enter the fray: our reader discussion forum
Search in:
Advanced
View:FlatThreaded
God's Timeline
by Zeus-Boy
+6 Reply
Scientists have calculated that our earth is about 4.56 billion years old. Our sun is roughly half way through its life-span of about 10 billion years. We humans have only been around in our present state for about 200,000 years. That's less than hundreds of a single percentage point of the age of our planet and there's still about 50% left to go. So, how do we propose to squat around here for another 6 billion years and to succeed in doing what none other of god's creatures has ever done, cheat extinction? When you ponder it, isn't it highly likely that we're not actually the culmination of the evolutionary process at all, as some would like to think or believe? We weren't here when it all began and we sure as dinosaur shit won't be around when our sun finally calls curtains.

Where are all the life forms that preceded us for the last 4 billion + years? They gave way to us, of course ... as we too will give way to bigger, better, brighter versions of god's chosen — Ourselves. That's a difficult prospect for our species to swallow: we're so hubristic, so callous with our nicks and our knacks, our gods and our guns, our bullshit and our beliefs. We believe the entire universe was created just for us so that we could come along and fling our balls of petrified excrement into orbit; we believe at the back of all this immensity there's an eternal godhead whose primary and sole purpose in creating the universe was to secure our collective terrestrial and celestial wellbeing, and that's why this deity sits back on the nowhere-to-be-found demiurgic throne and permits us to turn his creation into a veritable shit-storm — because our 200,000 year old sojourn here is so very important to the divine plan for the vast and limitless cosmos. Without us, planets a million light years away might just shrivel up and die, and life at the end of the infinite galaxy might say to itself, 'What's the use in living any more, now that god's fallen angels, the human beings have become extinct? Let us commit collective Harakiri or Seppuku.'

We pride ourselves [our species prides itself] on our creative, imaginative prowess. We cite examples from all the arts over a few thousand years of our sublime greatness, and indeed we are great. We're the best so far, I presume. But what we still can't imagine, or let's say we have much difficulty getting our little crania around the notion, is our own extinction. Even our death [and everybody dies — hate to break it to y'all], the finality of our death, is something we just can't comprehend or accept. We concoct all these contradictory and ludicrous ideas [even by our own silly standards] of an afterlife, where our undying and unkillable spirit/soul lives on for all time. And this invisible immortal force is the locus of all god's interest in us, because this god is also invisible and soul-like, and I presume again that god likes to hoard what god considers his, or hers, or its. Whatever.

Anyway, there's zero evidence for the veracity of any of these grandiose delusions, but maybe that's what makes us so very special: I mean our ability to defy our own rules of logic and reason and to put our destiny in a glorious and self-perpetuating phantasmagoria. If dung beetles could pull off a stunt like that why they'd be great too ... and the godhead must really love beetles because there are 350,000 species of the ruffians. We have absolutely no evidence for our logic-defying beliefs but that's ok. Is it though? If you challenge the absence of soul-convincing evidence you're branded a heretic and dispatched to your non-existent afterlife to prove you were wrong. Luckily, you won't be returning to affirm the errors of your ways and to vindicate the priests who put the halter round your craw. Ah well, god is good, god loves you and me and god forgives us all, even the most vile of us he eventually pardons. And just as well too because I know a few fat cats who could do with that death-bed conversion and godly absolution.

We're unable to imagine our own place in the grand scheme of things. We're unable to conceive of our own extinction. We cannot imagine what a billion years can do to a planet like ours. And we cannot handle being put in our place, being humbled by what we secretly know to be the case — that we are as transient and as insignificant as any other organism that once squatted here and will do so once we're gone. The very most we can hope for is to become good fertlizer — beyond that is wishful thinking indeed. Best make the most of it while we're around because knowing our kind I'd venture to say we'll carry on with the same old reliable orgiastic butchery and destruction that makes us so unique and worthy of god's undying love, and interest.

Julian Barnes [citing Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal and professor of cosmology and astrophysics at Cambridge] says all this better than I ever could. In fact his words inspired mine. When asked to describe the single idea he wished was more generally understood, Rees had this to say:

    I'd like to widen people's awareness of the tremendous timespan lying ahead — for our planet, and for life itself. Most educated people are aware that we're the outcome of nearly 4bn years of Darwinian selection, but many tend to think that humans are somehow the culmination. Our sun, however, is less than halfway through its lifespan. It will not be humans who watch the sun's demise 6bn years from now. Any creatures that then exist will be as different from us as we are from bacteria or amoebae.

Well, we can talk.
by Keifus

Or at least we talk more than most of the others.

Any creatures several billion years out will probably resemble the protozoans more than they will humans, I think. The former being both much more prevalent and more adaptable (never mind the beetles). Recall reading fairly recently that estimates for the protists might outnumber the complex species pound-for-pound as well as in population.

I go down this path too often myself. I'm sure I've mentioned it, but if we're throwing around science fiction writers, here's one on the theme I liked (probably not as good as I remember).

one day, we will take all our orders from...
by MichaelRyerson
gregor samsa.
Re: God's Timeline
by Schmutzie

I know you're about as big of a Hitchens fan as I am, but if you haven't yet, "god is not GREAT" is well worth the read. It's that sort of analysis of organized religions that make me wonder how in the hell those operations ever took root in the first place, and even more to the larger point, it makes me wonder how they continue to exist. When I take a step back and consider the presence of 127 different forms of afterlife, each specific to a different belief system, it makes me wonder how deluded the "faithful" are. It's impossible for me to not think that most of those who claim faith in Nirvana, or Heaven, or what-have-you must have serious inner doubts.

Considering our knowledge of the universe, knowledge that was obviously absent back in the day, one would have to be willfully ignorant, not to mention arrogant, to still think that "god" is looking down on our little speck of dust over here on a remote arm, of a rather average galaxy, over in our little corner of the universe, and prefers one group of humans over another.

It's not Occam obedient. It doesn't make any friggin' sense at all . And yet, we keep fighting wars to determine whose god is the real god. Which afterlife is the real afterlife. If humans were the culmination of god's handiwork, he'd probably want to blow everything up and try again.

Forgive my impertinence in asking this,
by Inkberrow

though I assume you're inviting commentary even from the unwashed in this area, but doesn't Rees' last sentence, the last in your post, necessarily rely upon a whole host of assumptions of dubious certainty? Change is certain, of course, so if he's positing our demise and who knows whatever left behind being uber-different, so be it. "As different as".....perhaps. But that could as easily be molds and lichens as we know them today, or some other sort of unsentient life which manifestly would not represent a further culmination or extension of the "culmination" Reese juxtaposes here and obviously believes we should not congratulate ourselves with by using it to describe humanity. I take it Rees will not posit the surviving lichens the true Master Race by dint of some impoverished, positivist ethic or valuation. Lichens can't dance or make onion rings.

And why would the evolution that's led to us continue on along anything remotely approaching the same vector? Aren 't we all due for a pretty lengthy or even permanent plateau, assuming we don't blow ourselves up, or move consciousness-only into android bodies, precisely because of natural selection and its supposedly inexorable socio-biological imperatives? Not only was self-consciousness a quantum leap by mankind away from his fellow creatures, but even more important from the evolutionary standpoint---don't we all have enough to live on comfortably already, or the ability to make it (for those we share with and don't kill in wars, anyway)? The naturally selected adaptations and mutations based immediate survival and procreation drives are pretty much moot these days on most of the globe, aren't they? And if not moot, greatly altered, to the point that they are now "artificial" or arbitrary selection, analagous to A.I. itself---little if any of it a function of or logically connected to the five or six basic imperatives and interrelations we're told still govern us as they do other large primates. Post-natural selection selection?

Re: Well, we can talk.
by Keifus
(I was thinking of the wrong novelist--you weren't throwing around science fiction, no matter how many quotes from astonomers. Why I don't I ever heed my own advice and shut the hell up, already?)
The Janitor on Mars
by Acrophony
Is an excellent short story by Martin Amis on this topic. Highly recommended.
Not only does the Lord prefer one group of humans....
by Archaeopteryx
...he clearly is not a Cubs fan.
The idea that humans are no longer subject to selection...
by Archaeopteryx
...is exactly the evolutionary hubris that ZB is talking about. We tend to concentrate on our large throbbing brains, meanwhile, we select for earlier reproduction, big boobs, and stupidity. And as soon as we're out of the way, the lichens will perfect their own onion ring recipe, don't you worry.
Re: The idea that humans are no longer subject to selection...
by Keifus

They're well on their way. (Okay, it's a fungus. Let's call it halfway there.)

The slimes and scums of the biosphere are not up to TGI Friday's "Bloomin' Onion" standards yet, however. When they perfect the science of marketing, then they'll have really made it.

Guilty as charged then, Arch. Maybe I don't care, though.
by Inkberrow

Unless natural natural selection indeed does consist of something more than the few socio-biological imperatives we hear about ad nauseum---immediate survival, procreation, hedging one's genetic bets etc.

What if there is or shortly will be a functionally endless supply of onion rings, or a synthetic simulacrum thereof, consequence-free sex partners, and artifical means of endless custom procreation?

If the dread operation of natural selection now consists in us maybe not being capable of preventing species suicide with pollution, poison, or bombs, okay. Point taken. But that's hardly persuasive proof that we weren't sui generis as a species, ad infinitum.

Once during Physics class
by biteoftheweek

We were discussing Time as the 4th dimension. The Prof was saying that we were 3 dimensional beings and so we couldn't see the 4th dimension, only its effects.

I raised my hand and wondered if we couldn't evolve into 4th dimensional beings.

I think that was a new one for him, he stuttered a bit and then said that he didn't think it worked that way.

pity

There is a really interesting lecture
by biteoftheweek

at an exmormon conference that I thought explained how religions come about.

<link>

Re: The idea that humans are no longer subject to selection...
by RonB52

we select for earlier reproduction, big boobs, and stupidity.

Much of the civil law has the effect of selecting for carelessness and laziness.

If you balk at the thought that the civil law actually selects for carelessness, try running over a heedless pedestrian who is crossing against the light.

I trust that the law's effect of selecting for laziness needs no explanation.

You jumped the shark
by GregorSamsa
Well, come to think of it, Yahweh does have fierce teeth and a huge appetite for all creatures big and small. Maybe the scriptures got the right answer but the wrong species. Maybe He made the great white in His image, and the rest of us are transient extras hanging around for bit parts.
View as RSS news feed in XML