Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by scottaco on November 25, 2008 at 8:48am

I can't refer you to a book, but I find the idea interesting. Hitchens seems to pull concepts out of his ass. By that I simply mean that he makes comparisons, metaphors etc. to explain his cases that have little to do with what he's suggesting. (*not intended in a disrespecting tone.)
The idea that the cosmos and evolution "doesn't know we exist" in a literal sense is ludicrous. How could it? How could it know anything? Or is he saying we are a mistake, a freak of Nature? That's very well possible. Or is he saying that about all life? Or am I missing something and just need more coffee?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bakari on November 25, 2008 at 11:53am

Hey Scott. Yeah, you raise similar questions that crossed my mind when I first heard that analysis. But I don't think Hitchens's analysis is his idea in this regard. I think he is expressing something that he learned from science on this question. It seems to me that it's quite possible that the cosmos doesn't have a conscious or an awareness of itself as we human beings do. When for example we get a Katrina that wipes entire communities, Katrina is not thinking about the women, men, and children that it's killing. When some children are born with deformities, nature does not weep as we do. While nature/cosmos provides us with the stuff we need to live, there's no indication that it does that consciously for us. It gives us the stuff to live, but also gives us the stuff that kills us.

It's hard to tell if we are mistake or a freak of nature. But it does seem as if there's not a grand design for humanity. There's no assurance that we will be here forever. Dialectically though we can and often turn the negatives of the cosmos into positives for our survival. And we are indeed a part of nature just as the sun is. But we are conscious of our actions. The cosmos doesn't appear to be conscious. That's probably what bothers and frightens so many people to believe in an all powerful god. We want to think that there's something larger than ourselves that cares for us, but in fact we are the only ones who can care for us.

Well, that's my thoughts for now. I want to discuss and read on this question some more to flush it out. Thanks again for raising your questions.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bakari on November 25, 2008 at 6:18pm

True, good point. But when I heard the analysis, I still found it very interesting. It seems to put things in context in terms of evolution and the non-existence of a god.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bakari on December 3, 2008 at 2:09am

Jonathan, you had me up until: " The "knowing" is actually a following of laws through certain limiters and probabilities." Your understanding of physics is like light years away from mine, so don't feel inadequate. Could you break down that quote more. I'm very interested in it. I didn't see the movie "Bleep". When I read about it, I thought it would be a waste of my time. Thanks for your "two cents."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Karl on April 28, 2009 at 11:19am

Of course the cosmos doesn't know we exist, its not a sentient thing and in any case we on a insignificant planet in an insignificant galaxy in a universe which contains thousands of billions of gallaxies each of which contains hundreds of billions of stars. Why should we matter?

• ▶ Reply