A science question for Atheists

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Mind Over Matter, Aug 21, 2011.

  1. Mind Over Matter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,205
    I do not intend to create an argument, though usually when atheists and Christians talk an argument is an unavoidable effect. And, while this question is a question of science (and it is not about evolution), I do not intend to label science as atheistic or limited to atheists, neither of which are true. I am simply asking a science question specifically to atheists, because Christians would most likely answer it with a theological reply, and because I want to know atheists' position on it, if they have.

    Ok. To the question:

    Why does organic life try to remain alive, to survive, to avoid death? Since death is the destruction of the individual form of an organism, why should life try to retain its living form, when inanimate matter simply functions by its physical properties and does not have any will to resist change? Science tells us that the behavior of all organisms is ultimately rooted in survival, whether of oneself, one's species, or whatever. I am asking: why does life care about survival? And I do not mean "care" in a personal or emotional sense. I am asking: why does all life actively try to survive, to not die? Why is death the ultimate thing to avoid for all organisms, regardless of intelligence or complexity? Further, why does life attempt to preserve its species or its reproductive offspring, thus preserving the life of itself through species and offspring? Why does life not only try to preserve its individual self, but its family, community, species, etc.?

    Thank you for your consideration and answers.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    But it does change over time to adjust to the environment that it is within. If it doesn't adapt to the changes then it could easily perish as did many flora and fauna during the past million years. We can still see today some living fossils that were here over 500 million years ago because they adapted where others didn't. Then there are many fossils that show us that many things have become extinct for one reason or another. As one example the fungus has been evolving on this planet for well over 400 million years and there's proof that it was here way back then.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The picture represents a 400 million year old fossilized fungus (Paleomycetes) found in the renowned Rhynie Chert flora in Scotland . There are a number of reasons why many aspects relating to the evolution of fungi are difficult to establish from the fungus fossil record alone:

    The vegetative states of fungi that are the same in the fossil record and in nature lack traits required for accurate taxonomic determination.

    The most important aspects which have all the traits required for reliable taxonomic identification, the sexual states, are so tiny and short-lived it has been difficult finding them. It seems that such characteristics only appear in the fossil record millions of years after they have been around for a while.

    In the fossil world, certain algae and protozoa make structures congruous to fungi.

    Fungi can expand into rocks long after rock deposition, and modern fungal spores are always present in air and water, thus creating difficulties in distinguishing modern contaminants from genuine fossils.

    WIKI

    Instinctive behavior within its own genetic makeup. It continues to change to adjust to the environment that it is in through mutations and other types of genetic manipulations brought about by certain environmental changes that happen around it. It doesn't "know" that it is trying to survive but only following a set of predetermined genetic codes that are within it.


    But organisms do die due to a multitude of things that happen to it. Organisms don't "know" that they are needing to live but only adjust , through genes, a way to adapt to any changes that happen to them that are destructive. It again is instinct that causes this not reasoning things out.



    Sometimes it doesn't however and then that species goes extinct not because it reasoned out it couldn't adapt but because its genetic makeup couldn't evolve fast enough to the changes around it. It is due to genes primarily not a thinking process.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Rhaedas Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,516
    How about this...the organisms that don't "care" don't tend to survive, so through evolution you naturally get a tendency to reproduce.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    They seek to survive because those in the past that survived also sought to survive. If there happened to be a variation that didn't seek to survive, that genetic variation would not last as long in the gene pool. We come from a long line of survivors.
     
  8. baftan ******* Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,135
    Cosmic put it very nicely. Especially this:

    I think OP's quest is related to physical ontology of living beings. We can not ignore the fact that living beings rely on atomic structure and are not exempt from the laws of thermodynamics. Therefore, their unconscious existence "formula" can not be independent from its surrounding conditions as well as elemental realities. These realities are deeply behind the reason why 99 percent of all species ever existed have gone extinct.

    Once a living organism is pushed to adapt its environmental change, irreversible major mutation starts to adjust a new or alternative form of existence, and new possibilities create more complex life forms, more diversified existence strategies. Yet, more demand for energy too.

    Each organism, each species becomes an expression of a DNA formula. Once the formula expressed in reality (as a living creature), it has two options:

    a) Try not to abandon existing formula and die because of environmental change.
    b) Try to find alternative formulas and die because of increasing complexity.

    Since things (living or non-living) evolve from simple to complex, first option (a) is hard to follow in reality; if not impossible (keeping entropy at "remaining same" level for a while).
     
  9. scheherazade Northern Horse Whisperer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,798
    The condition of maintaining 'life' is a delicate balance, with the 'comfort zone' attained by homeostasis.

    Perhaps the 'will to survive' is merely the genetic program to maintain balance, for this is the path of least resistance in regard to energy use at the cellular level.
     
  10. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    Life explained, as well as consciousness, and the basis of all, is one of the three main remaining investigations that has not been finally answered yet, although we do have some pieces of the puzzle.

    I have an answer to 'Life Explained' but parts of it are still rather nebulous.
     
  11. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    The OP's quest is to try to get people to 'realize' that there must be a personal creator God. This is why he's posted a science question in the Philosophy forum and entitled it "A science question for Atheists".
     
  12. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    All Creationism is pseudoscience, through and through. It’s not that it’s bad science, as that is not possible, for they are not doing science at all. It is also that they threaten science in the world, and they breach the separation of church and state, such as in America, and they confuse the public about the nature of evolutionary theory and how science is conducted. Shame on nonsense dishonestly touted as truth.
     
  13. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Evolution is exactly what it's about. As has already been mentioned, any organism that is not able to effectively reproduce itself doesn't survive, and since natural selective pressures have weeded out all the ones that can't, we are left with all the ones that can. Instincts, too, are selected for according to whether or not they aid in survival, which explains why conscious life seems to value it's own existence.

    But we do of course see life doing all it can to survive even if it hasn't developed consciousness, often by executing the 'correct' response to external stimuli. The responses are correct because organisms that tended to execute incorrect responses were selected against.

    Honestly, this really is evolution 101.
     
  14. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Why-questions require a philosophical answer. Science only answers What- and How-questions.

    Asking a scientist Why-questions is either a sophism, or genuine ignorance of the fact that science cannot, does not and should not answer Why-questions.

    And if some scientists (?) consider science to be a source of metaphysical convictions, then they themselves are at fault.
     
  15. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    That is incorrect. Science can and does answer questions about why things occur.
     
  16. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Not without running into self-contradiction.
     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Historically not all life does try to avoid death. Those forms of life are now dead, which is why you don't see them around. The remaining life is the life that DOES try to avoid death.

    It doesn't. It's just the kind of life that sticks around.

    It's like asking why you don't see any fat slobs running in Olympic track events. Why? Don't fat people like running, too? They might indeed like it - but the fat slobs don't make it to the Olympics. Likewise, any organisms that don't try to survive - don't survive, and you don't see them.

    It's not. All organisms die. The trick is to reproduce before that happens.
     
  18. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,354
    Not true... there is a species of biologically immortal jelly-fish.
    It is still vulnerable to predation and disease etc, but while all other animals succumb to deterioration from age, this jelly-fish apparently does not.
    So technically an individual jelly-fish might have lived since the species first evolved.
     
  19. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    But the individual organisms still "try to remain alive, to survive, to avoid death".
     
  20. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,354
    Of course... just pointing out that not all organisms neccessarily die.
    But even those that don't need to die try to remain alive... bit of a waste of being biologically-immortal if you genetically also have suicidal tendencies.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Hey, the biologically-immortal bit could be a trait to compensate for a high chance of having tendencies to commit suicide.
    It's practically the same thing as having a lot of offspring to compensate for mass die-off.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    The what and the how often are the why, unless we talk about politics.
     
  23. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    "Why is the sky blue?" is not a philosophical question. Science answers it just fine. What I think you mean is that science often doesn't *try* to answer questions of intent for one of two reasons. Either the question of intent is being directed to something not capable of intent (i.e. a stupid question) or the question of intent involves analyzing a brain beyond the point that technology is presently capable.
     

Share This Page