RubySoho
Winston
Test Tube Eden - Scientists Striving to Create Life in Lab
August 20th 2007 20:18
It's good to set goals. My wife and I are hoping to sell our condo and buy a house in the next 2-3 years. We have savings goals. I set goals for people at work, so that we are striving to maintain a certain level of quality. I want to buy an XBox 360 by the end of October, and I have been putting money aside for weeks to facilitate that goal. On a global scale, ending poverty, promoting peace, and providing education to all are great big goals. So, where does creating life in a laboratory setting within the next ten years rank? I'd say it's a pretty damned big goal. And yet, if the scientists involved with this project are to be believed, it's a goal that we may well see achieved inside of a decade.
I won't get into the details and "how-do-they's" of the affair. Essentially it involves assembling a microorganism from scratch using the fundamental building blocks of life, amino acids. Please, click on the link above to read about the basic mechanics of the process (it's very interesting). I'm intrigued about that part, but I'm even more intrigued about what comes after it's actually achieved. If this is true, if science can coax life into existence through artificial means in a lab, it will be the most stunning accomplishment in the history of mankind thus far. Nothing else will even come close. But what will it mean?
Just to clarify, the type of life we're talking about here is microbial, bacteria-like life. No one is even slightly considering the possibility of creating anything as advanced as a fruit fly, never mind something like a person. Scientists envision creating engineered microbes designed to aid us in curbing some of our current problems. Microbes that can be used in the medical field or that can be employed to safely break down dangerous waste materials are examples of what is in the pipeline. Undoubtedly, as this science progresses and comes closer to fruition, there will be agitated groups striving to see the work halted, for fear of unleashing some terrible, nightmarish artificial monster onto the community. Those fears are understandable, to a small extent. The idea of actually creating life seems so far-fetched that it's hard to imagine it working at all, never mind working well. Our fears of the ramifications of such an achievement are embodied in stories such as Frankenstein, still one of the best parables of man's attempt to control/create nature gone wrong.
Still, the payoff of such work far exceeds the small risk that accompanies it. For me, the real payoff exceeds even the potential benefits I mentioned above. The true reward we will have gained is a better of understanding of the nature of the universe and of our place within it. It will answer questions such as: must God exist to explain life? could life exist apart from Earth? It will also raise new questions, like: what are the potential chances of such artificial life ever gaining a toehold in nature, and what are the possible repercussions? what are our responsibilities to the new life we create? do we go further with it, or do we remain content with creating the simplest of forms?
To go back to what I said above about this feat answering the question about the need to use god to explain life, think about the impact this would (or should) have on religion. Most religions use God (the Judeo-Christian version or various others) as the starting point for life. Billions of people believe that life could not exist apart from being willed into existence by a deity. Well, if this work pans out and is verified beyond a doubt, it should shake religion to its foundations. If tiny, fallible, foolish humans can create life, than God and his grand omnipotence are diminished. By definition, God should be able to achieve things that are completely impossible for anyone else. As we continue to intrude into his domain, achieving things once considered impossible outside of the supernatural realm, where does that leave him? A god that can do no more than we can is not much of a god at all. I would like to think that, should this research come to fruition, it would cause people to re-evaluate their convictions and become more self-reliant, but somehow I doubt that will be the case.
As for life on other planets, I consider it a foregone conclusion that life (microbial or intelligent) exists somewhere else in the cosmos. Probability demands it. This discovery would go a step further in making that assumption a near certainty. It won't do anything to substantiate claims of UFO visitors, or even validate the search for life in our own celestial backyard (a search I consider exceedingly unlikely to yield results), but it will give us confidence that the answer is out there somewhere.
And what to do with this life? If we create life and use it to meet our own ends, are we exploiting our creation? On the microbial level, I don't think this question merits much discussion. As non-sentient creatures, there is no need to worry about their suffering or exploitation. But what if we someday, a long time from now, develop something more advanced? If we create an entirely new, advanced form of life, will we act responsibly? Or will we treat it as a commodity? What is our responsibility to life that we create? It's true that we use animals now to meet our needs, be they clothing or food or medicine. However, this life already exists. It's one thing to use life that is already here to sustain ourselves. It's another to create it for the sole purpose of sustaining us. The god of the Old Testament is violent, ill-tempered, and capricious. He often seems to have little regard for human life, his prime creation, ordering people slaughtered by the thousands. His character is one that I find repellent, and I occasionally make note of this to people who attempt to convince me of the purity of the biblical message. If we create life and then treat it with the very same caprice that the disagreeable god of Abraham displayed towards humanity, we are no better than he. And yet, as the creators we should be able to utilize our creation to our benefit as we see fit. It's a moral question that begs further thought long before that dilemma is ever manifest.
Talk of creating advanced lifeforms is putting the cart before the horse, to be sure. The most relevant question, and the one that most people will have on their minds, is: what effect might this new form of life have on the environment? We know for a fact that even introducing life forms from one ecosystem into another can have disastrous results. The possible results of a completely foreign form of life getting out into the world are scary and unknowable in equal measures. The imagination is tempted to run wild with disaster scenarios, but in truth they are unlikely. Nuclear energy was an unknown once, and was portrayed as the monster that would destroy us all. Genetics was the next bogeyman to lurk under humanity's bed. These have not turned out to be the hellish harbingers of doom once imagined. There is little reason to assume that this next step forward will be. This is not to say that it shouldn't be treated with all proper gravity and caution, or course. I just want to convey that scientific research seldom yields the same chaos real life that it does in comic books and sci-fi novels.
All of this is speculative, of course. First we have to sit back and see what the next ten years brings. Then we need to know that the results are verifiable. At that point we'll worry about the next step. But, for a few moments after the achievement and before the worry and discussion, I hope to just sit back and take in the sheer wonder of the accomplishment. Someday soon, we may all have something to think about and marvel over for a long, long time.
I won't get into the details and "how-do-they's" of the affair. Essentially it involves assembling a microorganism from scratch using the fundamental building blocks of life, amino acids. Please, click on the link above to read about the basic mechanics of the process (it's very interesting). I'm intrigued about that part, but I'm even more intrigued about what comes after it's actually achieved. If this is true, if science can coax life into existence through artificial means in a lab, it will be the most stunning accomplishment in the history of mankind thus far. Nothing else will even come close. But what will it mean?
Just to clarify, the type of life we're talking about here is microbial, bacteria-like life. No one is even slightly considering the possibility of creating anything as advanced as a fruit fly, never mind something like a person. Scientists envision creating engineered microbes designed to aid us in curbing some of our current problems. Microbes that can be used in the medical field or that can be employed to safely break down dangerous waste materials are examples of what is in the pipeline. Undoubtedly, as this science progresses and comes closer to fruition, there will be agitated groups striving to see the work halted, for fear of unleashing some terrible, nightmarish artificial monster onto the community. Those fears are understandable, to a small extent. The idea of actually creating life seems so far-fetched that it's hard to imagine it working at all, never mind working well. Our fears of the ramifications of such an achievement are embodied in stories such as Frankenstein, still one of the best parables of man's attempt to control/create nature gone wrong.
Still, the payoff of such work far exceeds the small risk that accompanies it. For me, the real payoff exceeds even the potential benefits I mentioned above. The true reward we will have gained is a better of understanding of the nature of the universe and of our place within it. It will answer questions such as: must God exist to explain life? could life exist apart from Earth? It will also raise new questions, like: what are the potential chances of such artificial life ever gaining a toehold in nature, and what are the possible repercussions? what are our responsibilities to the new life we create? do we go further with it, or do we remain content with creating the simplest of forms?
To go back to what I said above about this feat answering the question about the need to use god to explain life, think about the impact this would (or should) have on religion. Most religions use God (the Judeo-Christian version or various others) as the starting point for life. Billions of people believe that life could not exist apart from being willed into existence by a deity. Well, if this work pans out and is verified beyond a doubt, it should shake religion to its foundations. If tiny, fallible, foolish humans can create life, than God and his grand omnipotence are diminished. By definition, God should be able to achieve things that are completely impossible for anyone else. As we continue to intrude into his domain, achieving things once considered impossible outside of the supernatural realm, where does that leave him? A god that can do no more than we can is not much of a god at all. I would like to think that, should this research come to fruition, it would cause people to re-evaluate their convictions and become more self-reliant, but somehow I doubt that will be the case.
As for life on other planets, I consider it a foregone conclusion that life (microbial or intelligent) exists somewhere else in the cosmos. Probability demands it. This discovery would go a step further in making that assumption a near certainty. It won't do anything to substantiate claims of UFO visitors, or even validate the search for life in our own celestial backyard (a search I consider exceedingly unlikely to yield results), but it will give us confidence that the answer is out there somewhere.
And what to do with this life? If we create life and use it to meet our own ends, are we exploiting our creation? On the microbial level, I don't think this question merits much discussion. As non-sentient creatures, there is no need to worry about their suffering or exploitation. But what if we someday, a long time from now, develop something more advanced? If we create an entirely new, advanced form of life, will we act responsibly? Or will we treat it as a commodity? What is our responsibility to life that we create? It's true that we use animals now to meet our needs, be they clothing or food or medicine. However, this life already exists. It's one thing to use life that is already here to sustain ourselves. It's another to create it for the sole purpose of sustaining us. The god of the Old Testament is violent, ill-tempered, and capricious. He often seems to have little regard for human life, his prime creation, ordering people slaughtered by the thousands. His character is one that I find repellent, and I occasionally make note of this to people who attempt to convince me of the purity of the biblical message. If we create life and then treat it with the very same caprice that the disagreeable god of Abraham displayed towards humanity, we are no better than he. And yet, as the creators we should be able to utilize our creation to our benefit as we see fit. It's a moral question that begs further thought long before that dilemma is ever manifest.
Talk of creating advanced lifeforms is putting the cart before the horse, to be sure. The most relevant question, and the one that most people will have on their minds, is: what effect might this new form of life have on the environment? We know for a fact that even introducing life forms from one ecosystem into another can have disastrous results. The possible results of a completely foreign form of life getting out into the world are scary and unknowable in equal measures. The imagination is tempted to run wild with disaster scenarios, but in truth they are unlikely. Nuclear energy was an unknown once, and was portrayed as the monster that would destroy us all. Genetics was the next bogeyman to lurk under humanity's bed. These have not turned out to be the hellish harbingers of doom once imagined. There is little reason to assume that this next step forward will be. This is not to say that it shouldn't be treated with all proper gravity and caution, or course. I just want to convey that scientific research seldom yields the same chaos real life that it does in comic books and sci-fi novels.
All of this is speculative, of course. First we have to sit back and see what the next ten years brings. Then we need to know that the results are verifiable. At that point we'll worry about the next step. But, for a few moments after the achievement and before the worry and discussion, I hope to just sit back and take in the sheer wonder of the accomplishment. Someday soon, we may all have something to think about and marvel over for a long, long time.
| 63 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Onesnap
My neighborhood features 1 test tube baby so far (and one on the way their parents hope). That first baby was created due to much expense and an overwhelming bundle of stress for the parents. I'm sure each neighborhood around me features at least 1 other test tube baby because MA is one state that covers Invitro as part of Health Insurance. This is all well and good, but it really seems to cause so much stress for all involved parties. No matter which lab/center they use, it all seems to be just a mess.
Everyone else in the neighborhood is feeling lucky for having 1-3 kids (and several mom's can't have another on their own). After seeing first hand what it can do to a couple, I can't even picture doing that. So creating entire humans in a 'test tube' is right down the pike, yes...and I'm sure the parents that can afford other types of test tube babies can afford this. And here in MA I'm sure eventually insurance will cover all types of test tube/lab created humans.
To each their own. For me...no thanks.
However, I would clone my cat Maximus if given the $12K it costs to do it.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Comment by Onesnap
Well just as long as it's not like the scary episodes of Battlestar Glactica or Dr. Who. I'm not big on artificial wombs and all that are all gross and stuff and filled with Alien DNA to make superior beings.
However, I do think some modifications could be made to the human (within reason of course)...while you're in the lab tinkering and all.
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
They're just trying to get something to self-replicate. It's a huge step, certainly, but harmless enough, I would think.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
As I said, no one is thinking multi-cellular any time soon. I just couldn't resist following that train of thought a ways up the track
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
Get what Im saying? Even if we do create life in a lab, it will mean nothing to religion. We are still using Gods equipment to do it.
I think this has come about because cloning aint all its cracked up to be. Oh, sure, Dolly looked good, but she was just a sheep. Two horses have been cloned, and it spun me out the world didnt take note of these facts - The first case cloned a horse, and the foal was born with very different white markings to its 'parent' they explained this in all kinds a ways, but bottom line, they werent identical. So, really, theyve done nothing - they tried to create a copy and got an individual. Could have just bred two horses together and gotten the same result.
The second case(now, this is REALLY interesting!) They cloned a gelding. The foal was born identical - but he was born a COLT! So, they have inserted the genetic material of a gelding with no testicles, yet in the womb somewhere along the line life has prevailed and given the foal testicles - no one seemed to understand the significance of this, all the scientists were just nodding their heads and saying how great they are - didnt they understand, they had not given the baby the genetic information to grow testicles? This is not how cloning is supposed to work. That foal should have been the first gelding born in history!
My assumption? Gods still got his finger in the test tube. We try to create copies and its all just life, we seem to have no power here. Im particularly interested in stem cells - I really think human advancement depends on it. Growing new organs for transplants and such.
Being a test tube baby myself, one of the first born in Australia, I have a keen interest in what theyre mixing in the tubes.....
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
"Science can't create life. Only God can do that." This is a pretty popular opinion. So, what now, if science CAN create life? We're on to the argument you provided. "Well, only God can create the stuff necessary to make life!". As the article states, there is work being done to create new, unique amino acids not found in nature. So we're working on creating the building blocks too. We can back up even more to, "OK, but only God could create the matter used to create the blocks used to create life!" If the first two suppositions don't stand, why should the third? This is classic "God of the Gaps" thinking, wherein the supernatural is plugged into whatever knowledge gaps exist.
I appreciate your point, and I agree with some of it (cloning is a tricky bugger, and we're still a ways away from understanding all the nuances of it), but I disagree that "God has his finger in the test tube." His finger has gotten pushed further and further back with each passing day. It used to be in everything. It was God (or gods) who made the Sun rise and set, who sent the rains, who brought life and death. No longer do we believe this. Instead, we see God in all the things we don't yet understand. Inevitably we learn the truth of these things, and God isn't there either. It's time to stop looking for Him. It's jaw-dropping and marvelous enough that we have learned to do the things that we can do, and that we have grasped as much of the nature of the universe as we have. Adding God in diminishes the wonder. It's more of a wonder and a privilege to be a part of the vast cosmos if it DID happen by chance. It's more of an accomplishment to discover the inscrutable secrets of life if there is no plan.
We're on the verge of unlocking the answer (at least the beginning of the answer) to the question of how we came to be. We did this. God did not come down from a cloud and tell us. Hundreds of years of hard work has lead us here. Rather than lament what we don't yet know, let's celebrate what we do know!
Thanks for the comment, and for making me think about this some more.
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
(Re, the quote from Tyler Derden - "we are Gods unwanted children?")
I want you to know - Im on your side, Im not religous. I was raised Catholic under ridiculous rules and guilt complexes and Ive spent my whole life trying to get away from religious nuts that think God is everything.
I believe in God and Goddess but only as the two supreme powers of the universe - Its fun to personify them, and it certainly helps to personify them when you need to explain something, but I certainly do not belive that there are 'big people' in the sky sitting around answering prayers. Man, I wish we could meet over a coffee, my ideas on the truth of human evolution would blow your mind!
My man likes to argue evolution theory against creation(Im just using this as an example for your topic) When christians swear blind they were made from mud and dirt, he says, isnt it at all possible that that is merely an ANALOGY for evolution? That these fanciful stories are metaphors for the great workings of the universe?
Of course, christians dont buy it. But I do. The truth you speak of is not excusively science and its not religious either - its in between. I truly detest religion and believe if it was abolished we would all know the truth of God.
I believe Science and Magic, Mathematics and spellworking are all the same things, opposite ends of the same scale - crude on one end, fine on the other. To continue to push in this direction we will find out the truth.
If amino acids end up reproducing everyone will still say God did it. In a way, the greater energy is responsable for everything, but its in our hands to guide our own future.
Damn, Im going to confuse myself in a minute!
I love these posts Winston. I love people like you who push and thirst and HAVE to know more!
I only just noticed onesnap's comment - speaking from the point of a test tube baby, I should never have been born. I honestly dont know if it was worth it. It took mum five years to have me, Dad couldnt produce a high enough quality sperm so it had to be a donor, after all that I was born dead and have permanent scarring on my heart and lungs. I have a double knuckle on one finger, Im missing cartlidge in my knee joints. God knows what else. I know all the kids in my 'batch' have arthritis and asthma. Of course its much better now than it was 25 years ago in its beginning stages, but to me its wrong.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
I feel like you have something against the very concept of God here - whats lacking is perception.
Yes and perhaps. I do have something against the very concept of God, and that something is the fact that belief in God too often equates to harm for mankind. Belief in God gave us the Crusades and the Dark Ages. Belief in God has caused millions of cases of AIDS in Africa, while people listen and believe as they're told that condoms are a sin. Belief in God drove 19 men to pilot aircraft in skyscrapers, and it is the engine that drives Islamic terrorism. Belief in a supernatural deity that can do (and has done) all things is a permission slip for ignorance, and most likely has put us several hundred years behind where we could have been right now, progress-wise.
Your own beliefs (which I admit, as I have before, I get a little muddled about) don't necessarily fall into these same categories. There are deistic believers in the world content to leave the deities in the heavens and to let people be responsible for people. I'm fine with that. Unfortunately, that type of belief is a tiny minority sliver.
Religion and belief in God causes science to be more of a struggle than it should be. It does its utmost to impede knowledge and progress, and that is something I can not abide. If scientists can achieve what they say they can in the article above (and I'm in wait-and-see mode about that) it will be truly stunning. I have little reason to doubt that it will also be met with intense vitriol from the religious, because it will intrude that much further into what they have classically thought of as God's domain. I can't understand not being amazed at such knowledge. Instead, for many the result will be anger and fear. All because of an invisible man in the sky.
Now, you speak of God and Goddess as impersonal creative energies. I call that nature. If you want to call it God and Goddess, or if other people want to call it Jesus or Allah or Bill, I could care less, if what they really mean is nature. If by God people mean the as yet undetermined first cause (which I believe we will determine some day) then OK. But most people don't mean these things. They mean a personal, conscious entity that involves himself (herself/themselves) into daily human affairs, and who is responsible for everything that happens to each of us. As long as this is the case, I will have something against the concept of God. I am against anything that serves to hobble the intellect of the human race.
Sorry, that was a bit of a rant....
As for your own "test tube" status, I think it's remarkable, and certainly worth it. Of course, I am not you, nor must I live with your afflictions, so I suppose my opinion is secondary at best. Still, it seems that you have found many things that you are deeply passionate about, which seems to me to be all the "worth it"-ness you need
Glad you enjoy these sorts of topics, Kleo. Most people don't really seem to. Personally, I think they're some of the most important thing to ponder. Politics and celebrities and such are good too, but this sort of thing goes a bit deeper.
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
OK - You should really read 'Memnoch The Devil' by Anne Rice. She was Catholic raised like me but has your opinion - that God or the notion thereof seems to royally screw things up. Shes become a theoligian since, and Memnoch is her personal rant on all the bad things god has done - She personifies him of course, and asks him to answer for all the religious wars, turns out he doesnt have one! Everyone else reads it for its Lestat content, but it raises some serious religious questions if youve got your thinking cap on.
Another concept I got from Rice (different book) is that God is the king of cell division. The Big Bang was the division of gods cells.
Now, doesnt THAT give you something to chew on! The way the universe works in circles - planets and stars as spheres moving in circular patterns, doesnt it stand to reason the 'Creator' is merely the boundaries of the universe itself?
Its perfectly alright to have something against God or his concept - belive me, everyone does. Even the pope. They honestly thought he would have given them more pfoof by now!
Just curious.....How do you explain Jesus?
Ok, I know Ive had issues trying to explain my spiritual beliefs before - My mind is full of duality. The great creative powers of the universe ARE impersonal, but, sometimes, doesnt the rain that attacks when you have no umbrella seem to be personal? The reality is that the universe strives for balance against entropy - When someone prays for something, those thoughts impact the fabric of the universe - in an attempt to balance its energy something moves - someone gains, someone loses. The reason no one ever gets what they want from god(thus all this bullshit about faith and god 'teaching us') is because it cant be given - the universe HAS a will, blind and ruthless, but it only seeks its own evolution - we are merely parasites along for the ride. Thats why I love fight club! Its aso the biggest religious misconception.....Everyone wants to know, "why dont I get what I pray for if god is all powerful" because its not a 'he' that can rationalize shit like that. The great energy that runs the whole universe shifts and balances - thought is as real to it as action because it is the fabric that creates matter and unseen energy - and the universe evolves once more.
As for test tube status.....If I believed people lived once, I suppose Id be happy with it, but I dont. I believe I slip in and out of the Earth like its merely a public pool - So I could have handled waiting around for a better body! I find it the worst irony that just when I want to live to 100 and find things in this life worth saving, my body starts to fall apart!
To me, that makes the concept of KaliMa very personal! I do know this - whatever you believe the strongest, you will see when you die. You create your own heaven or hell with the strength of your thoughts.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
As for Memnoch, I don't know if I can handle any more Anne Rice. I read the first several books in the 'Vampire' series, and they just kept getting more and more verbose, until it seemed like the books were mostly pages and pages of gothic descriptive imagery with a little bit of narrative tossed in. I really liked the first couple books, but couldn't handle it any more after the 4th or 5th. Still, the core points you mentioned sound interesting. Maybe I'll read the Memnoch Cliff Notes.
As for my feelings on God, Jesus, Allah, Zeus, and whomever else....well, I was raised Catholic, like yourself. I mean 12 years of Catholic school, no meat on Fridays during Lent and church-every-Sunday Catholic. I never felt anything particularly godlike or holy, although I gave it a shot. By the time I was in high school, I was fairly well certain that God and heaven were not like the popular images that people think of. It just didn't make sense. I suppose I was probably an agnostic at this point, although I didn't really know that yet. Then, in my senior year, we had a World Religions class (in a Catholic high school, no less!). That class changed everything for me, because it was presented by a great teacher who treated the topic with respect. His view was that Buddhism, Shinto, Hinduism, etc. were all far older than Christianity and still survived, so they must know something. I learned that the Bible didn't just fall from the sky one day, but that it was actually cobbled together from mythologies and legends of earlier cultures and religions. The class opened my eyes and made me think.
From there I embraced agnosticism because it was clear that no one religion had the whole story. I remained that way for several years, gradually shedding the last traces of Catholicism and forming some other nebulous ideas about what the truth of the universe might be, about what sort of an afterlife might actually be possible. Then, 4 years ago, my mom died of cancer. Suddenly, I felt the need to actually take a hard look at what I believed and why. Having confronted death, half baked ideas weren't good enough any more. I needed to know what I thought, not just allow a jumble of ideas to drift around in my head. So I read and I thought and I studied. And soon, for the very first time, I was clear on what I believed. For the first time I was comfortable in my stance. All the reading and thinking and studying led me to the same place: atheism. It wasn't a choice that I made, it's where logic and knowledge forced me to go.
I realized that all of the talk of gods and creations and purposes, etc. distracted from the reality of the issue. And that reality is that science is able to account for what we see around us at an ever-increasing rate. Supernaturalism is falling by the wayside. As much as people want to believe that there's more to it all, there isn't much reason to think that there is. And why should there be? There's so much wonder and mystery in the natural world, why would we possibly need more? For me, there is no need for ultimate purpose. It's enough to be here for a while.
But for others, purpose is important. It's not enough to know that we're here, or even to understand how we got here: they have to know why. The problem is, there IS no why. Why is grass green? Because of chlorophyll and because of the way our eyes perceive the spectrum of light that reflects back to us from it, etc. and so forth. But as for WHY grass is green? There is no why. It just is. Why are we here, ultimately? There is no why. We just are. Instead of trying to make our presence here out to be more than it is, and fighting wars over who's right about it, we should just appreciate this brief moment that we have. We should think on what it means to be us. We're all made of the same stuff that the earth is made of, that the stars are made of. We're composed of the same atoms that once floated in space as nebulae or that rocketed around distant stars as comets. And now we're here. For a little while, matter has gained the ability to perceive itself and to think and wonder. It's amazing. So amazing, that it saddens me that countless people have wasted their chance here by fighting and dying over such stupidity as god.
Man, this went on at length. Sorry about that! I have not answered your Jesus query yet. How do I explain Jesus? At best, he was just another mad prophet. More likely is that there was no one historical Jesus. If you start looking for actual, historical evidence for him, you'll come up tellingly empty-handed. An odd thing, considering the impact he supposedly had on the region when he was alive. And yet, there is not one contemporary mention of him in the writings of historians who were present in the region. Not one. Now, this man supposedly performed miracles, preached to thousands, entered Jerusalem in triumph and was executed in shame. He supposedly rose from the dead and appeared to 500 of his followers. And yet the record is silent. Other, more mundane events of the time and the region are recorded. Why not these? Strange.
Thanks for trying to clarify your views for me, I appreciate it. And while I certainly respect your right to your beliefs, I simply can't accept them myself. Thoughts are just thoughts. They have no power to impact anything. It is action that is required. If Einstein had only thought about his famous equation, but hadn't bothered to write it down or tell someone, we'd be in a sorry state today. The mere fact of his thought would not have changed anything at all, for anyone. I am not of the opinion that thought carries any "energy" whatsoever, and I see no reason to believe that what we think impacts the universe in any fashion. The universe functioned just fine before people started thinking thoughts 50,000 years ago. It will function just fine long after we're gone and our thoughts have ceased. If our thoughts played some significant role in how the universe functions, why isn't there any indication of that in the natural, historical record?
I'm content with the natural mysteries that I know we have, Kleo. I see no reason to pursue more mysteries for which there is no basis. I know that I'm in the minority in that sense. Most people do want to pursue more, in that spiritual sense. To me, that is taking the focus away from where it should be. Just my $0.02 of course.
Man this was long. They're going to have to set up another server for our comments soon!
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
When I meet people like you, I CURSE the distance between us! So often I argue with people - So rarely do I manage to find someone intelligent enough to actually converse and debate with - we know we like each other, we know we're mates, and we're happy to discuss this topic and we're smart enough not to make it personal!
I was raised in the strictest of Catholic primary schools, same as you, no meat on Fridays, church EVERYDAY, I do believe my knees will never recover!
Then I was thrust into public high school. SIN everywhere! Then my cousin died. The catholic funeral and putting him into the ground seemed SO WRONG to me, I just couldnt accept that 'valley of death' shit. That led me into wicca and witchcraft which Ive since dismissed, but the one concept that hangs with me is that some energy is soaking up everything that dies - it certainly feels comforting to call it a mothers arms - and is responsable for rebirth because as Im sure you know, nothing goes. Energy cannot be destroyed, only transformed. That is a scientific fact.
To see the impact of unseen energy, you should see me conduct a seance.....Ive had some really amazing things happen. Ive turned skeptics into believers in 5 minutes! Thought is responsable for all action, So its just my opinion that the energy of thought must have some merit. For me its because I can hear others thoughts - I can see how someone thinking something will bring it to them.
I dont expect you to believe that. You're the scientist, Im the sorceress, its my job to read minds, its your job to invent the machine that proves me wrong or right!
Im glad you're familiar with Rice, right from the beginning of 'Memnoch' it states this is not a vampire novel, sure, Lestats narrating but he doesnt have to be a vampire. Its a must read for all ex catholics - Theres a scene where Memnoch takes Lestat back in time to the crusades, explains to him the wars that are going on - its quite horrific, her description of events - and how they are all fighting over the same god, they just all want to call him something different. How there is no justification for suffering like this. All us angry little catholics pump our fists and say "Right on!"
Thats interesting about Jesus, I didnt know that. Like you I was told the bible fell out of the sky......And when I asked questions like "If heavens not a real place, how do you get there?" and "How do you know you exist?" it was more rosaries for me.....I told you my knees would never recover!
For me, the concept of God is useful because I want to be angry with him, the concept of KaliMa is useful because I like to think theres someone more powerful than god that will punish him.....But its like a child playing with dolls. I know better. I know I wrote my own destiny, Im here by my own will. When this body fails, I'll get me a new one.....If I HAVE to. If not Im moving on to become a star...Ive actually been planning a post on the how and why of man inventing god. Its got to do with the perfect vowel sound of it....Someone to cry to when greiving, the perfect imaginary friend. I touched on it once....Hmm, I'll have to get writing it!