Evolution could just has easily ended with blue-green algae if survival was the sole criteria. — Wayfarer

Evolution doesn't "end". And anything with a brain will be able to cook and eat said algae.

Conversely, if survival is the only aim, then man’s ability to question its meaning is utterly superfluous. — Wayfarer

Aim? Whose aim? Even if we say "evolution has an aim" what does that have to do with what humans should aim for?

That was the very thinking I wanted to question. We now can say that science is superior in regards to health and life, because we have a good picture of what wouldn't help. I agree with everything you said, that science is the best "practical application" we have so far, but it is not a better one. I do believe that we might be as well primative in the eye of progress, but still are too "superior" to realize this.

I am not sure who said it, but someone argued that Quantum Mechanics is wired and thus after my thesis why is it not more easier, if we wanted it to be, what it is? I think that is a good point, but it maybe misses my question. We want Quantum Mechanics to be "how it is". So we abandon theories for the sake of accuracy, but doesn't this rather proof my point? If you think that people would change concepts, to again want it to be as accurate as possible? Quantum Mechanics is not an inherent principel, it is a human idea, we (humans again) proofed as valid. In short, it is flawed. It starts with the name, Quantum Mechanics is a made up name, it is not how it is, but how somebody shaped it.

The question also goes a bit into relativism, after which the world might be not how it is, but how we are. So, what one might connect with the color blue, might be different for someone else. But somehow we need to live and thrive and be understood, so we always rather accept a plausible story, then an improbable one. Just because it is wired or complicated does not mean it is improbable, maybe it actually means the opposite. That when we accept these principles as truth it gets more probable to believe.

The same goes for religion. When we say that religion is merely "made up", we miss the bigger picture. Nothing and everything is made up. You don't just walk around come up with the idea of Jesus. It is as well based on the observations and the nature. It's as well based on our behaviour as humans. It is science.

Now there is the point with, but atoms are real and Jesus is not. In my mind this is not the case. We percieve as the things we "made up" as something what is a picture of something else. So, there may be a person like Jesus, but supernatural abilities are not realistic. Thus the picture in which Jesus is portrayed is a flawed illustration of reality. But my point is, that science is too, because it is a human concept.

Someone else (I am sorry, I am quite new here so I don't know how the quotations work) asked if there would be the one ultimate answer of how the world objectivly is. I would say partly. There may be not an ultimate answer as what we would expect, but there may be an answer we settle down with, which actually might be the ultimate answer.

And that is what I somehow wanted to say. That both are human made beliefs, which spend hope and fear. But this very idea of something is better then the other, misses the point, as it only proves we have not learned anything from our past or future. (By the way do I make sense?)

know

The same goes for religion. When we say that religion is merely "made up", we miss the bigger picture. Nothing and everything is made up. You don't just walk around come up with the idea of Jesus. It is as well based on the observations and the nature. It's as well based on our behaviour as humans. It is science. — Anna893

Sorry Anna, I don't think I agree with your thesis. Sure, everything may well be made up (although who knows, variations of Platonic forms may be a thing) but ideas have different degrees of usefulness. I'm happy with that as a criterion of value in a life that is over very quickly.

Yes, but this usefulness might as well be a subjective view. For some people in need it helped to pray to god, for some people in need it helped to believe in the accuracy and precision of science. It is not why the one is better then the other or more "valuable" in form of how many lifes could get saved, but what the best was they could do for their time. So, I in contrary to you, believe that it had the same degree in usefulness for their times. I never wanted anynone to agree with me, I am really quite happy that people answered at all, what was quite a suprise I tell you :)

Evolution could just has easily ended with blue-green algae if survival was the sole criteria. Conversely, if survival is the only aim, then man’s ability to question its meaning is utterly superfluous. — Wayfarer

Survival of the luckiest --> Survival of the brainiest.

It may be a hard pill to swallow for some, but it's equally hard to deny that brainier life-forms don't have an edge over the less intellectually endowed.

Evolution could just has easily ended with blue-green algae if survival was the sole criteria. Conversely, if survival is the only aim, then man’s ability to question its meaning is utterly superfluous. — Wayfarer

Enter random mutation and evolution being a non-purposeful process.

We can still insist that survival is the sole criteria, it's just that in the face of random mutation, beings adapt. Such as by philosophizing.