Any other atheists here? Some frustration

[lstsl]

I'm going to try and extract the premises from the prose. Let me know if I miss.

Summary: Spinozan deist. Fair enough?

I don't know what that means?

Thought experiment #1... why does x wear her mother's crucifix?

Your answer: "Religion provides people with symbols, which are merely an external focus to help you find what is already inside of you."

I think its simpler than that. x is simply sentimental. Example: the 20th century appropriation of the swastika. Symbols mean whatever we say they mean.

Actually that is exactly the point I was trying to make. x wears the cruxifix and draws strength "from it" just as her mother did, but for completely different reasons. I was trying to illustrate that a person can wear a cruxifix (or swastika or what-have-you) without having to identify with the larger group that symbol is associated with (although you should deffinatly think twice before wearing a swastika in public).

What is your premise? If your argument is that truth is relative and that we only have access to "Western truth", then I think you're using a useless definition of truth.

Not at all. What I'm saying here is that we are biased in our opinions of individuals and how they should act in their society, when the majority of the world is not set up like us. For instance, I find it mind-boggling that over half the worlds population has never made a phone call, something I take for granted about every other day.

Thought experiment #2... why do individuals sacrifice themselves for society?

Your answer (paraphrased): individuals will not survive without social support

You're saying that individuals must (at least occasionally) be willing to sacrifice everything for the good of their society, which as you note by reference to Hitler, is the definition of fascism.

Obviously I disagree completely. I'm kind of surprised too - most rational people only advocate fascism unintentionally. Any just society is based upon free association; any society that uses compulsion should be destroyed by any means convenient.

I half-wrote a reply to this before realizing I was getting way off topic. If you would like to continue this particular thread on facism Virulent, please PM me, as I would be delighted to disscuss this with you

Humans don't need long-term compulsory (and especially not statist) societies to exist. Most Stone Age peoples lived in fluid "bands"; most Native Americans in particular "split" their encampments during the hunting season into family units, and reformed in the winter (or not - it was not unusual for a family unit to join another encampment if that's where they found themselves when snow came). Its simply false to claim that human beings can't survive without society - it is indeed a fact that we spent the majority of our existence surviving without any inconvenient associations.

This arguement actually supports my theory. The natives broke down into family units in the summer, not individual humans running around trying to survive. Just because they were more fluid in their arrangments doesn't mean they didn't have societies. Look all over the world and you will not find a single example of an individualist population (i.e everybody in the area acting completely autonomously). There are always examples of hermits and such but these are mostly isolated occurances, by no means the 'norm'. If you were a native American in one of the little family units and were engaging in behaviour that was detrimental to that unit you can bet you'd find yourself dead or on your own pretty quickly.

No such thing.
The Amish. I have a hard time finding a few friends to help me move my furniture, let alone getting 200 people to build a barn without power tools.

No. Do you have a premise?

Only this: people believe in atoms, something they cannot directly experience for themselves, because they go to school where they are told that atoms make up everything. People who go to church are told that God (something they cannot directly experience) makes up everything. What's the difference? Scientists now occupy the position preists and clergymen did in the past, why won't they become corrupt and use their new positions of power to gain more power? Everybody acts like scientists are saints (hahaha, I made a funny!), but their motives aren't necessarily pure. Today, science is an industry and there is money to be had. If the difference between despotism and millions of dollars is fudging your test results a little... kah-CHING!!!

[Thorne]

people believe in atoms, something they cannot directly experience for themselves, because they go to school where they are told that atoms make up everything. People who go to church are told that God (something they cannot directly experience) makes up everything. What's the difference?

The term "atoms" is a label, used to describe a state of matter which scientists have deduced from experimentation and observation. (Actually, I think they have actually seen the atom, through electron microscopes or something similar, but I'm not sure of it.) It's like using the term "chair" to describe a piece of furniture which is used for sitting. You can call it anything you like, but it's purpose is still the same.

So too with the atom. Scientists are able, repeatedly and quantifiably, to isolate discrete particles of matter which they term atoms. And when they treat these atoms to certain experiments, under certain conditions, they will react in predictable, and repeatable, ways.

This is the difference between science and religion. You don't have to take anything on faith. If someone has achieved a certain result in science, you can achieve the same result by performing the same test. It's not necessary to believe in atoms. You just have to do the experiments yourself to show that they do, indeed, exist.

[Shwenn]

Here's an idea: religion is a red herring. It is used by the consensus of elites who control this world's cultures to keep people angry, or better yet placid.

Dan Dennett compares religion to one of those organisms that hijacks it's host, causing it to act in opposition to its own safety in order to further the life cycle of the organism. Like the fluke that causes the ant to climb to the top of a blade of grass, increasing the liklihood of it being eaten by a cow or a sheep.

[Shwenn]

Summary: Spinozan deist. Fair enough?

I don't know what that means?

....

Only this: people believe in atoms, something they cannot directly experience for themselves, because they go to school where they are told that atoms make up everything. People who go to church are told that God (something they cannot directly experience) makes up everything. What's the difference? Scientists now occupy the position preists and clergymen did in the past, why won't they become corrupt and use their new positions of power to gain more power? Everybody acts like scientists are saints (hahaha, I made a funny!), but their motives aren't necessarily pure. Today, science is an industry and there is money to be had. If the difference between despotism and millions of dollars is fudging your test results a little... kah-CHING!!!

First, Spinoza's God is basically the universe itself.

And, to add to Thorne's post, about the verifiability of atoms, I'd like to mention something about science itself.

It's called peer review. Getting published in science is like running a gauntlet. It is notoriously difficult. If you fudge your test results, your vicious peers will find out and they will roast you over an open flame. I worked on an experiment designed to disprove Einstein's relativity. Einsein, the man is considered something of a science God, not just a saint. And we felt we were paying the man respect by trying to show he was wrong.

There is no comparisson between the scientific community today and the religious community of old. None at all.

To us, nothing is sacred. We challenge everything. We call everything into doubt.

[denuseri]

it is only through consistently challenging all viewpoints that we achieve anything in regards to human understanding

socrates was one of the first to have started it with the old school scientists (yes i will argue till i am blue in the face that allmost all the old philosophers were scientists)

even in the filed of theology revision and peer review happens even if its not er aparrent, otherwise new religions would never form, desintion in the ranks in both science and religion has often resulted in "new" ways of looking at the world

by definition science is a "belief" system, i can choose to believe the results of any given experiments validity or not, sometimes wieghted with the review of many others and somtimes not, (look at current beliefs of different scientists about mars and water there etc) a given scientists view on somethings like say "what killed the dinosaurs" can be just as controvesial and filled with preconsieved ideas as a religious belief

each religion is in a way, an on-going "experiement" the hypothesis is the stated dogma for each belief system, the experment itself is the way the paticular religions followers laymen leaders etc conduct thier lives, and the results of the experiment are found out upon ones death,

ocums razor or not, is the prossess of the universe just some random reactions in time? or is it by design? both religion and science attempt to answer the question

for it is the question that drives us

[lstsl]

First, Spinoza's God is basically the universe itself.

And, to add to Thorne's post, about the verifiability of atoms, I'd like to mention something about science itself.

It's called peer review. Getting published in science is like running a gauntlet. It is notoriously difficult. If you fudge your test results, your vicious peers will find out and they will roast you over an open flame. I worked on an experiment designed to disprove Einstein's relativity. Einsein, the man is considered something of a science God, not just a saint. And we felt we were paying the man respect by trying to show he was wrong.

There is no comparisson between the scientific community today and the religious community of old. None at all.

To us, nothing is sacred. We challenge everything. We call everything into doubt.

Thank you for explaining Spinoza.

Now the first schools in Europe after Rome collapsed.... where would you find them... Hmmm, let me think....... could it possibly be in A MONESTARY?? Damn those tricky, religious monks. I bet they were going to corrupt all that juicy knowledge they had preserved to lend weight to the Intelligent Design arguement.

The truth is not all scientists are saints, neither are all saints. There are some scientists that are truely in it for the greater good of mankind, just as there have been many religious figures throughout history whose primary concern was furthering humanity. On the flip side, there are just as many (if not more) scientists who are in the game for their own personal gain. People are people no matter what label you stick on them, some are selfless, some will take advantage of any situation they come upon, sayin that there is no comparison between religion and science is just ignorant.

PS nobody ever has seen an atom. They may have seen something on a TV screen but just because you see it on TV doesn't make it real.

PPS I believe in atoms, I'm just using it as an example that there are things we cannot see, feel, taste, smell or hear, and therefore forced to take on faith.

[Thorne]

even in the filed of theology revision and peer review happens even if its not er aparrent, otherwise new religions would never form, desintion in the ranks in both science and religion has often resulted in "new" ways of looking at the world

While there are always exceptions, most dissension over the last 2000 years has been more in the manner in which the leadership was running things than in any real theological differences. They all still worship the same God, it's just how they do it and who gets to say how it's done that they argue over.

by definition science is a "belief" system, i can choose to believe the results of any given experiments validity or not, sometimes wieghted with the review of many others and somtimes not, (look at current beliefs of different scientists about mars and water there etc) a given scientists view on somethings like say "what killed the dinosaurs" can be just as controvesial and filled with preconsieved ideas as a religious belief

Yes, to some extent this is so. But with science you can always perform the experiment yourself, to determine the truth of the matter. True, in those areas where interpretation of data is paramount, such as 'What killed the dinosaurs?', interpretations can vary tremendously. But each side of the argument must be able to back up their interpretation with physical evidence of some sort, and not just say it's so because and ancient book says it's so!

ocums razor or not, is the prossess of the universe just some random reactions in time? or is it by design? both religion and science attempt to answer the question

Most religions I'm familiar with (Judeo/Christian primarily) don't attempt to answer anything. They believe they already have all the answers. And their answers are the only correct answers. Most scientists know, or at least should know, that any answers they may find are tentative at best. New data, or new understanding of old data, can change the way science thinks about almost anything. But all new data, or interpretations, will undergo rigorous scrutiny and testing, to insure that everything is kosher!

for it is the question that drives us

Amen!

[denuseri]

oh Thorne i dissagree sir,
it is the very questions that each religion is attempting to answer in its own way, by each religions begining its birf and subsequent struggle often over a long period of history to formulate its dogma,, (much like science)

just because the big three (christians, jews, and muslims) claim to whorship the same god, doesnt mean the rest of the hundreds of religions do so, nor does it mean that all of thier answers/ questions are written in stone,, i just mean that the proccesss of questions brings new religions to the scene in thier own attempts to answer and or ask the questions that previous religions did not or failed to answer specifically enough,

if there is some asscociation between thier dieties, mabey its because they have come to a consences of sorts, much like scientists do, like: most all scientists now days agree the wolrd revolves around the sun, where as in the past they did not

new religions and belief systems are developed all the time, some in very recent history, new sects of christians etc too, look at the new angelican church with its recent break from the old order on the question of homosexuals in the church, or look at the scientology, a very recently developed religion, or for that matter the new age wiccan movement, or even my own religion bahai, another (relativly new arrival historically speaking) thier are also many differential differences in hindu , buddist and shinto beliefs complete with on going rivalries etc.

as for the experimental side of religion, we each and everyone of us preform our own experiment as we live our lives, even if you choose to be an athiest you are part of the religious experment, (mabey as a control group lol)
case in point, i am born jewish, yet raised lutheran, but studdied budism and still practice its tantric sects forms, while embracing my faith in bahai,

we are each like ongoing religious experiments, some mutat or change one form for another others stick to the status quo of thier upbringings and yet others choose to reject the concepts of divinity

i agree it seems as if most religions appear to nopt be asking questions, so much as saying this is how it is,, but each time a new sect forms or a entirely new religion forms it does indeed attempt to answer the questions that its predessesors asked etc often building on thier work, as for proof, we could argue all day about recordable proof of the divine, i know some buddists that have no problems with the idea of a diety and or science co existing

i will however agree that at least in most cases regaurding religion without that "leap of faith" exposed by Keirkagaurd , all yu have is speculation

does a divine being exist? we could argue all day,,,,,,,allmost as much as i would argue with you that a single asteroid didnt destroy the dinosaurs

[Thorne]

denuseri, I think what you are calling religion should more aptly be called faith. There are, indeed, many different faiths in the world, and people are always modifying their faith to better reflect their own attitudes and beliefs. Religion, on the other hand, tends to codify belief systems, cast them in stone, as it were, and then persecute those who try to diverge from that system. Yes, I realize this is extremely generalized, but it's how I view them.

There is no valid reason that faith and science cannot coexist, as you have said. In fact, there is much in science that we do take on faith, to one extent or another. As an example, science tells us that the world is round, not flat. Our eyes tell us the opposite, but we generally accept, on faith, that the scientists are telling us the truth. There are experiments which we, as lay people, can perform which demonstrate the validity of this statement, but the vast majority of people don't bother to perform them. It's not really necessary. Those experiments have been performed, and documented, by so many others that I, for one, am willing to accept that the world is, indeed, round.

But when it comes to a divine deity, a supreme being, the only evidence which can be presented is hearsay. There is no experiment which can show that God, or Jupiter, or Zeus, or Odin really exists. It is something which must be taken on faith. And I am not willing to do that.

Of course the opposite is true as well. I cannot, nor can anyone else, prove that God does not exist. All we can say is that there is no concrete evidence to support the idea of his existence. One can believe either way and not necessarily be wrong, or right.

With religion, however, you are accepting the tenets which that religion is formed on, and that includes the absolute, positive, no doubt belief that God exists. There's no room for doubt, no room for argument, they say it is so and you'd damned well better believe it, or else. This is the exact opposite of science. And this I cannot, and will not, accept.

Again, their are always exceptions, and I feel that the newer religions, those which have started up completely on their own, like Scientology, or those which have broken away from other, more established religions, tend to be less rigid in their belief systems, more willing to accept some latitude, at least in minor issues. But the older, more established, and larger religions have maintained their systems for so long, and over such a large population, that there is little room for variations. That's why groups break away from them, after all.

[Thorne]

allmost as much as i would argue with you that a single asteroid didnt destroy the dinosaurs

I'm taking this one on separately, as I don't know if it belongs in a religion thread.

No one claims, with absolute certainty, that a single asteroid destroyed the dinosaurs. In fact, there are still dinosaurs alive today. Alligators and crocodiles, as well as sharks and some other sea creatures, are virtually unchanged from 100 million years ago.

But there is evidence to suggest that the asteroid which struck the Yucatan Peninsula 65 million years ago caused such a disruption in the Earth's climate that the large dinosaurs, the "thunder lizards" died out. There is ample evidence to show that an asteroid did, indeed, strike the Earth at that time. There are calculations which show that it would have had to be of a certain mass striking at a certain speed in order to have covered the globe with the debris layer which scientists have found. And to date there is no evidence to show that any large populations of dinosaurs (other than those few which I mentioned) survived past that impact period.

I don't claim to have the type of education which would allow me to interpret the kinds of data that is being discussed here, but I know that there are many scientists who do have that education and who do agree with the interpretation.And there are many who do not agree. By studying both sides of the issue I have come to the conclusion that this particular asteroid strike was most likely responsible for the ultimate extinction of most of the Earth's species. The arguments in favor make more sense to me than those against.

That does not mean that this is a fact! It's just a theory, and evidence could turn up tomorrow which will overturn it. That's the beauty of science. We are always learning new things, and sometimes the old things are tossed out like old garbage. They don't fit anymore.

[companioncube#3]

Hello, everyone. I'll start by saying that this is my first post in these forums, and that I'm happy to have found a thread of like-minded people. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that those with unconventional appetites for the physical are also intellectually curious, untamed, creative and interesting. Still, critical thinkers are, in my experience, rare enough that to encounter any number of them in one place delivers unabashed joy to me. So, thank you to everyone.

My one disappointment is that almost everyone here is more-or-less in agreement (where are the evangelical wingnuts or new-age flakes when you need them? I refuse to believe that they don't also crave a good spanking every now and again). Moreover, where I am inclined to disagree - for instance, I think denuseri is wrong to characterize science as a "belief" system - Thorne has already voiced my opinions, and probably more eloquently than I could. But perhaps I can offer some unique insight.

I was raised Roman Catholic and went to a religious private high school. It was the kind of school that maintained strong ties to traditional values while offering an entirely secular education. I was not taught by nuns, evolution was sacrosanct in biology class and my religion class would be better characterized as a study in ethics and the history of world religions. That being said, we started the day with a prayer and attended mass every Tuesday. We did tons of charity work but our charities were not tied to any particular religion. All this to say, although I had by this time decided that I was an atheist I enjoyed my time there, and I credit the religious mission of the school indirectly. My family life was not great, and the religiously-grounded traditions gave the school a real sense of community and common purpose. It was an environment that made me feel welcome and safe (and I was the kind of student who argued for atheism in religion class and championed the Liberal cause at debating tournaments; I could not have been more of an outsider philosophically).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that while religion, and indeed all dogma which presumes to elevate itself above criticism, is contemptible if only for their arrogance in so elevating themselves above other ideas, political, social and spiritual alike, I understand the appeal. And although Enlightenment-inspired reverence of the individual is inherently attractive to someone as misanthropic as I am (sometimes), I do not think that we can ignore the fact that we are (and I think this is a scientifically sound statement) a small-group, socially inclined animal which has evolved to thrive in strong, small communities. I think it is for this reason that otherwise sane, intelligent, educated people flock to what Dawkins might call citadels of silliness on Sundays to partake in the ritual cannibalism and worship of a cracker. People give in because this is what ties them to their neighbour, this is what ties them to their parents, and this is what defines them culturally. It's a sense of belonging, more than anything else, that I think organized religion offers people that is so seductive.

It's for this reason that I occasionally find the militant-atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris, Meyers and the rest a little shrill and counterproductive to their own cause. People aren't going to stop worshipping a cracker because you laugh at them can call them stupid for worshipping a cracker. They're going to stop when our culture generates new social structures which strengthen the community in much the same way that religions have for the past two centuries. I know in some cities there are "humanist community centers" where like-minded individuals and families gather every weekend to eat, laugh, exchange ideas and organize charitable events. This is the kind of thing I hope will catch on and grow.

But don't misunderstand. I am a fan of Dawkins and his ilk most of the time. Their flagrant irreverence for religious silliness is important, if only to illustrate the point that, in a democratic society, no idea is sacred.

[Shwenn]

companioncube#3,

Here is one of my favorite YouTube videos, ever. I share it because I think you'll love it as much as I do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

[companioncube#3]

***AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH***

Shwenn, you sent me the Tyson-Dawkins smackdown from the first Beyond Belief conference!!! Thank you! I've seen it already (I've watched the entire conference over at thesciencenetwork.org), but I enjoyed watching it again. While I mostly agree with Tyson, the cool reply, by Dawkins, "I gratefully accept the rebuke" made me laugh out loud.

Thanks.

[companioncube#3]

One last thing. I'd pay good money for a T-shirt that says, "SCIENCE IS INTERESTING, AND IF YOU DON'T AGREE, YOU CAN FUCK OFF."

[Shwenn]

I want that t-shirt, now. Why must you make me yearn for something I can never have?

[DarkPoet]

Why not? http://www.cafepress.com/

[Thorne]

companioncube#3

Thank you for your kind statement. I would rank my own eloquence as being only slightly greater than my physical beauty, which places me somewhere about the level of a tree stump.

As for your comments regarding religion and community, I think there is a difference, to some extent,between a religion and a church of that religion. The churches provide a place for communities of like minded people to come together, for whatever reasons, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with religion. Yes, the religious experience is an integral part of that, but the belief system does not, in my opinion, foster the community experience. I feel that the churches offer the sense of community as a means of attracting people in order to, eventually, immerse them in the belief system.

What I'm trying to say is that the neighborhood churches/temples/mosques can do an inordinate amount of good for their communities, but that the rigid, uncompromising belief systems they preach make their motives suspect in my mind.

As for science being interesting, the statement, "SCIENCE IS INTERESTING, AND IF YOU DON'T AGREE, YOU CAN FUCK OFF" is no less narrow-minded and arrogant than the statement, "GOD IS THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE, AND IF YOU DON'T AGREE I'LL TORTURE YOU INTO SUBMISSION."

Yes, I think science is interesting. But if you are going to teach science, and try to make others see it as interesting, you have to make it entertaining, as well. Isaac Asimov, for many years, wrote science essays for several Sci-Fi magazines. I have many books containing his collected essays. They are, almost without exception, informative, interesting and entertaining. I have also seen essays, by other scientists, which are dry, boring and far too detailed, even if they are, ultimately, informative. You attract the non-scientist to the science through entertainment much better than through text books. That's why so many of the shows on the Science Channel, Discovery Channel, and other like them, are so well received.

[Shwenn]

As for science being interesting, the statement, "SCIENCE IS INTERESTING, AND IF YOU DON'T AGREE, YOU CAN FUCK OFF" is no less narrow-minded and arrogant than the statement, "GOD IS THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE, AND IF YOU DON'T AGREE I'LL TORTURE YOU INTO SUBMISSION."

That's the joke, Thorne. That's what makes it so hilarious.

[Thorne]

That's the joke, Thorne. That's what makes it so hilarious.

Must be a younger generation thing, then. I don't see the humor.

[Kuskovian]

LOL. Good thing I have had Seri on restriction from here recently, she was in the process of "baiting" a few of you with her Deccan-Traps counter theory to dinosuar extinction.

Question for a side bar

: Do you accept everything a scientist tells you, or do you go out and preform the "experiments" for yourself?

If so which experimental procedures do you reproduce and which do you take on good "faith"?

Science and religion; two sides of the same coin from my perspective.

Of course one will take from each what they will.

And it harm not others do as thou wilt.

[companioncube#3]

@Thorne,

re: SCIENCE IS INTERESTING & IF YOU DON'T AGREE, YOU CAN FUCK OFF...

Must be a younger generation thing, then. I don't see the humor.

It's tongue-and-cheek, of course. When I am acting as a teaching assistant for undergraduate courses (one of my part-time jobs while I finish my degree), a significant slice of my efforts is directed at framing the message properly. I try to tell science as a story, giving historical context for the results I'm presenting and prospects for the future, possible applications in other areas which might matter to students' lives. I make (bad) jokes. As I said, I fall squarely in Tyson's camp when it comes to communicating science. Tyson, incidentally, is one of my favourite contemporary popular science writers. I was happy to see you refer to Asimov. His work is another kind of celebration of science for the fiction-loving layperson.

re: Church and community

What I'm trying to say is that the neighborhood churches/temples/mosques can do an inordinate amount of good for their communities, but that the rigid, uncompromising belief systems they preach make their motives suspect in my mind.

We are in complete agreement. This is exactly what I think, too. It is not to say that the belief system is necessary in order to generate the community, but this is something that organized religion often offers adherents that secularists would do well to understand. We cannot hope to get rid of the toxic components of religion without having a way of preserving, in one form or another, all the good it has done and continues to do.

@Kuskovian:

: Do you accept everything a scientist tells you, or do you go out and preform the "experiments" for yourself?

If so which experimental procedures do you reproduce and which do you take on good "faith"?

Science and religion; two sides of the same coin from my perspective.

Of course one will take from each what they will.

And it harm not others do as thou wilt.

You are far off the mark here. You really are off. Believing what scientists tell me is true is nothing at all like believing what a priest tells me is true. You are stretching the meaning of the word "faith" here until it is entirely useless for the purposes of this discussion.

Let me show you. An anecdote. My research supervisor comes into our weekly seminar and tells me how her research is going, that she's excited to report that she has found this new genetic marker for skin cancer in this certain species of mouse. I sit there and I write down the notes, reproduce the data on a term test to get an A, and then after that I use her research as an example when teaching some students the basics of malignancy. Mind you, I haven't read through her data, I haven't seen her mice, and I know that her work is in the early stages and hasn't been published (that is to say, it hasn't gone through peer-review). You would say that I am taking her results on "faith." Okay.

So let's go to another scenario. I am in church and I am told my a priest that there is an all-knowing, all-loving god in the sky who had a son a long time ago born of a virgin in a manger and who later died for my sins and three days later, he rose from the dead and that's why we have Easter. As evidence he points to his bible. If I believed him, you would call that "faith." Okay.

I would say that using the word "faith" to describe my credulity in both these cases is misleading and quite frankly, disingenuous. The first scenario describes the kind of reasonable belief that everyone engages in, not only in science but in every-day life. Sure. My research supervisor could be lying to me. Her numbers could be fudged. Her analysis could be flawed. But why stop there? Perhaps I don't have a research supervisor at all, and I'm actually a psychiatric patient in a mental institution who just imagined the whole thing. You see, if you use the word "faith" to indiscriminately describe belief in any piece of information that one does not know for certain, then you will end up spiralling down into this maddening pit of Cartesian scepticism that sucks all meaning out of the debate we were trying to have in the first place.

In stark contrast to the first, the second scenario is so unreasonable, so far-fetched, so outlandish, that you actually have to suspend all critical thought to swallow it. And that's exactly what the religious types want you to do. In the realm of religion, faith without evidence is celebrated. It is the ideal. It is a prerequisite for piety. Ask too many questions and you will be told that this is a character-flaw, that you have to let go of your doubts and give yourself over to god. Want an explanation of how a virgin could give birth? You have to have faith. Want an explanation of how a man three days dead could come back to life? You have to have faith. Want to know where God came from in the first place, and why a being so powerful and grand would care what we mere mortals do with our Sunday mornings, and who we slept with the night before, and if we used birth control and what kind of birth control it was because some kinds are eviller than others? You have to have faith.

This is the exact opposite of what would happen if I were to go to my research supervisor and ask to see her evidence for the cancer marker. Her face would light up and she'd down me in laboratory notes. She'd rattle on about her procedure and results until I fell asleep or ran away. And then, if I had the audacity to question her methods, scrutinize the data, bring up conflicting results in the literature, she'd probably be more impressed than defensive. After all, once the work is published, it will be scrutinized and questioned by every other scientist in the field. Other laboratories will repeat her experiments and if the data cannot be reproduced, she will be discredited. Unlike religion, critical inquiry is at the heart of any truly scientific endeavour. And unlike religion, scientific theories have very clear criteria for being falsified.

And I guess that's really the crux of it. Science is interested in building models of the world which predict the results of experiments, and can be falsified by experiments. Religion has no such procedure for self-improvement. Why would it? God is perfect, the word of god is perfect, the will of god is absolute and who are we to question it?

So don't tell me that science and religion are two sides of the same coin. They are in fact so different that if one were a coin, the other would be sweet potato pie.

[Rational Head]

Execellent post by companioncube.

Science says God is a human construct.

I do consider god is a human construct.
I am an atheist, i cannot be agnostic cos reason defies agnosticism.

But what is energy?

Is energy also a "human construct"?

Is energy a human construct?

Or is it better to ask: Just "How energy functions?"
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
I will try to bring together for discussion what I think it may be a conclusion of this topic!

My postulate that God is a human construct was generally accepted, but the 2nd part of the question was not, that means God and Energy are not the same things, so the argumant of the believers that God is energy is hereby refuted. Energy is not a human construct.

If we ask what is energy, then then the answer may be a good or a bad definition of a quality, many of us will say energy is the God or my God or Nature, or Buddhah etc.

If we ask How energy functions, then the answer may demonstrate the Proccess, as the definition "the capacity to perform work". But where is here the limit put for these capacity?

The oceans have an tremendous thermal energy capacity, but we can hardly gain some work here because the thermal potential is not enough for our mashines.

We all agree that matter and energy interchange for us, but are we equiped with the suitable instruments to recognize these processes? Atomon by the atomists means a partickle wich cannot be further split.

Do we have find the atoms until now? Are we sure that by by the fusion of +e and -e do not remain some very tiny particles, which cannot be detected? Already neutrino has no mass when it is not moving.

So there is quite sure that we probably never get an answer to this question:
-What is energy?
but to the question:

-"How energy functions?"

And here we will get a good answer only if we do not involve divine poewers. It was not a missing point that the atomists never put the question about the origin of the atoms. They new the problems of the answer.

So the same is here valid for the origin of the energy!
One I know that I know nothing!

[Rational Head]

P.S why did i brought the issue of energy or atomist philosophy here?Umm, is energy an english word?? a english word with greek roots
Like energeia from ergon(meaning work))

similarly, God is an english word.

In sanskrit, many similar words are there for God.
like paramtma, Ishwara, Shakti, varun, agni..etc..so many..
all defines energy..
we considers that The construction of universe(at this point theres no reason to discuss howit was constructed)is work..

That is, Universe was started, it was a work, the work was done by energy(Shakti,Urja,Ishwar,Pamatma...etc..)

That energy keeps changing the forms, some of the forms we knows through our perceptions an senses, some more energy forms, we came to know Via scienctific developments(known as Vigyan)
Basically, all is shakti, Energy, Urja Ishwar..

Various forms of energies are respectable, cos they are in actual sense respectable, like, we are dependent on solar energies,we are dependent on water energy, air energy, we are dependent on material energy(Mterial inothing but a form of energy)

Life is energy,energy keeps changing its form, it never dies, it never takes birth, but its manifestation or cvhanging forms, creates different sets of possibilities, one of the set is human life.

Human is most improoved form of energy in alive world..(It is made of Five tatva's elements..other animals are having some less tatva's..and then there are non-living bodies too)
But basic is energy for every creation, or work.

[Shwenn]

@Thorne,

re: SCIENCE IS INTERESTING & IF YOU DON'T AGREE, YOU CAN FUCK OFF...



It's tongue-and-cheek, of course. When I am acting as a teaching assistant for undergraduate courses (one of my part-time jobs while I finish my degree), a significant slice of my efforts is directed at framing the message properly.

I'm the same way as companioncube. I tutored physics at university and I worked very hard at framing the message. My favorite trick, which I picked up from my Cal 2 professor, was that I never asked, "Do you understand?" I only asked, "Do you agree?" I didn't want them to feel ashamed and stupid for not getting it. I wanted them to argue with me so I could understand their frame of mind and be in a better position to structure the information in a way they could absorb it.

I think most people in the scientific community feel that way. We are passionate about sharing our love. To the point of being rather annoying.

That is what is so funny. It's just so wrong and so completely out of character.

See, Tyson's issue with Dawkins is that he isn't like that. And he isn't. I understand why he isn't like that. He's an evolutionary biologist and so he's been under attack his whole career because of his field. You can only expect so much patience from a person.

But Dawkins understood why Tyson had a problem with his attitude. He told that story only to illustrate that, not only is it possible for a person in the scientific community to abandon this desire to foment interest, but he knew of one who was at the absolute opposite extreme.

I guarantee you that just about every person in that room who laughed at that story shared our desire to inspire a love of science. Even Tyson laughed. It's just a funny story.

[Thorne]

@Thorne,

re: SCIENCE IS INTERESTING & IF YOU DON'T AGREE, YOU CAN FUCK OFF...

It's tongue-and-cheek, of course. When I am acting as a teaching assistant for undergraduate courses (one of my part-time jobs while I finish my degree), a significant slice of my efforts is directed at framing the message properly. I try to tell science as a story, giving historical context for the results I'm presenting and prospects for the future, possible applications in other areas which might matter to students' lives. I make (bad) jokes. As I said, I fall squarely in Tyson's camp when it comes to communicating science. Tyson, incidentally, is one of my favourite contemporary popular science writers. I was happy to see you refer to Asimov. His work is another kind of celebration of science for the fiction-loving layperson.

Yes, I understand that it's tongue in cheek. I suppose my own sense of humor is too straight (unlikely) or far to warped (that's more likely) to get a laugh from it. To each his own.

As for Tyson, I've just recently bought a copy of his book, "Death by Black Hole" but haven't had a chance to read it yet. I've seen him many times on TV science programs and was impressed enough to remember who he is, so I thought I'd give it a try.

And Asimov's works which I mentioned were not his fiction, but his science essays. Ranging from astronomy through zoology, and everything in between, I always found his works both entertaining (with one exception, which dealt with the inner workings of proteins and amino acids) and educational. That's not to say I haven't also enjoyed his fiction: I have.

[companioncube#3]

@ Thorne, re: Asimov:

I stand duly embarrassed. I was not even aware of Asimov's non-fiction. When I was in high school I read his robot series (Robots of Dawn, Robots&Empire... ). I quick Wikipedia search has given me a ton of Asimov's nonfiction to browse. Thanks alot!

[Thorne]

@ Thorne, re: Asimov:

I stand duly embarrassed. I was not even aware of Asimov's non-fiction. When I was in high school I read his robot series (Robots of Dawn, Robots&Empire... ). I quick Wikipedia search has given me a ton of Asimov's nonfiction to browse. Thanks alot!

You're quite welcome. But you make me feel old. Robots of Dawn wasn't published until I was 15 year OUT of high school! And Robots & Empire 2 years after that!

[Thorne]

Question for a side bar
: Do you accept everything a scientist tells you, or do you go out and preform the "experiments" for yourself?

If so which experimental procedures do you reproduce and which do you take on good "faith"?

I have done some experiments in the past, some during school, in astronomy, physics and chemistry, and some on my own, in astronomy and optics. Generally they were relatively easy tests of basic laws of the subject, but these form the basis of all that comes after them.

But it is true that almost all scientific "truths" I tend to accept on faith, providing there is sufficient documentation and agreement among a large number of other scientists. A good example is the cold fusion fiasco of the 90's. Everything I'd ever read said that fusion required extremely high temperatures and pressures to occur, yet the men involved in this claimed they were getting fusion at room temperature and 1 atmosphere pressure. I was very skeptical, of their claims, despite the hullabaloo raised by the media. As it turned out, their claims were discounted when other scientists were unable to duplicate their results.

So, while there is a certain amount of faith involved, something which flies in the face of common sense and established knowledge has to be taken with a grain of salt. But even these, if verified by independent researchers, can find their way into mainstream science.

Then there are the theoretical aspects, where much of what is stated is based upon interpretation of the facts as we know them. The best example of this is the conflict between those who endorsed the Steady State universe, and those who endorse the Expanding Universe. Many of the observations taken to try to resolve the issue are ambiguous at best, and others are so esoteric as to be virtually unintelligible to a non-scientist. In this kind of situation you have to examine both sides and find the one which makes the most sense to you. For me, in this instance, the Expanding Universe theory makes the most sense. It is a simpler, more elegant theory, yet seems to fit the observable universe more readily, to my mind. That doesn't necessarily mean it's right. Evidence could be discovered which will toss that theory on the trash heap, along with so many others. But that's one of the beautiful aspects of science: we understand that the truth we proclaim is based on our current understanding, and is not necessarily the whole truth. And it's not necessarily the right truth, either. It's just the best we have at the moment.

As an aside, comments made by companioncube#3 and myself in other posts on this thread, mention Isaac Asimov, and his science essays. One which is most appropriate here (which I've just reread) is called "The Relativity of Wrong". The basic idea is that right and wrong are not absolute. Science may sometimes be wrong, but most of the time it is almost right. And each new discovery brings us that much closer to be absolutely right.

[denuseri]

wow an honest answer to the expermental faith question sir i applaud you Thorne.

and sorry btw i was baiting the room for a deccanistic geologist/ argeologist vs astonomy disscussion on dinosuar extinction as a classic example of why and how the popularized therory of one side has eroded true scienctific endeavors to find the truth about what really caused the dinosaurs to become extinct ,, which btw has happened numerous times throughout history, why ? because humans are still human, despite ourselves, wow i guess science has tmany of the same secular pitfalls as religion huh?

its a common tendency of most people to deny the connections between religion faith and what have you and science, (not the preformance of an experiment but the interpetation of the data), which is preciecly what everyone does, interpets the data around them, but to do so we must find consences and agree on terminology such as can we all agree the sky is for the most part blue?

and before we go galavanting off into just what the definition of faith is, mabey we should look at what human nature is or for that matter what is is

(sorry bad billy clinton joke) lol

i have faith that our scientists are trying to answer questions that have been attempeted to be answered by the philosophers before they came on the scene, as the philosophers attempeted to answer the questions proposed to be answered by the theologians that predated them and they the questions proposed by the mystics etc etc etc back to early cave guy gazing at the monolith in wonder (sorry arther c clark joke now)

remember early philosophers did attempt to answer the very questions of why what how we all came to be which is kinda what some scientists are all about,, math being the general language they use, where as philosophers tended to kling to words some of them like pathagoras did delve into numerology for example however and it was a good thing too, i actually kinda see philosophers as the bridge between science and faith, or religion or whatever yu wish to call it, that we still have all three is no wonder eaither, even though many may think atheisim to be purely scientific it is a belief like any other since we cant prove thier is no divinity (intellegent design or not)

i dont think any one really knows 100% weather ocum was right or not with his razor until they actually die, though isnt that what "faith" is all about?

or mabey having "faith" at least in a religious sence, is more about having "hope"

(and dont get me wrong i am speaking of the message of most religions not the poor way its many dogmas are practiced, of course that goes for science too, look at the atom bomb)

[companioncube#3]

Re: Science and Truth...

I might be getting a bit off the point here, but maybe not. All this talk about scientific "truths" makes me want to interject with another difference between science and religion/philosophy that I think is being overlooked. That is, science isn't really in the business of finding Truth with a capital T. Rather, science is in the business of building models. It isn't a trivial distinction.

It's perhaps clearest to me when I'm teaching the basics of quantum chemistry - and here I mean only the simplest of introductions with nearly no math - to high school students who have only ever thought of electrons as particles before, who were taught in elementary school that atoms looked like tiny solar systems, with the electrons whizzing around a stationary, sun-like nucleus. The brightest students tend to confront me when I tell them that they must now begin to treat the electrons as waves. "So everything we learned before was wrong?" they'll demand, annoyance and betrayal plain on their faces. "Why were we forced to memorize stuff that's wrong? And how do we know that what you're telling us now is right? Are we gonna go to college and be told that what you're telling us now is also wrong? Well, that sucks."

It's a legitimate sentiment from students who have, for years, been getting As in biology by memorizing the textbooks, As in physics by plugging numbers into formulas, and As in chemistry by performing some combination of those two, and all the while being told they're brilliant for being able to do it so masterfully. These are the students who have mastered the game, who want to be fed the information clearly so they can memorize it and spit it out on the test. It's a shame, because they're also the students who are capable of appreciating the material on a more meaningful level, but whom the system rewards with As and scholarships for their mindlessness.

/edu-rant

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that students' questions about how the particle-model of the atom is "wrong" betrays a misunderstanding of what science does. The particle model of the atom isn't "wrong." Better stated, it's a less sophisticated model. It didn't explain certain experimental results, so scientists found a more predictive mathematical construct to describe the election: a wave. So, then, I'm asked by my kids, "so an electron is a wave?" And then I'm forced to say well, not always. Sometimes, we still use the particle model. It all depends on the conditions of the experiment. And then, naturally, they go nuts on me. But which one is right!? Is the electron a particle or a wave? It can't be both! Both can't be right! What's the TRUTH! (read: what do I write down in my notes as the correct answer to a multiple choice question asking me what an electron is?)

And there's the misunderstanding again. Models aren't about truth. They're about predicting experimental results. If you want to talk truth, I tell them, treat your brain to a proper class in philosophy. An electron is neither a particle nor a wave; it's an electron. It's something so alien to us that we can't imagine what it is. But we do know how to describe its behaviour and that is good enough for science, if not for the inquiring mind of a tenth grader.

All this to illustrate how science and religion differ in their criteria for considering an idea "true." In science, we mean a good model that reliably predicts the results of experiments, usually if not always with the caveat that models are imperfect and in a constant state of refinement. Religion goes beyond that, laying claim to metaphysical truth, addressing lofty universals like goodness, justice, divinity, love. In my eyes, this makes science a far more humble enterprise, if not sometimes unsatisfying emotionally.

I suppose this is why I'm having a hard time entertaining a discussion which compares belief in science to belief in religion. Science is not to be believed the way religion is to be believed; I don't think the two even ask the same questions. The looseness of language causes confusion.

Any help in further clarifying this - if anyone out there understands what I'm trying to say (too little coffee tonight), would be very welcome.