Atheists' Protocol

[ThisYouWillDo]

The Liberal Party in Britain has a new leader, Nick Clegg. It won't be surprising if people outside the UK aren't aware of this fact: not too many Britons know or care either!

However, the Liberals are Britain's 3rd largest political party and do have a voice in politics. Theoretically, its leader could be our next Prime Minister. So it was a newsworthy event when Clegg admitted he didn't believe in God. No-body seems to have made any objection as a result of this revelation, but a former leader of the party, Lord Steel (who happens to be the son of a former Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland) has rushed to his defence anyway, by saying that it is not important that Clegg doesn't believe in God; it's a personal matter.

Even the Archbishop of Canterbury said he prefers to know what a man really thinks rather than he pretend to believe: but the Church of England never did major on faith!


Meanwhile, a noted British atheist, Richard Dawkins (some would call him a militant atheist, but I think that's going too far) has admitted he likes going to carol services and joins in singing "with gusto". Dawkins says that singing a carol does not require belief in God or Christ any more than reading "Wuthering Heights" requires you to believe that Heathcliffe existed.


So, my questions are,

(1) Should leading politicians admit they are atheists where this is so, or hide the fact?

(2) Should self-proclaimed atheists participate in Christian activities such as Carol Services at Christmastime?

TYWD

PS: I should declare an interest. I do not believe in God, but I married a Roman Catholic and sent my children to a Catholic School. And I love going to Midnight Mass at Christmas.

[_ID_]

I personally believe in a power larger than I. Is it God, is it something else, I don't know, and refuse to speculate as that line of reasoning leaves me with only unanswered questions.

Should a political figure declare their faith, of course. It would be found out anyways. Mitt Romney one of the Presidential hopefuls is a Mormon. This fact has cause him to stutter in the polls, where if he were any other Christian faith he would probably have a big lead on the other candidates. What if he wasn't Christian? Well his faith would still need to be declared, and it would probably hurt his chances, since so many people in America make these kinds of useless judgments about a persons leadership abilities.

It should be noted I am not for or against any of the candidates, but with the current line of thinking from republicans, I think it would be best if our country had a vacation from that line of thought.

[Thorne]

So, my questions are,

(1) Should leading politicians admit they are atheists where this is so, or hide the fact?

I don't think any politician should be required to divulge his/her religious beliefs, regardless of what they are. On the other hand, professing a false faith just to garner votes would be lying, and we all know politicians don't do that!

(2) Should self-proclaimed atheists participate in Christian activities such as Carol Services at Christmastime?

Why not? If they enjoy the music, and that's their sole motivation, what's the harm? Should we prevent Christians, Jews or Muslims from singing "Jingle Bells" since it's NOT a religious song?

PS: I should declare an interest. I do not believe in God, but I married a Roman Catholic and sent my children to a Catholic School. And I love going to Midnight Mass at Christmas.

I was raised a Roman Catholic but turned away long ago, and haven't been in church for anything other than weddings or funerals since. Living in South Carolina my kids picked up a smattering of Southern Baptist from their friends and teachers and some Catholic from their grandmother, but neither of them are religious, either.
And don't worry, people. I don't sing ANY Christmas carols, ever! Though I do enjoy Handel's "Hallelujah Chorus."

[Alex Bragi]

(1) I don’t believe they should have to ‘admit’ to anything that doesn’t pertain to the job they’ve been elected to do.

(2) I think it depends entirely on what the Christian activity is. I'm not a Christian but I don’t feel like a hypocrite for enjoying Christmas carols and such--not at all. But would I go to midnight mass? No.

[mkemse]

No the only time ANY Politician needs to brig thier Religious Beliefs and Convictions into the Public eye is when People ask if they will Govern based on what their ELECTORATE voted them into office for preomisiding to do, as oppsed to doing what their Religion dictates them to do,
I personal do not care about the religious apsect of a Candiaite so long as when they serve the poepl they serve and do as those who vote them in wantthem to do and support as oppsed to getting into office and saying "My Constiuants want me to do this or support that, however my Religious beliefs do not allow me to support that issue or this issue"
Yes I have a HUGE issue with that, not to mention as a Presidient the seperatoin of Church and State
Their beiefs are theirs, however they are accountable to those who voted him or her in, which is far more important to me then their convictions, but prior to runnig all voters will know what they believei n and will support while in office, so if you do not care for a particular candicate, be they Catholic, Mormon, Bpatist or Athieist, simply do not vote for them

[ThisYouWillDo]

... would I go to midnight mass? No.

No because you just wouldn't want to, or No because it's a deeper involvement, different from a Carol Service?

I go to enjoy the carols and to watch the ceremony (and to have some mince pies and punch afterwards) but I don't participate in worship: I don't recite the Creed or take communion, for instance. To me, attending is whatever the religious equivalent of neighbourly is, whereas taking communion would be blasphemous.

TYWD

[Thorne]

I go to enjoy the carols and to watch the ceremony (and to have some mince pies and punch afterwards) but I don't participate in worship: I don't recite the Creed or take communion, for instance. To me, attending is whatever the religious equivalent of neighbourly is, whereas taking communion would be blasphemous.

I agree with you. As long as you are respectful of those who are there to worship and don't interfere with or, as you put it, blaspheme their rituals, there is no harm. And the mince pies and punch are certainly a great motivator.

[Alex Bragi]

No because you just wouldn't want to, or No because it's a deeper involvement, different from a Carol Service?

I go to enjoy the carols and to watch the ceremony (and to have some mince pies and punch afterwards) but I don't participate in worship: I don't recite the Creed or take communion, for instance. To me, attending is whatever the religious equivalent of neighbourly is, whereas taking communion would be blasphemous.

TYWD

I don't think there's much need for me to answer this when your post is pretty much exactly how I feel too. Yes, you're right, one's a celebration while the other is a form of worship. *ss*

[ThisYouWillDo]

Thanks Alex.

Moving back to politicians, I note eveyone thinks a politician's religious beliefs are his own, and aren't really relevant when he stands for election.

Would your answer have been different bearing in mind that a British Prime minister "advises" the Queen on the appointment of bishops and archbishops of the Church of England. Should an atheist, like Nick Clegg (who could potentially become PM) for example, be permitted to do that?

TYWD

[Alex Bragi]

Mm... that's a good question. You suppose, too, you could also ask should a Catholic PM have any say in the appointments of the Church of England? However, it's a bit of moot point since I'm pretty sure Gordon Brown has relinquished his (prime ministerial) control over these appointments, hasn't he?

So, hypothetically, I think it would be fair for an atheist to advise from the point of view of still being a good judge of character, morals, and such. In fact, I suppose it could even be argued that an atheist might be more inclined to be impartial than a theist.

[ThisYouWillDo]

LOL - I love that answer, Alex! Wonderfully anarchic!

Extending that line of thought, maybe we should all have to vote in other countries' elections, but not our own!

TYWD

[Logic1]

Personally I would rather see a Prime minister/President whatever without religious beliefs than one with cause one with those beliefs tends to be more under the control of religious leaders than those without are. Being under the influence of church doesnt seem to be good for the lot of people that dont belong to that particular belief.

Yes I am pretty much the atheist but I still love christmas mass cause of the lovely mood.

[caged]

It's fascinating that nobody here thinks a politician's faith should matter. It's nice in a way, although as a more-or-less atheist myself I kind of care if my politicians choose to believe in fairy tales, I feel it perhaps doesn't reflect well on them (I don't mean that to sound TOO harsh, I was once a born-again Christian myself).

In the UK, Clegg's admitted lack of faith probably will hardly matter a jot. I find it quite sad that a survey here in the States showed that a large number of Americans would be put off of voting for a candidate who admitted to being an atheist (more than would be put off by someone who was a believer in a different faith to their own).

[Alex Bragi]

It's fascinating that nobody here thinks a politician's faith should matter. It's nice in a way, although as a more-or-less atheist myself I kind of care if my politicians choose to believe in fairy tales, I feel it perhaps doesn't reflect well on them (I don't mean that to sound TOO harsh, I was once a born-again Christian myself).

....

I'm sorry, caged, but I really do get a little miffed when ever I hear or read the word "fairy tales" in reference to anyone's religion--and I come across it often.

People believe in all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons. If they gain any kind of comfort or strength from their (religious) belief, then I'm all for it. As an agnostic, I admitt I don't have the answers and I'm not sure who does. I do, however, believe that no matter what your belief is, it's important to keep an open mind.

[Thorne]

I'm sorry, caged, but I really do get a little miffed when ever I hear or read the word "fairy tales" in reference to anyone's religion--and I come across it often.

While I agree that the term "fairy tales" may be somewhat harsh, I do have to concur that all religions are ultimately based upon fictions. Or at best upon wishful thinking.

By their own admissions, theologians tell us that we cannot know the true nature of God, but then tell us that they know what he expects from us. Unless you truly believe that these people (who include among them adulterers, pedophiles, drug users and murderers) really have intimate contact with God, you must conclude that they are only making things up as they go along.

[caged]

I'm sorry, caged, but I really do get a little miffed when ever I hear or read the word "fairy tales" in reference to anyone's religion--and I come across it often.

People believe in all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons. If they gain any kind of comfort or strength from their (religious) belief, then I'm all for it. As an agnostic, I admitt I don't have the answers and I'm not sure who does. I do, however, believe that no matter what your belief is, it's important to keep an open mind.

I have a reasonably open mind, which is why I called myself a 'more or less' atheist. I don't have the extraordinary level of self-confidence required to say definitively that god (or gods) does or doesn't exist.

I'm sorry that the term 'fairly tales' miffs you, honestly. I thought twice about using that term, but there you go. It miffs me that beliefs in highly improbable stories lead people to want to persecute homosexuals, limit women's rights, limit my freedom to do things like gamble and so on.

The 'comfort' argument is always an interesting one. I personally care more about whether what I believe is true, or likely to be true, than whether it feels nice to believe it. Still, having once been a born-again Christian I do know how it feels to be a believer.

[ThisYouWillDo]

The great thing about religion - and I speak as an atheist, not an agnostic - is that, if you believe, it is real, not myth. And there's nothing that a scientist, a pseudo-scientist, or a downright bigot can do to prove you wrong. Even his "science" depends ultimately on his faith that it is a true and accurate description of the world, but that is unprovable.

At least a bigot relies on gut feeling, which is as close to faith as I suppose he can get. Only he, to my mind, has any right to describe religions as fairy tales.

TYWD

[caged]

The great thing about religion - and I speak as an atheist, not an agnostic - is that, if you believe, it is real, not myth. And there's nothing that a scientist, a pseudo-scientist, or a downright bigot can do to prove you wrong. Even his "science" depends ultimately on his faith that it is a true and accurate description of the world, but that is unprovable.

At least a bigot relies on gut feeling, which is as close to faith as I suppose he can get. Only he, to my mind, has any right to describe religions as fairy tales.

TYWD

I can't agree with the idea that only a bigot has the right to describe certain unlikely stories as 'fairy tales'. It's an opinion that any reasonable person has the 'right' to hold and express.

I don't really hold with your treatment of scientific knowledge here either. I can see what you are getting at it, and it's quite a popular view these days, but I don't think it holds water. Science has proven its efficacy by having a tendency to work, and of course in practice most of us live our lives and make many mundane decisions every day using the types of thought processes that science is based upon.

However, I do find the science/religion/"how can we know ANYthing?" debate
very tedious and if my 'fairly tales' comment somehow led to that then I withdraw it - !

[Alex Bragi]

....

By their own admissions, theologians tell us that we cannot know the true nature of God, but then tell us that they know what he expects from us. Unless you truly believe that these people (who include among them adulterers, pedophiles, drug users and murderers) really have intimate contact with God, you must conclude that they are only making things up as they go along.

As an agnostic, I don't conclude anything about religion, Thorne.

I can tell you many of my Christian friends would say anyone can have "intimate" contact with God and I happen to think that's a nice and forgiving (Christian) kind attitude to have.

...I don't have the extraordinary level of self-confidence required to say definitively that god (or gods) does or doesn't exist.

I'm right there with you, cage--open-minded and eager to look at it from all perspectives.

I'm sorry that the term 'fairly tales' miffs you, honestly. I thought twice about using that term, but there you go. It miffs me that beliefs in highly improbable stories lead people to want to persecute homosexuals, limit women's rights, limit my freedom to do things like gamble and so on.

Yes, I understand the point you where making and while it's true what my dear o' dad always told me as kid about, "stick and stones... " it's just a word that, in that context, kind of bugs me--on behalf of my theists friends.

The 'comfort' argument is always an interesting one. I personally care more about whether what I believe is true, or likely to be true, than whether it feels nice to believe it. Still, having once been a born-again Christian I do know how it feels to be a believer.

Been there and done that. Yep, I used to attend church all the time. I have to tell you something else. Yes, it did feel good to 'believe' and I do often wish I still had that faith.

Call me crazy, but I think too, that many theists really do manage to harness, and have an ability to draw on, their metal power (call it pray; call it what you like-- it still the same thing) that many of the rest of us simply don't.

The great thing about religion - and I speak as an atheist, not an agnostic - is that, if you believe, it is real, not myth. And there's nothing that a scientist, a pseudo-scientist, or a downright bigot can do to prove you wrong. Even his "science" depends ultimately on his faith that it is a true and accurate description of the world, but that is unprovable.

You know the thing that always intrigues me most about debates between theists and atheists? It's that, invariably, each side is convinced they are absolutely right and the other side is absolutely wrong.

At least a bigot relies on gut feeling, which is as close to faith as I suppose he can get.

Well, no, I think bigots rely on feeling comfortable with their own ignorance and narrow-mindedness which they, in turn, use to buoy their delusional superiority.

Only he, to my mind, has any right to describe religions as fairy tales.

Ha-ha!!! What twisted irony!

[Thorne]

I can tell you many of my Christian friends would say anyone can have "intimate" contact with God and I happen to think that's a nice and forgiving (Christian) kind attitude to have.

Naturally, anyone can claim to have intimate contact with God. How can anyone prove otherwise?

The great thing about religion - and I speak as an atheist, not an agnostic - is that, if you believe, it is real, not myth. And there's nothing that a scientist, a pseudo-scientist, or a downright bigot can do to prove you wrong. Even his "science" depends ultimately on his faith that it is a true and accurate description of the world, but that is unprovable.

Nope. Not even close. Science says that if you stand in front of a speeding train you will get hit and most likely die. Religion says that if you pray hard enough, God will spare you. Where would you like to place your bet?

Science works because it explains the world accurately and repeatably. If you do this and this and that, you will get those. Every time. Not only that, but anyone can do this and this and that, under the same conditions, and get those. Every time! Religion or pseudo-science don't even come close.

[Moonraker]

In Parliament there is a despatch box on the large table in front of the Prime Ministers's seat. Inside the box is a Bible. Traditionally PMs will place a hand on the box (bible) as a symbollic gesture to emphasise the truth of their statement.

I somehow think that should the right honorourable Peter Clegg ever be PM and place his hand on the Bible his statements will be just as truthful as all of his christian predecessors.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Thorne: Nope. Not even close. Science says that if you stand in front of a speeding train you will get hit and most likely die. Religion says that if you pray hard enough, God will spare you. Where would you like to place your bet?

First, I would like to point out that God might choose to let me die for "testing" Him. Deities can be contrary buggers at times!

But if I truly believed, then I'd place my bet on the power of prayer over that of steam/diesel/electricity any day. Only if I were sullied with doubt - caused perhaps by scientists - would my prayer fail to save me. And, if by any chance, God slipped up and the train got me, at least He could raise me from the dead. What scientist can do that?

Alex Bragi: You know the thing that always intrigues me most about debates between theists and atheists? It's that, invariably, each side is convinced they are absolutely right and the other side is absolutely wrong.

Uh huh But we are dealing in absolutes here.

Alex Bragi: Originally Posted by ThisWillDoYou

LOL

Moonraker: I somehow think that should the right honorourable Peter Clegg ever be PM and place his hand on the Bible his statements will be just as truthful as all of his christian predecessors.

How could anyone possibly disagree? LOL.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Science works because it explains the world accurately and repeatably. If you do this and this and that, you will get those. Every time. Not only that, but anyone can do this and this and that, under the same conditions, and get those. Every time! Religion or pseudo-science don't even come close.

I have just Googled What can science not explain? and found the following (inter alia). I don't know how credible these statements are, but I suspect there some truth to them, even if only superficially. (The guy has a book to sell!)

1. DARK MATTER of an unknown form makes up most of the matter of the universe. This matter is not predicted by the standard physics models and science does not understand what this substance is.

2. THE LAW OF GRAVITY appears to be seriously broken. Experiments have found that Foucault pendulums (pendula?) veer off in strange directions during solar eclipses. Interplanetary NASA satellites are showing persistent errors in trajectory. Neither of these is explained or predicted by the standard theory of gravity.

3. COLD FUSION. The Cold Fusion phenomenon violates physics as we understand it, and yet it has been duplicated in various forms in over 500 laboratories around the world. Present day physics has no explanation for how it works, but it does work.

4. CHARGE CLUSTERS. Under certain conditions, billions of electrons can "stick together" in close proximity, despite the law of electromagnetism that like charges repel. This indicates that our laws of electromagnetism are missing something important.

5. COSMOLOGY. Quasars, which are supposed to be the most distant astronomical objects in the sky, are often found connected to nearby galaxies by jets of gas. This suggests that their red shifts are due to some other, more unusual physics which is not yet fully understood.

6. SPEED OF LIGHT, has been exceeded in several recent experiments. Certain phenomena, such as solar disturbances on the sun which take more than eight minutes to be visible on the earth, are registered instantaneously on the acupuncture points of instrumented subjects which apparently respond to solar events by some other force which travels at a much higher speed than light.

Evidence has also accumulated in the laboratory that many paranormal effects are real, and can be verified and studied scientifically. I won't bother to repeat these, but if you are interested, go to http://www.synchronizeduniverse.com/

Now you might say, if the above statements are true, they simply reflect the incomplete state of science at the moment. If you do, my reply is, that's your belief, and you cannot prove it anymore than a religious believer can prove God's existence.

This_Will_Do_You

[Thorne]

But if I truly believed, then I'd place my bet on the power of prayer over that of steam/diesel/electricity any day. Only if I were sullied with doubt - caused perhaps by scientists - would my prayer fail to save me.

Nice to hear that! Now, there's this bridge in Arizona I've just acquired title to. And it's even named after London. I can let you have it for a song.

And, if by any chance, God slipped up and the train got me, at least He could raise me from the dead. What scientist can do that?

In the first place, God, by definition, cannot "slip up." And secondly, Doctors, aka scientists, routinely bring people back from the dead. And if you don't believe them, just ask those people who have had Near Death Experiences. Most will tell you that they were dead. Now you might say that God's hand was involved in those recoveries, but for a very long time Christian religions declared those who practiced medicine to be witches and pagans. I guess God "slipped up" on that one, too.

[Thorne]

Now you might say, if the above statements are true, they simply reflect the incomplete state of science at the moment. If you do, my reply is, that's your belief, and you cannot prove it anymore than a religious believer can prove God's existence.

This is a copout. No reputable scientist will ever claim that what science claims is the absolute, definitive proof of anything. By its very nature science questions everything. The whole point is that we truly don't know everything. We try to make the most rational conclusions about observed phenomena that we can and define certain "laws" about them. When something then comes along which seems to defy those laws we must either find out what is causing that to happen or change the laws.
The whole point of faith is to believe something despite what the real world shows. And clinging to that belief even when evidence points to the contrary. A good example is the search for Noah's Ark. Many deeply religious people, including an American astronaut, have hunted diligently for evidence of Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat in Turkey. Yet the Bible, which they use as their source of information, clearly states that the Ark came to rest in the mountains of Ararat, not on Mount Ararat. And besides, that mountain was not even named Ararat until the 18th or 19th century. This is akin to searching for evidence of the Nativity in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania!
As for the items you noted, I'm going to take some time to do my own research on these. Most of them I "believe" I know the answers to, but since you have taken the time to ferret them out, the least I can do is take the time to respond intelligently.
And please understand, I am not trying to destroy anyone's faith in God or any other belief. My whole point is to try to make people realize that what they believe is not necessarily the whole, absolute truth.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Thorne. The point is not that I am gullible, but that until you prove faith is powerless, I am entitled to believe, if I want to, that it will give me the keys to heaven, and that nothing is impossible if my faith is pure. No scientist has the right to gainsay me until he can demonstrate, scientifically, the opposite. He has to agree to disagree, as you seem to do in other threads.

I reject utterly that I have "copped out" of something or other: if science cannot prove God does not exist, He might. If, as you say, no scientist will ever claim that science has the answer to everything, what are we arguing about?

No doctor has ever brought back anyone from the dead. If you know of one claiming to have done so, and you are sure he is not the Messiah, refer him to your Medical Council so they can strike him off as a quack. Some medics may have restored vital functions before it was too late, but not afterwards. There have been reports of people "reviving" after all medical support had been stopped. But the doctors can't claim that by not helping the patient they restored him to life, can they? No - those revivals are scientifically inexplicable. (I fancy that the revivals were due to a delayed response to earlier efforts to save the patient, but as I cannot know, it is no more than a notion.)

Faith is not flying in the face of the truth - that is fanaticism. Faith is believing in something that has not yet been proved or disproved. Faith in science is believing that it is capable, eventually, of answering everything within the laws of nature, some of which may yet await discovery. When science is able to provide all the answers, that faith will have been justified. Until then, you have to accept the possibility that God is responsible for something that science cannot explain, even if you will not believe it until it has been proved.

And now we're going round in circles.

TYWD

Keep the bridge: we never liked it anyway.

Now Tower Bridge ... that's a different story. | |/ \| |

[Thorne]

Thorne. The point is not that I am gullible, but that until you prove faith is powerless, I am entitled to believe, if I want to, that it will give me the keys to heaven, and that nothing is impossible if my faith is pure. No scientist has the right to gainsay me until he can demonstrate, scientifically, the opposite. He has to agree to disagree, as you seem to do in other threads.

I'm not trying to say you're gullible. Just trying to get rid of that damned bridge. And I really don't have a problem with people who have faith. But placing faith before reality seems, to me, a bit risky. I am reminded of the woman who was told to leave her home because of a flood. "No, God will protect me," she replied. When the water reached the first floor of her home a boat came by and the people tried to get her to leave. "No, God will protect me," she told them. When the water reached the second floor another boat came by, with the same results. Soon after a third boat came by and they tried to take her from the roof of her home. "No," she said again. "God will protect me."
Soon after she drowned. When she arrived in heaven and saw God she asked him, "Lord, why didn't you protect me?"
God's answer? "I sent three damn boats! What more do you want?"

I reject utterly that I have "copped out" of something or other: if science cannot prove God does not exist, He might. If, as you say, no scientist will ever claim that science has the answer to everything, what are we arguing about?

Science can never prove that something does NOT exist. It's not possible. They CAN show that there is no verifiable, objective evidence available to prove that something DOES exist, which is not quite the same thing. And I don't believe we are arguing. We are having an open and frank discussion. Our beliefs are different, which to my mind makes these discussions that much more interesting.

No doctor has ever brought back anyone from the dead. If you know of one claiming to have done so, and you are sure he is not the Messiah, refer him to your Medical Council so they can strike him off as a quack.

How would you define "death?" If someone has no heartbeat, no respiration and no apparent brain function, I would have to say he is dead, wouldn't you? Yet there are people who have been immersed in freezing water for upwards of twenty minutes, dead by any definition we might use, who have been revived. Call it restoring vital functions if you wish, but they were clinically dead.

Faith is not flying in the face of the truth - that is fanaticism. Faith is believing in something that has not yet been proved or disproved. Faith in science is believing that it is capable, eventually, of answering everything within the laws of nature, some of which may yet await discovery. When science is able to provide all the answers, that faith will have been justified. Until then, you have to accept the possibility that God is responsible for something that science cannot explain, even if you will not believe it until it has been proved.

Believe it or not I can accept the "possibility that God is responsible for something that science cannot explain." I don't believe it's likely, but it is certainly possible. I can also accept the possibility that there are alien cultures scooting around our world in UFO's. Again, I don't think it's likely but it is possible.
I think my biggest problem is not with faith: certainly people are entitled to believe whatever they wish, whether I think it's a viable belief or not. My problem is with religion, or rather with those people who embrace the tenets of a religion unequivocally without truly understanding what those tenets are saying. Too many religions claim to be the only TRUE path to God and tend to regard those who do not believe as they do as something less than human. This despite the fact that none of those religions have any more, or less, foundation in fact. That is truly the road to fanaticism.

Are you SURE you don't want your bridge back?

Happy New Year.

[Thorne]

OK, here's what I've come up with over the last few hours. It looks to me like I could spend days or even weeks on these topics alone, but I think I've come up with enough information to respond sensibly. I don't know if this topic even belongs here, but this is where it came up, so here goes!

1. DARK MATTER of an unknown form makes up most of the matter of the universe. This matter is not predicted by the standard physics models and science does not understand what this substance is.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter - "In astrophysics and cosmology, dark matter is matter of unknown composition that does not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be observed directly, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter." and "It has been noted that the names 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' serve mainly as expressions of our ignorance, much as the marking of early maps with 'terra incognita'." In other words, we don't yet know what it is, but we know it's there and we're searching for the answers. This is the cutting edge of astrophysics. It's not surprising that it doesn't fit into the standard models.

2. THE LAW OF GRAVITY appears to be seriously broken. Experiments have found that Foucault pendulums (pendula?) veer off in strange directions during solar eclipses. Interplanetary NASA satellites are showing persistent errors in trajectory. Neither of these is explained or predicted by the standard theory of gravity.

Regarding the question of the Foucault pendulum, it appears that this was first noticed back in 1954, but there has been little or no study on it until recently. I haven't yet found where scientists have determined the cause, but what I've seen indicates that the very short duration of a solar eclipse, and the small area of totality, make study difficult. However, the movement of the Foucault pendulum is a response to the Earth's rotation, not to Gravity.
As for the trajectory of interplanetary satellites, I haven't been able to find anything, yet, about this except this statement on the Synchronized Universe web page. My intuition tells me that these errors, if they exist, are caused by encounters with objects which were not predicted by those who developed the course/orbit of the satellites. And though you may not like the statement, there are still things out there we don't know about. Before Einstein's relativity theory, in the late part of the 19th and the early part of the 20th centuries, Newton's equations regarding gravity worked extremely well. So well that at least one planet was discovered based on deviations in the orbit of another. But there was a problem with the orbit of Mercury. Something was affecting Mercury's orbit, causing it to act against Newton's equations. Many scientists believed that there had to be another, massive planet between Mercury and the Sun. Some even claimed to have seen it. Then Einstein came along, and his famous equation said,in effect, that the energy which the Sun emitted has a mass equivalent.Once this equivalent was plugged into Newton's equations, Mercury's orbit exactly fit the prediction. The equations weren't wrong, only the interpretation of the data. This is very common in science, and one reason why science works so well to explain the world we live in.

3. COLD FUSION. The Cold Fusion phenomenon violates physics as we understand it, and yet it has been duplicated in various forms in over 500 laboratories around the world. Present day physics has no explanation for how it works, but it does work.

Whew! This one's controversial as hell! But the general concensus is that, No, it does NOT work. At least not yet. There's little doubt that SOMETHING is happening in these experiments but no one can seem to say exactly what it is. In fact, despite a lot of money being thrown at this one, there has been little or no advancement in the last 20 years. The experiments are not reproducible all of the time. Some have made it work, others have not. There is no evidence of fusion byproducts even when it DOES work, and there is no theoretical model to explain what IS happening. This one is still in the "wait and see" stage, but it doesn't look too good.

4. CHARGE CLUSTERS. Under certain conditions, billions of electrons can "stick together" in close proximity, despite the law of electromagnetism that like charges repel. This indicates that our laws of electromagnetism are missing something important.

I have to admit, the physics of this one are beyond me. But see http://www.padrak.com/ine/FB97_1.html for a seemingly detailed study. From what I can gather, charge clusters seem to be quite well understood and do not violate any laws of electrodynamics. Just as heavy objects can seemingly defy gravity by being lifted in a tornado, some sort of toroidal effects hold these clusters together against the repulsive forces of the electron charges. It looks to me like Dr. Claude Swanson is wrong about this one.

5. COSMOLOGY. Quasars, which are supposed to be the most distant astronomical objects in the sky, are often found connected to nearby galaxies by jets of gas. This suggests that their red shifts are due to some other, more unusual physics which is not yet fully understood.

Looks like he's wrong on this one, too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar states that the concept of the redshift of quasars being caused by something other than distance went out in the 70's and "today the cosmological distance of quasars is accepted by almost all researchers." And apparently a quasar does not necessarily HAVE to be very distant but the mechanism which creates them, as we understand it, was much more prevalent in the early universe, and is therefore more common in very distant galaxies.

6. SPEED OF LIGHT, has been exceeded in several recent experiments. Certain phenomena, such as solar disturbances on the sun which take more than eight minutes to be visible on the earth, are registered instantaneously on the acupuncture points of instrumented subjects which apparently respond to solar events by some other force which travels at a much higher speed than light.

Whoops! Three in a row for Dr. swanson. See http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2000/...ght000720.html and we find that "their experiment only disproves the general misconception that nothing can move faster than the speed of light. The scientific statement "nothing with mass can travel faster than the speed of light" is an entirely different belief, one that has yet to be proven wrong. The NEC experiment caused a pulse of light, a group of waves with no mass, to go faster than light."

As you stated, this guy is trying to sell his book. It seems to me that he is stressing those areas where there is still some controversy within scientific circles, such as cold fusion, or he is reviving outmoded theories which have been shown to be inadequate or just plain wrong. And it seems to me that he's using these borderline items to reinforce his beliefs in the paranormal.

[Alex Bragi]

...

Nope. Not even close. Science says that if you stand in front of a speeding train you will get hit and most likely die. Religion says that if you pray hard enough, God will spare you. Where would you like to place your bet?

Science works because it explains the world accurately and repeatably. If you do this and this and that, you will get those. Every time. Not only that, but anyone can do this and this and that, under the same conditions, and get those. Every time! Religion or pseudo-science don't even come close.

Religion (Christian at any rate) declaims that "God helps those who help themselves" so your example of standing in front of train, while praying it doesn't hit you, is a less than moot one. (Your little story about the women caught in the flood is good example of this by the way.)

Fact: Not all science is exact, and not all religion is a myth.

Medical science, for instance is, quite obviously, an inexact science and so, too, are other fields of science.

(Two of my favourite sceptic quotes: "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. " - Lord Kelvin, ca. 1895, British mathematician and physicist

There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will. - Albert Einstein, 1932.)

Yes, religion does declaim that if you pray hard enough you will be 'spared', and believe me I have seen it happen--mind over matter; power of prayer; an unknown force, I honestly don't know, or begin to understand it, but certainly it's something real and inexplicable. I'm certain not about to go closing my mind to the endless possibilities--facts or faith.

And, of course, a man named Jesus really did exist along with numerous other prophets; it's a part of history. And, maybe he did have the power to heal.

So, of religion and science, which is actually absolute, exact, and provable?

“There's no such thing as "for sure". That's the only sure thing I do know.” John Nash, A Beautiful Mind.

[Thorne]

Fact: Not all science is exact, and not all religion is a myth.

Medical science, for instance is, quite obviously, an inexact science and so, too, are other fields of science.

I never claimed, or intended to claim, that science is exact. Just the opposite. Science is constantly changing as we learn more and more. Our explanations of what is actually happening in the universe around us is the best explanation we can come up with given the limits of our intelligence and data.
Which, if you think about it, is what religion tries to do as well. The problem with religion, as I see it, is that it is not based upon rational, provable theorems. It is, indeed, myth, by its very nature unprovable, and can only be taken on faith.

(Two of my favourite sceptic quotes: "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. " - Lord Kelvin, ca. 1895, British mathematician and physicist

There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will. - Albert Einstein, 1932.)

This is at the very heart of what I've been saying. We don't know everything. We must constantly change our view of the world. The difference here is that these men, though they were wrong about the future, made such wondrous strides in science that they are still numbered among the great. As are those who proved them wrong! In a religion, those who proved that the atom COULD be split, and who proved that heavier than air machines COULD be made to fly, would be excommunicated at best, executed at worst.

And, of course, a man named Jesus really did exist along with numerous other prophets; it's a part of history. And, maybe he did have the power to heal.

Actually, two months ago I would have agreed with you on this one. But I heard something just a little while ago that may force me to revise that belief. I heard that the only evidence for Jesus' life is in the Bible. There does not seem to be any real record of his existence aside from that. And since the accounts of his life, as written in the Gospels, conflict with one another, and sometimes with history itself, it cannot be trusted historically.
I don't know if this is true, I haven't looked into it. But if it is then we must step back and reconsider. I'm not saying he did NOT exist, just that there may not be independent evidence that he really did.

Edit: OK, I've looked up some things and am more confused than ever. People on both sides of this issue seem to use the same evidence to promote their beliefs. From what I can gather, everything which has been written about the life of Jesus was written at least 30 to 40 years after his death. Naturally, original manuscripts of these documents do not usually exist and some consider references in Josephus and Tacitus to be interpolated by later Catholic scribes, reinforcing the Gospel accounts of Jesus. As near as I can tell, there are no known contemporary reports of Jesus, though later writer sometimes seem to be citing earlier works which may, indeed, have existed. Even Roman records, which I understand were fairly extensive, don't seem to mention Jesus at the time that he lived. Even the Gospels were written no earlier than 70AD and were probably not written by the men who bear there names, though they are probably based upon the teachings of those men.
At this point I would have to say that it seems probable that there really was a man named Jesus who was crucified by Pontius Pilate. Whether or not he also performed the miracles ascribed to him by the Gospels is another story. Despite that fact that he was supposedly followed by many people during his final year, as many as 5000 being mentioned, and despite the fact that the Jews were one of the most literate cultures in the area, there does not seem to be any independent evidence of his works.