Scientific Knowledge Increases a Person's Interest In Life More So Than Religion Does

You made a lot of good points and Con will try to address most of them. Out of the gate, Pro provides a good rant about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Perhaps, too detail and incomplete that may confuse the voter. We know from Round 1 Pro's concern about “making it [the debate] more interesting for the voter. ” The last thing one should do is get into the weeds at such scale where a “molecule of lower energy strikes a molecule of higher energy. .. ” this may confuse the voter. Defining a “Closed System” on a molecular level you will naturally find what appears to be conflicts in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. However, such conflicts diminish within “Closed Systems” from the macro level up to the level of the universe as a complete “Closed System,” which is the proper range of scales dealing with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. At the macro level Pro left out an important simple part of the Second Law relating to flow. That is, when dealing with heat, there is a natural flow from high temperature to a lower temperature. When dealing with pressure, there is a natural flow from high pressure to a lower pressure. Everyone could relate to a pressurized aerosol spray container. Did anyone ever notice, the spray from a hair spray container going in the opposite direction? That is, back into the can. The answer is NO, thanks to the Arrow of Time and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. To continue, electrical current flows from high resistance to low resistance. Water flows from the height of a mountain to the lowest level in a valley or the ocean. And so on. Flow within the matrix of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is the key to the current evolutionary state of the universe. Since humanity is a product of God's handwriting, aka the Laws of Nature, it is fascinating to see symmetry in human behavior relative to the Second Law. That is, the desire to take a path from high to lower resistance. Do less work for the same result. Migration from the high resistance found in tyranny, to the low resistance found in freedom. The desire to move from a higher taxed area, to a lower tax community having the same standard of living. The desire to move from the high resistance of finding employment to the low resistance of employment found in prosperous areas. The enjoyment of the transition from high emotional stress to lower stress. Choose the lower price supplier for a given product. And so on. Of course, on the individual level there are always exceptions, like Pro pointed out on the molecular level. However, the Second Law of Thermodynamics deals with the flow of populations of molecules, and through symmetry, empirically, it is interesting to find human populations have the tendency exhibiting the same patterns of flow from high to low. Why does human behavior seem to have the same pattern of flow relative to the Second Law of Thermodynamics? We could trace this behavior back to life's primeval working function also known as Unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of positive-feedback (Survival, etc. , Happiness for us humans). ” Con mentioned in the previous round that unbeknownst to Thomas Jefferson, he discovered, not developed, this primeval working function found throughout all living-systems. Pro is correct about Jefferson “using this to sway opinion. ” Jefferson used this “opinion” to upset His Royal Highness King George III with such a phrase, as it flew in the face of the prevailing political theory of the day. Also, Jefferson's term of Unalienable Rights became the foundation to the US Constitutional design of governance, which sparked a social experiment within a short period of 200-years, changed the world like no other society in recorded history, through the fruits of technology, food production, and medicine, the stables of human existence throughout the world today. A compelling example of what happens when our Unalienable Rights are free to flow within the awesome machinery of nature. But I digress, getting back to life's primeval working function and its symmetry to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, we may view this function as a bio-program throughout all living-systems, including social systems. That is, once alive, or a social identity comes into existence, there is a natural tendency during the struggle of survival to support, prolong, and improve “Life. ” At the same time, there is an inherent drive to increase freedom (“Liberty”), with an ongoing effort to reduce and optimize the energy expended during “the pursuit of” an objective, while increasing and exploring new levels of positive-feedback (“Happiness” for us humans). A bio-program, having an organically persuasive, self-adjusting, “fine-tuning” algorithm throughout the flux of life's Unalienable Rights; encouraging life to take the path of least resistance, in the attempt to satisfy the pursuit of its objectives, to maintain survival, or search for new levels of positive-feedback. Life's Unalienable Rights is the foundation to the Natural Selection Process. This study of flow systems, relative to the Second Law of Thermodynamics either animate or inanimate, Constructal Law by Adrian Bejan, and the study of animate systems via Constructal Law relative to some primeval working function by Michael Takac are relatively new concepts of interpreting the empirical, presented to the scientific community. These new concepts are on the scientific stage for verification—as Pro pointed out by his highlighted text of a different color. This is a natural process within the scientific community which could take decades to shake out. As it did for Einstein, at the beginning of last century, when claiming Newtonian physics was wrong. Imagine the upset in the scientific community over that claim. Still today, there is more mainstream controversy over Darwin's work than Einstein's, however, the scientific community is mostly in alignment with Darwin. Too bad Darwin, 80 some years after Jefferson, failed to explore Unalienable Rights as the foundation to the Natural Selection Process, but instead fell in love with Herbert Spencer's popular phrase of “survival of the fittest. ” Imagine, during the beginning of the last century, what the world would be like today if the popular political fad then, of Social Darwinism, would be founded on the phrase “survival of the Happiest,” instead of “survival of the fittest. ” Just a thought, or food for a future debate. Con thanks Pro for quoting Jefferson's celebrated statement, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. ” Con would like to point out the importance Jefferson gave to our “Creator” (aka God), relative to this debate's title pertaining to the “Person's Interest in Life. ” That is, the first Unalienable Right being the Right to Life, “endowed by their Creator” implies most Religion Knowledge Increases a Person's Interest in Life More So Than Science Does. This scholarly insight of Jefferson, took place during the Enlightenment Era. However, Pro took issue with Jefferson using the phrase “self-evident. ” Self-evident: “containing its own evidence or proof without need of further demonstration” (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). We may treat life's Unalienable Rights as “self-evident” or an axiom presenting a self-contained closed system of binary outcomes. That is, we may test “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of positive-feedback” in a binary premise. Either we have Life or no-Life, either we have freedom or no-freedom, either we have energy in the pursuit, or no-energy; all binary states determent whether the outcome is positive- or negative-feedback. In the field of mathematics and logic, such a closed system of propositions brings into existence a logical axiom being final and binary resulting in a proof (. http://www.psychologytoday.com...). Pro covered morality from a classical metaphysical standpoint, having no conflict with the scientific vantage point of mutually embracing Unalienable Rights for group positive-feedback. Group positive-feedback happens throughout the spectrum of species in group formation ether genetically and/or cerebrally. Con made reference of the previous Round of the empirical diversity, throughout recorded history, of all isolated human tribes developed their own culture, language, “moral code,” and they all had some form of belief as in a religion. Not one was found to be atheistic. Pro made reference to “psychological altruism” in the evolution of morality. Altruism also maintains a mutual moral embracement of the Unalienable Rights of inter-specie group formation as in the bond between a human and a pet. The human scope of language includes the term morality when loving a pet. The pet returns positive-feedback in many different ways, for example, a wag of the tail. Their relationship is positive-feedback via life's Unalienable Rights, where the language, concept and experience of positive-feedback are not the same. Even between humans, the experience of positive-feedback is an isolated event, where no two humans can be sure the experience is the same. Pro's should understand the Constructal Law is on the scientific stage, where Creationism is just mainstream noise. In closing, Con thanks Pro for this debate and wish Pro a long and healthy Life, with ample freedom (“Liberty” aka money), and the moral pursuit of Happiness, in the shadow of the Laws of Nature (God's handwriting). And Con looks forward in meeting Pro again on the debating floor.