Origins

[Resha Caner]

If there is no god, is there a reason we need to understand our origin?

 

[SkyWriting]

If there is no god, is there a reason we need to understand our origin?

Sure. Every animal studies the origins of life in the universe.

 

[Tinker Grey]

If there is no god, is there a reason we need to understand our origin?

Sure. To satisfy our curiousity. Also, studying it may yield exploitable information.

 

[Tolworth John]

If there is no god, is there a reason we need to understand our origin?

No God, no creation, or universe or life.

 

[Tinker Grey]

No God, no creation, or universe or life.

Are you having trouble with the concept of hypotheticals?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Are you having trouble with the concept of hypotheticals?

Funny, I've met several Christians recently who did. "Oh, so it's not real, then," they say.

 

[Resha Caner]

Sure. To satisfy our curiousity. Also, studying it may yield exploitable information.

I expected "curiosity" would be one of the answers, and that's a valid reason. As is the possibility of finding something useful - something that would supposedly improve life.

But both of those are without consequence, aren't they? If someone is not curious, I can't really say that would have negative consequences.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I expected "curiosity" would be one of the answers, and that's a valid reason. As is the possibility of finding something useful - something that would supposedly improve life.

But both of those are without consequence, aren't they? If someone is not curious, I can't really say that would have negative consequences.

I'm not sure I understand the import of your question. The OP didn't ask about consequences. Don't all actions and inaction have consequences at least in a manner of speaking?

I would say that failure to understand one's environs could lead to negative consequences.

 

[Resha Caner]

Funny, I've met several Christians recently who did. "Oh, so it's not real, then," they say.

Why must it always be Christians? Why can't it just be that some people struggle with hypotheticals? Is that because PC culture has left bitter atheists without many choices for groups they can marginalize?

(P.S. You just have to love the irony of that last sentence, don't ya?)

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm not sure I understand the import of your question. The OP didn't ask about consequences. Don't all actions and inaction have consequences at least in a manner of speaking?

I was adding to the OP - just making an observation. I suppose all actions do have consequences "in a manner of speaking", but some are more weighty than others. Ignoring a god who created you is probably riskier than lacking curiosity about which collection of pond scum burped out your ancestors.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I was adding to the OP - just making an observation. I suppose all actions do have consequences "in a manner of speaking", but some are more weighty than others. Ignoring a god who created you is probably riskier than lacking curiosity about which collection of pond scum burped out your ancestors.

I believe I edited my post while you were typing. There is an additional sentence.

 

[Resha Caner]

I believe I edited my post while you were typing. There is an additional sentence.

OK.

I would say that failure to understand one's environs could lead to negative consequences.

That's a little different than knowing one's origins. Both engineering (my occupation) and medicine (my kid's occupation) extensively train in science, and yet often emphasize conformance to process over understanding. I once touched on some examples of that at a history of science conference.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Why must it always be Christians? Why can't it just be that some people struggle with hypotheticals? Is that because PC culture has left bitter atheists without many choices for groups they can marginalize?

(P.S. You just have to love the irony of that last sentence, don't ya?)

Who says I'm bitter? More like amused. And since I didn't grow up in the middle East or India I tend to debate Christians.

 

[muichimotsu]

If there is no god, is there a reason we need to understand our origin?

Only insofar as we admit we cannot very likely ever have an absolute answer and should not seek that, especially in scientific pursuits related to it.

 

[muichimotsu]

I expected "curiosity" would be one of the answers, and that's a valid reason. As is the possibility of finding something useful - something that would supposedly improve life.

But both of those are without consequence, aren't they? If someone is not curious, I can't really say that would have negative consequences.

Who says it has to have consequences to it? That seems to reduce all actions and pursuits of knowledge to some perceived benefit in a purely pragmatic or consequentialist manner that ignores how some things are not done for the same focus regarding "benefit", since it can be enriching without it having some sense of reward to oneself otherwise (usually material, though that's only one of probably several aspects that could be enumerated).

But at the same time, you seem to not see the contradiction in asking if something is without consequences yet point to a consequence, long term as it is, finding something useful.

 

[muichimotsu]

I was adding to the OP - just making an observation. I suppose all actions do have consequences "in a manner of speaking", but some are more weighty than others. Ignoring a god who created you is probably riskier than lacking curiosity about which collection of pond scum burped out your ancestors.

Well, that gross mischaracterization of abiogenesis is not helping in the false dichotomy you've created. Knowing about origins can aid in a manner, but if we're talking about a deity, that's not remotely the same in even being demonstrable, let alone falsifiable or even cogent depending on one's perspective. It's far simpler to understand origins as important in terms of understanding other things, like how evolutionary theory is influential in understanding medicine, biology, etc.

The supposed weight involved with ignoring God is little more than a veiled threat or suggesting that conceptual things have the same impact as concrete things that we can study and measure consistently. And God as a concept is even less important, I'd argue, than things like numbers and logic, which allow us to better understand our approaches to philosophy, science, etc.

 

[muichimotsu]

Why must it always be Christians? Why can't it just be that some people struggle with hypotheticals? Is that because PC culture has left bitter atheists without many choices for groups they can marginalize?

(P.S. You just have to love the irony of that last sentence, don't ya?)

You realize that marginalizing is not the same as not giving the imagined importance and credence someone perceives for themselves right? Treating a minority as if they aren't important is different than treating beliefs they may hold as unimportant in terms of a rational society.

 

[Resha Caner]

And since I didn't grow up in the middle East or India I tend to debate Christians.

That's the only reason?

 

[FireDragon76]

I expected "curiosity" would be one of the answers, and that's a valid reason. As is the possibility of finding something useful - something that would supposedly improve life.

But both of those are without consequence, aren't they? If someone is not curious, I can't really say that would have negative consequences.

You seem to be saying that without a sense of something being an ultimate concern, there is no guarantee it would be worth pursuing? I'm not sure what your point is, here.

Many worldviews are not driven by the concept of creation as monotheists would understand it. It's fairly irrelevant to Buddhism. Creation doesn't just plug in meaning to life, it needs to tie into a larger narrative that is believable.

 

[Resha Caner]

You seem to be saying that without a sense of something being an ultimate concern, there is no guarantee it would be worth pursuing? I'm not sure what your point is, here.

I'm not saying that. One of the ever intriguing aspects of CF is seeing the ways people interpret what I say. I never know if it's their assumptions about what motivates my posts, my poor communication skills, or a combination.

Anyway, all I was asking was if origins were an issue of ultimate concern for unbelievers. As I said, and as I thought I made clear, curiosity is a worthwhile reason to pursue something. But to me that indicates it's just not an ultimate concern - not seen as an issue with important consequences.