Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 5,351-5,400 of 12,463

[Travis]

Gary wrote: "Travis wrote: "You can find the atheist handbook on the shelf, next to the 'Gay Agenda'."

Same DDS number as the "Scientific conspiracies: Moon Landing Hoaxes, Climate Science and Evil-ution" and ..."

Of course, as it is the atheists, gays and zions who are in charge of all those conspiracies.
it was one of our crack squad of gay, theist ninjas that hid the WMDs in order to make Bush look bad.
True story.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "I don't think they're equal. ;) Consensus!

I don't know if basing everything on science and evidence would mean that or not. That's where my mind started going ... as I started having a mini-pa..."

You seem to be stuck on this idea that consensus means no individuality is allowed.
Or to quote the movie "That word you keep saying, I don't think it means what you think it means."
Consensus is more of a point of agreement that groups reach together. There's evidence there, but also the ideas/ opinions etc of the members of the group.
You don't like polyester, and base that a bit on your sense of touch. that's a form of physical evidence.

Your obsession with Sean Bean is based on his rugged good looks and alluring Irish accent.
Again, evidence. Sight and sound.

Some people are going to look at the same Sean Bean and then go 'Eh, he's okay. George Clooney is cuter'.
And after you beat that person up, you'll realize that their sight and sound is giving them evidence, but they come to a different conclusion due to personal preference.

Now, when you get into stuff like gravity, light and basic biology, then the consenus is not so open to personal preference.

and man, I've gone on for a long while and starting to think I may have lost track of your original point.
Think it's due to my wife just made deviled eggs for our cookout.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "The thing is ... we're people, not scientists. Some might wish we were all scientists, but we're not. In point of fact, I should say even scientists are people first."

Indeed, but kind of irrelevant. When I make decisions that effect me (i.e. do I eat those fries) then it is up to me to decide whether to find out more information. I may be aware they are unhealthy, and do it anyway and that is all perfectly fine.

What if those fries contained a potentially lethal amount of Cadmium? Would I then appreciate someone had taken the time to gather the evidence to prove that they did and potentially save my life?

Now compare that to somebody telling you "because it's 4th July you should eat those fries... Even if they have Cadmium in. If you don't you will regret it! Why? Well I believe you will!"

It is fine to choose whether or not to listen to evidence when we are making are own choices, but is it moral to make choices that effect others regardless of evidence?

Shannon wrote: "A GOOD one. What if I still have feelings for someone I dated a few months ago? Still love him. The evidence tells me he's got issues and is likely all wrong for me. My parents and friends think he is WRONG for me and would question my sanity if they knew I still felt something. No consensus there. Well, actually, I even question my sanity a bit ... but ... the feelings are still there. And, if he called today, I'd talk with him ... despite the fact that my friends and family would have me hang up ... have told me to hang up. Consensus? Nope.)"

Again, the point is that you are making your decisions based on what's best for you and picking or choosing based on evidence or personal feeling as you see fit. That is fine.

What if your family forbade you from contacting him, based on nothing more than an unfounded opinion?

In all your illustrations you indeed show times when consensus is lacking or when sometimes you feel free not to look too hard at evidence or reason and just do what you wish. I am all for that.

What if somebody tells you that you must eat chinese food because two millenia ago somebody wrote that on a scroll, what if somebody told you that you should not watch a movie because you would go to hell if you did?

It is for the very examples you give that I strongly feel that people shouldn't be told what to do without being told why they should do it and providing due reason or evidence for your claim.

Shannon wrote: "Truth be told, I'm not even sure I'd want to live in a world where people constantly and forever made choices and held opinions simply based on the evidence. Starting to feel claustrophobic. I don't know if I can breathe ...! Envisioning everyone driving the same car and living in the same house and wearing the same clothing and ... because the evidence says ... and consensus ... and ...."

Now you are confusing consensus with conformity. For example why should someone be allowed to play a violent video game or listen to music with offensive lyrics if that is what they enjoy? People with uninformed opinions based on their own beliefs would (and do) seek to ban this, yet repeated studies show that their claims of such things causing violence and delinquency are completely unfounded.

It is the common monotheistic belief that we need to conform to a certain set of morals, a certain set of rules just because we are told that is what is right. Your nightmare world of conformity is exactly what most faiths prescribe for us.

Look at the puritanical movement, or the religiously inspired 1920's US prohibition, or your last president clearly stating that he did not consider paganism a religion, or his father (allegedly) saying "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."



Shannon wrote: "Here's the rub. While some of you guys would, because that's what lights your fire ... makes your hearts sing ... while many of you would want to live in that sort of world, a world of science and consensus, it just doesn't do it for me ... at least, not all the time."

Actually what I would celebrate is a world where people aren't supported to tell others that something is true without them being able to independently verify it. A world where somebody couldn't use the defence of "you are interfering with my faith" to defend their right to interfere with other peoples lives and self-respect. A world were children aren't brought up to think that this is us and that is them and they are wrong. A world where difference and dissent is respected rather than oppressed and marginalised, but where reason and evidence resolve disputes rather than authority and violence.

Shannon wrote: "I'm going to be the person who looks at the thundercloud, hmmm, science, don't fail me ... cumulonimbus cloud ?? ... and say, "Ahhh! Thunderclouds are THE most beautiful clouds ever!!" In fact, I think I've said that about 10,000 times."

Please Shannon, you are usually better than picking out plays from the standard Theology playbook of "science is dull". I personally would say that the beauty of a thundercloud pales into insignificance against the sheer immensity and beauty of stellar nebulae, but the point is I cannot understand how people can look at the beauty of the universe in all of its awe inspiring majesty and then claim that you have to believe in some deity or other to find things beautiful.

In fact I often find the beauty professed by religious people to often be grotesque and demeaning. Every day I walk past a Church were a beautifully sculpted but yet grotesque image of a tormented Caucasian corpse hangs bloody from a cross, with a loin cloth that makes a mockery of the depiction of a form of execution that was meant to be about humiliation and degradation as much as pain.

Shannon wrote: "I know, I know. Everyone in the family said I might get struck by lightning. And, I knew, scientifically, that might be true."

Scientifically you probably would be in more danger of death by sitting in a moving car. Life is risk, but you can inform yourself about risk as much or as little as you want. I am not advocating that every decision needs to have evidence and reason, just the decisions that impinge on other peoples decisions.

For example, do you think it would be right to conceal an affair you were having from someone you were about to marry? We owe it to others to let them make decisions based on real information that we know is not based on just our own ego.

Shannon wrote: "The point ... no one will ever come to a consensus on what makes their hearts sing ... for you ... scientific method ... for me ... running and walking in thunderstorms."

I have walked in thunderstorms naked. I have danced in them. Your comparison is misleading and unfair. What makes my heart sing, and perhaps others, isn't science but freedom from the dogmatic and oppressive opinions of others. For me nakedness, enjoyment, happiness is not a sin, and not for others to tell me is wrong. Of course I respect that other people may not want to see me naked, so I respect that and you will be happy to know remain clothed in public places :-)

Shannon wrote: "And, yes, for some ... science ... for others ... faith."

Which is fine if they are equivalent, but they are not. Faith means that people only need justification in their own faith, which means the ideas, evidence and reasoning of others is second place.

Shannon wrote: "On a somewhat separate note, you guys must be ticked about all of this talk of a "God" particle."

To be honest I am more annoyed when people misquote Einstein (or recently Hawking!) as being religious.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/einste...

And personally I am just glad that the COBE satellite didn't do a "Mexican Toast" job on us and coincidentally vaguely resemble a big bearded WASP face looking down on us from the edge of the universe. (Damn someone will probably photoshop that now.)

Shannon wrote: "I know .... Given that, consensus might be the way to go, right? I don't think so. I think we should work through the fact that differences make us uncomfortable and accept them ... unless they're illegal or end with someone being killed, maimed or assaulted."

Again I am fine with differences, I have been marginalised for my appearance for years, let alone my lack of faith. I am fine with preferences, I like to eat all kinds of food, except traditional English dishes!

Yet when someone is accused of a crime, that could result in a huge life-changing effect on them, both imprisonment and subsequent social stigma. So we require (in civilised society) a system of laws were evidence of somebodies guilt is required to prove to a reasonable level that the accusers opinion is true. (Ok except where the Patriot Act is invoked)

So why do people not make the same stringent requirements when we accept life effecting decisions for other people? The birth of a child is a huge life changing decision for people, yet some people want to restrict or even ban contraception on the completely unfounded grounds that sex without chance of procreation is sinful.

Shannon wrote: "Must go drool over fries and play a fair game that, evidence tells me, I'm destined to lose at. ;) "

Actually evidence says that if you play you are orders of magnitude more likely to win if you don't play, plus any scientist analysing your behaviour will probably determine that the release of dopamine and serotonin caused by the enjoyment of the game would constitute just as much of a win as any fiscal or material reward.

Anyone who thinks that science doesn't contain beauty has never really looked at it.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Fair answer :-) I was just curious because of the recent..."

And I hope you have fun! :-)

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Wouldn't we, if we based every single thing on evidence, lose a very real part of our imaginations and individuality?

I sort of think so .... I might be wrong .... "

I offer the following as evidence. Compare two novels written as works of fiction based on the history of the Catholic Church. One novel is written without any research and based on the first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry for Catholicism, the other author has researched history and the inner workings of the real Catholic church and then imagined various links and a hidden narrative within the story that leads to still more imaginative constructs built on the tweaked reality on which it is based.

Which would be the more compelling novel?

Why do novelists do any research at all if pure imagination is so superior to innovation on top of evidence?

Look at paintings, whether of real things or of abstract patterns that still follow the inspiration of mathematical principles (like the Golden Ratio), how would that compare to random splodges on a canvas. (I acknowledge here that random splodges have been sold as art before but just as in clouds, beauty can be in the eye of the beholder).

In my opinion the path of faith is that which lacks beauty because ultimately it is introspective. When you lift your eyes from scripture and gaze upon the distant stars, then the idea that some "bloke" designed it all seems somewhat tacky and blinkered.

[[deleted user]]

Hmmm....

Didn't this start with my saying I wish we could find understanding? When I said that, I meant ... I wish people could get to know atheists and talk with atheists and understand atheists. Understand religion, their religion and the religion of others. Understand history. Understand morality. Understand the fact that atheists are people, just like everyone else.

I think you responded by saying there was a problem with that ... consensus. The two groups will not find consensus; therefore, even if there are understandings, the understandings will break down and frustration will ensue.

I think I said ... yes, but not to try ... well, that's like remaining silent.

You continued to stress consensus. I asked why ... given all of the things we have, in our daily lives, for which we have no consensus ... would we need consensus in this. We don't with other things.

You said I had a point ... but .... Then, you shared a story that shows one can have consensus through science.

Right? Let me know if I'm misunderstanding something. Sort of feel like I fell down a rabbit hole. We were talking about consensus, were we not ... based on evidence?

Hence my examples and the ideas in my last post, at least the long one.

??

Regarding, "Please Shannon, you are usually better than picking out plays from the standard Theology playbook of "science is dull" ...

Well, first, I have to ask, is that what I was doing? (I wasn't, btw.)

Next, I need to say ... there's a reason I usually don't "pick out plays front he standard theology playbook" ....

I actually haven't read a "playbook" and don't speak a party-line. I haven't read books or articles or blogs on theology and the arguments of theologists. In actuality, what I say comes from my own mind and my own heart ... on the spur of the moment ... often based on what others say and my thoughts after reading and thinking about what they said. These others being people on this thread ....

Interestingly, in the Armstrong book, I've read a little about the arguments given by atheists. I was sort of shocked, actually. I've seen many of them here. I didn't know there was a "playbook" for either side or that people's arguments were coming from a playbook.

More specifically ...

My point wasn't that science was/is dull. I didn't say that. Not even close.

I think science is very important, vital to our existence and betterment. I've said a few times that science has saved my life on several occasions.

Science doesn't make my heart sing, though. It just doesn't. That's different from saying that science is dull.

There are times, when it's of interest, that I read about science, etc.... There are even times when I'll force myself, yes, force myself, to read up on certain things. Yes, some of it is, frankly, downright fascinating. Some of it makes my brain hurt. I tried to read an article on string theory or something like that once. I had to read it and read it. In the end, I asked on of the math/science teachers to go over it with me. I force myself to do that from time to time because it isn't dull ... it's incredibly important ... and I want to stretch myself.

But, it doesn't ... does not ... make my heart sing. A poem does that. A novel. A speech. The way an author uses words. The nuance. The symbolism. Doing reckless things makes my heart sing ... like going out in thunderstorms. That was on my mind today due to the fact that we're supposed to have thunderstorms today and tonight ... and I can feel it ... and am desperate to go out in it. However, a teen was just killed here a week ago due to a lightning strike ... from a storm that was at least 12 miles away. It's been all through our news and on all of our minds. So, while I'm desperate to go out in it ... though I've never thought to go out in one naked, I'm telling myself I should not do it. But, yes, that's the type of thing that makes my heart sing. When one of the boys wore a barrette in his hair this year ... and a teacher told him to take it out ... boys didn't wear barrettes .... Well .... First, I told the teacher he couldn't say things like that. Second, when a bunch of boys came in the next day and, in my first period class, asked if they could go to the restroom, dresses in hand, I burst out laughing and said they could but to make it quick. I also told them that ... while I had no problem with their wearing dresses, I was pretty sure administration would make them change. I wanted to forewarn them. They wore the dresses for about two hours. Civil disobedience. That ... made my heart sing. I knew they'd get in trouble. I knew admin would have a fit. I told them. They asked why I thought that. I told them about something similar that happened a few years ago. Evidence. They stood there and thought for a second and said, "It'll be worth it." There will always be people, despite the evidence ... in spite of the evidence ... who will go their own way. Every other teacher and administrator was ticked off with me ... due to the fact that I knew their plan and let them change ... let them ... in my class! Was I crazy? Every other kid thought the boys were yahoos who were going to get their butts handed to them. But, you know what? My heart sang. Their hearts sang. Evidence be damned. Consensus be damned. Consequences be damned ... and we all knew there would be consequences, myself included.

I know you've mentioned you know people who are both right-brained and left-brained, etc.... I also know some. But, I know something else. More often than not, in my school, the science and math teachers look at the humanities teachers like we're off our nuts and say things like ... "we're not into all that fluffy stuff" .... Oh, here's another one. "It's all subjective for you guys, isn't it?" ;)

Some are all about evidence and will make their choices based on evidence. That's awesome! Some aren't. Well, that might have consequences. Some are in between.

The point ... my point .... For the most part, we're not going to have consensus. We can have informed decision making. Yup. People can know the facts but decide to go their own way, a risky way, anyway. Fine. Their choice. What we're not going to have is consensus, at least not all the time.

Now, going back to my original point ...

I would LOVE it if we could understand one another.

For reference ...

a) I'm not saying religion and science are equal.
b) I'm not saying that people need to respect religion or science. It would be glorious if people would respect one another.
c)I'm not saying science is dull or useless.
d)I'm not saying that religion is the answer.

I'm saying ... gee, wouldn't it be grand if all sorts of different people from different backgrounds could talk and get to know one another and understand that, while they're different, they're not that different and ... more to the point ... that atheists are just as moral as everyone else ... or not ... just as everyone else.

And, personally, I think that's worth striving for ... regardless of how difficult or frustrating. Finally, I don't think that understanding is determined by consensus.

Now, if any of you guys disagree, let me know.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Wouldn't we, if we based every single thing on evidence, lose a very real part of our imaginations and individuality?

I sort of think so .... I might be wrong .... "

I offer the following as evidence. Compare two novels written as works of fiction based on the history of the Catholic Church. One novel is written without any research and based on the first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry for Catholicism, the other author has researched history and the inner workings of the real Catholic church and then imagined various links and a hidden narrative within the story that leads to still more imaginative constructs built on the tweaked reality on which it is based."

So ... what are you saying ...? I know what I said ... that you flagged and responded to. If we based everything on evidence, wouldn't we lose our individuality?

Yes, then, you gave the examples of the novels and the fact that you think faith lacks beauty. Okay....

But, my question was ... and we really and truly even take it out of the realm of religion ... or not ...

If we were to make all of our decisions based on evidence, wouldn't we lose a very real part of our imaginations and individuality?

Not saying faith is the answer.

This isn't a trap.

Not a theist argument.

It's a question ....

If we based everything on evidence and consensus, would we all be driving light colored cars that are small and economical ... $, gas, carbon footprint? Wouldn't we all have solar? Wouldn't we all wear natural fibers? Wouldn't we all eat, for the most part ... based on geography ... eat the same healthy food? Wouldn't we all, in the last story I related, toe the party line and leave the dresses at home and tell the boys no?

I'm actually cool with evidence. I respect evidence. I love evidence. No joke. I even ask for evidence more often than not. But, I also know I don't always make choices based on evidence. And, no, we're not talking about the evil religious leaders who hide evidence from minions. No. Just ordinary stuff. Sometimes I use evidence and make wise choices. Sometimes I have the evidence but think ... nah ... I'm feel in' lucky!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe someone needs to explain the finer points to me ...

The difference between making a decision based on evidence and consensus based on the evidence ...

and ...

conformity.

'Cause I'm going to tell you right now ... there will be times when I ... when others ... even when given the evidence ... will tell someone no ... will refuse to go along with the consensus.

What then?

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Hmmm....

Didn't this start with my saying I wish we could find understanding? When I said that, I meant ... I wish people could get to know atheists and talk with atheists and understand atheists..."

theology has a playbook?
I bet they have a secret handshake too.

My problem with this whole 'reaching consensus' section of the thread is that you seem to be mixing up consensus and conformity and you talk like 'evidence' is the Borg from Star Trek and will force you to do something.
You have seen evidence about gravity and probably refrain from jumping off cliffs.
Do you feel that evidence is depriving you or forcing you to conform to non-cliff jumping?

Evidence is a thing and it can show us what something is and what might be the best idea or at least a good idea.
But, if you think if religion going away means common sense is going to skyrocket, you have not been paying attention to the world.
It would be great if you could show people a good idea and they'd along with it, then we'd have to get rid of not only religion but fox news, the NRA and teenage boys.

You don't need to ponder the what then of refusing to go along with the evidence, just turn on the TV.

And where do people get this idea that science is a lack of imagination?
Seems odd that religious folk on this thread are claiming imagination for 'their side'.
Are you guys secretly trying to admit you know it's all made up?

Imagination is a huge part of science. It's a game of what if where you can actually guess right and change the world.

Is there a way man could fly like birds?
What's that bumpy feeling in my chest and how come it feels the same in my wrist?
If we could make stuff grow, we could stay in one place, instead of wandering around.
If only there was a way I could communicate with other people, all over the world, maybe someday I could learn more about Sean Bean than I ever wanted to know...?

That's all imagination and it's also science.

[[deleted user]]

Okay .... Let's go back to the original question/point. I'm cool with that.

I was saying ... wouldn't it be nice if we could get to know different people and further our understandings ...? I think it would be super fine. It makes me sad that people think atheists are a bunch of immoral creeps. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we furthered our understandings?

I don't think Gary thinks it's possible, due to the fact that we won't reach consensus.

Why?

Why can't we work for understanding ... without consensus?

Hmmm....

We don't even have to go down the roads of what makes our hearts sing ... and why I think always basing choices on evidence and consensus would inhibit individuality. Nope.

We can go back to the original issue.

Why must we have consensus in order to develop understanding? Or, if we know we can't, are going to give up on developing understanding? Why?

Maybe someone would like to answer that ...

And why the July 4th celebrations were lame ... and why weren't having thunder and lightning and won't have fireworks? Ha, just kidding. Don't need to answer the last two.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "I wish people could get to know atheists and talk with atheists and understand atheists. Understand religion, their religion and the religion of others. Understand history. Understand morality. Understand the fact that atheists are people, just like everyone else."

Agreed, and indeed that is the standard position of most atheists which is why atheists tend to know more about religion in general than actual theists.

The problem is that if you start out from the de-facto position of ultimately "I'm right and they're wrong and nothing will convince me otherwise" then there will never be true understanding.

Shannon wrote: "The two groups will not find consensus; therefore, even if there are understandings, the understandings will break down and frustration will ensue."

Consensus can only exist where there is independent arbitration that is accepted by both sides in any particular debate. This is why science works by consensus of opinion, but that opinion can be changed if someone can present their idea and have it independently ratified and confirmed.

If one side refuses to 'consent' to independent arbitration then their can never be true 'consensus'. Faith and belief place ones own opinions as unassailable and primary and therefore can never be considered consensual with other opinions.

Shannon wrote: "I think I said ... yes, but not to try ... well, that's like remaining silent."

Agreed. Exactly why people like myself constantly push for reason to be applied to public discourse.

Shannon wrote: "You continued to stress consensus. I asked why ... given all of the things we have, in our daily lives, for which we have no consensus ... would we need consensus in this. We don't with other things."

There is a difference between consensus and agreement. Look at the way that a lack of consensus effects our daily lives. Generally we agree to consent to the rule of law, but if we break that consensus then we are tried legally. Yet we can lobby to change a Law by appeal to an independent authority. Politics too, generally we consent to democratic principle, yet look what happens with corruption, vote rigging, or partisan tactics. Politics is a good illustration of how a system can work exceptionally well when consensus is established, but the more that opinions become polarised and intractable, the more the system tends to fail.

Shannon wrote: "Right? Let me know if I'm misunderstanding something. Sort of feel like I fell down a rabbit hole. We were talking about consensus, were we not ... based on evidence?"

This is because all of your examples tended to assume the rigidity and inflexibility of an evidential approach which is completely fallacious. If you work toward a consensus then you may have different ideas about what the evidence means, but you are required to show your evidence and reasoning to your peers to establish your opinion as "fact".

For example there are a few scientists who dissent to various theories, but they do not say "well I believe I am right therefore people should accept that". They consent to the scientific process and look for evidence to support their idea and ways that it could either be confirmed or disproved. Only when it is accepted by general consensus will that scientist then promote the theory as "fact" and by consensus so will other scientists.

There was a fantastic paper written by Dr Ben Goldacre about how a scientific method (randomised trails) should be adopted in politics for public policy.

http://www.badscience.net/category/ev...

Imagine a world in which politicians would use facts and knowledge to guide society instead of pure ideology (i.e. political "belief"), one where it would be a good thing for a politician to say "hey we realise that policy isn't working so lets stop using it."

Shannon wrote: "Well, first, I have to ask, is that what I was doing? (I wasn't, btw.)"

Ok, shall we just call it a "popular misconception". Religious people like to believe that they have the monopoly on beauty, but like other beliefs in my opinion they are incorrect and I have evidence and reasoning to back my opinion :-)

Shannon wrote: "I didn't know there was a "playbook" for either side or that people's arguments were coming from a playbook."

There is certainly a list of standard arguments that religious people are fond of posting on youtube and claiming that their argument is "Atheists worst nightmare" etc. Generally they are all based on a list of misconceptions and - again - beliefs that have no evidence.

Generally my response to most of them begins with a sigh :-)

Shannon wrote: "Science doesn't make my heart sing, though. It just doesn't. That's different from saying that science is dull."

However your implication was that in a world with consensus on opinion independent of personal beliefs, that world would be conformist, totalitarian and lacking in beauty.

Now personally I do find science beautiful with every level uncovered. Yet if you don't want to learn about it that is fine too. The beauty is still there. The potential for imagination and dissenting ideas. The only difference would be that people would agree to a standard of proof before they presented their opinion as fact.

Shannon wrote: "But, it doesn't ... does not ... make my heart sing. A poem does that. A novel. A speech."

And would a poem cause the same feeling if you couldn't read the language it was written in, would a novel move you if you couldn't read? Would a speech effect you as much if the words were meaningless.

Language is a tool, literacy is a tool and with both you can perceive more beauty than without them. Science is a tool, with that you can reveal beauty literally undreamed of.

Shannon wrote: "When one of the boys wore a barrette in his hair this year ..."

Heh I had to look "barrette" up.

Again I find that we agree in principle on many things. Those lads in the dresses are heroes, well done! Yet you see what happened? The teacher gave an authoritarian ruling on what they believed boys should or should not wear based on their own belief, but others dissented. The consensus of law I believe is that people do not have a right to dictate to others what to wear unless they can provide evidence or reasoning why they should. (E.g. hairnets for long haired catering people). (Of course Deuteronomy does forbid cross dressing so the teacher was just practising their beliefs, or enforcing them on others depending on your point of view).

Shannon wrote: "Evidence be damned. Consensus be damned. Consequences be damned ... and we all knew there would be consequences, myself included."

But the evidence being damned was the belief of the teacher, which is not really evidence. Consensus be damned? Well you demonstrated that actually the consensus was "this difference isn't an issue". The consequence? That freedom of thought and action won out over the imposition of unsupported belief.

Shannon wrote: "More often than not, in my school, the science and math teachers look at the humanities teachers like we're off our nuts and say things like ... "we're not into all that fluffy stuff" .... Oh, here's another one. "It's all subjective for you guys, isn't it?" ;)"

Yeah, I have my own frustrations sometimes about "bloody humanities graduates" :-) Especially in my job when some of the processes I need to learn were obviously written by business studies people who require us to learn convoluted procedures to pass their qualification even though those procedures could easily be reduced to a more logical form. (One question on a test even required you to remember 4 concurrent items in the precise order given, despite two of the terms being interchangeable and procedurally the order of concurrent events is irrelevant.

Shannon wrote: "Some are all about evidence and will make their choices based on evidence. That's awesome! Some aren't. Well, that might have consequences. Some are in between."

That's fine as long as those choices are your own and effect only you. As soon as you tell people that their behaviour is wrong based on your own beliefs, or teaching a child something is true, then you should have to justify that opinion independently.

Shannon wrote: "We can have informed decision making. Yup. People can know the facts but decide to go their own way, a risky way, anyway. Fine. Their choice. What we're not going to have is consensus, at least not all the time."

But we can have a consensus, that it is ok for people to decide for themselves, but to impose ideas or decisions on others those ideas and decisions need to be justified beyond mere belief and opinion.

Shannon wrote: "Finally, I don't think that understanding is determined by consensus."

No but consensus allows for dissent without the necessity for arbitrary imposition of one view as superior. In a Parliament of Ideas there needs to be consensus on how we will verify the validity of those ideas if those ideas are to be applied publicly rather than personally.

Shannon wrote: "If we were to make all of our decisions based on evidence, wouldn't we lose a very real part of our imaginations and individuality?"

No, because we make all our decisions based on evidence, as some of that evidence is your own desires or needs. The point is that if we make decisions that effect others or we offer "evidence" in the form of our personal opinion then we should have to justify that opinion.

This is the only way that we can preserve freedom and originality. Unjustified belief is the most restrictive and homogenising principle there is, whether it is puritanical belief in religion or belief in a political ideology.

Shannon wrote: "If we based everything on evidence and consensus, would we all be driving light colored cars that are small and economical ..."

No because some people need bigger cars to carry equipment for their hobbies or work. However, if they can be made economical according to our needs that would be a good thing yes?

Shannon wrote: "Wouldn't we all have solar?"

Only when it was efficient enough to serve our needs, and why would it be bad? If we got energy from a magic box with no cost or environmental damage, would that not be a good thing?

Shannon wrote: "Wouldn't we all wear natural fibers?"

Why? Natural fibres are often inefficient to produce, and synthetics are becoming potentially less environmentally costly to produce and with much better properties. In fact mixed fabric (banned in Deuteronomy) are probably currently the best and are certainly popular.

Shannon wrote: "Wouldn't we all eat, for the most part ... based on geography ... eat the same healthy food?"

Why? By genetics we all have different tastes, which probably helped our evolution. However is it not better to be told which foods may make you ill so you can choose to eat them or not?

Shannon wrote: "Wouldn't we all, in the last story I related, toe the party line and leave the dresses at home and tell the boys no?"

Why? Is there any evidence that it would be bad for boys to wear dresses other than other peoples prejudice?

Shannon wrote: "But, I also know I don't always make choices based on evidence."

Fine, as long as they are for you. But when you do want evidence, would you prefer someone to have found it out or just to offer their opinion dressed up as fact?

Shannon wrote: "there will be times when I ... when others ... even when given the evidence ... will tell someone no ... will refuse to go along with the consensus."

That is your choice. Which I agree with. Imposing it on others without independent evidence, I don't.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "I was saying ... wouldn't it be nice if we could get to know different people and further our understandings ...?"

I think we agree. Indeed I continue to do that now by talking to people with radically different opinions from me. I may disagree with them, but I always try to explain why and am willing to change my opinion. For example I now know that 1 in 5 Americans do not say they homeschool for religious reasons. :-)

Shannon wrote: "I think it would be super fine. It makes me sad that people think atheists are a bunch of immoral creeps. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we furthered our understandings?"

But how can that happen when people are taught that god is the ultimate moral authority, therefore to "deny" god is to "deny morality"?

Shannon wrote: "Why can't we work for understanding ... without consensus?"

Because consensus doesn't mean everyone thinks the same, consensus means that you agree to consent to the same principles to have your ideas presented to others as truth. In general religion refuses to consent to a consensus (as can be seen by the "you'll never change my belief" comments which are actually said with pride!) or it tries to impose a consensus dependent on its own selected authorities (scripture, papal doctrine, theological edict).

Shannon wrote: "Why must we have consensus in order to develop understanding? Or, if we know we can't, are going to give up on developing understanding? Why?"

Because with belief you can never really understand someone else's position because you are not allowing yourself to imagine your opinion may be wrong. That is the entire point of faith.

Look at science, generally there is a consensus that when a scientific consensus makes a claim about chemistry, engineering or medical science they are generally respected. However, when it makes a claim that seems a threat to certain religious ideas that consensus between science and society vanishes replaced by an argument. According to general polls the amount of US life & earth scientists who believe in Creationism is around 0.16% while the level amongst the US public is around 40-45%!

In scientific terms the theory of evolution is as firm as the theory of a heliocentric solar system, yet what do you feel about people who claim the sun revolves around the Earth?

As long as it is felt to be right to impose your views on others as long as you have religion, while it is seen to be wrong to question religion and faith with independent evidence, how can there be consensus? How can there be anything but conflict?

[Hitesh]

hmmm... I must say that is a very interesting topic for discussion...

I personally feel that religion is in itself a science, merely a one that is less understood and if I may add, unforgivably misinterpreted, even by the one's who claim to live by it (well, mostly by those if I dare say it)

Science, on the other hand seems a pretty infant art that is still trying to catch up with religion in a large way...

Yet I would only believe something that is backed by science and logic...

So to conclude it I would say I would rather have SCIENCE THAT IS GUIDED BY RELIGION (I hope this statement is not misinterpreted as religion itself :) )

[Gary]

Hitesh wrote: "So to conclude it I would say I would rather have SCIENCE THAT IS GUIDED BY RELIGION (I hope this statement is not misinterpreted as religion itself :) )"

Hi Hitesh, this idea has been repeated add infinitum if you read back, but for the sake of expediency.

How can exactly can religion "guide" science? Which particular religion would do this guiding? Finally what would this religion base this guidance upon?

[Xdyj]

Hitesh wrote: "hmmm... I must say that is a very interesting topic for discussion...

I personally feel that religion is in itself a science, merely a one that is less understood and if I may add, unforgivably mi..."

Which religion are you talking about? They all claim different things & many large ones condemn whoever don't accept their doctrine 100% to hell. If it's one of those more tolerant eastern ones IMHO they're more similar to metaphysics than real science.

[Travis]

Hitesh wrote: "hmmm... I must say that is a very interesting topic for discussion...

I personally feel that religion is in itself a science, merely a one that is less understood and if I may add, unforgivably mi..."

We want to use something that contradicts science to be the thing that guides it?

religion is a science the same way Harry Potter is a biographical documentary.

[[deleted user]]

the recent news has stated that CERNA has found a god particle.

[Hazel]

Tammy wrote: "the recent news has stated that CERNA has found a god particle."

Thats a crass media name, and the scientists involved dislike it, as its misleading and leads to religious types claiming its proof of god, when its no such thing. Its called a Higgs-Bosun, and it has nothing to do with any god.

[Cynthia]

That's easy. A world without science.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Tammy wrote: "the recent news has stated that CERNA has found a god particle."

Thats a crass media name, and the scientists involved dislike it, as its misleading and leads to religious types clai..."

lol I hope people wont start claiming weird things. It is interesting, I guess god particle would catch attention quicker than Higgs-Bosun.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Leon Lederman wrote a book. He joked he wanted to call it the Goddamn Particle because the Higgs Bosen particle was so hard to find. The publisher loved the joke but without the damn. Lederman was a jokester.

[Travis]

Hazel wrote: "Tammy wrote: "the recent news has stated that CERNA has found a god particle."

Thats a crass media name, and the scientists involved dislike it, as its misleading and leads to religious types clai..."

Not sure how it's proof of god, as we have no other tiny bits of god to compare it to.
Makes it sound like they have one of god's toenail clippings in a secret vault or something.

[Hitesh]

Hello Gary, Xdyj and Travis,

Let me begin with saying; I personally don’t believe in GOD myself. I believe in the science behind every religion. I am more of a science person as I mentioned earlier. I like the idea of studying (well, I only read what others write in these matters. Am no scientist) universe, black holes, distant galaxies, gamma ray bursts, rogue planets, comets… well all in all, I love studying science as much as my limited brain capacity lets me.

Now coming to the discussion.

Religion according to me is an abstraction of some of the facts known to man in a time of which all history or records is lost. How much of human history do we really know? 5000 years; 10,000 years??? How long have humans been on this planet? Roughly about 200,000 years! There are so many ancient cultures that have been found, and their knowledge and skill seems unimaginable.

Some of the things, some of the ancient sculptures and architectures, are very difficult to make with accuracy even today, with all of our technology (too many examples of those - Pyramids, unexplained nasca lines in Peru, Stonehenge, etc etc etc). What does that say of those cultures? Well one assumption that I like to go by, is that they were cultures that had reached a level of advancement, and were destroyed later on by different forces of nature.

It’s the cycle of civilization as I would like to call it.

A very big question is – “WHICH RELIGION?”, as you have all pointed out.

I don’t think it is any ONE religion that can be a guiding light for science. They are all like different parts of a puzzle. We would need to probably put the puzzle together in order to make sense of any of it.

Another matter of concern obviously, is – THE CONTRADICTING STATEMENTS

Well sometimes, contradiction isn’t really what it seems. I am currently reading the Bhagwad Gita (a sacred book of the Hindu religion). Forget different religions contradicting each other, at first glance; the Bhagwad Gita seems to contradict itself at a lot of places. But a closer look reveals the understanding of a deep rooted human psyche that governs all our thoughts, actions and obviously in extension, our discoveries and inventions.
So I seriously feel that all the contradictions that arise from different religions have a deeper, hidden meaning and connection between them.

We should also remember; religion as we know it today is not pure. It is a twisted version, a version that has been used by people over centauries to their use to their own benefits, like gaining power over common folk. But deeper study has revealed a very scientific approach in every religion of every part of the world. Not to mention; a LOT of similarities in their deities and events of their lives. Let us not forget, all our roots are the same. even the land mass, millions of years from now, was one; that got separated as the tectonic plates in the crust shifted, in order to make the separate continents as we see today.

I don’t know about the ‘God Particle’ so I shall not comment on that. But I have to say, scientists are studying something called ‘Dark Matter’ and ‘Dark Energy’ previously never even imagined to be possible to exist. Every other time, we discover something so unique in the universe that it shocks us beyond our wildest dreams. So I just like to believe that everything is possible 

If nothing else, let’s just call it the ‘collective conscience’ (a concept explained in spirituality and modern psychology) of a creative person, put on paper which we realize now is actually coming out to be true.

[Rami]

i'd rather live in a world without religion.. that's my personal opinion..

[Gary]

Hitesh wrote: "Hello Gary, Xdyj and Travis,"

Sorry if we seemed to jump on you there :-) I think we all wrote our own reply before seeing each others!

Hitesh wrote: "I believe in the science behind every religion."

I have discussed this elsewhere, but in my view religion is the "fossils" of previous science. People tried to explain the world, our origins and our ethical intuitions with hypotheses of supernatural entities, which is natural because humans tend to ascribe motivations to random events (how many times do people swear at tools and computers for misbehaviour). These hypotheses are then taught to subsequent generations as truth which then makes it harder for the real truth to be discerned.

So rather than guiding science, religion does little more than anchor science to outmoded concepts and ideas.

Hitesh wrote: "Religion according to me is an abstraction of some of the facts known to man in a time of which all history or records is lost. How much of human history do we really know? 5000 years; 10,000 years??? How long have humans been on this planet? Roughly about 200,000 years!"

About 10,000 years of recorded history, in one manner or another, but humans have been around for up to 2 million years depending on where you draw the line. 3.5 to our common ancestor with our closest surviving relative or 500Ma if you look back to the biggest change in our biology which would be the assimilation of symbionts into the first Eukaryote cell.

Hitesh wrote: "Some of the things, some of the ancient sculptures and architectures, are very difficult to make with accuracy even today, with all of our technology"

Actually many of those were made a lot easier than some people would have you believe. There are indeed lost technologies and surprising advances in ancient cultures, but none are particularly "unimaginable". Stonehenge, the pyramids etc could all have been created with the technology of the time. A lot of the so called "mysteries" are only there because with modern technology we have easy ways to reproduce those efforts so some people fail to imagine the innovation required in absence of that technology.

Hitesh wrote: "It’s the cycle of civilization as I would like to call it."

One common feature of that cycle is the way periods of innovation and progress tend to end in periods of religious dominion.

Hitesh wrote: "I don’t think it is any ONE religion that can be a guiding light for science. They are all like different parts of a puzzle. We would need to probably put the puzzle together in order to make sense of any of it."

How can you put a puzzle together without looking at the pieces? Religion is about belief, not observation or reason, so the resulting picture would only reflect what you wanted it to portray.

What evidence or rationale do you have to assume that religion can be a "guiding light" when you contend that we do not know what religion will look like even if it could be assembled.

Hitesh wrote: "But a closer look reveals the understanding of a deep rooted human psyche that governs all our thoughts, actions and obviously in extension, our discoveries and inventions."

So why study mutually exclusive, mutually and internally contradictory religions when we could scientifically study the human psyche directly? To do otherwise is like studying Shakespeare by only watching the Simpsons because both contain classic story elements and both are written in vaguely similar languages.

Hitesh wrote: "So I seriously feel that all the contradictions that arise from different religions have a deeper, hidden meaning and connection between them."

There are hundreds of contradictions just within the Bible and the Bible's First Commandment is a direct contradiction of all other religions.

Exactly how can you discern a deeper meaning within blind faith? Where do you go for evidence?

Hitesh wrote: "We should also remember; religion as we know it today is not pure."

What evidence is there that there is a pure version? If religion is truth then how can it become corrupted while still being religion? What is the evidence that a meta-religion even exists?

Hitesh wrote: "But deeper study has revealed a very scientific approach in every religion of every part of the world."

Yes, a greatly corrupted version of pure science. Religion takes observation > hypotheses then stops before testing > debate and conclusion.

So perhaps your meta-religion is science.

Hitesh wrote: "Not to mention; a LOT of similarities in their deities and events of their lives."

All this evidences is the tendency for people to repeat stories, especially since there are only a limited amount of classic tales and a similar human psyche that most stories address.

Hitesh wrote: "Let us not forget, all our roots are the same. even the land mass, millions of years from now, was one; that got separated as the tectonic plates in the crust shifted, in order to make the separate continents as we see today."

And before that they were broken apart? I do not see the relevance of plate tectonics to mythology.

Hitesh wrote: "scientists are studying something called ‘Dark Matter’ and ‘Dark Energy’ previously never even imagined to be possible to exist."

Not exactly true, speaking as one who has studied it (albeit briefly). We only "imagined" dark matter and energy to exist as an explanation for certain observations. It is no more unimaginable than the invisible force of electromagnetism that we imagined to explain the observation of magnetic attraction and repulsion.

Hitesh wrote: "Every other time, we discover something so unique in the universe that it shocks us beyond our wildest dreams. So I just like to believe that everything is possible"

That is a tautology, if everything is possible that would also include the possibility that not everything is possible.

Beware of infinity in any calculation, it means you're probably wrong.

Hitesh wrote: "If nothing else, let’s just call it the ‘collective conscience’ (a concept explained in spirituality and modern psychology) of a creative person, put on paper which we realize now is actually coming out to be true."

Nothing of the sought. The collective conscience is widely discredited. A better theory is "extelligence", the idea that our society and our minds have a complicit relationship where both simultaneously effect each other. Our societal frameworks effects our patterns of behaviour even as our patterns of behaviour effect our societal framework.

This is nothing "mystical" or "spiritual", it is a complex, complicit relationship between interacting systems. Complex? certainly. Mysterious? definitely. Mystical, hardly?

Mystery doesn't necessitate magic. Mystery, just means that there are things that are yet unknown, or highly complex and difficult to predict.

It's a mystery what number a die will roll next, it depends on a complex interaction of muscles, energy, mass and structure. But that doesn't make the die magic.

[Gary]

Cynthia wrote: "That's easy. A world without science."

Cynthia, you as well testing the limits of irony by writing that statement on a computer, powered by electricity, connected to the internet?

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Cynthia wrote: "That's easy. A world without science."

Cynthia, you as well testing the limits of irony by writing that statement on a computer, powered by electricity, connected to the internet?"

But, then ... Cynthia isn't the only one to test the limits of irony ....

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "But, then ... Cynthia isn't the only one to test the limits of irony .... "

Sadly, no. :)

[Shikha]

its like asking a man whether he would choose air or water to survive. Both are essential, science at present is absolutely inseparable, whereas religion is something which enlightens the soul.

A perfect balance of inner and outer self is what keeps a man going!

[Gary]

Shikha wrote: "its like asking a man whether he would choose air or water to survive. Both are essential, science at present is absolutely inseparable, whereas religion is something which enlightens the soul."

Sigh. Deja vu :-)

Which religion? Do all religions enlighten the soul, even those that command us to kill those who do not believe?

What is a soul anyway? If it is some sort of intangible magical essence that contains our minds then why is it effected so much by material effects such as hormones, electrical stimulation, chemicals or physical damage? Almost as if the "soul" was a label for the neuro-electrochemical process of the brain which can now even be imaged in real time.

Shikha wrote: "A perfect balance of inner and outer self is what keeps a man going! "

A balance of inner and outer self would be when one balances your own opinions and prejudices within with observation and independently verified knowledge without.

Religion places inner convictions, or self-righteousness as superior to observation and humility of attempting to comprehend the world outside.

[Hitesh]

Gary wrote: "Hitesh wrote: "Hello Gary, Xdyj and Travis,"

Sorry if we seemed to jump on you there :-) I think we all wrote our own reply before seeing each others!

Hitesh wrote: "I believe in the science beh..."

There is no need to apologize Gary, I never felt as if you all 'jumped' on me :) infact, i like a good discussion...

now... I would thank you for one line though,

Gary wrote: "Mystery doesn't necessitate magic. Mystery, just means that there are things that are yet unknown, or highly complex and difficult to predict."

You've very beautifully summarized a lot of what I've been trying to say. I've never said religion is 'magic'. It is merely a science that we do not understand, yet.

The 200,000 years I mention depicts ONLY the time frame of humans on earth as we know them today; not the, what I would call 'the in-between species', so to say.

Yes I agree, religion has become a lot more obscured than what it was and that makes the job of discerning them difficult. But why fear a little difficulty? Only for the fear of failure? If fear of failure was to govern human mind, science would never have existed :)

And as far as religion being a 'Hypothesis'. Well, I would like to bring to the attention that a lot of science is also based on 'Assumptions' and 'Hypothesis'. What matters is that this 'Hypothesis' is not just a whim of some crazy guy; they are, what are called, 'calculated assumptions'.

There are a lot of scientific theories ('proved' theories) that are being questioned again now. Does that make those theories 'wrong'? I don't think so. That makes them stepping stones to the future.

As far as talk of Stonehenge, mere building Stonehenge is not the only concern. It very precisely depicts our solar system. Now in the time it was built, do you really believe we had such equipments as we have today to look into the universe? But there is proof that those civilizations knew more about the universe than we could have thought them possible. So I must say, there's a lot here that we don't know. And evidence suggests that they might have known more that we think.

As far as the testing and discussion front of religion is concerned; I would like to take this opportunity to disagree with you. I know of this one 'Swami' in India, who was tested by some skeptics like you and I and he did what he claimed he could.

I think the problem is that we try to read about religion and understand it. And why all of it seems so contradictory and confusing is because we use 'intellect' to 'understand' it. I believe it is not to be 'understood' but to be 'felt' and 'experienced'. I don't pray to idols or sit down with any religious book myself. But I do practice a little bit of Meditation. And its from experience I can say, there is far more to this universe and to how much our mind can decipher of it than we can today.

Plate tectonics are relevant in Mythology in the simple fact of a common history. So what I'm saying here, is that Mythology maybe glamorized and glorified, but it IS based on SOMETHING. And THAT 'something', is much more than what we expected. That is amazing. And that just says and shows how much we don't know.

'People's tendency to repeat stories'? Well isn't that exactly what I'm saying when I say that we would have a common root :) and similar psyche is precisely what everybody calls 'collective conscience' my friend :) You are only largely undermining it in your statement it seems; yet saying the same thing. So in your heart you do seem to agree with most of the things :) And actually I find it amazing to realize that :)

And infinity in any calculation, only broadens your horizons. So what if it increases your possibilities of being wrong? It also provides an opportunity to find an answer that wasn't previously thought possible (like the idea of earth being round. It was unimaginable at one point of time).

Well I do wonder why spirituality is such a scary term and a 'taboo' for so many people. Spirituality doesn't claim any wizardry or magic. It only states science. A science that needs to be experienced and that is the only way to prove it.

'Mystical' is simply something that we do not understand. I'd say the universe is really mystical. does that make it any more unreal than it is?

My friend, there is a lot more going on in this world, and beyond, than you and I can decipher.

'Religion' seems like an issue here. Please disconnect yourself from the way people see religion today. As I said, that is not the true theology of it. Let me give you and example, I've read of a research that some lady did on the language 'Sanskrit' (a language so old, it's origin date can not be deciphered) and realized that every syllable has a different effect on different part of the body. 'Shlokas' in Sanskrit are designed in ways to affect the overall body and mind in certain ways. If you study Indian classical music, there are Ragas that are used to cure ailments. All of these were developed in a time when there were no electrodes to connect to the mind and body to see how they react to what sound. So... Maybe there was some way they could decipher those things!!! A way we don't know today. What's so scary about that? I think it's exciting :)

Well, if I've missed some point, do let me know :)

[Gary]

Hitesh wrote: "There is no need to apologize Gary, I never felt as if you all 'jumped' on me :) infact, i like a good discussion..."

Cool :-)

now... I would thank you for one line though,

Hitesh wrote: "You've very beautifully summarized a lot of what I've been trying to say. I've never said religion is 'magic'. It is merely a science that we do not understand, yet."

You see that is the problem. No matter how 'young' a species we are and how little time we have spent on Earth makes no difference.

Religion 'assumes' an answer and then works to justify it by scripture, by intuition, by authority or simply by belief. This is not science we don't know yet, this is not science in any way shape or manner. Science is looking for an answer that we do not yet know. To assume that science will eventually come around and 'prove' religion is the height of religious hubris.

What we have been shown in science is time and again our intuitions about the world and how it functions are very useful at the scale of a human, but the more you change the scale from our perspective the more useless our assumptions are, until you get to the shifting perspectives of relativity or the inherent uncertainty of quantum principals. This makes most religious views hopelessly naive in the face of reality.

Hitesh wrote: "Yes I agree, religion has become a lot more obscured than what it was and that makes the job of discerning them difficult. "

What was it then? Again this assumes some sort of "golden age" of knowledge in the past which does not measure up to historical or even logical analysis.

Hitesh wrote: "But why fear a little difficulty? Only for the fear of failure? If fear of failure was to govern human mind, science would never have existed :)"

And if some pioneering people didn't break with the oppressive dogmatism of religion science would never have existed. The difficulty wasn't that religion was hard to understand, the difficulty was religion in many cases persecuted the true-truth seekers.

Hitesh wrote: "And as far as religion being a 'Hypothesis'. Well, I would like to bring to the attention that a lot of science is also based on 'Assumptions' and 'Hypothesis'."

Yes it is, but religion moves from 'hypothesis' to claiming it is the truth and the ultimate answer. Science instead tests hypotheses and discards those found wanting, and modifies and improves those found promising. This leads to Theories, which are neither assumptions or hypotheses but tried and extensively tested models of reality. However, the very term 'theory' does also accept that despite how accurate it is, we always must allow ourselves to remember that there is a difference between theoretical fact and ultimate truth.

Religion is the arrogance of not needing to test hypotheses and assumptions, and the arrogance of assuming that 'revelation' can beat investigation despite the manifest cruelties and mistakes religion has inspired.

Hitesh wrote: "There are a lot of scientific theories ('proved' theories) that are being questioned again now. Does that make those theories 'wrong'? I don't think so. That makes them stepping stones to the future."

Exactly, theories being questioned is how science works and how advancement in understanding is made. Religion is dogma therefore does not lead to advance but to stagnation and even regression.

Hitesh wrote: "As far as talk of Stonehenge, mere building Stonehenge is not the only concern. It very precisely depicts our solar system."

No it doesn't. It certainly lines up well with astronomical observations, but no more than would be expected from a society with plenty of opportunity to observe the stars, and plenty of need to establish a seasonal calender to facility agriculture.

Speaking as someone with a decent comprehension of Solar System dynamics, there is no indication that the solar system was modelled effectively. If there was provable evidence of the Kuiper Belt, or the Oort cloud, and the overwhelming influence of Jupiter compared to all other bodies then that may show something, but Stonehenge is built around primarily the sun and the stars, all of which would have been easily visible in non-light polluted skies.

Hitesh wrote: "Now in the time it was built, do you really believe we had such equipments as we have today to look into the universe?"

Yes. Eyes and a brain.

Hitesh wrote: "But there is proof that those civilizations knew more about the universe than we could have thought them possible. So I must say, there's a lot here that we don't know. And evidence suggests that they might have known more that we think."

Actually again astrophysicists would say that they knew more than the common person does today, but since the common person today has precise timekeepers and calenders and can seldom see the heavens like our ancestors did, neither the need nor opportunity exists. Yet there was no indication that any early civilisation knew about stars, exoplanets, pulsars, galaxies etc. all the really important things about the universe we know now.

Once again, to human scales the knowledge of the brightest stars and the movement of the visible planets, moon and sun in the sky was important. To modern science, all that is insignificant compared to things the ancients never even suspected.

Hitesh wrote: "I know of this one 'Swami' in India, who was tested by some skeptics like you and I and he did what he claimed he could."

Interesting, could you provide the peer reviewed evidence?

Hitesh wrote: "I think the problem is that we try to read about religion and understand it. And why all of it seems so contradictory and confusing is because we use 'intellect' to 'understand' it."

There is the problem I have. Surrendering your intellect to simply accept the authority of religion is one of the worst things you can do. This means that instead of thinking for yourself you are letting others think for you, usually a combination of those in authority in the religion coupled with the ideas of the founders of that religion.

Take that to its conclusion and you are entirely at the mercy of the morality and understanding of those people. This is what leads to jet planes being flown into buildings, and bombs maiming innocents just for surrendering to the wrong superstition.

Hitesh wrote: "I believe it is not to be 'understood' but to be 'felt' and 'experienced'."

What do you mean by "felt"? Felt is to perceive, and perception is part of science as much as thought and analysis. However, without the latter two, what use is perception? "Experience" carries the assumption in the word that we learn and grow from our exposure to experiences, which is why somebody who has witnessed much can be said to be experienced. Yet if you refuse to try to comprehend your experience, refuse to engage intellect then you are allowing those experiences to pass you by into oblivion.

Hitesh wrote: "And its from experience I can say, there is far more to this universe and to how much our mind can decipher of it than we can today."

There is far more to this universe, in fact best current estimates indicate that 93%+ is still unknown to us, yet only in the last few centuries of science did we go from knowing that the universe was perhaps the size of the inner solar system, to realising about the great swathe of billions of stars of the milky way, to realising even that was a speck in the billions of galaxies across a universe so vast and yet empty that it staggers the mind.

Thousands of years of religion failed to show us a hundredth of a percent of the nature of the universe we now can understand and even predict.

Hitesh wrote: "So what I'm saying here, is that Mythology maybe glamorized and glorified, but it IS based on SOMETHING. And THAT 'something', is much more than what we expected. That is amazing. And that just says and shows how much we don't know."

Which is true, a lot of mythology holds grains of truth because even mythology is born of observation. Yet we also know that all mythology cannot be true as it is mutually exclusive, so to find the gems of truth within all of these observations we need a method free from ego, assumption and self-righteousness to sort the wheat from the chaff. The only methodology in history to do this with demonstrably and provable results is science.

Hitesh wrote: "similar psyche is precisely what everybody calls 'collective conscience' my friend :) You are only largely undermining it in your statement it seems; yet saying the same thing. So in your heart you do seem to agree with most of the things :) And actually I find it amazing to realize that :)"

The difference is the "collective conscience" is a reification of something that only exists as a process, not as a separate entity. In the same way that a flame is a process that happens with fuel, oxidiser and energy. Without the three there is no insubstantial flame, just as there is no insubstantial process of mixing that floats around a mixing bowl before or after you mix a cake, just as there is no insubstantial process of "soul" that floats around before and after the neurological activity of a mind begins and ceases.

Extelligence is a label for a process that is complex and wondrous, but neither ephemeral or mystical. It is an interaction of personal intelligence with the complicit interaction via communication with a collected body of cultural ideas. Just as the internet exists as an interaction of computers, but without computers the internet would not exist.

Hitesh wrote: "And infinity in any calculation, only broadens your horizons."

Actually it makes every horizon ultimately unreachable and progress impossible because every finite step you take is no progress in the face of infinity.

Hitesh wrote: "So what if it increases your possibilities of being wrong? It also provides an opportunity to find an answer that wasn't previously thought possible (like the idea of earth being round. It was unimaginable at one point of time)."

That doesn't need infinity. If it needed infinity then the chances of the idea being found by now would be (finite number) divided by (infinity) which is infinitesimally close to 0% which means impossible.

Hitesh wrote: "Well I do wonder why spirituality is such a scary term and a 'taboo' for so many people."

That statement borders on arrogance, as if that people who do not agree with the term are scared or ignorant.

Hitesh wrote: "Spirituality doesn't claim any wizardry or magic. It only states science."

Spirituality claims the existence of the immaterial spirit or soul, a claim that has no testable or verifiable validity. Please present one peer reviewed scientific paper that provides evidence for an "immaterial" or "incorporeal" soul.

[Gary]

Sorry, ran out of wordage :-)

Hitesh wrote: "'Mystical' is simply something that we do not understand. I'd say the universe is really mystical. does that make it any more unreal than it is?"

No, the universe "is", mysticism (the root word being of mystery) is our lack of understanding. This does not mean the universe is not understandable or mystery is intrinsic to its nature. We know that the observable universe is not infinite, it is bound by both space and time. We have seen the edge. Finite universe means finite answers which leads to the possibility to the universe is comprehensible and therefore not mystical.

Hitesh wrote: "My friend, there is a lot more going on in this world, and beyond, than you and I can decipher."

Agreed, but that is no reason not to try to decipher more. We have deciphered much and given freedom from the tyranny of religious dogmatism our descendants will have the opportunity to decipher more.

Science accepts that there is more to know, religion posits that we already know enough and somethings are intrinsically unknowable. It is intellectual surrender and the graveyard of curiousity.

Hitesh wrote: "'Religion' seems like an issue here. Please disconnect yourself from the way people see religion today. As I said, that is not the true theology of it."

In that once sentence you contradict yourself. You tell me to forget what I know of religion today (i.e. somebody claiming knowledge of truth without evidence and expecting you to accept it on authority alone). and then claim that you have superior knowledge of the truth of it.

Hitesh wrote: "Let me give you and example, I've read of a research that some lady did on the language 'Sanskrit' (a language so old, it's origin date can not be deciphered) and realized that every syllable has a different effect on different part of the body."

Can you say who this "lady" is? What her qualifications are? Has her experiments been peer-reviewed and independently confirmed? What medical observation was done to measure the effects? What clinical conditions were the tests done under to minimise other possible influences? How did she select her test subjects and was a blind comparison done? Did she try any other syllables from any other languages? Was the effects statistically more significant than well established placebo effects?

Hitesh wrote: "'Shlokas' in Sanskrit are designed in ways to affect the overall body and mind in certain ways. If you study Indian classical music, there are Ragas that are used to cure ailments. All of these were developed in a time when there were no electrodes to connect to the mind and body to see how they react to what sound."

I am sure that such a staggering medical discovery should be well documented.

I am well aware of studies of the effects of music on humans, particularly developing children, yet the idea behind that is fairly easy to comprehend. Music is a set of patterns with rules and structure, one that resonates (literally) with the way that humans perceive patterns in sound. This leads to a complicit relationship with the patterns of music with the patterns of the mind. However mystical energies, patterns or cultural supremacy are not required.

Hitesh wrote: "So... Maybe there was some way they could decipher those things!!! A way we don't know today. What's so scary about that? I think it's exciting :)"

Again you assume that people who don't believe are "scared". I find nothing scary about religion except what people are capable of when they surrender their intellect and ethical intuitions to religious authority.

If there was proven medical benefits to the use of certain words spoken to people that would indeed be exciting and fascinating. Yet every single time claims like this are tested with sufficient rigorousness to eliminate personal bias and assumptions the effects all but disappear.

To me nothing is more exciting and more interesting than setting aside mysticism and assumption and instead trying to look at reality with open eyes and due humility. What's so scary about a universe without gods or without magic? (sorry "unproven meta-physical effects that resemble in concept, usage and cultural relevance certain assumed forces that others may collect under the catch-all terms of 'magic' or 'mysticism'".)

[Maria]

Jeez-o-flip - I went away on a weeks vacation and OMG, what a fiasco. Wow - there's been a lot of discussion that quite frankly I don't have the patience to read. Gary, Hazel, Shannon, Cerebus, Old Barby - someone sane - anything worth doubling back for?

[Jettcatt]

I'm so confused, I have just read a lot of the discussions and this whole discussion really reminds me why I hate talking about science and religion, and why do you all have to use such big words, really!!! here's my say, Hunanity is what's important One People, One World, One Love. Simple

[Gary]

Jettcatt wrote: "I'm so confused, I have just read a lot of the discussions and this whole discussion really reminds me why I hate talking about science and religion, and why do you all have to use such big words, really!!! here's my say, Hunanity is what's important One People, One World, One Love. Simple."

Apologies if our polysyllabic utterances are causing you consternation. :-) (Just Kidding)

Ok short version.

Science is the search for truth in the service of people.

Religion is the claiming of truth in the service of a god, gods or idea in order to control people.

I agree, humanity is what is important, each other is what is important, but most religions claim that there is someone far far more important than any mere human.

I do not agree in "One People" though. Difference is fine as long as respect and tolerance is preserved.

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "Jeez-o-flip."

Just for you, a summary of what you missed. Apologies for any bias or misrepresentation :-)

5442>Lloyd - Religion + Science, Yay!
5443>Robin - Happy 4th
5444>Hazel - Refute Lloyd, refer to earlier refutations.
5445>Dariennefye - Science part of religion
5446>Yasmeen - Lose either scary! kill me or live on mars (hard to get to or live there without science or miracle!)
5447>Hazel - Refute Dariennefye
5448>Shannon - Church of Spiritual Humanism? What? Hazel/Gary/Travis/Cerebus not like?
5449>Hazel - Not like.
5450>Gary - Not like.
5451>Travis - Not like, as actually scientific as 'scientology'. = 'cult'.
5452>Hazel - contextual pun
5453>Shannon - Converse on Belief vs Opinion. Realise atheists maligned in US. Regret fear & conflict between opinions.
5454>Shannon - SEAN BEAN PLAYED MACBETH????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5455>Shanna - stalking YOU, Shannon
5456>Gary - Cult vs Religion? Difference apart from numbers?
5457>Gary - Now I know Macbeth must die in the end!
5458>Hazel - Pic!
5459>Ron - Superstition bad. Good Atheistic Buddhism anecdote.
5460>Gary - Reply to Shannon. Words (Belief vs Opinion) (Scientific theory vs theory as guessing). Science dressing up as religion bad! Atheism routinely derided. Effect on progress of supression of free thinking. Belief should not be sacrosanct when it guides actions against others. Consensus between faith and reason unlikely.
5461>Shannon - Reply Shanna, chasing Sean Bean
5462>Shannon - amused by 5457
5463>Shannon - Hazel, can't see pic!
5464>Shannon - Reply Gary. Brought up to choose own belief. If consensus not possible, understanding possible?
5465>Travis - Reply Shannon, Sean Bean, not fooled
5466>Travis - atheist scrap booking parties = evil.
5467>Rhymz - Science good but scary, how close religion to moral system?
5468>Shannon - giggling
5469>Travis - 'atheist' 'Socialist' and the mathematics of evil in atheist handbook.
5470>Shannon - Amused, impressed if Hazel finds atheist scrapbooking parties!
5471>Travis - atheist handbook on the shelf, next to the 'Gay Agenda'.
5472>Shannon - Yay scrapbooking parties!
5473>Hazel - atheist scrapbooking parties!
5474>Shannon - Whoa ...!
5475>Shannon - W-w-w-h-o-a!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5476>Travis - you thought it was the zombie apocalypse you had to worry about...
5477>Asia - Both Religion & Science needed
5478>Hazel - Refutes Asia
5479>Asia - Mutual understanding required. Ying/Yang relationship
5480>Gary - Refutes Asia. Mutual understanding unlikely when one side will not consider they are wrong. Query Shannon - Would mother still approve of religious choice if had of become atheist?
5481>Gary - Poor humour
5482>Gary - Refute Ying/Yang. Will speak out against beliefs held out by others as those beliefs may effect others lives negatively
5483>Asia - Common ground, science could prove religion? Admit Ying/Yang imperfect model, imply connection science-religion
5484>Shannon - Consensus hard but worthy? Mother would have accepted atheism? Unknown.
5485>Gary - belief undermining scientific and ethical progress. Believers probably won't listen because they believe, but no reason not to try. "God" not catch-all term but quite specific. Science and religion not connected because proof means belief not required and therefore no longer religion. Paradox of belief requiring evidence to begin but then rejects further evidence. Religion as fossils of science paradigm.
5486>Gary - Role of agreed framework in forming consensus, problem with religious refusal to agree framework. Agreed with Shannon that hard but worthy, accepted that fairly answered query about family acceptance of atheism.
5487>Asia - Belief down to different cultural perceptions. Science flawed because incomplete. Accept "religion as fossil science" connection.
5488>Gary - Science minimises cultural perception as part of process. Science process not flawed, current scientific knowledge incomplete but seperate issue. Assert religion not complimentary to science nor necessary for culture.
5489>Shannon - people not scientists. People sometimes ignore evidence when making choices. Logic = conformity. Science = dull.
5490>Shannon - must be ticked about all of this talk of a "God" particle.
5491>Shannon - Doesn't like seeing anyone hurt (even atheists!) :-)
5492>Travis - Why science = dull? Science doesn't neglect imagination, science requires imagination. Problem not that people not scientists, problem is that people claiming that science & magic/mysticism equal.
5493>Travis - Impressed if they find tiny piece of god.
5494>Karl - Religion many different truths claimed, science one truth sought.
5495>Shannon - if we based everything on evidence, lose imaginations and individuality? Off to eat fries.
5496>Travis - crack squad of gay, theist ninjas that hid the WMDs in order to make Bush look bad.
5497>Travis - Personal preference also "evidence" also different so still variety. Actual contextual Sean Bean reference.
5498>Gary - Evidence informs choice, not restricts. Evidence important when personal choices effect others. Religion restricts choice by dogma without evidence. Science encourages consensus, but respects dissent. Religion imposes conformity and damns dissent. Better world when people are shown why they shouldn't do something, not just told to do it. Lack of mutual framework for disagreement seed for violence. Beauty real and pervasive in nature, many beautiful religious concepts actually brutish and grotesque (Crucifixtion).
5499>Gary - plus have fun at fair! :-)
5500>Gary - Comparison Religion vs science as novel written with or without research into setting. Knowledge improves imagination, not limits.
5501>Lynn A. - religion + science.
5502>Shannon - Many things in life with no consensus. Theology playbook? point wasn't science was/is dull. Science doesn't make my heart sing like a poem, novel, speech. Civil disobedience - yay! understanding not determined by consensus.
5503>Shannon - based on evidence and consensus, would we all be driving light colored cars that are small and economical ... there will be times when I/others will refuse to go along with the consensus. What then?
5504>Travis - Shannon mixing up consensus and conformity. religious folk claiming imagination for 'their side' secretly trying to admit you know it's all made up?
5505>Shannon - Why can't we work for understanding ... without consensus?
5506>Gary - Can be no real understanding when one side will not listen to possibility other is right. Faith makes own opinions unassailable. Reason needed in public discourse. Consensus not agreement, but mutual submission to independent arbitration. Dissent and imagination leads progress when within structure that requires new ideas to be validated. Facts & Knowledge versus Ideology and Prejudice. Playbook = popular misconceptions about science & beauty or conformity. Poem, novel, speech require language to propogate beauty. Similarly science allows perception of more beauty through comprehension not less. What worth is poem, novel or speech that no one can understand? Agreed Civil disobedience good. Again illustrates difference between evidence and dogma. Ignoring evidence to make choice for self is fine, but still better that evidence is available and correct.
5507>Gary - How can understanding come from dogmatic acceptance? Religion places obedience as superior to knowledge.
5508>Hitesh - religion is a science that is less understood. Science trying to catch up with religion. Religion needed to guide science.
5509>Gary - Questions Hitesh
5510>Xdyj - Hitesh, Which religion? all claim different
5511>Travis - use something that contradicts science to be the thing that guides it?
5512>Tammy - "god particle!"
5513>Hazel - "God particle" crass media name, nothing to do with any god.
5514>Cynthia - A world without science.
5515>Tammy - hope people wont start claiming weird things [about god particle].
5516>April the Cheshire Meow - Lederman "Goddamn Particle" reference.
5517>Travis - how it's proof of god, as we have no other tiny bits of god to compare it to.
5518>Hitesh - personally don’t believe. Ancient knowledge. Different religions fragments of whole. Mutual contradictions superficial. ‘Dark Matter’ and ‘Dark Energy’ mysterious too. ‘collective conscience’ coming out to be true.
5519>Rami - world without religion.
5520>Gary - Refute Hitesh. Religion remnants of primitive modelling of universe. Ancient knowledge not as surprising as some would have believe. No method that can seek truth in conflicting dogmatism. No guide from religion if religion cannot itself be understood. No evidence for "pure religion" that others are fragments of. ‘Dark Matter’ and ‘Dark Energy’ not mysterious like religion but unknown like magnetism once was. infinity in any calculation bad. "Collective conscience" discredited. Extelligence better idea. Non-mystical. Mystery does not imply mysticism.
5521>Gary - points out irony of Cynthia
5522>Shannon - Cynthia not only one to test the limits of irony ....
5523>Gary - agrees.
5524>Shikha - repeats still unfounded claim that balance between science and nature needed.
5525>Gary - Refutes Shika. Points out that placing belief in self over evidence of entire universe is intrinsic imbalance.
5526>Hitesh - never said religion is 'magic' is science that we do not understand, yet. religion has become a lot more obscured Stonehenge very precisely depicts our solar system. 'Swami' tested by skeptics, did what he claimed he could. 'felt' and 'experienced' superior to intellect in understanding religion. Claims that in heart Gary agrees. Infinity = broader horizons. some lady researched 'Sanskrit', indian music can heal ailments.
5527>Gary - Refutes Hitesh. Idea of science eventually catching up with religion is arrogance. Asked for evidence of alleged "golden age of religious knowledge before being fragmented", evidence of scientific test of some "Swami", evidence of medical research of "Some Lady". Stonehenge does not depict our solar system well at all, and nothing that couldn't be seen with naked eye is included. 'felt' and 'experienced' equivalent to observed and comprehended. Many things still not known, but science has revealed 10,000% percent more than religion in decades instead of millenia. Mythology is born of observation but stops there. reification of processes as substances (such as collective unconscious or soul). Infinity creates insurmountable paradoxes (known since ancient Greece). Refutes idea that spirituality is a scary term and a 'taboo'.
5528>Gary [Continues rant]
5529>Maria - Jeez-o-flip!

[Hazel]

you having a slow day Gary? :P

[Gary]

Hazel wrote: "you having a slow day Gary? :P"

Trying out this "considerate" thing for size.

[Maria]

Wow, Gary - thanks! I didn't expect you to do all that! I like the Gary (continues rant) part!

[Hazel]

Gary wrote: "Hazel wrote: "you having a slow day Gary? :P"

Trying out this "considerate" thing for size."

Is it a new and scary feeling? ;D

[Gary]

Hazel wrote: "Is it a new and scary feeling? ;D"

Somewhat overrated!

[[deleted user]]

Ah, .... I tend to feel consideration is somewhat heartwarming. Impressive list by the way.

I was just reading about all of today's news and found the following.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetec...

I'll be interested to see how scientists react to this information. If the data is accurate, it will be a test of sorts. Yes? Will scientists, in the face of new evidence, change their opinion? I'm going to be interested in watching this play out.

[Travis]

Not sure if this is radical information, as most climate change scientists have always talked about the planet going through natural cycles of heating and cooling.
The thing is that the getting warmer going on now has been effected by us and we are at a rare time in that we have the ability to further effect the cycle for both the bad and the good.

The climate change debate these days has mostly been about getting people to admit that and then trying to work so the impact is a positive one.

Personally I was more impressed by the link, at the bottom of the page, to the story about the girl that surfs naked.

[Travis]

Gary wrote: "Maria wrote: "Jeez-o-flip."

Just for you, a summary of what you missed. Apologies for any bias or misrepresentation :-)

5442>Lloyd - Religion + Science, Yay!
5443>Robin - Happy 4th
5444>Hazel - ..."

Not sure what is more amazing, that Gary had the time to put that list together or that Maria actually used the phrase 'jeez-o-flip' in a sentence.

[Maria]

My Dad always used to say jeez-o-flip and it seemed fitting.... :) I don't, however, use it in normal conversation......

[marquie]

despite the fact that it is from religion that most wars and conflicts arise, I'd prefer to live in a world of religion. What with the faith, redemption, and strength that it offers - I have to say that to live without religion would be to live without hope. And that, would be the worse life imaginable. Science and development is good and all, but whilst it can light up a room - it can not light up a person's heart. Only religion can do that.

[Maria]

mars wrote: "despite the fact that it is from religion that most wars and conflicts arise, I'd prefer to live in a world of religion. What with the faith, redemption, and strength that it offers - I have to say..."

Oh, wow - guys, be kind to Mars... :)

[Paul]

Naked surf girls - beat religion any day!

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetec...

I'll be interested to see how scientists react to this information. If the data is accurate, it will be a test of sorts. Yes? Will scientists, in the face of new evidence, change their opinion? I'm going to be interested in watching this play out. "

In the face of new evidence scientists will change their opinion, in the face of one article in the Daily Mail which has extensive links to conservative politics and hence to various oil magnates I would not expect a huge U turn immediately.

From the New Scientist article about the same study,

New Scientist quoted: "The finding does not change our understanding of the warming power of carbon dioxide... tree-ring measurements come from high latitudes and reflect only summer temperatures. 'The implications of this study are vastly overstated by the authors.'"

This graph is quite illustrative too.

http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/e...

However, perhaps we are opening up a can of worms here as there are as many Climate change deniers as Climatologists, yet the consensus of thousands of studies still is that climate change is occurring, and indeed if it wasn't we would be hard pressed to explain exactly why increasing CO2 and CH4 levels wouldn't effect things. Personally I will stay with the consensus since I am not studying it personally.

There is one interesting irony. Studies like the one above may indicate that temperatures were cycling back into the next ice-age until the industrial revolution. This means that initial global warming may have saved us from glaciers, but at the same time may have masked the effects that have since overpowered that cooling.

How undeserved that pollution may have actually bought us some time!

[Hazel]

I won't be mean to Mars, but I find it kind of sad that they feel that they would have no hope without religion, thats basically the same as saying that a person has no worth without religion. that theres nothing in the world to make a person happy if there is no religion. I'd also be interested to know which of the many, many religions Mars means, or if he/she (I don't want to make assumptions, despite Mars being the name of a male deity, you could be either sex) simply means religion in general in which case, I wonder how he/she deals with the contradictions not only within religions, but between them, what with some saying diametrically opposite things to others, and many considering any other religions to be heretical.

I live my life without religion, and I'm not lacking in hope. 1.5 billion atheists around the world demonstrate that the statement is fallacious. And science very much lights up my "heart", though science also tells me that the reaction is biochemical, and occurs in the brain, creating an physical reaction that increases the heart rate, often quickly, which is what that lurch we sometimes get is - its easy to see how people get confused and think that their heart is the seat of emotion. And that knowledge is awesome, its warming, its happy-making.