Dear David,

<<A world where nobody bothered about god in any way would have divested itself of another superstition.>>

Nobody can avoid God because nobody can avoid oneself.

One may obviously avoid the concept of God, which is relatively new anyway, as per Genesis 4:26 - "And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the Lord.", that's around 3525 B.C. Commonly, Enosh came to be known as the prototype of 'human' (rather than 'man' or 'woman'), but the traditional Jewish interpretation plays on the way 'began', stating instead that it means 'profanated': The moment God was referred to as a concept, idolatry began!

A superstition is necessarily about the world of existence, so belief in the existence of God can indeed be considered a superstition. Belief in God, however, is not: belief in God is simply a religious technique - a method (or a tool) used in the pursuit of religion.

Somewhere around the period you call "enlightenment", a tragic error occurred: Christians began to mix up their religion with the latest fashion - science (this was not Christianity's first tragic error: a previous one was to mix religion with politics). From a scientific point of view, this behaviour was simply ridiculous, superstitious and laughable. Then, as science ruled out the existence of God, the Church was devastated and Christians were losing their faith in droves.

<<A world where nobody bothered with the difference between measurable quantities and countable numbers would be immensely poorer.>>

You do realise, David, that mathematics will one day be forgotten. Meanwhile, mathematics is there to serve human pursuits - both good and evil; rather than humanity being there to serve mathematics.

I take it a step further, saying that the purpose of humanity is to serve religion, not vice-versa. Transitively, the purpose of mathematics is to serve religion.

Mathematics is used in astronomy to compute prayer-times; also, for counting the number of grains, which helps to keep humanity alive: both are great services to religion.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Someday mathematics will be forgotten. Until that day let us glory in the beauty of mathematics. Someday religion along with other superstition will be forgotten. Until that day let us accept the fact that some people wish to revel in primeval slime. Thinking of mathematics in terms of its function in computing the dates of religious observances is like thinking of electricity in terms of powering the electric chair.

Mathematics engages the power and glory of the human mind. Religion activates the dark corners of its primitive past. Since a part of humanity is apparently tied to a worship of nonsense religion will not go away.

Dear david f,

Thank for the stimulating posts.

Indeed, if “having survived and reproduced” is the only criterion, then there is no difference between humans and other species. However, I think there are many criterions - intelligence, consciousness as compared to self-awareness, ability to change the environment, even to destroy life or the whole planet - by which our species is unprecedented. This does not exclude the possibility that notwithstanding these abilities we shall be overtaken as the most intelligent etc by the offshoots of some other species, though I don't think this is likely to happen.

I think we shall either

(a) destroy ourselves, perhaps including the whole planet (it is only my faith, that I cannot communicate to you that makes me believe that this will not happen) or

(b) continue to further evolve, where our consciousness will gradually take over as the driving engine of evolution (rather than survival of the fittest in the brute meaning of the word), either still remaining the same species or evolving even beyond that. If you look at where we have progressed - again according to the criteria I mentioned, not merely as an ability to survive and reproduce - in the last couple of millennia, it is not that absurd to think of humanity, or perhaps some kind of “transhumanity” as its offshoot, spreading beyond our planet across our Solar system, maybe even our Galaxy, in the next millennia or millions of years.

This could include convergence (rather than replacement) of contemporary religions towards a higher level of understanding both the worlds inside and outside of us.

Of course, these are pure speculations.

Some humans can exist without traditional religion as they can without abstract mathematics. The question is whether humanity, or even some self-contained society, can exist without them.

People without any formal education in mathematics have filled in the vacuum and developed some elementary understanding of everyday arithmetics for themselves.

(ctd)

(ctd)

My belief is that there is also a vacuum that is created - on both the psychological and social levels - if you remove classical religion, although it is not clear what will fill it in. Atheism as such is not a belief you can get obsessed with, however for some people the loss of traditional religion creates a vacuum filled in with something as obsessive or intolerant (or both) as a fundamentalist hold of religious convictions.

It is a fact that Enlightenment came from - i.e. was possible on the background of - Christianity (rather than of some other religion underlying another, e.g. Oriental, civilisation). The same for what you call Dark Ages. And Enlightenment can indeed be seen as reaction to the latter. Speculations about what would happen if an ingredient of a compound was removed can be verified in a laboratory, but this is not the case with “historical ingredients”, where such speculations remain unverifiable.

I presented two extreme positions on abortion, so I also used the word murder to underline this extremity. You are right that instead of “potential human being” I should have written “potential person” (c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_person ).

I just wanted to point to the two extreme positions, without opening the Pandora’s box of “rights” to kill. The Nazis claimed the “right” to kill members of an “inferior race”, many states (including the US) claim the right to kill criminals, even more states claim the right to wage wars hence kill (using e.g. drones) people in situations that cannot be described as self-defence, there is the right, acknowledged even by most religions, to kill in self-defence, etc. We all reject the first of these "rights", and accept the last. In between there is a variety of possibilities, situations, opinions and legal positions, including those concerning abortions. Many emotions are caused by confusing what is legal with what is moral.

georges/link..<<..A potential..(future)..person>>
a human being[one of the people]becomes a 'person'/under the act/the second..'a named/known..person..puts them/on the birth[berth]..register*..[ie they are 'created;/duplicated..on paper/in writing/but its clear/that person=legal/but people..is lawfull[note the 'insertion'..of person/as the link mainly talks of people[humanity]

<<..(in plural,,,sometimes termed..potential people)..[p/people]..has been defined..as an entity*,..which is not currently a person![ie emerged from the waters/and regesterd on the berthing certification[cretification..of people=person]..

potentate people<<..but which is capable*..of developing*..*into a person,..given certain biologically..completions..and/or technically possible conditions.[1][ie regerstration/of\live birth./creates..'the person'..

<<..The term unconceived..has also been used..in a similar sense,..but does not necessarily include..{>>

caution..include/excludes all else]..

<<..the capability of being conceived..or developing into a person.

Contents [hide]
1 Definitions
2 Value of potential persons
2.1 Bringing people into existence
2.1.1 Practical consequences

Definitions[edit]It has been suggested..that potential people are able to be defined*..merely by the currently existing genetic material..that..*will constitute them,>>

physicly/biol-logicly..systematicly/spiritualy/materially
the point being..like makes like..[a person=ie a person under the act..includes gcorperte person]..ie limited to state created personhood

<<Potential people..>>may also be defined..from reproductive capability,..which also includes*..the presence of other necessary factors..for becoming a person,[1]>>

to wit regersterd as a living 'person'[ie a ward of the state]
next they take an imprioint..of their foot[soul]/that is returned to the imf/as an asset]..of state.

Also,.. including*..the will to conceive
as a necessary component of a potential person,>>

<<..to not let an embryo grow inside her uterus may be regarded as sufficient to disqualify that embryo as a potential person by definition,>>

<<..abortion makes it certain
that there won't be a necessary uterus for the embryo to grow inside to become a person.>>

<<>.When there is only one..or a few factors absent to constitute a potential person, that entity may still be termed "a potential person except for...", but the ensuing arguments from this may differ.

Another factor that has been suggested is the possible positive or negative value of nonexistence, which can be regarded as weighting against or adding to the values of existence when considering the rightfulness of bringing potential people into existence

George wrote: “Indeed, if “having survived and reproduced” is the only criterion, then there is no difference between humans and other species. However, I think there are many criterions - intelligence, consciousness as compared to self-awareness, ability to change the environment, even to destroy life or the whole planet - by which our species is unprecedented.”

Dear George,

There are a lot of values implicit in the above statement. “Having survived and reproduced” is the only criterion for evolutionary success in a Darwinian sense.

Intelligence is an arbitrary criterion. It could as well be acute eyesight. That is a criterion in which an eagle is far better than most humans – even my uncle Leon. Normal human eyesight is 20/20. My Uncle Leon was 20/5.

A sense of consciousness is possibility an attribute into which we have been socialised. A person raised without contacts with other human beings would possibly not have such a sense. Apes have been able to learn language including self-referential statements. Lacking the vocal apparatus they cannot make such statements vocally, but the ability to understand such statements indicates consciousness.

The greatest change in the environment was made by anaerobic bacteria. They produced free oxygen as a waste product making it possible for most existing forms of life to evolve.

None of the criteria you mentioned stand up under critical examination.

I share the faith that we will not destroy the entire planet. However, the sixth great extinction is manmade. The other great extinctions changed the biota tremendously. The current one is doing that.

I think it will come to humanity determining its own evolutionary progress consciously, and I am frightened by the prospect. As frightened as I am by religion I am even more frightened by some secular ideology such as Marxism determining the future of humanity.

continued