Why the sigh? She hasn’t died, has she?
No, she hasn’t died. She is still kicking age 75 and I hope still tending her beloved backyard beehives.
The (*sigh) is a mix of admiration and respect with a touch of an old man’s foolishness for a woman who has distinguished herself over four decades as an intelligent and determined defender of science and reason. I recall her arguments consistently delivered in a persuasive, charming, but firm manner without rancour or invective. She once described herself as ‘Darwin’s golden retriever’. For me her best reply in answer to theist claims of perceived scientific persecution was "Science says “E=mc2”, not “E=mc2, therefore god does not exist.”
She was a lot easier on the eye than any of the other key participants in the science vs religion debates over the past forty years.
1 Like
I believe you. She sounds wonderful.
I posted about my most beautiful girl friend recently. Reading your post made me realise that today she’s nearly 70 and probably looks like her mum.
Seem to me that if one begins a relation/marriage relatively young and sticks with it, one doesn’t notice the slow but dramatic changes in appearance.
Back in 2000 I ran into my first serious girlfriend after 30 years. She is 160 cm and was svelte. In 2000, not so much, probably close to that in circumference. I of course had not changed.
She invited me to visit her and hubby in Cambridge " for a few months" . So I did that. I lasted 8 weeks, with several of those spend backpacking around Ireland and Scotland, thank goodness. After the first week I realised what a lucky escape I’d had!
I realised a few years ago, that marrying a person with whom one is crazy in love tends to be a disaster. I’m sure there are exceptions, but I’ve never seen one.
More to the point, accepting that life and biological systems are emergent properties of complex systems of physics and (organic) chemistry that were being force-fed an energy flux that led to highly complex self-organization and eventually self-replication, the better question to ask is: Why would there be a purpose with life? A purpose with life in general only makes sense with the notion of a creator with an intent. And without a creator, there is no intent (as physics and chemistry does not have intrinsic intent), and hence, no purpose. Physics and chemistry just happens blindly according to natural laws, without any intent or purpose behind it. Intents and purposes are in this context basically only abstractions and attempted explanations created by the emergent properties of pattern-matching capabilities of our dense networks of neural cells that we call our brains.
1 Like
[quote=“Get_off_my_lawn, post:44, topic:2012”]
A purpose with life in general only makes sense with the notion of a creator with an intent. And without a creator, there is no intent (as physics and chemistry does not have intrinsic intent), and hence, no purpose. [/quote]
I think one may rationally conclude that life simply is , it doesn’t need a reason/justification.
The best I’ve ever been able to come up with is that the purpose of life is itself. IE the creation of more life, in every form of which we are aware.
Having said that, imo, religiosity most certainly requires justification. It is my position that all human behaviour has (or once did have) a purpose.
Historically, the compulsion to the divine has been the only way ordinary people could make sense of their world. Very hard to philosophise when one’s life is focused on a subsistence living.
It makes perfect sense to me that humanism and more secular societies have coincided with having the time to actually consider the abstract. Perhaps the first glimmer of this was the European renaissance. Next was the enlightenment, which bought with it fierce and radical social change.
In the past, it was only religious belief that helped people deal with the life questions, such as “why am I here” and “What happens after I die?”
Religion has helped people impose a sense of meaning, of control, of purpose, where none exists.
From ancient times right up until now, the relationships between humans and their gods have always been transactional. The literal transactions of the sacrifice or animals and other humans have pretty much been replaced by the symbolic transactions within ritual.
I have no right to judge others because of their beliefs. However, I do have the right to examine and judge beliefs, be they religious, racial, political or sporting. This forum is one of only two places where I get to interact with like minds and people with whom I disagree on what can be quite visceral ideas about life , beliefs and society.
I repeat my favourite bit of graffito, from Cambridge England in 2000.
“Religion; man’s attempt to communicate with the weather”
1 Like