BS: Science under attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 01:12 PM

I am amused by people who seem to think their way to freedom is censoring others. I dislike the message of the Jehovah's Witnesses. But if I work to ban them from knocking on our door. Something I like to do will probably be banned next.

English common law (and US tort law) provides all the protection we need from such things while protecting our own freedoms. I urge you not to mess with that. I fear the cure will be much worse than the aliment.

And yes in the US there is an unholy overlapping alliance between certain Christians and greedy interests. The preachers are saying that if we uphold Christian Values (ban gay marriage, stop abortion, limit government, support Israeli colonialism, go to war with Islam) then we will be restored to prosperity. I don't think we can combat this with censorship. Education is the key. Shine a light and the roaches will scatter.

The Christian Values that we are losing are the real Christian Values. We need to do more loving our neighbors as ourselves and less throwing the first stone.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 01:38 PM

I don't see anything wrong with someone campaigning on religion or even campaigning to accomplish religious goals. That is a part and parcel of being free to choose. I think that there could be an atheist President. Six years ago on this very liberal leaning forum, progressive voices were doubting there could be a Black President.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 01:39 PM

"The Christian[sic] Roaches".

I like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 01:50 PM

(sic)???

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 01:51 PM

They are not roaches because they are Christian. Quite the opposite. They are Christian to hide the fact that they are roaches.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 01:57 PM

I suspect I wasn't clear enough - it happens! I agree there's nothing wrong with an individual compaigning for whatever cause they like. I can also agree with a party campaigning to represent a specific religious point of view: if they get elected they reflect the will of the people and all that. The problem is that under the US system and also the UK since we voted to reject Alternative Voting (boo hiss, but that's another story) you only really have a choice of 2 or perhaps 3 parties that are an amalgam of lots of views. And its having a strong religious bias at that level that's the problem for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 02:08 PM

Democracy is a messy business.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 02:24 PM

You're beginning to sound like the patronising missionaries who come proselytizing door-to-door. For sure I know the text (doesn't everyone?)

In the context Bill had set of missionaries going out into the world, perhaps not.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 02:28 PM

I think that only a small percentage of nominal Christians really know the text.

The real message, "Love thy neighbor as thyself." In my opinion, needs to be spread.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 04:22 PM

"In the UK we are rarely concerned with or even aware of the religious beliefs of our politicians..."

I have heard that in several European countries this is the case. Here, it is about the first thing that is ferreted out by opponents.
When Dwight Eisenhower was nominated in 1952, he had to go very quickly and FIND a nice, easy-to-tolerate church to attend, and then to be seen there. As far as I know, that is as close as we ever came to a 'non-religious' president.

.... Bill had set of missionaries going out ...

That was only the most obvious example. In some places in this country, (mostly Southern and MidWestern)(I lived in Wichita, where that abortion doctor was murdered) it is difficult to even live peacefully if you admit or advertise that you do NOT go to church. This is not a joke....and in those areas, do not even consider running for any major office if you are not known to be Christian. You will simply be branded as heathen and 'connected' to every sin known.

Jon... I find it hard to comprehend that there is anyone who has NOT "heard the word". What happens...whether YOU would limit it or not.... is that "hearing" is coupled with peer pressure and fear and distortion of history-- and often supported by illegal, but tolerated, teaching in the schools. When I was in 7th grade, my science teacher organized the Christmas pagent, and my class was TOLD we were to participate and memorize the lines about shepherds and angels and Bethlehem. At that time, I was a good Methodist but, and never even wondered if anyone in my class was uncomfortable with it all. All I know is, it was inserted into our lives as if there were NO doubt. Well, that was 1952, and there are 'some' more rules now....but in many areas, breaking or ignoring those rules is the regular practice, since the majority would make life miserably for those who tried to opt out.
*sigh*...it is sad to remember all this and to have to make these hard points, but it IS the case that "freedom" does mean 'freedom FROM religion' as well as 'freedom TO engage in religion'.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 04:25 PM

There is one aspect of Abrahamic religions that is rarely discussed in a conversation like this and that is the fact that these religions assume that 'Man' (i.e. human beings) represents the 'pinnacle' of creation and were put on Earth to have 'Dominion' over everything. It is this assumption which, I believe, has led us to behave like a plague and to devastate all of the other life that we share this planet with.

Actually, I suspect that humans having been acting like a plague on the surface of the Earth since they/we left Africa. The Abrahamic religions have merely provided (spurious) legitimacy for, and 'sanctified', such activity. Ultimately, the wanton destruction of Nature will lead to the extinction of our own species and hence the Abrahamic religions may actually represent a threat to our survival.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 04:45 PM

and that is the fact that these religions assume that 'Man' (i.e. human beings) represents the 'pinnacle' of creation

Angels are considered superior creations to us.

and were put on Earth to have 'Dominion' over everything. It is this assumption which, I believe, has led us to behave like a plague and to devastate all of the other life that we share this planet with.

I think there are enough good old human qualities such as greed, blind faith in our own ingenuity, etc. to consider first.

Ultimately, the wanton destruction of Nature will lead to the extinction of our own species and hence the Abrahamic religions may actually represent a threat to our survival.

Our application of science/technology seems to me to have taken us closer to potential destruction of the planet than anything else I can think of. I'd suggest one of our other great enemies is the great god "Consumerism".

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Penny S.
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 05:16 PM

Pete, that's very kind of you, but I am not what I would call learned. I don't think, however, that the creation apologists are looking at the same evidence I have. When I have investigated what they say about things which I have thought evidence of long age, and not of the flood, such as the Chalk, the explanations have ignored important features of the rocks. Some areas they have not looked at all.
One group did go to Siccar Point, an important place in the development of geology, for which I admire them, but they did not find anything to counter the conventional interpretation.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 05:19 PM

Ultimately, the wanton destruction of Nature will lead to the extinction of our own species and hence the Abrahamic religions may actually represent a threat to our survival.

Extinction? I think not. If there is anything left besides cockroaches after the collapse of society, it will be people. We are as adaptable as they are. If such a collapse happens, there will still be people, there will still be religion. I am not so optimistic about science.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: saulgoldie
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 05:37 PM

Science, the scientific method, is a *process* that reveals reproduceable results. One does not *belive in* science. One *accepts* science as a process of investigation that is the underpinning of virtually all we know.

Religion is a *belief* system that does not. Religion was a *creation* of early humans to explain that which could not be explained in terms of the best knowledge of the day. Different societies have *chosen* different religions for this purpose. Science has pushed back the boundaries of what can be explained.

Religion has outgrown its usefullness to humans. But it persists. If we all continue to *believe in* religion, whatever religion, religion will be the downfall of humanity.

Humans, in some form, may survive. Cockroaches depend on humans for their waste to survive. They will only survive as humans do.

I may *believe in* the flying spaghetti monster as the creator. Who can challenge my *belief* anymore than any other *belief* system? There is no tangible proof.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 05:54 PM

Of course one Believes in Science. One believes that the process of science can answer life's mysteries. I may even be bold enough, based upon a preceding post, to wager that soulgoldie harbors such beliefs.

None of us are omniscient. We need beliefs to get by in this world. The difference is what are beliefs are based upon.

Cockroaches have been around for many millions of years more than humanity and several breeds live wild throughout the southern US including outside our house. They don't need us to survive.   Likewise, science requires civilization, at the very least, a lot of free time and recording media. Religion requires only blind faith and oral traditions. If there is a downfall science is a much more likely victim than religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: John P
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 05:59 PM

Religion has outgrown its usefullness to humans. But it persists. If we all continue to *believe in* religion, whatever religion, religion will be the downfall of humanity.

While I agree with you about where religion came from and its lack of relevance in my own life, I don't really see it being the downfall of humanity. Religious organizations, possibly. There's a big difference between Church and God. Also, lots of humans seem to find religious belief useful, and most of them don't accept all the details of their sect's dogma. Most religious folks I know have no desire to force their religion on others and are, I think, better people for their religion. I admit to having a hard time not doubting their mental clarity or intellectual honesty, though.

Fortunately, we don't all believe in religion, and the numbers of those who do are dwindling.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 06:03 PM

"we don't all believe in religion, and the numbers of those who do are dwindling. "

You think so? Globally? Demographically? or just where you live?

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: John P
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 06:08 PM

Of course one Believes in Science. One believes that the process of science can answer life's mysteries.

Jack, you've just stepped over the line. Saying that science is a belief system is bullshit. The only people who ever say that are religious folks who want everyone else to be on the same page they're on. No one who knows anything about science thinks it will solve any mysteries, except for the as yet unknowns about how are universe is put together physically. Get off it. You've certainly been in enough conversations on this topic to know how offensive you're being.

Science describes. Period. No belief involved. As someone in another thread said, saying that science is a belief system is like saying that my hobby is collecting stamps, even though I don't have a stamp collection and don't want one.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: John P
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 06:11 PM

"we don't all believe in religion, and the numbers of those who do are dwindling. "

You think so? Globally? Demographically? or just where you live?

Naw, I'm just speaking in anecdotes. I hope it's true, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 06:17 PM

I did not say that science is a belief system. I am saying that people believe in science's ability to answer their questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: John P
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 06:36 PM

Huh. Maybe we're using the word "belief" in different ways. The word is a bit slippery. I would say that I trust science to tell me the truth about those subjects it is able to speak to. But I would never use "belief" with a capital B to describe any of the results of scientific investigation, especially not in a conversation about religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 06:45 PM

But I would never use "belief" with a capital B to describe any of the results of scientific investigation,

I didn't do that either. Someone said that People don't believe in science and I disagreed.

(actually he said "belive" but I assumed that was a typo.)

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 07:02 PM

The word (belief) is a bit slippery.
A bit? Extremely, I would say! There's lots of 'belief' in science, but the point is it is falsifiable belief, whereas most people don't think religious belief is. I don't agree, but that's me ...

I would say that I trust science to tell me the truth about those subjects it is able to speak to.

I wouldn't. 'To the best of our belief (!)", yes. The truth is another matter. I believe (!) any scientist worthy of the name must be prepared to abandon whatever scientific beliefs (!) they have accumulated in the event of a new scientific experiment that reveals a previously unrecognised flaw. And I believe (!) the peer review process is an effective way of doing that eventually, but not that it will necessarily do so in a relatively short timescale because scientists are people too, with careers and research grants to worry about.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 07:14 PM

DMcG's last paragraph speaks to the point I was making. To live you have to act, to act you have to take risks. To take risks you need beliefs.

You can believe in God to look after you when you are driving or you can have faith in the science behind the design of the road and your car and your tires etc. I do both. I believe in science AND I believe in God.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: gnu
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 07:30 PM

A lot of people believe in the Big G just before they take the Big Dirt Nap. Science... not so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: John P
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 07:56 PM

I didn't do that either.

Well, actually you did ;^) No matter. Time to go, more later.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: saulgoldie
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 08:15 PM

Jack,
What exactly do you *believe* in?

What *facts and reason* led you to *choose* this belief?

Do you feel that "it chose you?"

If so, why do you feel *incapable* of using your powers as an individual thinker and choosing?

How can you prove to someone who does not share your belief that it is believable?

How do you explain the fact that throughout human history, billions (that is 1,000,000,000s) of people have disagreed and still disagree on just what is "the correct" dietific belief?

Can you disprove "the Flying Spaghetti Monster?"

Are "so many" people who do not share your belief stupid, crazy, or in some other way out of their minds?

Why is your *belief* superior to anyone else's?

How many astronomical, biological, or engineering discoveries came strictly from any religious process? How many from the scientific *process* of inquiry?

If religion is the answer, why did the Catholic Church apologize to Gallileo after a mere 500 years for excommunicating him for his "heresy"?

Do you "believe" that the Earth revolves around the Sun? If so, how do you know? If not, what do you believe is the relationship between the two celestial bodies, and what facts can you cite to prove *your belief?*

I could go on...

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: gnu
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 08:25 PM

John P.... "I didn't do that either. Well, actually you did ;^) No matter. Time to go, more later."

Could you please direct us to the post from which you quote (?huh?) if it's not the previous one or two so we can follow the conversation without searching for WHO said WHAT?

Jaysus man! I am early onset Oldtimers and I don't DO memory more than a few posts. It's just a matter of courtesey, even for those who CAN remember what they had for breakfast, Sometimes, I don't even

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 08:29 PM

"Jack,
What exactly do you *believe* in? "

Did you not read this? Is it not clear?

"I believe in science AND I believe in God."

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 08:33 PM

John P,

I didn't...

So there!

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: saulgoldie
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 08:47 PM

Jack,
I asked several questions. You only barely and briefly came close to answering one of them. C'mon, convince me of the error of my ways! The gauntlet is down! Rise to the challenge!

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 09:23 PM

I thought all of those "questions" were rhetorical. I don't have any urge to reply to them. For example what makes you think I would want to talk about spaghetti monsters?

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 02:54 AM

Do you "believe" that the Earth revolves around the Sun? If so, how do you know? If not, what do you believe is the relationship between the two celestial bodies, and what facts can you cite to prove *your belief?

The fact they move relative to each other is simple observation. Even using the Newtonian model neither moves round the other but both round a point in between their centres of gravity. (The presence of the rest of the universe makes this more complicated but the same principle applies.) As with all of science the search is for the simplest explanation that fits all the data, not an abstract truth. For almost every purpose the mathematical modelling is vastly simplified if the sun is used as the origin for solar-system calculations, but if you have some calculation or requirement that is easier with the opposite assumption it is still scientifically accurate. For example research into road traffic accidents may refer to 'sunrise' and 'sunset' which is of course a sun-moves-round-the-earth model.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 04:22 AM

"Extinction? I think not. If there is anything left besides cockroaches after the collapse of society, it will be people. We are as adaptable as they are. If such a collapse happens, there will still be people, there will still be religion."

So, 'Jack the Sailor', you have 'faith' that our species is above Nature and the processes of evolution and extinction, do you? A religious point of view if I ever heard one!

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 04:39 AM

For example research into road traffic accidents may refer to 'sunrise' and 'sunset' which is of course a sun-moves-round-the-earth model.

It's a matter of objective perceptive pragmatics to speak of sunrise and sunset; likewise the movement of stars in the night sky and precession which is all down to the moving / wobbling earth but when you're on the earth the evidence of that is heavenly rather that terrestrial. Even the shivering skyclad pagans who watch the solstice sunrise accept that - and not even the most pedantic of scientists would ever call it The Solstice Earthfall, though it does have a certain ring...

Talking about rings and soltices, and getting back to early evidences for scentific enquiry, I'd say the Large Hadron Collider is the Stonehenge of our times. Enquiry and Enlighenment define our humanity, and the Atheistic Tradition stretches back to the very crack. Religion and God are just lazy habits we slipped into somewhere along the way for the sake of oppression and political control, although some scientific discoveries might be described as unfortunate in that respect - such as the discovery of the causal link between sexual intercourse and pregnancy which has defined the Patriarchal order of things ever since, especially in such Evil Institutions as the Unholy Roman Catholic Church.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Stu
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 05:04 AM

The M6 is the Stonhenge of our times.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 05:48 AM

I'll see your M6 and raise you a Spaghetti Junction (Gravelly Hill) which inspires in me the same tranquil awe, but then again, I don't drive. I love the M6 on the whole really, especially the old service stations, such as the one at Lancaster which looks decidely weird when viewed across the fields from the A6. I wonder, in time, when the cars have gone and humanity has regressed to unprecented savage state ruled over by sentient cockroaches, will they be saying the M6 is the work of God?

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Stu
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 10:29 AM

The gestalt of the M6 (including the toll road and Gravelly Hill Interchange) is truly awesome (in the original sense of the word) when considered. Being an expat bummie the section through the second city is the part that I love most of the whole road, I still consider it my home turf. From the turnoff to the Aston Expressway at Spag. Junc. to the extended flyover that passes the once might Forty Dunlop, the views of the Villa and the rotunda and the dreaming towers of Birmingham. I always loved the feeling of sailing over the rail yards and factories, the rhythmic whump of the car going over the expansion joints... sigh. No service stations in the brum and the Black Country, there you fend for yourself, a single cell in the bloodstream of the country itself, an artery from the nation's beating heartland feeding the capillaries that in turn are feeding the myriad symbionts that makes us as a country what we are at any one, whole brief moment.

Suc a contrast to the motorway at it's far extremity in Cumbria and its route with the fells of the lakes and Yorkshire funnelling the road as it winds onward and where it feels like it's transporting you past a land still brooding over the brutal incursion of this industrial behemoth.

It passes close to where I live now and is still one of our main routes south or north, climbing as it does over the Mersey and the ship canal (another monument), although it's become so crowded and today's drivers so fuppin' insane that travelling along it can be a real nightmare.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: John P
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 10:47 AM

saulgoldie,
I think Jack is the wrong person to be asking those questions of. He seems to be more involved in Jesus' injunctions to be a good person than in the blind adherence to any conservative Christian dogma. I don't get the whole belief thing myself, but I don't remember seeing him claim to be superior to or more right than others.


Trivia:
Jaysus, indeed, it's so not important once we talked for a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Jack the Sailor - PM
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 05:54 PM

Of course one Believes in Science. One believes that the process of science can answer life's mysteries. I may even be bold enough, based upon a preceding post, to wager that soulgoldie harbors such beliefs.

And I even quoted it later:

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: John P - PM
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 06:08 PM

"Of course one Believes in Science."

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 11:25 AM

Perect joy for me is driving through up to & through the Lune Gorge on the M6 listening to Kraftwerk's Autobahn in its 23 minute entirety... Well, sitting in the passenger seat anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 03:29 PM

John P, I was not aware that the capital "B" imparted a special meaning.

Here are definitions of believe and belief which I accept.

If you can discredit my arguments based on these please proceed. Are you saying that I was using "Believe" as a credo because of the capital? Is that written down somewhere as a "rule?"

People can't have religious "believes"; they have religious beliefs. If you have it, it's a belief; if you do it, you believe.
Source: http://www.wsu.edu/
belief Meaning(s)

    * (n) any cognitive content held as true
    * (n) a vague idea in which some confidence is placed

believe Meaning(s)

    * (v) accept as true; take to be true
    * (v) judge or regard; look upon; judge
    * (v) be confident about something
    * (v) follow a credo; have a faith; be a believer
    * (v) credit with veracity

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: John P
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 04:05 PM

Yes, adding a capital to a word is a commonly used way indicating a grand meaning for the word. "With a capital B" is a well known way of describing that.

The word "belief" has two very different meanings for me. Saying I believe in the existence of Hong Kong, even though I've never seen it, means that I have good, logical reasons to think I've been told the truth about whether or not Hong Kong is really there. Saying I believe in God is almost the opposite -- that I don't have any logical reason to think God exists, but I believe it anyway. A mystical and non-logical statement. Saying that I believe that science tells me the truth (with a small T) is very different than saying I believe in something which requires acceptance without any reasons.

All of which is to say that we ought to be clear about how we're using the word in a conversation about belief -- and ask for clarification if there's any question about meaning.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 04:29 PM

"With a capital B" is a well known way of describing that."

It is MY understanding that "With a capital "insert letter here" is a well known way to stress whatever the speaker or writer wants to stress. As in "That fighter has Balls! With a capital B."

That said, How "credo" any more "grand" than any the other four meanings? I think that the perception of grandness is coming form you.

"I don't have any logical reason to think God exists, but I believe it anyway."

Are you serious? Do you accept eyewitness testimony as evidence in a court of law? I can show you lots of that kind of evidence. A truly scientific mind could not close that door. If you don't accept it that a function of your Belief system.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: John P
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 05:11 PM

No, the perception of grandness came from you capitalizing a word in the middle of a sentence, an issue I've don't care about and have been trying to let go of.

Eyewitness testimony in a court of law is VERY different than personal stories about the existence of God. The two aren't even on the same planet. One is a description of a physical event that happened and which doesn't require any Belief to believe and the other is a description of a non-physical, non-causative event that does require Belief. All I have to do with an eyewitness in court is to decide whether or not he's lying. With personal stories about God -- none of which, as far as I know, can stand up to very much cross-examination -- I have to decide whether or not God exists.

Please understand that I'm not one of those who thinks that science can answer all questions and that spirituality is bullshit. Science can only answer questions of how our universe is put together physically. It can't describe love, team spirit, beauty, the phenomenon of the belief in God, or a whole host of other things. And the gaps in our knowledge are much greater than what we actually know -- like what it is about humans that allows/causes us to have spiritual experiences.

Sorry, I really don't have a Belief system. At least not one with a capital B. ;^)   I am a very spiritual person who has had numerous mystical/spiritual/non-linear experiences and who thinks that if everyone did what Jesus said the world would be a much better place. Where it all falls apart for me is Believing in all the other stuff that religions claim as truth. Why not have the spiritual experience, and learn from it, and be an ethical/moral person, without taking on the virgin birth, raising from the dead, and a conscious creator who cares what individuals do?

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 05:17 PM

Various people, in promulgating religious concerns have used words like 'accept' and 'acknowledge' to give extra authority to the particular religious systems they follow. In the American South a few years ago, someone ordered a stone monument with the 10 Commandments installed in the state house. When objections were raised, saying he had no right to do this, he used the phrase, "I am merely 'acknowledging' God...".

This sort of language is a way of assuming the existence you wish to prove in the very way it it phrased...a classic bit of circular reasoning. Even the phrase "Do you 'believe' in God" has a construction that assumes that there IS such a thing, and dares you to NOT accept it. One should ask more neutrally, "Do you believe in *A* god?" or "Is it your belief that some supernatural 'entity' created everything and is monitoring things daily?".....some such construction of phrasing.

I regularly hear or read of people using the phrase "My God is..X, Y, Z.." ... as if that shows something about reality. I suppose I can see WHY they say such things if they are strongly committed to some particular theology, but it is not a fair & reasonable way to conduct a sincere debate on the basic issue. It is merely another way of stating one's 'belief'.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 05:47 PM

John, You seem to be digging yourself into a logical hole. You say you have no belief system, as you use your own idiosyncratic belief about what is "logic" to decide whether there is a God or not. You cannot know. You cannot have talked to every witness. You cannot have seen every piece of evidence.

The fact that Billions of people believe something is certainly one logical reason to accept it. If you have other beliefs that you feel refute that. That is fine. If you came to those beliefs through what you feel is a logical process. That is fine also. But I would urge you not to confuse your belief in your process as truth or fact. None of us are omniscient. We must depend on our beliefs to function. I will grant that there is often a qualitative difference in the process by which different people come to their beliefs and that the difference can sometimes lead to better outcomes.

But Catholic belief in The Virgin Mary has prevented suicide in times of a grief and despair deep enough to kill many an atheist.

In that case, which belief is logical?

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 05:47 PM

There are aspects of science that require attack or at least a well reasoned reset.

Peer review for example can sometimes do more harm than good when putting new concepts through the filter of the status quo. Reproducing results is a good thing but there are sciences that are conceptual in search of quantitative experiments but if the controversial subject is shot to hell by "status quoticians", then funding for experimentation is jeopardized.

Some mathematicians believe the universe at large is entirely quantifiable with math, as if the universe is at its core a mathematical construct. The problem is when math can not describe a phenomenon, it is falsely assumed that the premise is at fault and the the current state of math.

I have complained for decades that linear thinking is the worst possible way of visualizing anything, yet that is what is considered to be "normal thinking". For example people think of time (actually space-time) as having a linear direction that points from past through the now into the future. The problem is that nothing is linear in a universe in motion and expansion. Whlie it seems perfectly normal to me that time most likely has more than one dimension, an x and y axis would more accurately describe time along with all its relativistic qualities linked to gravity.

Time has two dimensions!? Most likely. That's why events viewed from the instant of now, may reveal recent future events and adjacent past events in a slightly fuzzy fashion. Viewing time as a linear thing, is just wrong. Time viewed as a multi dimensional wave feels intuitively correct.

Some of you may have had the privilege of viewing how time actually moves in quantum jumps. People under the influence of LSD have viewed trucks moving down a midnight highway from a great distance and saw the trucks move in instant steps and not a smooth constant motion. Some of them reported the process as a smooth trail but when asked to concentrate on that trail it broke into discrete segments of movement. Maybe you sped up your mind and became aware of the cycling of florescent lights turning on and off quickly. You may have seen a conductors baton trail in a discrete go stop go stop fashion making it impossible to see on particular stop of a down beat. Some cosmologists believe that every instant is within the dimension of time and time is composed of discrete packets of the now.

Thinking about time is much richer when thinking in a dimensional way rather than a straight line fashion. Thinking about a billiards shot is best done in a linear fashion.

The point is that observable phenomenon should get more credence than it does. Yes there are optical illusions that make direct scientific observation suspect but math can also have paradoxes and nonsensical answers. Today we can directly observe a single object being at two places at once, without any smoke and mirror trickery.
Yet people dismiss this phenomenon without full appreciation for what it means - because many observers are (here we go again)
linear thinkers.

A linear thinking observer may not see what I see because I can only process language and spatial thoughts with my right brain hemisphere. I have to force myself into the shortest distance between point A to point B linear concepts, and even when I do, it still seems wrong because in reality the points are moving, entropy is progressing and gravity changes and warps space time etc.

I try from time to time to give a glimpse into what dimensional thinking is all about compared to linear but sometimes it sounds like I am being judgmental of left brain persons. That is not my aim, in fact I am envious of those who have instant access to words spoken or read.


In conclusion, the way in which we think is crucial and comes in more than one valid flavor. Relativity was a big step in the Right direction. Phenomenology and direct observation should be given the same validity as mathematics in science. Also the scientific community can become a bit parochial at times when the goal is to enforce a status quo due to linear thinking patterns.


succinctly,
some self important science ass holes have a stick up their ass regarding new ideas and protect their turf for the money, first and foremost.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 05:54 PM

I know the man you are talking about Bill. He was the elected Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. I lived in Alabama at the time. I don't think the particular words that he used were important for him or his supporters. They were blatantly defying the law. They felt that they were so righteous that they did not have to be right. The courts saw otherwise.

That case was certainly an argument against choosing judges by election.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 06:02 PM

Could you please wipe religion off the bottom of your shoe and return to science, science doing an attack and science receiving a valid attack .

Invalid attacks are nonsensical and frankly a bit boring.