Intelligent Design

[Plumberboy]

Oh no. The farce that is intelligent design corrupts yet another science curriculum.

CNN: School Mandates Alternate Evolution Theory (http://my.netscape.com/corewidgets/news/story.psp?cat=51180&id=2004111210260001521212)

Those unfamiliar with intelligent design, it is yet another attempt to thwart the theory of evolution by asserting the universe is so complex that it could only have resulted from, well, an intelligent designer (i.e. God). It has been rejected by virtually all credible scientists.

*Edit CNN Link is Dead, MSNBC: School board OKs challenges to evolution (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6470259)

[David85]

But what about the Chriastian Sciencist groups?!?! Aren't they credible?!

:D

Some great quotes from that...

Although Buckingham describes himself as a born-again Christian
and believes in creationism, ``This is not an attempt to impose my
views on anyone else,'' he said.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Yeah whatever you say...

"We have a vocal group within the community who feel very
strongly in an evangelical Christian way that there is no
separation of church and state,'' Carol Brown said. ``Our
responsibility to is to represent the viewpoints of all members of
the community.''

No they don't! It would be like saying that before the 1960s it is the responsibility of schools in the south to teach slavery is right.

The point of the school is to teach the FACTS, and the fact is that evolucion is proven, countless times.

We have dinosaur bones, and different stanges of human bones, all of which prove evolucion and throw that creation bullshit out the window.

[Plumberboy]

But what about the Chriastian Sciencist groups?!?! Aren't they credible?!

Yeah the Christian Scientists are right there on my list next to the Raelians (Cloneaid).

[David85]

HAHAHAHA

I think I trust the Cloneaid people more. At least we knew they were freaks, I mean look at the spokeswomen. *shivers*

[helava]

I wonder what other "theories" they can teach as well, now that the standard has been set low enough for ID to pass through. Maybe reality is simply a shared hallucination? That nothing that you don't directly percieve actually exists? That the world is flat? That the earth is actually a hollow shell filled with delicious custard?

All - and I mean every single one of those theories meets the same scientific criteria as "Intelligent Design."

Lovely! Mmmmm. Delicious custard!

seppo

[2poor]

isnt intelligent design just another word for teaching religion in schools?

[bignick]

Whit if there is no spoone?

[David85]

Ad a few more "theories"...

1. The Matrix Theory. More people probably belive that then the "God" crap.

2. I was born in 1985, and will travel back in time in the year 2019 and begin the universe!

3. Aliens started life on Earth, but their "God" is playing marbals with our universe, and God's God is playing marbels with the God that is playing marbals with ours. :) AKA MIB

4. A professer from the future made a box that holds the universe. AKA Futurama :)

[Quackzilla]

Pennsylvania. It happened in a Union state, the damn neo-cons are getting to far north, we need to unite once again to push those bastards back down south of the Mason-Dixon.

[Plumberboy]

1. The Matrix Theory. More people probably belive that then the "God" crap.

I didn't want to debate the existence of God in this post. I believe anyone who is honest with themselves can only accept the concept of agnosticism; the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved.

My issue regarding this post is confusing religious faith with science and trying to pass one off as the other. ID offers no empirical evidence of a creator and therefore falls in line with other faiths whether it be Christian, Hindu, or Jedi. As a result, it belongs in a theology course (elective), not science.

However the promoters of ID have an agenda which is to devalue evolutionary theory while attempting to more closely align Christianity with fact. This agenda can only be satisfied if ID is given the same credibility of evolutionary theory by placing both side-by-side in science curriculums.

[bmulligan]

the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved

What about the existence of a 'creator' ?

[Plumberboy]

the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved

What about the existence of a 'creator' ?

I believe the implication in our society is pretty clear that God and "the creator" are one in the same. Do you see them as being separate entities?

[David85]

Creator = God

I think the thing that pisses me off the most is the fact there is proof of evolution, and that the Adam and Eve story (stories if you read the Bible) is complete bullshit, yet they try to say there is proof for creation.

Because the human brain can't comprehend the universe doesn't mean there isn't a "simple" answer to why it was created that isn't God.

[defender]

This doesn't belong in BIOLOGY class.

Personally I think somewhere in 10th-12th grade all students should be given one semester of theology class and taught about ALL religions. This would be fair and balanced and possibly help with religious tolerance in this country.

Most people never take the time to learn anything about a religion outside their own and this is a BIG mistake as most religions are more similar than most think. Also the intent of religions are all about the same...they deal with death and the after-life according to how you lived your life.

[bmulligan]

the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved

What about the existence of a 'creator' ?

I believe the implication in our society is pretty clear that God and "the creator" are one in the same. Do you see them as being separate entities?

You may attribute a connotation of creator to mean god, however, realizing there was intense debate about using the word "creator" instead of "god" in the Declaration of Independence tells me the founding fathers knew there was an important difference.

You may also note that neither word appears in the Constitution.

[David85]

This doesn't belong in BIOLOGY class.

Personally I think somewhere in 10th-12th grade all students should be given one semester of theology class and taught about ALL religions. This would be fair and balanced and possibly help with religious tolerance in this country.

Most people never take the time to learn anything about a religion outside their own and this is a BIG mistake as most religions are more similar than most think. Also the intent of religions are all about the same...they deal with death and the after-life according to how you lived your life.


I agree, but nothing is fair and balance, the teacher could be an asshole and teach his/her religous ways more than the others, nothing would ever be fair, and would never work.

But it is a good idea, just never would work. And I will explain why later. Got to go to class now.

[coffman]

As it so happens, this is occuring in my school district (Dover, PA). Luckily, my daughter is too young to start school, so by the time she is in high school I anticipate this will no longer be in the curriculum. There is no way it will survive a lawsuit as the Supreme Court has already ruled that creationism cannot be taught in public schools. I thought the goal in our public schools was to leave no child behind. This kind of backward thinking will be leaving countless children behind. Next, teachers will be forced to teach that the earth is flat and is the center of the universe.

[jmcc]

Oh to be a science teacher with this foisted upon them. You could take the time to totally dismantle it (5 minutes or so) for the kids and get them on the path of thinking rationally. It would be awesome to send them home to their parents not wanting to go to church anymore.

[Quackzilla]

As it so happens, this is occuring in my school district (Dover, PA). Luckily, my daughter is too young to start school, so by the time she is in high school I anticipate this will no longer be in the curriculum. There is no way it will survive a lawsuit as the Supreme Court has already ruled that creationism cannot be taught in public schools. I thought the goal in our public schools was to leave no child behind. This kind of backward thinking will be leaving countless children behind. Next, teachers will be forced to teach that the earth is flat and is the center of the universe.

I think that you forget that the people that appont justices were elected by the fundamentalist Christian midwest. That's right, just under half of congress, a little over half of the representatives, and the president believe that creation should be taught exclusively.

[ZeroSupporT]

I pray to my toaster oven, and he says he doesn't know where the fuck we came from, but that it was alot quieter before we got here.

[David85]

As it so happens, this is occuring in my school district (Dover, PA). Luckily, my daughter is too young to start school, so by the time she is in high school I anticipate this will no longer be in the curriculum. There is no way it will survive a lawsuit as the Supreme Court has already ruled that creationism cannot be taught in public schools. I thought the goal in our public schools was to leave no child behind. This kind of backward thinking will be leaving countless children behind. Next, teachers will be forced to teach that the earth is flat and is the center of the universe.

I think that you forget that the people that appont justices were elected by the fundamentalist Christian midwest. That's right, just under half of congress, a little over half of the representatives, and the president believe that creation should be taught exclusively.

This is why the country is in so much trouble.

Four more years of Bush is livable, but once the Supereme Court judges start dieing and Bush adds some new people all hope for the next 50 years is gone.

[evilpenguin9000]

The religious right will never stop until we are all sheep in thier flock and doing exactly what they tell us to do. Intelligent design...what crap.

[Plumberboy]

You may attribute a connotation of creator to mean god, however, realizing there was intense debate about using the word "creator" instead of "god" in the Declaration of Independence tells me the founding fathers knew there was an important difference.

You may also note that neither word appears in the Constitution.

Regardless of what the founding fathers meant by "the creator," it is clear that "God", "the creator", or an "Intelligent Designer" is not based upon scientific principles. Therefore, ID is not suited for a science curriculum.

What do you propose the connotation of creator is, if it is not God?

I pray to my toaster oven, and he says he doesn't know where the shaq-fu we came from, but that it was alot quieter before we got here. :rofl:

[David85]

But "God" and his creation don't need to follow scientific reason because he is all knowing and powerful, yadda yadda...

[bmulligan]

This doesn't belong in BIOLOGY class.

Personally I think somewhere in 10th-12th grade all students should be given one semester of theology class and taught about ALL religions. This would be fair and balanced and possibly help with religious tolerance in this country.

Most people never take the time to learn anything about a religion outside their own and this is a BIG mistake as most religions are more similar than most think. Also the intent of religions are all about the same...they deal with death and the after-life according to how you lived your life.

Actually, they should teach it in philosophy class in highschool. What's that you say, you don't have philosophy classes in your highschool?

You should.

[RedvsBlue]

As it so happens, this is occuring in my school district (Dover, PA). Luckily, my daughter is too young to start school, so by the time she is in high school I anticipate this will no longer be in the curriculum. There is no way it will survive a lawsuit as the Supreme Court has already ruled that creationism cannot be taught in public schools. I thought the goal in our public schools was to leave no child behind. This kind of backward thinking will be leaving countless children behind. Next, teachers will be forced to teach that the earth is flat and is the center of the universe.

I think that you forget that the people that appont justices were elected by the fundamentalist Christian midwest. That's right, just under half of congress, a little over half of the representatives, and the president believe that creation should be taught exclusively.

This is why the country is in so much trouble.

Four more years of Bush is livable, but once the Supereme Court judges start dieing and Bush adds some new people all hope for the next 50 years is gone.

I wouldn't worry too much. The democrats can thankfully still use the ol' filabuster card. If Bush nominates someone that's way too conservative they'll at least be able to do something. That's what I love about our government, it makes it as difficult as possible for one group or person to sieze too much power.

[sblymnlcrymnl]

Religion is bullshit.

[Plumberboy]

And the designer saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

[-o< http://www.plumberboy.com/id_miyamoto.png [-o<

[jmcc]

This doesn't belong in BIOLOGY class.

Personally I think somewhere in 10th-12th grade all students should be given one semester of theology class and taught about ALL religions. This would be fair and balanced and possibly help with religious tolerance in this country.

Most people never take the time to learn anything about a religion outside their own and this is a BIG mistake as most religions are more similar than most think. Also the intent of religions are all about the same...they deal with death and the after-life according to how you lived your life.

Actually, they should teach it in philosophy class in highschool. What's that you say, you don't have philosophy classes in your highschool?

You should.

I think a theology class would be a better place for it than philosophy.

[bmulligan]

This doesn't belong in BIOLOGY class.

Personally I think somewhere in 10th-12th grade all students should be given one semester of theology class and taught about ALL religions. This would be fair and balanced and possibly help with religious tolerance in this country.

Most people never take the time to learn anything about a religion outside their own and this is a BIG mistake as most religions are more similar than most think. Also the intent of religions are all about the same...they deal with death and the after-life according to how you lived your life.

Actually, they should teach it in philosophy class in highschool. What's that you say, you don't have philosophy classes in your highschool?

You should.

I think a theology class would be a better place for it than philosophy.

Creating a theology course in the public school system would be like diving into a swimming pool full of sharks. Philosophy class would not only give kids thinking tools like logic, it's the perfect place to discuss ways of thinking that include god, and those that do not.

[camoor]

If you're going to study Philosophy, you should study Plato. But to understand Plato, you need to know about Platonic magic and it's place in paganism. So lets break out the old timey gods and let the fun begin!

[Scrubking]

Wow, all of you religion haters make me sick.

First of all science can prove a lot of things, but it CAN'T prove how we were made/got here. All you have are theories that you idiots throw around like it was fact.

Second, Science is very much a religion with it's own belief system - you guys just choose not to see it that way. All of your theories can be equated to faith since you guys believe them and teach them even though there is little to no proof, and all of your science books are your bible.

Thirdly, this is why you wack ass liberals are so out of touch in this country. You swear you know what is best and what people want, but in reality you have no clue. You spew out your radical garbage and then when the rest of the country says your ideas suck you act like they are dumb and you, the minority, are somehow in the know. Please wake up from your fantasies and realize that this country isn't a radical piece of liberal shit like you want it to be and that you and your stupid ideas are in the minority.

[Scrubking]

I also find it very funny how you radical pieces of shit make religion bashing threads like this and then have the nerve to deny the liberal movement to eliminate religion from everywhere except people's closets.

[jmcc]

Wow, all of you religion haters make me sick.

First of all science can prove a lot of things, but it CAN'T prove how we were made/got here. All you have are theories that you idiots throw around like it was fact.

But wouldn't you agree that any of the scientific theories to the creation of the universe make more sense than a magical old man in the sky making it all in 6 days with nothing but thought?

Second, Science is very much a religion with it's own belief system - you guys just choose not to see it that way. All of your theories can be equated to faith since you guys believe them and teach them even though there is little to no proof, and all of your science books are your bible.

Science is not a religion, because nothing is assumed based purely on faith. Science requires quantifiable evidence to support itself. Religion offers no proof, only demands you believe it.

Thirdly, this is why you wack ass liberals are so out of touch in this country. You swear you know what is best and what people want, but in reality you have no clue. You spew out your radical garbage and then when the rest of the country says your ideas suck you act like they are dumb and you, the minority, are somehow in the know. Please wake up from your fantasies and realize that this country isn't a radical piece of liberal shit like you want it to be and that you and your stupid ideas are in the minority.

The majority of the country isn't religious. Oh, they'll rally behind it when it's convenient to them or advances their cause, such as in keeping homosexuals from getting married, but that's not religion, that's lip-service. God is pretty much dead in the USA.

I also find it very funny how you radical pieces of shit make religion bashing threads like this and then have the nerve to deny the liberal movement to eliminate religion from everywhere except people's closets.

Do you really not understand why religion needs to be confined from public institutions? We're the most [frivolously] litigious society on the planet right now, so unless you're going to cover every single crackpot faith there is out there you can't have any at all, or you'll get sued. Blame lawyers if you want to, but science really doesn't care what people do. It just reports findings.

[Plumberboy]

Well said jmcc.

Scrub, why are you so uncomfortable with accepting the origin of the universe (and all that is in it) is unknown? Yet, you accept "God" has always been here, but it is inconceivable to you that it is possible the universe was actually here before your "God."

Religion is a creation of man and to believe one religion is absolute is not only arrogant, but foolhardy. It quickly becomes dangerous when those in power attempt to legislate their faith or destroy others in the name of their "God."

If indeed there is a Heaven and Hell, I would wager religion turns out to be a byproduct of the latter. After all, God and religion are not necessarily synonymous. I cannot comprehend a compassionate "God" judging and casting people aside based on many of the dogmatic laws imposed by religion.

With that said, many of the posts here did not directly attack religion. Most simply agree ID is not science. You have conceded as much by referring to this as a, "religious bashing thread," when the thread is clearly titled Intelligent Design. Therefore, if ID is to be taught in our public schools, there are curriculums more suitable for the topic. I don't see anything radical or liberal about that.

BTW, what does your "God" think of your potty mouth?

[camoor]

Yeah dogmatism is the real problem.

Y'all should read David Hume's "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion"
I always loved how the dogmatic debator was shown to be the real idiot by the end of the debate. Ironic thing is, if the book was the US election that guy would probably win.

[Quackzilla]

First of all science can prove a lot of things, but it CAN'T prove how we were made/got here.

Yes, it can.


Bitch.

[bmulligan]

Yeah dogmatism is the real problem.

Y'all should read David Hume's "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion"
I always loved how the dogmatic debator was shown to be the real idiot by the end of the debate. Ironic thing is, if the book was the US election that guy would probably win.

The realms of science are replete with dogmatism. Every day, scientific paradigms are hearalded as truth when they have no provable basis in fact. Sometimes their only certainty is a consensus or a majority of scientists who believe a certain theory to be true. Science IS a religion, in a way, basing knowledge on a series of theories and the facts that corroborate them. the scientific method allows for a change in theory when the facts warrant, but it is not often an easy task to thwart an already established scientific belief.

[jmcc]

Yeah dogmatism is the real problem.

Y'all should read David Hume's "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion"
I always loved how the dogmatic debator was shown to be the real idiot by the end of the debate. Ironic thing is, if the book was the US election that guy would probably win.

The realms of science are replete with dogmatism. Every day, scientific paradigms are hearalded as truth when they have no provable basis in fact. Sometimes their only certainty is a consensus or a majority of scientists who believe a certain theory to be true. Science IS a religion, in a way, basing knowledge on a series of theories and the facts that corroborate them. the scientific method allows for a change in theory when the facts warrant, but it is not often an easy task to thwart an already established scientific belief.

Sure it's easy. You just have to prove that your explanation is a simpler explanation than the current one and that it explains more things.

And science isn't a religion since religion relies on faith. Science has no faith. It's based solely on what's observable, measurable and reproducible. Science without at least one of those things is bad science.

[Plumberboy]

Yeah dogmatism is the real problem.

Y'all should read David Hume's "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion"
I always loved how the dogmatic debator was shown to be the real idiot by the end of the debate. Ironic thing is, if the book was the US election that guy would probably win.

The realms of science are replete with dogmatism. Every day, scientific paradigms are hearalded as truth when they have no provable basis in fact. Sometimes their only certainty is a consensus or a majority of scientists who believe a certain theory to be true. Science IS a religion, in a way, basing knowledge on a series of theories and the facts that corroborate them. the scientific method allows for a change in theory when the facts warrant, but it is not often an easy task to thwart an already established scientific belief.

You're break'n my bawls Hans! You're break'n my bawls!

Science is based upon empirical evidence and from that evidence, theories emerge. Granted, some theories are more plausible than others. However, unlike religion, the scientific community expects theories to be challenged and discourse (both supporting and dissenting) is welcome. As theories are disproved, they are discarded and new theories are drawn. These are fundamental differences between science and religion.

You are correct; it is not an easy task to thwart an already established theory, nor should it be. Theories are often constructed and scrutinized over extended periods of time. “Because I said so,” simply is not acceptable among the scientific community the way it is with religion. Religion requires faith. Science requires evidence.

[helava]

The realms of science are replete with dogmatism. Every day, scientific paradigms are hearalded as truth when they have no provable basis in fact. Sometimes their only certainty is a consensus or a majority of scientists who believe a certain theory to be true. Science IS a religion, in a way, basing knowledge on a series of theories and the facts that corroborate them. the scientific method allows for a change in theory when the facts warrant, but it is not often an easy task to thwart an already established scientific belief.

Can you say science is free of dogma? Not absolutely, no. But you clearly don't understand the scientific *process*. Scientists don't believe in theories arbitrarily. What determines truth isn't simply consensus, but analytical review, and testing of hypotheses. Science isn't a religion *because* it relies on the facts that corroborate the theories, and if the facts disagree, that theory is tossed out. If a scientist is unable to let go of a theory, he must prove that there is merit in the theory, or move on. That's the way the process works, and the reason that it works is that we can explain the world works by using the scientific method. We can *predict the future* through science, in some cases, to 100% accuracy. You simply can't do that with religion.

And to scrubking - I think you've proved to me that there is no intelligent designer. If there was a legitimately intelligent designer, they certainly wouldn't have designed *you*.

seppo

[pumbaa]

1. The Matrix Theory. More people probably belive that then the "God" crap.

I didn't want to debate the existence of God in this post. I believe anyone who is honest with themselves can only accept the concept of agnosticism; the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved.

My issue regarding this post is confusing religious faith with science and trying to pass one off as the other. ID offers no empirical evidence of a creator and therefore falls in line with other faiths whether it be Christian, Hindu, or Jedi. As a result, it belongs in a theology course (elective), not science.

However the promoters of ID have an agenda which is to devalue evolutionary theory while attempting to more closely align Christianity with fact. This agenda can only be satisfied if ID is given the same credibility of evolutionary theory by placing both side-by-side in science curriculums.

You shouldn't make blanket statements like that. Quite a bit of levelheaded people who are honest with themselves are not agnostic... (and not necessarily religious...).

[coffman]

Wow, all of you religion haters make me sick.

First of all science can prove a lot of things, but it CAN'T prove how we were made/got here. All you have are theories that you idiots throw around like it was fact.

Second, Science is very much a religion with it's own belief system - you guys just choose not to see it that way. All of your theories can be equated to faith since you guys believe them and teach them even though there is little to no proof, and all of your science books are your bible.

Thirdly, this is why you wack ass liberals are so out of touch in this country. You swear you know what is best and what people want, but in reality you have no clue. You spew out your radical garbage and then when the rest of the country says your ideas suck you act like they are dumb and you, the minority, are somehow in the know. Please wake up from your fantasies and realize that this country isn't a radical piece of liberal shit like you want it to be and that you and your stupid ideas are in the minority.

Wow, it sounds like you must have failed your science courses in high school.

[camoor]

1. The Matrix Theory. More people probably belive that then the "God" crap.

I didn't want to debate the existence of God in this post. I believe anyone who is honest with themselves can only accept the concept of agnosticism; the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved.

My issue regarding this post is confusing religious faith with science and trying to pass one off as the other. ID offers no empirical evidence of a creator and therefore falls in line with other faiths whether it be Christian, Hindu, or Jedi. As a result, it belongs in a theology course (elective), not science.

However the promoters of ID have an agenda which is to devalue evolutionary theory while attempting to more closely align Christianity with fact. This agenda can only be satisfied if ID is given the same credibility of evolutionary theory by placing both side-by-side in science curriculums.

That Matrix crap is based on that Descartes crap: "I think therefore I am"

However I think it happens to be pretty good crap.

I'm no religion hater, but I'm not throwing my microwave out the window either.

There's enough room for both science and religion in life. You can look at a dog and see a mass of muscle, blood, and bone and then you can also see an ankle-high being infused with a spark of divine life. The two views do not necessarily conflict.

[Plumberboy]

I believe anyone who is honest with themselves can only accept the concept of agnosticism; the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved.

You shouldn't make blanket statements like that. Quite a bit of levelheaded people who are honest with themselves are not agnostic... (and not necessarily religious...).

I'm no religion hater, but I'm not throwing my microwave out the window either.

There's enough room for both science and religion in life. You can look at a dog and see a mass of muscle, blood, and bone and then you can also see an ankle-high being infused with a spark of divine life. The two views do not necessarily conflict.

I do feel religion, and the absolute certainty with which it is taught, can be very dangerous. It didn't take 19 hijackers flying planes into buildings to convince me of that.

I have no issue with the idea of a divine entity, but until someone can provide incontrovertible proof as to the existence of a "God", or lack thereof, I believe it is disingenuous not to acknowledge the possibility that those who oppose your view point may be correct. I understand this may be difficult for some people to accept. Once those who are religious acknowledge this possibility, their entire religious foundation is destroyed.

I am quite aware my statement addresses more than just those who are religious. In a previous post, in this same thread, I even noted "God" and religion are not necessarily synonymous. The agnostic statement is equally true for atheists who assert there is no "God."

[jmcc]

I'm fine with spirituality. It's organized religion I can do without. If you need a church telling you how you should feel about the world around you, then how devoted are you to your faith?

[camoor]

...I have no issue with the idea of a divine entity, but until someone can provide incontrovertible proof as to the existence of a "God", or lack thereof, I believe it is disingenuous not to acknowledge the possibility that those who oppose your view point may be correct. I understand this may be difficult for some people to accept. Once those who are religious acknowledge this possibility, their entire religious foundation is destroyed...

I must disagree. I assume that you are adressing the issue of religious faith, where people are called upon to believe something despite having no proof (This is the dogmatic approch to religion). 2 points:

1. There is not necessarily a derth of proof for God, Buddha, Ganesh, Zeus, or whomever you may believe in. Many people consider proof to come from more places then a microscope.
2. Not all religious people put all their eggs in the "faith" basket. Many people (the "natural religion" people) are open to finding truth in the many different religious perspectives of the world, even if they tend to feel strongly about their own personal beliefs.

[helava]

1. There is not necessarily a derth of proof for God, Buddha, Ganesh, Zeus, or whomever you may believe in. Many people consider proof to come from more places then a microscope.

Then can you please define what a "proof" is, in your estimation?

seppo

[David85]

I'm fine with spirituality. It's organized religion I can do without. If you need a church telling you how you should feel about the world around you, then how devoted are you to your faith?

That's how I feel, you want to belive in something fine, you do that, just leave me the hell alone.

The problem is that organized religion is a cult, yep a cult. I asked my mom what she considered a cult. She's like "they brainwash people into beliviong and doing something and to further their ways". I'm like, "How is that different from a church?" I won, she didn't say anything.

[bmulligan]

Can you say science is free of dogma? Not absolutely, no. But you clearly don't understand the scientific *process*. Scientists don't believe in theories arbitrarily. What determines truth isn't simply consensus, but analytical review, and testing of hypotheses. Science isn't a religion *because* it relies on the facts that corroborate the theories, and if the facts disagree, that theory is tossed out. If a scientist is unable to let go of a theory, he must prove that there is merit in the theory, or move on. That's the way the process works, and the reason that it works is that we can explain the world works by using the scientific method. We can *predict the future* through science, in some cases, to 100% accuracy. You simply can't do that with religion.

seppo

You are correct in that science does describe how natural phenomena work by describing the mechanism. What it cannot tell us is why they occur or even exist in the first place. You are addressing the wrong question. "Science" does not predict the future either, deductive reasoning does.

I understand the scientific method just fine, thank you. What you misunderstand is that science does NOT equal "100%" truth or accuracy in ANY case. You should familiarize yourself with this term: Principle of indeterminacy, or more commonly known as the uncertainty principle.

I'll agree that science's never ending quest for truth has more merit and application in the physical world than does religion. Religion's quest begins and ends in dubious unquestionable 'proof' in sacred texts written by men with no physical evidence whatsoever. However, when it comes to analyzing what existed before existence, science is in the same boat as the pope.

[jmcc]

Can you say science is free of dogma? Not absolutely, no. But you clearly don't understand the scientific *process*. Scientists don't believe in theories arbitrarily. What determines truth isn't simply consensus, but analytical review, and testing of hypotheses. Science isn't a religion *because* it relies on the facts that corroborate the theories, and if the facts disagree, that theory is tossed out. If a scientist is unable to let go of a theory, he must prove that there is merit in the theory, or move on. That's the way the process works, and the reason that it works is that we can explain the world works by using the scientific method. We can *predict the future* through science, in some cases, to 100% accuracy. You simply can't do that with religion.

seppo

You are correct in that science does describe how natural phenomena work by describing the mechanism. What it cannot tell us is why they occur or even exist in the first place. You are addressing the wrong question. "Science" does not predict the future either, deductive reasoning does.

I understand the scientific method just fine, thank you. What you misunderstand is that science does NOT equal "100%" truth or accuracy in ANY case. You should familiarize yourself with this term: Principle of indeterminacy, or more commonly known as the uncertainty principle.

I'll agree that science's never ending quest for truth has more merit and application in the physical world than does religion. Religion's quest begins and ends in dubious unquestionable 'proof' in sacred texts written by men with no physical evidence whatsoever. However, when it comes to analyzing what existed before existence, science is in the same boat as the pope.

Except that science IS analyzing it. The pope thinks he already knows and stopped looking.

[helava]

Uh, I'm quite familiar with the uncertainty principle. Thanks.

What I said was that it can, in *some* cases, predict the future with 100% accuracy.

As to whether science addresses the question of "why," rather than "how" - in many cases, "how" and "why" are the same question. How we evolve, for instance, is tied almost directly into why we evolve.

Your line, "However, when it comes to analyzing what existed before existence, science is in the same boat at the pope," is sort of strange. What existed before existance? Nothing. If it existed, then it existed *during* existance, not before it.

But the point being, that there's a *huge* difference between believing you have the answers, and trying to make the world fit a set of arbitrary answers that have proven on a number of occasions to be totally wrong, and looking at the world, and trying to understand it. One leads to a greater understanding, the other works against it.

seppo

[pumbaa]

I'm fine with spirituality. It's organized religion I can do without. If you need a church telling you how you should feel about the world around you, then how devoted are you to your faith?

That's how I feel, you want to belive in something fine, you do that, just leave me the hell alone.

The problem is that organized religion is a cult, yep a cult. I asked my mom what she considered a cult. She's like "they brainwash people into beliviong and doing something and to further their ways". I'm like, "How is that different from a church?" I won, she didn't say anything.


Organized religion vs. Cult is something I struggled with for a long long time in my faith. For a long time they seemed pretty similar to me and it really concerned me. I think where the literal difference is that a "cult" bu nature is a small offshoot of a larger religion. Thus, you could technically say that early chrisitianity (amoung the Jews) was a sort of cult (although it could be considered a type of Judaism back then...) So literally, Bhuddism, Judaism, Christianity etc. etc. cannot be a cult because they are massive. Obviously, this wasn;t enough for me to not consider my religion a cult. So I basically was able to boil it down to the fact that in the end, cults are much more aggressive in their efforts to convert. Cults are more forceful in their views than other, mainstream religions. I am not mindlessly following my ORGANIZED religion (and I;m not blind to the wisdom of other religions). I choose to follow because it fits my type. When I finally realized that I was pretty content with where I was... religiously speaking.

[pumbaa]

Wow, all of you religion haters make me sick.

First of all science can prove a lot of things, but it CAN'T prove how we were made/got here. All you have are theories that you idiots throw around like it was fact.

Second, Science is very much a religion with it's own belief system - you guys just choose not to see it that way. All of your theories can be equated to faith since you guys believe them and teach them even though there is little to no proof, and all of your science books are your bible.

Thirdly, this is why you wack ass liberals are so out of touch in this country. You swear you know what is best and what people want, but in reality you have no clue. You spew out your radical garbage and then when the rest of the country says your ideas suck you act like they are dumb and you, the minority, are somehow in the know. Please wake up from your fantasies and realize that this country isn't a radical piece of liberal shit like you want it to be and that you and your stupid ideas are in the minority.

Skrubking,

Be wary of mixing religion and politics. Youre fighting a two front war (it didn;t work for hitler...) AND some of those "whack ass liberals" may be just as commited to their religion as you.

[helava]

I don't think that say, the Branch Davidians have been nearly as "forceful" as the say, Roman Catholic church throughout the ages. The size argument, maybe, I dunno - is Scientology a cult, or a religion? (personally, I think it's *hilarious* that L. Ron Hubbard has gone on record stating that it was a profit-making scheme, and yet, people still believe it.) But the point being, there really is no distinction between a religion and a cult, save for mainstream acceptance.

seppo

[David85]

I'm fine with spirituality. It's organized religion I can do without. If you need a church telling you how you should feel about the world around you, then how devoted are you to your faith?

That's how I feel, you want to belive in something fine, you do that, just leave me the hell alone.

The problem is that organized religion is a cult, yep a cult. I asked my mom what she considered a cult. She's like "they brainwash people into beliviong and doing something and to further their ways". I'm like, "How is that different from a church?" I won, she didn't say anything.


Organized religion vs. Cult is something I struggled with for a long long time in my faith. For a long time they seemed pretty similar to me and it really concerned me. I think where the literal difference is that a "cult" bu nature is a small offshoot of a larger religion. Thus, you could technically say that early chrisitianity (amoung the Jews) was a sort of cult (although it could be considered a type of Judaism back then...) So literally, Bhuddism, Judaism, Christianity etc. etc. cannot be a cult because they are massive. Obviously, this wasn;t enough for me to not consider my religion a cult. So I basically was able to boil it down to the fact that in the end, cults are much more aggressive in their efforts to convert. Cults are more forceful in their views than other, mainstream religions. I am not mindlessly following my ORGANIZED religion (and I;m not blind to the wisdom of other religions). I choose to follow because it fits my type. When I finally realized that I was pretty content with where I was... religiously speaking.

I do not see how a cult is more aggressive. The Catholic Church every other days says how things should be done. I couble months ago they pretty much said women shouldn't have rights and they should sit home and cook. Yet women still go to church because they are brainwashed to do so. The only difference I see is that small cults kill themselves and sadly the Catholic cults do not.

[pumbaa]

I'm fine with spirituality. It's organized religion I can do without. If you need a church telling you how you should feel about the world around you, then how devoted are you to your faith?

That's how I feel, you want to belive in something fine, you do that, just leave me the hell alone.

The problem is that organized religion is a cult, yep a cult. I asked my mom what she considered a cult. She's like "they brainwash people into beliviong and doing something and to further their ways". I'm like, "How is that different from a church?" I won, she didn't say anything.


Organized religion vs. Cult is something I struggled with for a long long time in my faith. For a long time they seemed pretty similar to me and it really concerned me. I think where the literal difference is that a "cult" bu nature is a small offshoot of a larger religion. Thus, you could technically say that early chrisitianity (amoung the Jews) was a sort of cult (although it could be considered a type of Judaism back then...) So literally, Bhuddism, Judaism, Christianity etc. etc. cannot be a cult because they are massive. Obviously, this wasn;t enough for me to not consider my religion a cult. So I basically was able to boil it down to the fact that in the end, cults are much more aggressive in their efforts to convert. Cults are more forceful in their views than other, mainstream religions. I am not mindlessly following my ORGANIZED religion (and I;m not blind to the wisdom of other religions). I choose to follow because it fits my type. When I finally realized that I was pretty content with where I was... religiously speaking.

I do not see how a cult is more aggressive. The Catholic Church every other days says how things should be done. I couble months ago they pretty much said women shouldn't have rights and they should sit home and cook. Yet women still go to church because they are brainwashed to do so. The only difference I see is that small cults kill themselves and sadly the Catholic cults do not.

A cult is more aggressive because in many cults, there are a small number of people. Since cults target certain people (and personality types) i.e. people just gone though rough times, people that feel like they do not have a place in the world, etc. etc. Theres no space to disagree. Since there are a crap load of Catholics (and even more Chrisitans) there is enough flexibility to disagree with the religion and still consider yourself a part of it. When I say to other Catholics or Christians that I am think gays should have the legal right to marry, I've never had tell me that I'm no longer a part of the religion. I'm pretty sure the same thing goes for Judaism, Bhuddism, and Islam (more so even). Every religion has their extremists, but they shouldn't be rated on the extremists alone.

Lets not go making generalizations about people that are a part of organized religions when I know for a fact you have fought PAD overgeneralizations about people. I am a Catholic, doesn't mean I agree with everything the pope says. Thats the difference between a religion and a cult, I can disagree and still be an active part of the community.

[pumbaa]

I don't think that say, the Branch Davidians have been nearly as "forceful" as the say, Roman Catholic church throughout the ages. The size argument, maybe, I dunno - is Scientology a cult, or a religion? (personally, I think it's *hilarious* that L. Ron Hubbard has gone on record stating that it was a profit-making scheme, and yet, people still believe it.) But the point being, there really is no distinction between a religion and a cult, save for mainstream acceptance.

seppo

Size is the point. No religion gets large by having a iron fist on opinions. A religion where discussion and change aren't allowed will not grow large. You are correct about acceptance, but not in the way you think. People stay with their religion past what their parents taught them because they CAN disagree and still be considered part of it. Mainstream is the entire point, religions exist because their original messages (Koran, Bible, Torah, Shinto Scriptures, etc.) made enough sense to appeal to the mainstream. These things have lasted for long, long time periods. I'm not saying any of them are more right than others, I'm just saying that large RELIGIONS are different from cults... fundamentally because of their mainstreamness. Religions could be called massive, mainstream, flexible cults... but they arent.. because that strips away exactly what a cult is.

[helava]

So, the difference between a cult & a religion is "room to disagree"? So, if I'm a Roman Catholic, and I'm pro-choice, and I'm disagreeing with the Pope, who's supposedly what, the voice of God on Earth, er... where's the room for disagreement? That the Catholics are lazy about enforcing their beliefs, or explicitly don't bother in order to keep their userbase large... That doesn't seem to me to be a particularly worthwhile distinction.

I don't have a problem with you *being* a cultist - I just think that if this is going to be the belief system that large parts of your life are going to be based on, that you at least have the guts to call it what it is, and not create some bizarre, arbitrary distinction between your cult and their cult.

seppo

[David85]

Thank you helava.

If I went into a church wearing a rainbow cape do you really think they will welcome me? No, they might until I give them money then they wouldn't be welcoming.

They aren't called cults people if they did that would piss off the people who go to church and then they don't watch that station anymore and lose money.

Religoin is a big cult. They haven't changed that much, they still teach bullshit, just not in church, they say it on the airwaves. Like I said the church is against womens rights, but they only say that on the news, not in church because all the women would leave.

Religion is just a better plan cult that tries to hide what they belive when it doesn't help them out aka when it doesn't give them money.

[pumbaa]

So, the difference between a cult & a religion is "room to disagree"? So, if I'm a Roman Catholic, and I'm pro-choice, and I'm disagreeing with the Pope, who's supposedly what, the voice of God on Earth, er... where's the room for disagreement? That the Catholics are lazy about enforcing their beliefs, or explicitly don't bother in order to keep their userbase large... That doesn't seem to me to be a particularly worthwhile distinction.

I don't have a problem with you *being* a cultist - I just think that if this is going to be the belief system that large parts of your life are going to be based on, that you at least have the guts to call it what it is, and not create some bizarre, arbitrary distinction between your cult and their cult.

seppo

Wow. Just.... wow. I'll tell you what. I'm Roman Catholic. Ask me about what I believe, and it probably won't fall in line with exactly everything the Catholic Church says. If you believe that every single practicing Catholic believes every single thing the Catholic Church believes... or that they SHOULD, you are pretty mistaken. Regardless, it doesn't matter. I understand and apologize for those who call themseleves religious and are intolerant, who are violent, and who use their religion as a status symbol. Real spirituality, REAL religion goes beyond that superficial shit. I don't want to fucking convert you, I voted for John Kerry, I'm for gay marriage, I dont think people are SAVED simply because they are christian. I follow a lot of Catholic things because they make sense to me. Example, I'm waiting to have sex til marriage (or at least a crazy awesome love) because I wanna have sex with someone who I truly love. I'm not your typical Chrisitan. I don't know what more to say, I see a distinction, you don't, I guess thats the best I can do.

[pumbaa]

Thank you helava.

If I went into a church wearing a rainbow cape do you really think they will welcome me? No, they might until I give them money then they wouldn't be welcoming.

They aren't called cults people if they did that would piss off the people who go to church and then they don't watch that station anymore and lose money.

Religoin is a big cult. They haven't changed that much, they still teach bullshit, just not in church, they say it on the airwaves. Like I said the church is against womens rights, but they only say that on the news, not in church because all the women would leave.

Religion is just a better plan cult that tries to hide what they belive when it doesn't help them out aka when it doesn't give them money.

My church would be cool with it. Come on down to University of Florida, you might get some odd looks... cause... well... you are wearing a friken cape... but I can't see anybody turning you away or thinking of you as the evil gay guy... just the odd guy with the cape on.

If people were to strip away all the bullshit about "churches are only about money", and "the bible is all bullshit" and do some research. It makes a lot of sense. Yeah, I'm not naive... a lot of really horrible stuff has happened because of religion... but there are some truly amazing things to think about, at least in the religions Ive looked at.
Look at some of the points that different religious texts make, and take them out of their religious context. A lot of them are just common sense thing. Don't just look at Christitanity, look at some early Shinto writings, or the Koran, or some Bhuddist writings from Asia. I'm just saying, I completely understand the hostility, a lot of "religious" people are dicks... don't let that deter you from finding the good in it.

[jmcc]

I believe one of the qualifications for a cult is a living, charismatic leader, if you want to get into semantics about it.

[pumbaa]

http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-cult-definition.html

first result for google search of "definition of cult". Take it as you will... it really doesn't agree with either of us (or agree with both of us. ::shrugs::

Click on some of the other links and it seems like a cult, in the mainstream sense of the word... is identified as being "out of step" with mainstream theological or socital ideas.

[bmulligan]

Is CAG a cult?

[David85]

Do we give money to CAG? Do we listen to everything people say and get brainwashed by it? Do we base our actions on what happens here.

cult: formal religious veneration : worship

Seems like a church to me...

[camoor]

Do we give money to CAG? Do we listen to everything people say and get brainwashed by it? Do we base our actions on what happens here.

cult: formal religious veneration : worship

Seems like a church to me...

I'm building a golden idol of Cheapy D in my basement. Anyone want to come by and worship it for a while :)

[camoor]

1. There is not necessarily a derth of proof for God, Buddha, Ganesh, Zeus, or whomever you may believe in. Many people consider proof to come from more places then a microscope.

Then can you please define what a "proof" is, in your estimation?

seppo

Proof - That degree of evidence which convinces the mind of any truth or fact, and produces belief.

The "degree of evidence" phrase is the key factor that I focus on.

Science has proven that our five senses can be fooled, think of an optical illusion (eg a desert mirage) or a technological simulation (eg the image on a tv screen). However the converse can also be true, it is entirely possible that sensual entities like a "thought in your head" or "an emotion" are explained more clearly and accurately by philosophy or religion then by science. After all, can an idea be simply described as a bunch of neurons in the brain firing positive and negative charges?

As our knowledge of the universe is limited, I choose to explain the sensations that I feel in both scientific and philisophical/religious terms. The empirical degree of evidence that I demand of philosophy/religion is fundamentally different the rational degree of evidence that I demand of science. However in my view, it is no less valid.

[jmcc]

1. There is not necessarily a derth of proof for God, Buddha, Ganesh, Zeus, or whomever you may believe in. Many people consider proof to come from more places then a microscope.

Then can you please define what a "proof" is, in your estimation?

seppo

Proof - That degree of evidence which convinces the mind of any truth or fact, and produces belief.

The "degree of evidence" phrase is the key factor that I focus on.

Science has proven that our five senses can be fooled, think of an optical illusion (eg a desert mirage) or a technological simulation (eg the image on a tv screen). However the converse can also be true, it is entirely possible that sensual entities like a "thought in your head" or "an emotion" are explained more clearly and accurately by philosophy or religion then by science. After all, can an idea be simply described as a bunch of neurons in the brain firing positive and negative charges?

As our knowledge of the universe is limited, I choose to explain the sensations that I feel in both scientific and philisophical/religious terms. The empirical degree of evidence that I demand of philosophy/religion is fundamentally different the rational degree of evidence that I demand of science. However in my view, it is no less valid.

So, to fill the gaps that science hasn't written in yet you're stuffing them full of spirituality? I suppose that's what most everyone does just to get through the day, but in a thousand years we'll be just as laughed at as all the goons back in the year 1000 are today...trepanning and bloodletting...those buffoons!

[camoor]

1. There is not necessarily a derth of proof for God, Buddha, Ganesh, Zeus, or whomever you may believe in. Many people consider proof to come from more places then a microscope.

Then can you please define what a "proof" is, in your estimation?

seppo

Proof - That degree of evidence which convinces the mind of any truth or fact, and produces belief.

The "degree of evidence" phrase is the key factor that I focus on.

Science has proven that our five senses can be fooled, think of an optical illusion (eg a desert mirage) or a technological simulation (eg the image on a tv screen). However the converse can also be true, it is entirely possible that sensual entities like a "thought in your head" or "an emotion" are explained more clearly and accurately by philosophy or religion then by science. After all, can an idea be simply described as a bunch of neurons in the brain firing positive and negative charges?

As our knowledge of the universe is limited, I choose to explain the sensations that I feel in both scientific and philisophical/religious terms. The empirical degree of evidence that I demand of philosophy/religion is fundamentally different the rational degree of evidence that I demand of science. However in my view, it is no less valid.

So, to fill the gaps that science hasn't written in yet you're stuffing them full of spirituality? I suppose that's what most everyone does just to get through the day, but in a thousand years we'll be just as laughed at as all the goons back in the year 1000 are today...trepanning and bloodletting...those buffoons!

I'm not filling in any gaps.

Life is not a brick wall, with scientific facts as the bricks and religion/philosophy as the mortar.

No, I believe life is a synthesis of experiences, and we must consider all of these experiences together if we wish to discover truth.

An apple consists of natural sugars, seeds, stem, core, fruit flesh, and skin.

An apple is a delicious piece of food.

An apple is a group of atoms arranged in a compact but definable format.

An apple is a thing of beauty, a soothingly smooth rounded shape that can range in color from red to yellow to green.

An apple can impart new life and energy to animals.

I believe that every one of these statements contains a degree of evidence, so for me these statements are proof that an apple is more then just a dry scientific fact. There is no real reason to think that the person who considers an apple to be aesthetically pleasing, or a piece of food, would be considered foolish by future generations (assuming they still enjoy art or need to eat :wink: ). In fact, perceptions like these are a central part of the human experience. I would belittle noone who disavows the beauty of an apple as false and favors a completely logical and scientific perspective of what an apple is, and I would ask the same respect from them towards my blended humanistic/scientific views on what an apple truly is.

[helava]

Sure, and most of those properties of the apple that you've described are explained by science. Why is it delicious? Why is it red? Why is it smooth? Why is it food? Why do we find it beautiful? How can it impart new life and energy to animals? All these things are either already largely explained, or being researched by scientists.

What you've done is listed a number of perceptions of an object - I don't see how this ties into "proof".

One of the reasons that science is peer-reviewed is that in many cases, a person's perception can be wrong. It's not perfect, but the process continues to strive *toward* perfection. What you've said is essentially, "Well, there's some crap we haven't explained yet, so I'll wave my hands in the air and call it proof that there are other avenues of exploration that are equally valid."

The fact that *you* don't understand the science behind the way you feel doesn't mean that someone else doesn't, or won't. Saying you're "filling in the gaps" is pretty insipid, to be perfectly blunt.

seppo

[camoor]

One day you could probably program a super computer to spit out a bunch of mathematical formulas that symbologically represent all these features of an apple.

However it would still not the be the be-all-and-end-all of universal truths *for me*

...Why do we find it beautiful?...

One can produce scientifically accurate statistics on what makes a person consider an apple beautiful (IE symetry, smoothness, color, etc), or reason the beauty away as an evolutionary development that leads people to eat life-sustaining food. These ideas can certainly form the legitimate basis of a world-view.

However, from my perspective this would be missing the *essence* of beauty. Science is simply describing the phenomena that was physically manifested as a result of my coming into contact with beauty. It's categorically listing the qualities of the object that caused me to find the apple beautiful. I don't think I'm a robot that's running along and giving apples a score on 1 to 10 based on a laundry list of beauty characteristics, and then getting an emotional payoff based on that score. Instead I'm looking at an object and for a brief instance I'm seeing what that object truly is for me, organically merging all of the visual qualities of the apple with my current mental and emotional states, and for a brief moment connecting with the apple's true beauty in a sense that scientific jargon just doesn't capture.

I've had some trouble because it's a really tough concept to describe to a skeptic (I used to be of a completely scientific viewpoint myself). However I would never call the humanistic viewpoint of the world insipid, in fact my life is much more flavorful ever since I started to expand my horizons beyond the ordered universe of science and reason.

[jmcc]

One day you could probably program a super computer to spit out a bunch of mathematical formulas that symbologically represent all these features of an apple.

However it would still not the be the be-all-and-end-all of universal truths *for me*

...Why do we find it beautiful?...

One can produce scientifically accurate statistics on what makes a person consider an apple beautiful (IE symetry, smoothness, color, etc), or reason the beauty away as an evolutionary development that leads people to eat life-sustaining food. These ideas can certainly form the legitimate basis of a world-view.

However, from my perspective this would be missing the *essence* of beauty. Science is simply describing the phenomena that was physically manifested as a result of my coming into contact with beauty. It's categorically listing the qualities of the object that caused me to find the apple beautiful. I don't think I'm a robot that's running along and giving apples a score on 1 to 10 based on a laundry list of beauty characteristics, and then getting an emotional payoff based on that score. Instead I'm looking at an object and for a brief instance I'm seeing what that object truly is for me, organically merging all of the visual qualities of the apple with my current mental and emotional states, and for a brief moment connecting with the apple's true beauty in a sense that scientific jargon just doesn't capture.

I've had some trouble because it's a really tough concept to describe to a skeptic (I used to be of a completely scientific viewpoint myself). However I would never call the humanistic viewpoint of the world insipid, in fact my life is much more flavorful ever since I started to expand my horizons beyond the ordered universe of science and reason.

Nothing exists beyond the ordered unierse of science and reason, only what we understand of it.

[camoor]

One day you could probably program a super computer to spit out a bunch of mathematical formulas that symbologically represent all these features of an apple.

However it would still not the be the be-all-and-end-all of universal truths *for me*

...Why do we find it beautiful?...

One can produce scientifically accurate statistics on what makes a person consider an apple beautiful (IE symetry, smoothness, color, etc), or reason the beauty away as an evolutionary development that leads people to eat life-sustaining food. These ideas can certainly form the legitimate basis of a world-view.

However, from my perspective this would be missing the *essence* of beauty. Science is simply describing the phenomena that was physically manifested as a result of my coming into contact with beauty. It's categorically listing the qualities of the object that caused me to find the apple beautiful. I don't think I'm a robot that's running along and giving apples a score on 1 to 10 based on a laundry list of beauty characteristics, and then getting an emotional payoff based on that score. Instead I'm looking at an object and for a brief instance I'm seeing what that object truly is for me, organically merging all of the visual qualities of the apple with my current mental and emotional states, and for a brief moment connecting with the apple's true beauty in a sense that scientific jargon just doesn't capture.

I've had some trouble because it's a really tough concept to describe to a skeptic (I used to be of a completely scientific viewpoint myself). However I would never call the humanistic viewpoint of the world insipid, in fact my life is much more flavorful ever since I started to expand my horizons beyond the ordered universe of science and reason.

Nothing exists beyond the ordered unierse of science and reason, only what we understand of it.

Kant originally believed the same thing, but he in the end he came to the conclusion that reason (ie logic) is a self-referential system, and therefore is fundamentally limited in it's ability to "explain" the universe.

The main conceit of science is that we discover truths by deduction, ala Sherlock Holmes solving the crime by the evidence in hand. However in reality it is often the process of induction, or creative leaps of thought (tempered by logic) that lead to a wider scope of understanding about our universe. Science has a sophisticated method that can be used to run the result of induction through a battery of tests, and voila the end product is "proof". However why does the original process of induction work? How do the best thinkers (Einstein, Newton, etc) intuit their ideas and grasp the true nature of existence before they have sat down and logically worked out all the physical and chemical formulas behind these ideas? Science has never answered these questions with a degree of evidence that I find compelling.

[helava]

You misunderstand what I'm calling insipid. It's not the humanistic worldview, it's the arbitrary distinction between your perception of how the world works. Science doesn't just work "some of the time," and basically what you've said is that you've chosen some things that you believe can't be explained, and then say well, science can't explain these things. Which is basically just a tremendously lame intellectual cop-out, IMO.

And re: that you don't think you're a robot - *why* don't you think that that's what's happening in your brain? Because you don't want to? The problem with the way you've described your belief system is that you're the only arbiter of what's "true" or not in your perception. The problem, of course, is that that's a really awful means of determining what's "true" or not.

seppo

[helava]

The original process of induction *doesn't* always work, and that's why the battery of tests and review are necessary. That's the whole *point*. The best thinkers didn't intuit their ideas and grasp the true nature of existance. They guessed as to what it might be, then tested that guess against the real world to see if that's what *was*. The best thinkers were simply people who took the time to make those guesses, and had the intellectual curiosity to test them. Someone like Einstein was extraordinarily good at doing that, as is someone like Stephen Hawking - but it's not like they're instantly divining the "true nature of the universe" - they're guessing, based on their knowledge, and then seeing if those guesses hold up.

Why that needs a "degree of evidence [you] find compelling," is beyond me. It's just a process.

seppo

[camoor]

Yes, every idea coming out of induction will not be a bona fida scientific theory, but it is still the primary method that scientists use to discover truth.

As for the degree of evidence, I cannot agree that the difference between Einstein and the common scientist is their degree of intellectual curiousity or the number of their guesses on the nature of universal truth. I know a few physicists who are fascinated with the inner workings of the universe, people who make plenty of guesses and work long hours at the university labs to prove them, however these scientists will probably never contribute to our scientific understanding on the grand scale that Einstein or Hawking have.

I do not "fill in the gap" of what differentiates the average scientist from Einstein with philosophy or religion. The truth is that my perspective on philosphy/religion actually dovetails beautifully with science, enhancing and improving my understanding instead of merely supplementing it. Do science and philosphy/religion clash? Occasionally they certainly do, and many people focus on these differences rather then the similarities, yet to my way of thinking this is a fatal error. Instead I work to augment my scientific view of the world with philosophy/religion, and clarify my religious/philisophical views of the world with science.

[jmcc]

Ugh. I hate metaphysics. I can live with not knowing why something is, but I can't stand a conclusion that I can't verify. If something is intangible for the sake of measurement, then it's not observable and if it's not observable how can I rationalize it?

[bmulligan]

Ugh. I hate metaphysics. I can live with not knowing why something is, but I can't stand a conclusion that I can't verify. If something is intangible for the sake of measurement, then it's not observable and if it's not observable how can I rationalize it?

Just ask Schrodinger's cat.

[jmcc]

Ugh. I hate metaphysics. I can live with not knowing why something is, but I can't stand a conclusion that I can't verify. If something is intangible for the sake of measurement, then it's not observable and if it's not observable how can I rationalize it?

Just ask Schrodinger's cat.

Oh good, I'll take this time to repost the best version of said scenario:

"Schroedinger, Erwin! Professor of physics!
Wrote daring equations! Confounded his critics!
(Not bad, eh? Don't worry. This part of the verse
Starts off pretty good, but it gets a lot worse.)
Win saw that the theory that Newton'd invented
By Einstein's discov'ries had been badly dented.
What now? wailed his colleagues. Said Erwin, "Don't panic,
No grease monkey I, but a quantum mechanic.
Consider electrons. Now, these teeny articles
Are sometimes like waves, and then sometimes like particles.
If that's not confusing, the nuclear dance
Of electrons and suchlike is governed by chance!
No sweat, though--my theory permits us to judge
Where some of 'em is and the rest of 'em was."
Not everyone bought this. It threatened to wreck
The comforting linkage of cause and effect.
E'en Einstein had doubts, and so Schroedinger tried
To tell him what quantum mechanics implied.
Said Win to Al, "Brother, suppose we've a cat,
And inside a tube we have put that cat at--
Along with a solitaire deck and some Fritos,
A bottle of Night Train, a couple mosquitoes
(Or something else rhyming) and, oh, if you got 'em,
One vial prussic acid, one decaying ottom
Or atom--whatever--but when it emits,
A trigger device blasts the vial into bits
Which snuffs our poor kitty. The odds of this crime
Are 50 to 50 per hour each time.
The cylinder's sealed. The hour's passed away. Is
Our pussy still purring--or pushing up daisies?
Now, you'd say the cat either lives or it don't
But quantum mechanics is stubborn and won't.
Statistically speaking, the cat (goes the joke),
Is half a cat breathing and half a cat croaked.
To some this may seem a ridiculous split,
But quantum mechanics must answer, "Tough shit!
We may not know much, but one thing's fo' sho':
There's things in the cosmos that we cannot know.
Shine light on electrons--you'll cause them to swerve.
The act of observing disturbs the observed--
Which ruins your test. But then if there's no testing
To see if a particle's moving or resting
Why try to conjecture? Pure useless endeavor!
We know probability--certainty, never.'
The effect of this notion? I very much fear
'Twill make doubtful all things that were formerly clear.
Till soon the cat doctors will say in reports,
"We've just flipped a coin and we've learned he's a corpse."'
So saith Herr Erwin. Quoth Albert, "You're nuts.
God doesn't play dice with the universe, putz.
I'll prove it!" he said, and the Lord knows he tried--
In vain--until fin'ly he more or less died.
Win spoke at the funeral: "Listen, dear friends,
Sweet Al was my buddy. I must make amends.
Though he doubted my theory, I'll say of this saint:
Ten-to-one he's in heaven--but five bucks says he ain't."

--CECIL ADAMS"

[helava]

"until fin'ly he more or less died" - that line is *awesome*.

seppo