Paraglider wrote:

Inspirepub wrote:

It makes no sense to select one particular example of injustice or mass death and have it change your mind about God. The world didn't change in that moment - it has always been this way. If you believed in God yesterday, you should still believe in God today, because this is nothing different from anything that has happened before.

By which argument the world never changes: the holocaust - more of the same, 9/11 - more of the same, the crucifixion - more of the same, the resurrection - need I go on? If god is 'god the totally uninvolved', which is what you seem to be saying, then maybe we need to grow up and let him go, like Santa Claus.   

How does saying "the world is no different after this disaster than it was before" suddenly become "God is totally uninvolved".

I think it is bizarre and unreasonable to expect God to unnaturally prolong human lifespans. We have our place in the world, and our place involves dying. Some of us die after mere hours of feeble life, and some of us die painfully, some of us die in large groups at one time, and others die alone and unnoticed.

This is the way of the world.

It is neither good, nor bad.

It just is.

So yes, if you think of God as your own personal "Big Brother" whose job is to change the laws of Nature to artificially prolong your life, then yes, it's time to let that notion go.

Jenny

Inspirepub wrote:

So yes, if you think of God as your own personal "Big Brother" whose job is to change the laws of Nature to artificially prolong your life, then yes, it's time to let that notion go.

I don't believe there is a god. But many do, and many put their trust in god to look after them on a daily basis - the lord is my shepherd. I shall not want - or - give us this day our daily bread. I remain interested in the way many people give thanks to god for good things received but refuse to take him to task for disasters. He's got it made, that guy

OK then:
'The planet doesn't care, because it's a lump of stone. Of course, it's also host to a complex ecosystem which we can certainly change, but the ecosystem itself is not alive.' If that's not the definition of life, can't imagine what is.

knolyourself wrote:

OK then:
'The planet doesn't care, because it's a lump of stone. Of course, it's also host to a complex ecosystem which we can certainly change, but the ecosystem itself is not alive.' If that's not the definition of life, can't imagine what is.

Well, I'm not denying the existence of life. I'm only saying that billions of living organisms on Earth do not mean that Earth itself is alive. 50 ice skaters on a rink don't turn the ice into a sentient being. Gaia is an idea in the mind of humans, not an organism. As is god.

Paraglider wrote:

I think we often exaggerate our importance to the well being of the planet. When we talk about destroying the environment, we really mean making it less comfortable for ourselves. The planet doesn't care, because it's a lump of stone. Of course, it's also host to a complex ecosystem which we can certainly change, but the ecosystem itself is not alive. The ecosystem is a macro description, by humans, of a highly complex interplay of living organisms. The Gaia concept imbues the system itself (not its separate members) with life and even consciousness. It's another nice 'conceit' but one that doesn't stand critical analysis.

Our actions can and do change the balance of the ecosystem, but not half as much as a large meteor would, or (more probable) the eruption of Yellowstone Park's super volcano. Now that will change the ecosystem some day and maybe destroy us all. The cockroaches will probably be fine though.

Bah, this post is the exact reason people who talk like you just did and think like you jsut did are not allowed into things like NASA, because you do not take seriously the threats that humans can create, albeit artificially, to this planet.  Yes this planet is big but we already have enough documented arms to wipe everything off the surface of this structure 5 times over.  We can destroy at least the surface of this planet and that is only 1 of several ways way we could do it.  Human responsibility is not upheld by sticking one's head in the stand due to preconceived notions, human responsibility is upheld by facing the issues with courage.

This planet is to the human race what your house is to you and your family and if we as humans do not take care of the planet then it would be irresponsible like if you were to not take care of your house.

You can rationalize you can minimize you can misdirect you can say whatever you want to but this is the way things work and their is a lot of science to back up the idea that we are not being very responsible in our concern for this planet at this point in time.

As far as how you interpret select events like the cyclone I think I already addressed that quite adequately enough.

One man's critical analysis is another man's stupidity so I probably am just wasting my time even typing this.

LOL Zarm,

Your attack is misguided. Paraglider is one of the most responsible and environmentally conscious people over here

God is an idea in the mind of humans which is symbolic. Gaia is an idea in the mind of humans which exists. The sum of many parts is a car. Where that car is and where it is going is another story.

Zarm Nefilin wrote:

Bah, this post is the exact reason people who talk like you just did and think like you jsut did are not allowed into things like NASA, because you do not take seriously the threats that humans can create, albeit artificially, to this planet.
.
.
.
.

One man's critical analysis is another man's stupidity so I probably am just wasting my time even typing this.

Well, Zarm, I'll ignore the rudeness and answer your point -

I am very well aware of the damage we are doing to the environment and of the destructive forces we might yet unleash in the future. We can, if we choose, (or, more correctly if we continue not to choose), so affect the environment that large parts, perhaps all, of the planet will be unable to support mammalian life, for an indeterminate period of time.

There are also natural forces capable of doing the same thing, and more thoroughly.

My other point, which you might not agree with, is that the planet itself will 'survive', as it has through eons past, until the death of the solar system. In the grand scheme of things, this present ecosystem is transitory. We are its temporary tenants. Some of us are less responsible tenants than others. But none of us has the power to preserve the ecosystem beyond its allotted span.


Misha - very kind, thank you

knolyourself wrote:

God is an idea in the mind of humans which is symbolic. Gaia is an idea in the mind of humans which exists. The sum of many parts is a car. Where that car is and where it is going is another story.

I agree with your first point. With your second, Gaia is a convenient collective term for the ecosystem. It's a more mystical way of saying the same thing. Where I think it can be taken one step too far is when we credit Gaia with consciousness. I agree that the environment behaves organically, but not that it has its own global intelligence or consciousness, though its individual animals clearly do.

'but not that it has its own global intelligence or consciousness' A world in which nothing is connected is materialist and happenstance.

knolyourself wrote:

'but not that it has its own global intelligence or consciousness' A world in which nothing is connected is materialist and happenstance.

Everything is connected, and in very many ways. Some are 'natural', e.g. gravity, and some are of our making, e.g. the internet. I don't think we are disagreeing, except over a definition of consciousness, and that's been familiar territory for philosophers for a few thousand years.