Comments on: Balancing your gut bugs http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/balancing-your-gut-bugs.html Science Blog from Freelance Science Writer David Bradley Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:25:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: adam http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/balancing-your-gut-bugs.html/comment-page-2#comment-105277 adam Fri, 25 May 2007 13:01:34 +0000 http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/balancing-your-gut-bugs.html#comment-105277 I am starting by assuming a Catholic God. Obviously not everyone begins with that assumption. I accept that. I believe self awareness ties into what I was saying earlier about trying to be God-like in our pursuits. Assuming a belief in a Catholic God means assuming a benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent creator. Assuming a belief in a Catholic God means assuming humans were created in the image of - not an exact replica of - that God. A searching of self - a seeking to understand the vast complexity within and without- is an attempt at knowing God. To be sure, different religions have their different creation stories. The mythologies allowed for temperamental gods who were not always benevolent. Is it Buddhism where existence is born out of a mother god figure? Descartes begins with an assumption of sentience as a basis for the knowledge of existence. I admit it is certainly easier not to subscribe to a religion. To me religion makes life purposeful. It comforts me to know my life has meaning and is important. Without religion, there is no end game. The pursuit of knowledge is ultimately a fruitless one. I can never answer that final "why" question. Not everyone accepts religion. I'm okay with that. I enjoy doing chemistry within the context of religion. It makes it a little more exciting to me. I am starting by assuming a Catholic God. Obviously not everyone begins with that assumption. I accept that.

I believe self awareness ties into what I was saying earlier about trying to be God-like in our pursuits. Assuming a belief in a Catholic God means assuming a benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent creator. Assuming a belief in a Catholic God means assuming humans were created in the image of – not an exact replica of – that God.

A searching of self – a seeking to understand the vast complexity within and without- is an attempt at knowing God.

To be sure, different religions have their different creation stories. The mythologies allowed for temperamental gods who were not always benevolent. Is it Buddhism where existence is born out of a mother god figure? Descartes begins with an assumption of sentience as a basis for the knowledge of existence.

I admit it is certainly easier not to subscribe to a religion. To me religion makes life purposeful. It comforts me to know my life has meaning and is important. Without religion, there is no end game. The pursuit of knowledge is ultimately a fruitless one. I can never answer that final “why” question.

Not everyone accepts religion. I’m okay with that. I enjoy doing chemistry within the context of religion. It makes it a little more exciting to me.

]]> By: David Bradley http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/balancing-your-gut-bugs.html/comment-page-2#comment-105197 David Bradley Fri, 25 May 2007 11:18:03 +0000 http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/balancing-your-gut-bugs.html#comment-105197 Okay, it doesn't need to be an assumption, yes the vast complexity of an enormous universe that has been around for 13.7billion years, the millions of species that have existed and no longer exist on this single tiny, unassuming planet all exist to test one's faith. But, which faith are we talking about? What if there were a designer, who's to say the designer still exists, or even had benevolent intentions in the first place. And if there were a designer, then are we and everything else within the universe simply part of this designer? What does the nature of our self awareness mean in that context? Okay, it doesn’t need to be an assumption, yes the vast complexity of an enormous universe that has been around for 13.7billion years, the millions of species that have existed and no longer exist on this single tiny, unassuming planet all exist to test one’s faith. But, which faith are we talking about? What if there were a designer, who’s to say the designer still exists, or even had benevolent intentions in the first place. And if there were a designer, then are we and everything else within the universe simply part of this designer? What does the nature of our self awareness mean in that context?

]]> By: adam http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/balancing-your-gut-bugs.html/comment-page-1#comment-104865 adam Thu, 24 May 2007 23:37:22 +0000 http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/balancing-your-gut-bugs.html#comment-104865 perhaps it's down to chance. perhaps it's not. you say in your mind a designer should have designed us to be autonomous and efficient. why does that need to be an assumption? Perhaps a creator wants us to know we can try to be God-like but are not, if fact, God. We'd like to think we're in control of everything . We as scientists make all the observations we can in order to know as much as possible to feel like we have an element of control. But what if we aren't in control? Perhaps we are made to be reliant on symbiosis as an act of humility. We can no longer take something as trivial as blinking for granted. without follicle mites blinking would be much more complicated. Whether or not it is down to chance, it is certainly out of our control. we can strive to learn, but absolute control will be beyond our reach for a long time. -AA perhaps it’s down to chance. perhaps it’s not. you say in your mind a designer should have designed us to be autonomous and efficient. why does that need to be an assumption? Perhaps a creator wants us to know we can try to be God-like but are not, if fact, God. We’d like to think we’re in control of everything . We as scientists make all the observations we can in order to know as much as possible to feel like we have an element of control.

But what if we aren’t in control?

Perhaps we are made to be reliant on symbiosis as an act of humility. We can no longer take something as trivial as blinking for granted. without follicle mites blinking would be much more complicated.

Whether or not it is down to chance, it is certainly out of our control. we can strive to learn, but absolute control will be beyond our reach for a long time.

-AA

]]> By: David Bradley http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/balancing-your-gut-bugs.html/comment-page-1#comment-104805 David Bradley Thu, 24 May 2007 21:23:18 +0000 http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/balancing-your-gut-bugs.html#comment-104805 It is indeed awesome...and all the more so, because it is all down to chance. Thanks for joining in! Hopefully, other readers will feel inspired to continue the discussion... It is indeed awesome…and all the more so, because it is all down to chance. Thanks for joining in! Hopefully, other readers will feel inspired to continue the discussion…

]]> By: adam http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/balancing-your-gut-bugs.html/comment-page-1#comment-104789 adam Thu, 24 May 2007 20:13:12 +0000 http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/balancing-your-gut-bugs.html#comment-104789 Per my instructions, I was starting a discussion. There are certainly a number of people who believe very strongly in their religions creation stories. As a Catholic and a chemist, I am almost daily torn between the juxtaposition of ID and evolution. If one allows the assumption of a creator, then one can also allow the assumption that said creator created such symbiotic networks purposefully. If one assumes a creator, then science is really almost a religious experience. To be sure, we are trying to be as "God-like as possible. Stretching what we know about reality, trying to discover the "whys" about our natural universe. to constantly search for the fruit of that Tree of Knowledge. Kinda cool whether one believes in religion or not. Regardless of how they came to exist, it is amazing that such symbiotic networks exist. That cannot be disputed. To know we work in exactly one way and in no other way could things work the same. Very awesome. Thanks for the discussion. -AA Per my instructions, I was starting a discussion. There are certainly a number of people who believe very strongly in their religions creation stories. As a Catholic and a chemist, I am almost daily torn between the juxtaposition of ID and evolution. If one allows the assumption of a creator, then one can also allow the assumption that said creator created such symbiotic networks purposefully.

If one assumes a creator, then science is really almost a religious experience. To be sure, we are trying to be as “God-like as possible. Stretching what we know about reality, trying to discover the “whys” about our natural universe. to constantly search for the fruit of that Tree of Knowledge. Kinda cool whether one believes in religion or not.

Regardless of how they came to exist, it is amazing that such symbiotic networks exist. That cannot be disputed. To know we work in exactly one way and in no other way could things work the same. Very awesome.

Thanks for the discussion.
-AA

]]> By: David Bradley http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/balancing-your-gut-bugs.html/comment-page-1#comment-104783 David Bradley Thu, 24 May 2007 19:57:21 +0000 http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/balancing-your-gut-bugs.html#comment-104783 I believe we acquire our gut flora in the first few weeks of life. As to the implications for the ID debate, do we really need to go down that path? It is apparent from this kind of work that mammals, including Homo sapiens, are symbiotic networks of a multitude of organisms. Did you know that every eyelash follicle bears a microscopic might that keeps the follicle clean and free of pathogens? Unless you get a stye, of course. To my mind, an intelligent designer would simply have designed us to be effective at the job we are destined for without having to add myriad organisms to our make up. And, what about parasites, where do they fit into the notion of ID? Is it all meant to be some incredibly elaborate test of faith, is that it? WHY? I believe we acquire our gut flora in the first few weeks of life. As to the implications for the ID debate, do we really need to go down that path? It is apparent from this kind of work that mammals, including Homo sapiens, are symbiotic networks of a multitude of organisms. Did you know that every eyelash follicle bears a microscopic might that keeps the follicle clean and free of pathogens? Unless you get a stye, of course. To my mind, an intelligent designer would simply have designed us to be effective at the job we are destined for without having to add myriad organisms to our make up. And, what about parasites, where do they fit into the notion of ID? Is it all meant to be some incredibly elaborate test of faith, is that it? WHY?

]]> By: adam http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/balancing-your-gut-bugs.html/comment-page-1#comment-104746 adam Thu, 24 May 2007 18:38:43 +0000 http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/balancing-your-gut-bugs.html#comment-104746 So at what point do humans acquire these microbes? gestation? first breast feeding? What implications does this have for the natural selection vs intellegent design debate? Very interesting post. I guess I should learn to start liking yogurt. So at what point do humans acquire these microbes? gestation? first breast feeding?

What implications does this have for the natural selection vs intellegent design debate?

Very interesting post. I guess I should learn to start liking yogurt.

]]>