Well, I accept that we're all different. Believe what you need to get you through, but personally, when I see the world and how everything depends on everything else to such a fine degree, I find it difficult to call it a happy 'coincidence'.

JB

I have to agree with Emma on this one.

When I originally posted this thread I was looking at the issue of the afterlife as a comforting mechanism but at the very core of the issue lies the subject of beliefs. For you cannot have one without the other.

As Emma states there is more to the universe than anyone will ever likely know but there is absolutely no reason to attribute any of it at all to any kind of supernatural being.

One interesting fact that came out of my recent research into this area is that people often seek out those who hold similar beliefs to their own (I know, a kind of no shit Sherlock conclusion) but what we also do is look less favourably on people who do not share the same beliefs. If someone builds a picture of the world around the idea that there is an afterlife then they don't want to hear anything to the contrary. Indeed they look for evidence that seems to support their ideas. It could be argued that this is also the stance taken by scientists, the crucial difference however, given proof that there assertion is wrong scientists will change their position. This is not the case with religions and other beliefs, no amount of evidence and proof with ever sway a creationist from their belief in creationism.

This all comes back to my original argument concerning the needs of man. What many of us 'need' is not necessarily the truth, not reality served up on a plate but something that is emotionally satisfying, something that allows us to make sense of the world.

Another interesting point from all this is how people pick and choose their beliefs. Today there are thousands of offshoots of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism etc because people pick and choose their beliefs. What I have noticed though is that people have also started to incorporate other ideas including science to try and justify their beliefs. Now not wishing to offend anyone here (though it's impossible to discuss this topic and not) a number of people made mention of the fact that they rationalise the world and an afterlife because energy cannot destroyed only changed from one form to another. This is actually a derivation of the first law of thermodynamics. Nothing in the realms of thermodynamics deal with any issues of spirituality and nor should it, yet people use such information to bolster their own view of the world, to pick and mix as it were.

Tasking this issue further I find that many beliefs stem from a lack of understanding. Now again many people take offence when they are told they don't understand something but that is not what I intend here. Waxy you yourself state that you find it hard to comprehend how everything boils down to being a "happy coincidence". I believe that you stated this in the same way that most people refuse to believe in evolution because they falsely believe that evolution is all some trick of chance. It's not evolution follows a process, indeed evolution is a process albeit it one with infinitesimal stages.

In greater scheme of things there is no real coincidence. For instance life exists on earth because here water is found in such abundance in its liquid state. Life cannot exist without water which is necessary for all biological processes.

The water exists in its liquid state because we are just the right distance from the sun (not too close not too far)for the solar energy to maintain the liquid state. The planet is at the right distance because of the mass of the earth and the gravitational effect exerted upon it by the sun. So on and so forth. All of this can be carried on ad infinitum and none of it is really based on what you would truly believe to be a coincidence.

I guess this largely all boils down to the anthropic principle and how the universe seems to particularly suitable for the emergence of life. But if it wasn't then we wouldn't be here to question the whole notion would we? But just because we are here does that mean that someone or something put us here?

At the moment this is where we really reach the limit of our understanding but at no point do I see the need to invoke the need for an external guiding agency.

Geoff

These are fascinating points Geoff, and by no means think I am blinkered to not seeing and exploring other points of view. I also wanted to state for the record, that by 'spiritual' I do not mean religion, or holding to any established religious belief. I guess I'd describe myself as a passive aggressive agnostic, if I really had to, but I think you're right, there is no need for an external body to guide what people choose to put their faith in, and when there is, it generally leads to problems.

I just don't like to rule anything out. I also like to believe that the universe rearranges itself to accomodate anyone's version of reality, and as a famous philosopher once wrote, 'as a man (person) sees, so he (or she) is.'

The troubles arise when people begin to tell others that they are wrong. Undermining what somebody else puts their faith in is the root cause of a lot of prejudice, and I am thankfully not one of those.

JB

Jb,

Another anon philosopher said -

The seer must learn to see with more than the external eye,
for there is much that may be missed.
Without the heart, the eye is as dumb crystal.
When the inner eye is open,
and the heart is still, light abundant surrounds and fills all things.

Katerina

PS. I do like these little sayings.

Hey that's good. Yes, a lot of these sayings are very spot on, aren't they. Just don't get me started on bloody Bernard Shaw.

JB