Refutation of Transhumanism - the Brain as the 'Soul Compendium' programmer

a reply to: Compendium

My point was the idea of souls has changed from breath to what you describe. People can believe whatever, but to say people thought the breath was different than the soul is erroneous. The words are even the same in hebrew and greek.

Jewish tradition in talmud even says babies don't have a soul until they are born and take their first breath. It's simple reasoning. No breathing, it's not alive; breath must give life. It makes sense in context of bronze age people.

a reply to: Naytral

If you're determined to disbelieve in the reality of the soul, then you have to discount the millions of clear & lucid descriptions of myriad types of paranormal experience which have been verified as impossible unless the human mind & perceptions have had extra-sensory perception, under 'impossible' circumstances, predominantly evidenced in crystal clear near-death experiences.

For example, out of body perceptions while near to or actually within the experience of death (heart stopped, yet found self floating outside of body, looking down at the tops of the cupboards in the medical theatre, being able to perceive specific objects on top of those cupboards, or outside the windows of the room where an object is apparent on the roof of the building in which your life-saving treatment is being carried out. Only to find that those objects, which you could not possibly have witnessed, given the fact that you were dying on the table, were in fact there where you claimed them to be - how can such things be explained, unless extra sensory perception was a real thing, which clearly gives you abilities to operate & perceive beyond the range of your physical body.

Not only these limited out of body experiences, but rich & detailed trips beyond the body & even beyond the Earth, experiencing complex & lengthy journeys into some other dimension, into 'Heaven', where you experience a life review, where you meet a cosmic divine power, where you are given the option to stay there or return to Earth (people frequently report wanting to stay there more than anything, but feeling a duty to return in order to support frail relatives, etc..)

These experiences, and lucid dreams in which you receive information that you couldn't possibly have known, often involving the as-yet unmanifest future - or how about the verifiable experiences of past lives, which have been thoroughly investigated & found to be true experiences with details that can be verified as fact, by contacting the family & friends of the person whom little Timmy at age 3 is reporting himself to have experienced as the husband of a woman in India over the course of several decades, to the point of tracking down the wife & discussing details of his former life, despite being English with absolutely no knowledge of Indian culture, etc.

To dismiss the rich & varied evidence of the phenomenol experiences of a psychic or paranormal nature is basically wilful ignorance, because the evidence is out there, it is collected & curated by many competent authors & researchers, to deny it is ridiculously narrow-sighted, as noted, at this stage it's purely wilful ignorance, a deliberate attempt to deny the truth despite mountains of evidence which is available online & in library collections around the world, even in myriad academic institutions, in top universities in the Western world, etc.

If you wish to delude yourself by claiming without investigation that all such evidence is 'nonsense & poppycock', then you are closing yourself off from a wealth of fascinating, life-affirming information which has the power to enrich your life in ways that are literally beyond comprehension until you actually trust the process & start learning about these things.

Dive in, it's all there for the taking!

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: Naytral

If you're determined to disbelieve in the reality of the soul, then you have to discount the millions of clear & lucid descriptions of myriad types of paranormal experience which have been verified as impossible unless the human mind & perceptions have had extra-sensory perception, under 'impossible' circumstances, predominantly evidenced in crystal clear near-death experiences.

The Near-Death Experience​—Proof of Immortality?

“The soul of man is immortal and imperishable.”​—Plato, Greek philosopher, c. 428-348 B.C.E.

“Such harmony is in immortal souls.”​—William Shakespeare, English playwright, 1564-1616.

“The soul is indestructible . . . its activity will continue through eternity.”​—Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German poet and dramatist, 1749-1832.

“Our personality . . . survives in the next life.”​—Thomas Edison, American inventor, 1847-1931.

For thousands of years man has believed that he has inborn immortality. The ancient Egyptian rulers filled their tombs with the comforts and luxuries of life so that the body would be well served in its reunion with the ka, or soul.

Thus man has tried to convince himself that the certainty of death is annulled by the survival of an immortal soul or spirit. Others, like the English poet Keats, want to believe but doubt. As Keats wrote: “I long to believe in immortality . . . I wish to believe in immortality.” What do you believe about man’s supposed immortality?

In Keats’ words we perhaps have a simple clue to the conclusions that are being drawn by some doctors and psychiatrists, as well as people who have undergone an NDE (near-death experience). For example, in tests carried out by physician and professor of medicine Dr. Michael Sabom on those who had an NDE, “a definite decrease in the fear of death and a definite increase in the belief in an afterlife were reported by the vast majority of persons with an NDE.”​—Italics mine.

To what conclusion did psychiatrist Dr. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross arrive after checking out over a thousand cases of NDE? In her book On Children and Death she stated: “And so it is with death . . . the end before another beginning. Death is the great transition.”* She adds: “With further research and further publications, more and more people will know rather than believe that our physical body is truly only the cocoon, the outer shell of the human being. Our inner, true self, the ‘butterfly,’ is immortal and indestructible and is freed at the moment we call death.” (*: note the similarity with this ancient Babylonian religious concept: “Neither the people nor the leaders of religious thought [in Babylon] ever faced the possibility of the total annihilation of what once was called into existence. Death was a passage to another kind of life.”—The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 556.; details concerning “Babylon the Great” can be found in these comments)

Dr. Kenneth Ring, professor of psychology and author of Life at Death, draws the following conclusion: “I do believe . . . that we continue to have a conscious existence after our physical death.” Then he adds: “My own understanding of these near-death experiences leads me to regard them as ‘teachings.’ They are, it seems to me, by their nature, revelatory experiences. . . . In this respect, [near-death] experiences are akin to mystical or religious experiences [Italics mine.]. . . . From this point of view, the voices we have heard in this book [Life at Death] are those of prophets preaching a religion of universal brotherhood.”

A Contrasting Viewpoint

But what do other investigators say? How do they explain these near-death and out-of-body experiences? Psychologist Ronald Siegel sees them in a different light. “These experiences are common to a wide variety of arousal in the human brain, including '___', sensory deprivation and extreme stress. The stress is producing the projection of the images into the brain. They are the same for most people because our brains are all wired similarly to store information, and these experiences are basically electrical read-outs of this wiring.”

Dr. Richard Blacher of Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, wrote: “I suggest that people who undergo these ‘death experiences’ are suffering from a hypoxic [oxygen deficiency] state, during which they try to deal psychologically with the anxieties provoked by the medical procedures and talk. . . . We are dealing here with the fantasy of death, not with death itself. This fantasy [within the patient’s psyche, or mind] is most appealing, since it solves several human concerns at one time. . . . The physician must be especially wary of accepting religious belief as scientific data.”

Siegel indicates another interesting point about the “visions” of the nearly dead: “As in hallucinations, the visions of the afterlife are suspiciously like this world, according to the accounts provided by dying patients themselves.” For example, a 63-year-old man who had spent much of his life in Texas related his “vision” as follows: “I was suspended over a fence. . . . On one side of the fence it was extremely scraggly territory, mesquite brush . . . On the other side of the fence was the most beautiful pasture scene I guess I have ever seen . . . [It was] a three- or four-strand barbed-wire fence.” Did this patient actually see barbed wire in “heaven” or in the realm beyond death? It is obvious that these images were based on his life in Texas and recalled from his own brain data bank​—unless we are being asked to believe that there is barbed wire “on the other side”!

In fact, so many NDEs are closely related to the patients’ experiences and background in life that it is unreasonable to believe that they are having a glimpse of a realm beyond death. For example, do those NDE patients who see a “being of light” see the same person regardless of whether they are Christian, Jewish, Hindu or Muslim? In his book Life After Life, Dr. Raymond Moody explains: “The identification of the being varies from individual to individual and seems to be largely a function of the religious background, training, or beliefs of the person involved. Thus, most of those who are Christians . . . identify the light as Christ . . . A Jewish man and woman identified the light as an ‘angel.’”

At a strictly scientific level, Dr. Ring admits: “I remind my audiences that what I have studied are near-death experiences, not after-death experiences. . . . There is obviously no guarantee either that these experiences will continue to unfold in a way consistent with their beginnings or indeed that they will continue at all. That, I believe, is the correct scientific position to take on the significance of these experiences.”

Common Sense and the Bible

As for death, psychologist Siegel gives his opinion: “Death, in terms of its physical sequels, is no mystery. After death the body disintegrates and is reabsorbed into the inanimate component of the environment. The dead human loses both his life and his consciousness. . . . The most logical guess is that consciousness shares the same fate as that of the corpse. Surprisingly, this commonsense view is not the prevalent one, and the majority of mankind . . . continue to exert their basic motivation to stay alive and formulate a myriad of beliefs concerning man’s survival after death.”

About 3,000 years ago the same “commonsense view” was given by a king who wrote: “For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten. Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they have no portion anymore to time indefinite in anything that has to be done under the sun. All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol [mankind’s common grave], the place to which you are going.”​—Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6, 10.

Certainly the Bible leaves no room for considering near-death experiences as a prelude to life after death. King Solomon’s description of death and its effects has no hints of an immortal soul surviving into some other form of conscious existence. The dead “are conscious of nothing at all.”

Of course, those who practice spiritism and communication with the “dead” are only too pleased to have the apparent support of hundreds of near-death experiences. Psychologist Siegel quotes one lecturer on the paranormal, or supernatural, as saying that “if we are to examine the evidence for an afterlife honestly and dispassionately we must free ourselves from the tyranny of common sense.” (Psychology Today, January 1981) Interestingly, this same lecturer “argues that ghosts and apparitions are indeed hallucinations, but they are projected telepathically from the minds of dead people to those of the living!” That certainly does not agree with Solomon’s conclusion that the dead are dead and know nothing.

Near-Death Experiences​—How Explained?

How, then, can all the near-death and out-of-body experiences be explained? Basically, there are at least two possibilities​—one is that presented by some psychologists to the effect that the still-active brain of the near-dead person recalls and forms images under the stresses of the near-death experience. These are then interpreted by some patients and investigators to be glimpses of life after death. In fact, as we have seen from the Bible, such cannot be the case, for man does not have an immortal soul, and there is no such thing as life after death as perceived in these cases.

But there is a second possibility to be taken into account that may explain some of these experiences. It is a factor that most investigators will not admit. (and also relevant to the things you said about "extra sensory perception" and "past lives") For example, Dr. Moody explained in his book Life After Life that “rarely, someone . . . has proposed demonic explanations of near-death experiences, suggesting that the experiences were doubtless directed by inimical forces.” However, he rejects the idea since he feels that instead of the patients’ feeling more godly after the experience, “Satan would presumably tell his servants to follow a course of hate and destruction.” He adds, “He certainly has failed miserably​—as far as I can tell—​to make persuasive emissaries for his program!”

In this respect Dr. Moody makes a grave mistake in two ways. First, Satan would not necessarily promulgate hate and destruction through these experiences. Why not? Because the Bible states: “Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of light. It is therefore nothing great if his ministers also keep transforming themselves into ministers of righteousness.” (2 Corinthians 11:14, 15) If he can perpetuate the basic lie that he has always maintained​—“You positively will not die”—​he can do it through the apparently most innocent and enlightening means.​—Genesis 3:4, 5.

Second, he has not failed miserably to make persuasive emissaries for his program of lies about the immortal soul! To the contrary, he now has doctors, psychologists and scientists fully supporting the lie that he has promulgated through priests and philosophers down through the ages! How appropriate is Paul’s summation of the situation when he wrote: “If, now, the good news we declare is in fact veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through”!​—2 Corinthians 4:3, 4.

Nevertheless, as we have seen, some psychologists believe that man has a conscious existence after death. This personal interpretation of the meaning of near-death experiences obliges us to raise the following pertinent questions on behalf of those who believe the Bible (let's pretend they're around): Is there any Biblical basis at all for saying that man has an immortal soul that abandons the body like a butterfly out of a cocoon? What about those texts in the Bible that use the words “soul” and “immortality”?

[continued in next comment]

The Soul​—Is It You? Or Is It in You?

Do you think you have an immortal soul that survives when you die? Most people with any religious background, whether Christian, Muslim, Jew, Shinto, Buddhist or Hindu, share this one basic idea. But why do they believe it? Because they have proof? Or because it has always been taught that way by most religions and by popular hearsay? How, in fact, did the immortal soul idea get into “Christian” teaching?

In his book Death Shall Have No Dominion, Douglas T. Holden writes: “Christian theology has become so fused with Greek philosophy that it has reared individuals who are a mixture of nine parts Greek thought to one part Christian thought.” This is well illustrated with regard to the generally held belief in an immortal soul. For example, Plato, a Greek philosopher of the fourth century B.C.E., wrote: “The soul is immortal and imperishable, and our souls will truly exist in another world!”

According to Plato, where did these souls go when the body died? “And those who appear to have lived neither well nor ill, go to the river Acheron, . . . and there they dwell and are purified of their evil deeds, and having suffered the penalty of the wrongs which they have done to others, they are absolved.” Does this not sound rather like Christendom’s purgatory teaching? And where do the souls of the wicked go? “Such are hurled into Tartarus [to the ancient Greeks, a section of Hades reserved for punishment of the worst offenders], which is their suitable destiny, and they will never come out.” Certainly, the ancient Greeks had their belief of everlasting torment in hell long before Christendom’s theologians took it over!

Is There Reason to Doubt?

If his Dialogue writings really reflect his own thinking, Plato was convinced that he had an immortal soul. And his teachings soon began to convince others who revered him as a philosopher. As a consequence, Platonic philosophy was even accepted by second-century Christian writers. The Encyclopædia Britannica states in this respect: “The Christian Platonists gave primacy to revelation and regarded Platonic philosophy as the best available instrument for understanding and defending the teachings of Scripture and church tradition. . . . From the middle of the 2nd century AD, Christians who had some training in Greek philosophy began to feel the need to express their faith in its terms, both for their own intellectual satisfaction and in order to convert educated pagans. The philosophy that suited them best was Platonism.”

However, down through the centuries there have been distinguished dissenters against the Greek concepts of an immortal soul. The Bible translator William Tyndale (c. 1492-1536) wrote in the foreword to his translation: “In putting departed souls in heaven, hell, or purgatory you destroy the arguments wherewith Christ and Paul prove the resurrection . . . If the soul be in heaven, tell me what cause is there for the resurrection?” That is a logical question. If death is defeated by means of an ‘immortal and imperishable’ soul, then what purpose is served by the resurrection that Jesus taught and that the ancient Hebrew patriarchs believed in?​—Hebrews 11:17-19, 35; John 5:28, 29.

In his book The Agony of Christianity, Spanish writer Miguel de Unamuno struggled with this same conflict. He wrote regarding Christ: “He believed . . . in the resurrection of the flesh, according to the Jewish way of thinking, not in the immortality of the soul, according to the Platonic way of thinking.” He even went on to say: “The immortality of the soul . . . is a pagan philosophical dogma. . . . It is sufficient to read Plato’s Phaedo to be convinced of that.”

“Soul” in the Bible

The poet Longfellow wrote: “Dust thou art, to dust returnest, was not spoken of the soul.” (Italics mine.) Was he right? When God said, “For dust you are and to dust you will return,” to whom was he speaking? To the first man, Adam. Did that death sentence apply only to Adam’s body? Or to Adam as a breathing soul?

Genesis 2:7 clearly states: “And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.” This text is fundamental to understanding the word “soul” as used in the Bible. It clearly states that “man came to be [not to have] a living soul.” Thus God told that living soul, or breathing creature, Adam, that if disobedient, he would positively die and return to the elements of the earth from which he had been formed.​—Genesis 2:17; 3:19.

Please note that no mention is made of any alternative destination for man’s supposed soul. Why not? Because Adam, with all his faculties, was a soul. He did not possess a soul. If such places as a fiery hell and purgatory existed, this is the one point in the Bible when they should have been mentioned. Yet they are not even alluded to. Why is that? Because the simple judgment for disobedience was just the opposite of the life Adam enjoyed in Paradise​—namely, death, not life somewhere else. Thus Paul states the case with simplicity in Romans 6:23: “For the wages sin pays is death.” (Compare Ezekiel 18:4, 20.) There is no mention here of any hellfire or purgatory, just death. And isn’t that punishment enough?

Another factor to bear in mind is that a basic sense of justice requires that man should have known the true extent of his possible punishment before he disobeyed. Yet there is absolutely no mention of any immortal soul, hellfire or purgatory in the Genesis account. Furthermore, if man had really been created with an immortal soul, then this whole set of doctrines relating to the immortal soul and its destiny should have been part and parcel of Hebrew and Jewish teaching from the very earliest times. But such was not the case. “The concept of immortality is a product of Greek thinking, whereas the hope of a resurrection belongs to Jewish thought. . . . Following Alexander’s conquests Judaism gradually absorbed Greek concepts.”—Dictionnaire Encyclopédique de la Bible (Valence, France; 1935), edited by Alexandre Westphal, Vol. 2, p. 557.

Another logical question also arises. If God’s original purpose was for perfect, obedient humankind to live forever on a paradise earth, what purpose would there be in endowing man with a separate and immortal soul? Not only would it be immortal; it would be superfluous!​—Genesis 1:28.

In addition, the Hebrew Scriptures clearly show that the faithful men and women of old awaited a resurrection, even as Paul commented in Hebrews 11:35: “Women received their dead by resurrection [in certain miraculous cases]; but other men were tortured because they would not accept release by some ransom, in order that they might attain a better resurrection [to everlasting life].” Evidently they were not trusting in the “butterfly” myth of human philosophy.

But perhaps you ask, What about the words of Paul where he speaks about immortality? True, he says: “For this which is corruptible must put on incorruption, and this which is mortal must put on immortality. But when this which is corruptible puts on incorruption and this which is mortal puts on immortality, then the saying will take place that is written: ‘Death is swallowed up forever.’” (1 Corinthians 15:53, 54) But in no way can an immortal soul be read into those words. Paul speaks of ‘putting on immortality.’ Therefore it is nothing inherent in man but, rather, a new creation of those who will reign with Christ in his heavenly Kingdom.​—2 Corinthians 5:17; Romans 6:5-11; Revelation 14:1, 3.

Even modern theologians are coming around to recognize this point, after centuries of Christendom’s immortal-soul teaching. For example, Catholic theologian Hans Küng writes: “When Paul speaks of resurrection, what he means is simply not the Greek idea of the immortality of a soul that has to be freed from the prison of the mortal body. . . . When the New Testament speaks of resurrection, it does not refer to the natural continuance of a spirit-soul independent of our bodily functions.”

The German Lutheran Catechism for Grown-Ups (Evangelischer Erwachsenenkatechismus) states regarding the body-soul split taught by Plato: “Evangelical theologians of modern times challenge this combination of Greek and Biblical concepts. . . . They reject the separation of man into body and soul. Since man as a whole is a sinner, therefore at death he dies completely with body and soul (full death). . . . Between death and resurrection there is a gap; the individual continues his existence at best in God’s memory.”

Jehovah’s modern-day Witnesses have been teaching this for over a hundred years! They never swallowed Plato’s pagan philosophy, for they knew very well that Jesus had taught: “Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment.” (John 5:28, 29) The very expression “memorial tombs” implies that those dead persons are retained in the “memory” of God. He will restore them to life. There is the true hope for the dead that will be realized when this earth is under the full control of God’s Kingdom government by Christ.​—Matthew 6:9, 10; Revelation 21:1-4.

As mentioned before, Bible translator Tyndale wrote: “If the soul be in heaven, tell me what cause is there for the resurrection?” Indeed a pertinent question worth repeating (especially for those who profess to believe God's promise regarding the resurrection in the Bible, but at the same time follow the doctrine and myth of an immortal soul and “surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled” in accordance with that belief as described at 2 Timothy 4:3,4 quoted in my comment on the previous page).

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
But what do other investigators say? How do they explain these near-death and out-of-body experiences? Psychologist Ronald Siegel sees them in a different light. “These experiences are common to a wide variety of arousal in the human brain, including '___', sensory deprivation and extreme stress. The stress is producing the projection of the images into the brain. They are the same for most people because our brains are all wired similarly to store information, and these experiences are basically electrical read-outs of this wiring.”
...

The word censored out there after "including" is a drug that is also known as "acid". It has 3 letters starting with an L, then an S and then a D.

And it's still stupid to automatically censor the abbreviation regardless of what is being said about it (i.e. not promoting the drug).

originally posted by: Naytral
a reply to: Compendium

My point was the idea of souls has changed from breath to what you describe. People can believe whatever, but to say people thought the breath was different than the soul is erroneous. The words are even the same in hebrew and greek.

Jewish tradition in talmud even says babies don't have a soul until they are born and take their first breath. It's simple reasoning. No breathing, it's not alive; breath must give life. It makes sense in context of bronze age people.

Forget Biblical translation. It is all wrong

Hebrew El'ohim is said to mean "Gods or Deities", when it means "Equilibrium"

Greek Kakos is said to mean "Evil", when it means "End or Conclude"

Nephilim means "Nepotism"

The "Names" in the Bible are actually meant to be translated as the meaning of the persons name. They aren't referring to actual people

For instance, the name "Phillip", means "Purpose" (badly translated to mean "lover of horses"). So wherever he is mentioned, that are talking about purpose, not a person named Phillip

There are very few words in the Bible that are correctly translated, if any

Trying to make sense out of the faulty veil translations is like trying to taste a chocolate bar by chewing the wrapper

It's something that's been done for all mythology though, it isn't just limited to the Bible

Egyptian Hieroglyphs are badly mistranslated as well

Tutankhamun, is said to mean "the living image of Amun", when it means "Translator"

It's talking about the person who translated the knowledge. Not a Pharaoh

They say "Ankh" means "Eternal Life", when it actually means "Intelligence". Exactly same as "Annunaki" in Sumerian, or "Angel" in the Bible. They all mean "Intelligence"

Thor, Thoth and the Biblical Theos are all the same thing. None of them refer to a actual person. They refer to the characteristic of thought within living beings

The Jews and Roman Catholic Church don't even understand these types of links and origins for their own versions of the texts, so I wouldn't rely on them to understand anything else within the same said texts

Correctly translated or otherwise

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
... and so interconnected with the million-year evolved biological framework we were born with, ...

It is interesting how important evolution seems to be to the entire concept of transhumanism. However, transhumanism seeks to transform human evolution from a purposeless philosophy to one steeped in meaning.

In case someone didn't get what I was referring to with that expression, the videos below elaborate, note especially the section called "The Logical Consequences of Darwinism":


In context (playlist link):

Purposeful Design or Mindless Process? 1 of 2 (Real science, knowledge of realities compared to unverified philosophies and stories)

The introduction and what I wanted to highlight in relation to my expression "purposeless philosophy" in textformat:

Purposeful Design or Mindless Process?

In 1802, English clergyman and theologian William Paley expounded his reasons for belief in a Creator. He stated that if while crossing a heath, he were to find a stone lying on the ground, he might reasonably conclude that natural processes had put it there. But if instead he were to find a watch, he would scarcely come to the same conclusion. Why? For the simple reason that a watch has all the hallmarks of design and purpose.

PALEY’S ideas had a profound influence on the English naturalist Charles Darwin. Yet, contrary to Paley’s logic, Darwin later proposed that the apparent design in living organisms could be explained by a process that he termed “natural selection.” Darwinian evolution was seen by many as the definitive answer to arguments for design.

A great deal has been written on the subject since the days of Paley and Darwin. The arguments in favor of design on the one hand and of natural selection on the other have frequently been refined, elaborated on, and updated. And both sides of the subject have greatly influenced what people believe about purpose​—or lack of purpose—​in the universe. What you believe might well influence how purposeful you feel your life is. How so?

The Logical Consequences of Darwinism

Belief in Darwin’s theory has led many sincere people to conclude that their existence is devoid of real purpose. If the cosmos and everything in it are the product of spontaneous combinations of elements after the primordial big bang, then there can be no real purpose to life. The late Nobel Prize-winning biologist Jacques Monod stated: “Man knows at last that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe from which he emerged by chance. His destiny is nowhere spelled out, nor is his duty.”

A similar thought is expressed by Oxford professor of chemistry Peter William Atkins, who declares: “I regard the existence of this extraordinary universe as having a wonderful, awesome grandeur. It hangs there in all its glory, wholly and completely useless.”

By no means do all scientists agree with that outlook. And for very good reasons.

Fine-Tuning​—Evidence of Purposeful Design?

When they examine the laws of nature, many investigators balk at the notion of a cosmos without purpose. They are impressed, for example, by the fundamental forces that regulate the universe. The laws underlying these forces appear to have been fine-tuned in such a way as to produce a universe capable of supporting life. “Changing the existing laws by even a scintilla could have lethal consequences,” says cosmologist Paul Davies. For example, if protons were slightly heavier than neutrons, rather than slightly lighter as they are, all protons would have turned into neutrons. Would that have been so bad? “Without protons and their crucial electric charge,” explains Davies, “atoms could not exist.”

The electromagnetic force attracts electrons to protons, allowing molecules to form. If this force were significantly weaker, electrons would not be held in orbit around the nucleus of an atom, and no molecules could form. If, on the other hand, this force were much stronger, electrons would be stuck to the nucleus of an atom. In that case, chemical reactions and life would simply be impossible.

...

Source: Purposeful Design or Mindless Process?(Awake!—2009)

The one below is similar in its way of addressing the evolutionary philosophies that are born out of a desire to promote philosophical naturalism, pantheism and nature worship in or out of the closet, so to speak. 'In the closet' would be akin to what I earlier described as "the habit of attributing godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces, such as the ability/power to create (or spontaneously generate) the molecular machinery and technology that makes up life (a.k.a. abiogenesis and the chemical evolution of life)". And I should add "chance" now to "mindless molecules and natural forces".


Is Belief in God Reasonable? (Awake!—2010)