When I was a child, I thought as a child.

[MineralMan]

I'd go out at night and look up. All those stars were clearly just out of reach, high in the sky. But, they were close. I knew that because I could see them. It was awesome, but I couldn't understand much about them.

Later, as I grew up, I learned more and understood more about our local solar system and galaxy. Then, I learned about the Universe and its scale. It was literally awesome. What an amazing thing!

And the more I learned, the more I understood about my insignificant place in that Universe. Oddly enough, that never bothered me. Instead, I found it fascinating and it led to a growing sense of wonder. The more I learned as I got older and studied higher mathematics and physics, the more awed I became. Along the way, I also learned biology, geology, mineralogy and other sciences well enough to understand planetary and biological processes, like plate tectonics, evolution and speciation. I experienced even more awe at how insignificant I was in an almost infinitely complex Universe.

When I was a child, I accepted childish, uninformed explanations of things. As I grew into an informed adult, those explanations were no longer sufficient for me. In fact, they seemed sillier and sillier with the passage of time. Today, as a 71-year-old man who has spent his entire life learning in many areas and disciplines, I realize that knowing everything is impossible, but knowing as much as possible is a worthwhile way to spend one's brief life.

I am insignificant. I almost understand how insignificant. It is a wonderful thing to know. I get to spend a brief flash of time becoming aware of how insignificant I truly am. How awesome that is! It is more than enough. It has been a blast, and I'm not done yet!

[shraby]

1. I learned a long time ago that no one knows what happens when we die. And

I'm not dying to find out.

[MineralMan]

2. Lacking any evidence that anything happens at all after you die,

I don't worry about it. I'm alive right now. So, I'm doing what makes me feel best, which involves learning stuff. It appears to me, from everything I've seen, that this life is the one I get. That's enough, really. In any case, I have no choice in the matter. I'm hear by chance, anyhow, a combination of the genes of my parents at a random time.

I died once. My heart stopped, because my brain was swollen from viral encephalitis. I coded. A few days later, I awoke in a hospital bed in Palm Springs. My wife at the time, my current wife and my mother were standing at the foot of the bed. I decided that was more than I could deal with, so I went back to sleep for a few more hours.

When I woke up again, I assessed my situation. I knew who I was. I knew who they were, so I recovered fully over the next month. I was in a coma for about a week. The ambulance workers said that I coded three times on the way to the hospital. I died. I remember none of that.

More evidence that death is final, as far as I'm concerned. I'm alive now. That's enough. I continue to learn things, which is my particular joy of life. I'll die before too many years pass, I have no doubt. Then, who I am stops, so there's nothing for me to fear, really. It stopped before. Fortunately, not permanently. But, had it stopped permanently, I think I would no longer be, which is OK, really.

But, here I am, now. It is enough.

[guillaumeb]

3. Faith deals with another area not covered by science.

The non-overlapping magisteria argument that is totally ignored by so many atheists.

And your post illustrates only the scientific aspect of existence. Humans are more than their constituent atoms.

[MineralMan]

4. It deals with imagination. I have a very active imagination.

However, when it comes to reality, I base things on evidence, not imagination. There is no evidence that humans are more than their constituent atoms as organized into a human being. None whatsoever.

Some people imagine that there is more to existence than that. Imagination is a wonderful thing. It's a source for all sorts of fun stuff. Right now, I'm imagining a 12-oz. prime rib portion. I don't have one, but my imagination can create the image of one. It can even create the concept of a Stephen Jay Gould NOMA and simultaneously reject that concept.

Happy Imagining!

[trotsky]

5. What area is that, g?

Can you demonstrate it exists? You have made a claim but have not supported it.

Now given your clear and demonstrated history of evasion, I am certain you cannot and will not defend that claim, so I will allow you to forgo responding if instead you can answer this:

Even if we assume for the sake of argument there is a "non-overlapping" area where religion can answer questions, but science cannot, could you explain how we know when religion has found an actual ANSWER? In other words, how do we verify religious truth?

In science we verify truth with experimentation and observation.

How do you do it in religion?

[guillaumeb]

6. Your answer reveals you did not understand my response.

Your continued insistence that religion must conform to scientific methods also illustrates that you do not understand the concept of non-overlapping magisteria.

[EvilAL]

9. If you mean the conflict between religion and science.

It only exists because Big Religion is too big to fail. They refuse to fail and this has nothing to do with the believers. Most of them just believe because they were taught to believe. However, the more Big Religion has to bend over to the evidence, a little of their power is whittled away, a little of their influence, a little more bullshit hits the wind for the people to smell. If they dare to stand behind their institution and leaders they look the fool, if they don't and change their mind on their teachings due to evidence they look weak.
Religious claims are scientific claims. A supernatural claim, a moral claim, a divine claim is still a claim.
Religion hasn't given us anything other than problems.
Religious people have given us plenty and continue to. Those people see through the delusion and don't allow the teachings of Big Religion to hold them back. They can have their faith and eat their science too.

[trotsky]

10. I'll ask once more, just so everyone can witness your evasion.

Is there a way to verify the truth of a religious claim? Yes or no.

[guillaumeb]

11. A repetitive and already answered question.

And one that reveals a total misconception about the role of religion, and a total misunderstanding of the
non-overlapping magisteria argument.

I suggest that you Google the term and the answer will become clear.

[trotsky]

13. Thank you for demonstrating you cannot (or simply will not) answer the question.

You have further confirmed why no one should take you seriously.

[guillaumeb]

14. More irony from one who illustrates what he claims to oppose.

Well done.

[trotsky]

15. I wish you joy for Christmas, and growth for the New Year.

Perhaps you can change. I hope so.

[guillaumeb]

16. And I hope for the same for you.

Change is sometimes a good thing. And recognition is also a useful thing.

[uriel1972]

8. Hmmm...

Once you can clearly articulate how non-matter can interact with matter without leaving traces of that interaction I would be more ameniable to your position.

As for the last sentence, we are patterns of matter and energy, yes, more than our constituent atoms. However we are still just physical beings with clear physical properties, there is no need to insert spiritual nonsense to explain our existence as more than matter alone.

[edhopper]

19. I never accepted

Gould's construct. I think it was his way to stop the anti-evolution debate. It failed.

[guillaumeb]

20. I did.

So it succeeded for me, and many others.

[digonswine]

7. I like your posts of late--

I think that recognizing our insignificance allows us to truly appreciate what we have here. I am reminded of Vonnegut--he reminds us that we are a bit of matter that are "lucky mud." We are a bit of matter that gets to look around and actually experience things. Much of it is bad and some of it is good. I am among the fortunate few that get to experience both. Most matter never becomes self-aware. Even when in pain, I appreciate that I am the rare collection of atoms that gets to experience an existence.
I do, though, like the times when I am not suffering.
I am a teacher. I encounter so many people that never really get to reflect on existence.
I think that people don't really choose how they are. I suspect free will is a canard.
People at work think I am smart. I know stuff and can use big words.
The students think I am smart, too. I know a lot of stuff, so it would seem.
When asked-I say that I pay attention and care a lot.
The truth is simpler--I happen to, by no fault or effort of my own, to be constantly curious and jealous of what I don't know. I am compelled to learn the intricacies of events I describe. When students get to a "why" I don't know-I am internally compelled to find it out.
Basically-I was lucky to be born curious. I see kids that are the same--I reflexively support them. Others do not have this natural proclivity. For those, I try to foster it but we cannot just create it.
Curiosity is biological-it is a character trait.
This realization also means that I can't judge people for being incurious. I have to be a good influence on them, too.
I think it is the same for those we disagree with politically. I have to remind myself that there are real people that just think in a way that I do not. It's fun to demonize them, or otherwise diminish their ideas. The fact is, though, that they are citizens and parents and voters that will act on their thoughts. They do and they did.

[MineralMan]

12. Thanks very much.

I think most people are curious, by nature. However, some things people are curious about are very difficult to understand. In some cases, people prefer to accept a simplistic explanation that relieves their curiosity and lets them focus on real-world issues that need attention.

Like you, my curiosity cannot be so easily quashed, so I've spent most of my 72 years reading and discussing all that complexity with others. I know I'll never fully comprehend it all, but that's OK. The search for answers is its own reward, really.

Perhaps it would have been simpler if I were able to simply accept easy answers to all of those questions. But, that was impossible for me. The first time I saw a rainbow, for example, I asked my parents what caused it. They didn't know, actually. I was already a reader, though, so I turned to the library, where I found a book that had an illustration of the refraction of light into colors in a prism, along with another illustration of a water drop and the same refraction. I had my answer, although I didn't truly understand it until a number of years later when I took a class on optics and atomic physics in college.

Some people, though, accept the Genesis story about the rainbow, and accept that as factual. God did it! That simple answer works for all sorts of things for some people.

Sometimes, it takes years to get the entire answer about things we are curious about. That's fine, since we do have time to keep learning.

[digonswine]

17. Yes, they are curious-

but to understand anything requires reiteration and careful reflection. I can't blame those that do not have the energy for it nor the desire to do it.
Easy answers allow us to have satisfaction and move on, I guess. "I get this-on to the next thing." It is like how 80's sitcoms wrap problems up in a little life-a lesson that the kids digest and they now get.
You might take some comfort in the knowledge--from one who is just a bit to your east--(WI)--we have adopted the NGSS and are now focused on training scientific thinkers rather than content-knowers. The focus is on critical thinking and not in facts and figures. This is more practical and useful. This is a good, I think. There is a dearth of research in this area---I am in contact with some in the research realm and it seems to be in its infancy, which truly shocks me.
The fact is-this whole thing is nearly impossibly complex and we seem to have to figure it out ourselves. There are plenty of us who care, though!

[NeoGreen]

18. How Christianity Infantilizes Adults

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/12/how-christianity-infantilizes-adults/

How Christianity Infantilizes Adults

Have you heard the song “Christmas Shoes” from about ten years ago? Patton Oswalt tore it up in a clever comedy bit (video 7:49, rated R for language), and he makes an excellent point about the illogic of what Christians tell themselves.

The song tells the story of a guy who’s in yet another long line before Christmas, not really in the Christmas spirit. Ahead of him in line is a grubby kid holding a pair of shoes. When it’s the kid’s turn, he tells the clerk his story, that he’s buying his mother shoes to make her feel better. She’s sick, and he wants her to look her best if she meets Jesus that night.

The kid counts out the price in pennies, and it turns out that he doesn’t have enough. So he turns to our hero who feels sorry for the kid and pays for the shoes. The story concludes:

I knew I’d caught a glimpse of heaven’s love
As he thanked me and ran out
I knew that God had sent that little boy
To remind me just what Christmas is all about.

It’s a sweet story, and lots of people filter life’s events through a Christian lens in this way to see God’s benevolent purpose behind things. But let’s analyze this to see how “heaven’s love” worked in this situation.

What the story really says

God sees the cranky guy in line. He gives the kid’s mom some hideous disease, puts the kid in line in front of Mr. Cranky, and makes the kid a little short on cash so that this Christmas miracle could happen. In other words, God needs to make someone die and leave a kid motherless to spread a little Christmas spirit.

Is that the best explanation for the evidence? Is that an explanation that a Christian would want? What kind of insane deity would do that? Perhaps good and bad things just happen, without divine cause, and we can use events in our lives to prod us to consider what’s important. We don’t need God and we don’t need to be a Christian to be delighted by life, find silver linings, and use everyday events to remind us of things to be thankful for.

Reinterpreting events through a Christian lens can be comforting, and it patches holes in the Good Ship Christianity where reason leaks in. But this is simply a rationalization to support a presupposition, not an honest following of the evidence, and when you stop to think of what you’re actually saying, you’ll see that the reality you’ve invented not only makes no sense but is actually repulsive.

When Christians wonder why atheists get agitated, this kind of empty childish thinking is often the cause.

A coin in a wishing well

Consider another story. Suppose a girl sick with cancer throws a coin into a wishing well and asks to get better. The net effect is that the girl is a little happier, like she took a happiness pill.

But this wishing well belief is just an ancient custom. We all know that wishing wells don’t really do anything. Should you break the news to her?

Few of us would. What’s the point? She actually does feel better, and she’ll have plenty of time to deal with reality as an adult. She has guardians in her life who will protect her as necessary, shielding her so that she can hold this false but helpful belief.

But for someone to become an adult, that person must grow up. We leave behind wishing wells, Santa Claus, fairies, and other false beliefs as we become independent. No longer are the necessities of life given to us; as adults, we must fend for ourselves—indeed, we want to fend for ourselves. The parent who sugarcoats reality or keeps the child dependent for too long is doing that child no favors.

Reality is better than delusion, happy though that delusion may be. Hearing the doctor say, “You’ll be just fine” feels a lot better than “You have cancer,” but if I really have cancer, which one allows me to take steps to improve my future?

Religion infantilizes adults and keeps them dependent. That’s a good thing for the 100-billion-dollar-a-year U.S. religion industry, but what is best for the individual—a pat on the head or reality?

When I was a child,
I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child;
but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
— 1 Corinthians 13:11

[Ferrets are Cool]

27. Absolutely wonderful post. Thank you.

[NeoGreen]

32. Thanks...

...happy to re-post and share.

[Pythagorean atheist]

21. You are not insignificant.

None of us are insignificant.

[MineralMan]

22. That depends on what comparison you are making.

If you're looking at the larger picture, we're all insignificant. I tend to look at the larger picture. In time, size and other factors, even the planet Earth is insignificant.

[MineralMan]

24. It depends on what the numbers represent.

1,234,567,890 apples are more significant than 5 apples.

[MineralMan]

26. I have great faith in numbers.

Even in irrational and imaginary numbers.

[Ferrets are Cool]

28. "Even in irrational and imaginary numbers."

Such as the "numbers" of "gods" humans have created.

[MineralMan]

29. I offer the square root of -1 as the answer.

[MineralMan]

31. Numbers are magical.

I first realized that when I studied Trigonometry and began seeing the relationships between trig functions, roots and the magical number Pi.

But then, new worlds kept opening up for me, and everything disappeared in a magical cloud of numerical relationships. Once I learned about imaginary numbers, everything exploded and all was revealed.

Perhaps the square root of -1 is the deity or what is thought of as the deity.