Who are we?

     More thoughts. Today I am trying to figure out what makes us human. This sounds like mental masturbation but I think this will be very important in the future. We are not too far away from creating both new species and artificial intelligence. The human genome project and quantum computing seem to suggest this will be coming sooner than previously thought. We are damn near a computer passing the Turing test and who knows what they are doing in South Korea in genetic labs.

      We have always run into problems finding a concrete definition for humanness because one can always point to a counterexample or find another species satisfying that definition. In fact, I wonder if any definition can be thought of not based on the genetic level. What happens to our legal system when we have species and computers indistinguishable from human intelligence? What about when smarter beings come about?  Will we protect only homo sapiens or will we extend rights to those entities which fit within a new definition of what we think is protectable?

I SUBMIT… the best definition for humanness is the ability to empathize. Thoughts?

god blah blah

I was thinking today about god. Pretty crazy, I know. Anyway, I came up with a thought experiment that had me thinking for a bit. In the ever-popular internet debate between theism and atheism, one topic really sticks out; is atheism a belief? If it is, theists say to atheists, "You decry my belief system, but simply adhere to a different, unsupported system of your own. What makes you more right than me? You rely on faith just the same as I do." Cogent argument.

Is atheism really a belief that there is no god? Or is it merely lacking or rejecting another's beliefs? Is there a difference? Does that difference matter? 

Say I tell you I have a Ferrari in my garage. I do not have a job. There is no way I could afford one. I am a pretty upstanding citizen so I would never steal one. I do not know anyone rich enough to drive one, so nobody would lend one to me. You would think about all of these things and, pretty reasonably, think, “I do not believe this guy.”  

Now, do you have a belief that there is no Ferrari in my garage? Or are you thinking about what I claimed, the nature of the circumstances surrounding my claim, and ultimately concluding you do not believe me based on the evidence provided to you? I argue for the latter and think there is an important difference. The second option is what I find occurs when an atheist rejects a theist’s god.  

A church says men were created in god’s image. We are wholly different from all other animals on earth, as we were placed here by god. There is no way we descended from a common ancestor. But we have science, which shows DNA linking us not only to apes, but an incredibly large, diverse number of species. We have fossils evidencing all of this. Because of the volumes of evidence showing we are here because of the process of natural selection over billions of years, I, pretty reasonably, reject this church’s contention. I listened to the claim, weighed the evidence, and ultimately decided to reject that claim because it was unsupported. Two centuries ago my beliefs would have me an outcast. Now even the Catholic Church accepts them.  

Is it correct to categorize this rejection process as a belief? When someone gives me their definition of what god is behind and I look at all of the evidence science has amassed and conclude they are wrong, am I espousing my beliefs? The answer is no. I am only rejecting a claim someone made. Atheism; a – without, theism – belief in god(s), is not a belief in no god. It is a rejection of a claim for god. It is a lack of belief in a god. I read once, saying atheism is a belief is like saying bald is a hair color.