some proof there may be an afterlife. As I mentioned elsewhere on the website, the Lancet article, peer-reviewed, described a man with a flat line EEG who was able to identify the nurse who took his teeth several days after his resuscition. There is a level of consciousness which survives a non-functioning cerebrum. Further the more complex the episode, the more it correlated with the time of the subsequesnt death of the patient. This part of the article was a prospective study, seeing how long they survived after resuscitiation. Further the Near to Death literature, a fair portion of it in books and articles by MD's, identifies third party corroboration of what a revived NDEer's finds out during the episode. These are not hallucinations. When they communicate during the experience it is always with dead people. And in these communications they find out someone is dead, and there is no way they could have known that before the episode. It is startling when you read this stuff. And the stories go back in history to ancient Greece. It was only recognized in the modern era when Kubler-Ross published some of her findings.
Life on Mars
David describes studies in the literature of near-death experiences as support for an afterlife. I have since read all the posts on this site to the thread of near-death experiences, and there is not much I can add except the following. Cases described would imply another dimension of existence which is effectively invisible to us, but which allows perception of our world from that dimension. Here I refer to the patient recognizing the nurse who removed his dentures, as well as other cases I have heard of where the patient reported details of the room that could only be viewed from an elevated position above the scene. The idea of another dimension which only rarely allows communication back into our dimensions, and even then under anecdotal circumstances, has never been persuasive to me, but I cannot rule it out. The prospect of having an entire dimension able to peer down at me at all times is disconcerting. I suppose that is why the old time Christians were so nervous about their behavior. One other thought. Consider what a memory is in the current theory of the brain. It is a network of synapses connecting neurons that the mind interprets as a recalled event. This does not mean the event happened. False memories are a common problem to some of us. The synapse network could be formed in an instant under anoxia stress, and could be sufficiently uniform that it would be interpreted by minds in a similar manner from one case to the next. This does not explain the missing dentures, but could explain the light, peace, relatives, etc.
Life on Mars
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 06, 2008, 22:09 (5751 days ago) @ Carl
One other thought. Consider what a memory is in the current theory of the brain. It is a network of synapses connecting neurons that the mind interprets as a recalled event. This does not mean the event happened. False memories are a common problem to some of us. The synapse network could be formed in an instant under anoxia stress, and could be sufficiently uniform that it would be interpreted by minds in a similar manner from one case to the next. This does not explain the missing dentures, but could explain the light, peace, relatives, etc. - An anoxic brain should not be able to think coherently but these are coherent stories or experiences. Further, most of the 'stories' of the episodes are the same. Down the dark tunnel, the light, the dead relatives and friends. Being told to return to life. Are many anoxic brains coded the same? And if so, why? And what about the famous case of the lady who went down the tunnel, met a friend in the tunnel who was walking back(!), continued down the tunnel and was told to return to life. Inquired about the friend, only to be told that he had just been resuscitated in another hospital shortly before her experience. Explaining how one can learn of a death of a person only during the experience, having no knowledge of it before, cannot be explained by any science we now know. - Some authorities think of memory as a holographic use of the whole brain. Our mind is an emergent phenomenon beyond simple synapses, which is why Roger Penrose in his book, "The Emperor's New Mind", does not think computers will every develop the ability to think as we do.