Could the current round of unmistakably immense rises in religiosity in the United States actually be evidence of contemporary science's failure to bring lay-people into the fold in a way which promotes levels of understanding adequately satisfying to them?

Have scientists become the poorest of articulators? And do lay-people, because of this, feel their understanding of science slip further and further out of their grasps so that they feel they are choosing a much more understandably basic/fundamental religion over a more complicated one?

When I first read your comments my answer was YES!

But upon reflection I think the answer is no.

The reason I thought 'yes' was that clearly the problem is that the general public is totally ignorant of even the most basic science knowledge.

But then I thought about who is responsible for educating the public and I am afraid I must lay the blame clearly on two different groups of people.

1. Educators and the education system that uses science ignorant people to teach science and whose ability to teach science was outstripped around the turn of the previous century.

2. Parents ... and here is where the blame must clearly be placed.

Parents have consented to a society where steroid eating jocks are more valued than scientists, educators, and physicians.

Parents, as tax payors, have consented to let educators be among the lowest paid people in our society.

Parents have consented to allowing their children to received mediocre educations that barely qualify as baby-sitting services while at the same time abdicating their own responsibility to television and video games and the school system that they underfund and ignore.

So if you are the parent of a child ... blame yourself. If you are a child ... stop waiting for someone else to educate you ... take some personal responsibility.

That's a lazy answer. Those 2 groups are obviously part of the lay-people, by your own admission and description, that I was referring to in the first place. Welcome back from your roundtrip.

The thing is that science is failing all of us,
by its decline and perversion. Doctor, heal thyself

ES

All scientists or only the ones that don't believe in god, extrasense?

In most areas of science the personal faith is irrelevant.
Faith and science actually never oppose each other, they move on different planes.

ES

Planko: Do you not read what you write before pushing the "Add Reply" button? Here is what you wrote:

"Could the current round of unmistakably immense rises in religiosity in the United States actually be evidence of contemporary science's failure...."

and

"Have scientists become the poorest of articulators?"

Where exactly in those sentences do you see a reference to educators and parents such that you can then write: "Those 2 groups are obviously part of the lay-people".

You began this thread with a clear cut attack on scientists as being responsible for the lack of knowledge of science.

At first I agreed with you.

Then I applied a skill we call "critical thinking" and discovered that it was just a shallow attack on the one group not responsible for the morass.

Extrasense: Science hasn't failed you ... you have failed yourself. Science is not responsible for your education. Science is not responsible for your inability to accept personal responsibility. And science is not responsible for the fact that most parents in our society rely on television to educate their children.

So you think science flies Northwest and religion flies United ... or is it Delta. You really should demand back from the public school systems the money they wasted trying to educate you. It was a complete failure.

When a scientist opines on matters of religion, he speaks for himself, and outside the science.
When a priest opines on matters of science, he speaks for himself, not for the religion.

ES

When a scientist opines on matters of religion, he speaks for himself, and outside the science.
REP: Which is not correct as he is not an expert in religion.
When a priest opines on matters of science, he speaks for himself, not for the religion.
REP: Rarely it happens that a person achieves a personal balance on Relgion and Science.Such a person will not recommend the mixing of two.
Religion and Science are not enemies to me. They are more like my parents whom I constantly refer to inorder survive and thrive.In some countries where the divorce rate is high I can understand that people must have started loosing faith in religion.But then a single parent can not give you what a family can.

extrasense: Sorry but ... B.S.

Every time a minister starts a reading with "In the beginning ...." is it science? Sure as H.... sounds like it to me. And there is zero doubt he, or she though it seems you don't believe in women in the pulpit, is speaking on behalf of his or her religion.

How convenient ... if every priest on the planet stood up and said the same thing they would all be expressing a personal opinion. How gutless. How bloody hypocritical.

YOu've got that straight. It cannot give you spouse abuse as a model for adult behavior. It cannot give you a black and blue parent who cringes from the other parent. It cannot give you manipulative, obsessive control freak role models, or the weak willed, submissive doormats on whom they stomp. It cannot give you a child playing one parent against another for power and pleasure. It cannot give you a drunk stumbling home in the wee hours to collapse on the front porch and sleep it off for all to see. It cannot give you one parent using the child to punish the other parent for their transgressions. Golly gee, what fun!

I'm sure two-parent homes have so much more to offer than single parents. If I ever can think of any advantages I'll let you know. Until then I will call you on your shallow and callous attack on "single parents", as I am one and have raised my son since age three alone and unaided save for a little bit of help from my family. He is now eighteen and a fine piece of work if I do say so myself. If I ever need your advice on parenting I'll be sure to let you know.

It takes more than two people to raise a child; it takes a community, but sometimes it is better to have one good parent than the alternative.

They are called PhD, Philosophy Doctor.
But in fact scientists have no clue about philosophy.

The names and terms are confused.
The point were science failed humanity, is different. It is when science become pseudo, and suffocated real search for the truth.

ES

Let me guess, ES-less, you are referring to yourself, how your search for "truth" has been stifled by those beasts called Ph.D's. How your quest for proving that life exists mathematically on Mars, based on "image analysis", was met (and continues to be, would be an educated guess) with derision from everyone who actually knows something both about math and about image analysis. How your ramblings regarding quantum mechanics have been rejected for publication by your peers, just out of pure meaness and not because despite your "advanced studies" you cannot articulate ideeas in the form of a paper.
Correct me if I missed anything.

And you, the "true" scientist, what have you decided to do? Instead of continuing to improve yourself, so that you could make yourself heard in a scientific manner and in a scientific forum, you have decided to request public support on the internet by claiming to be a persecuted scientist by the authorities to be and the peers in your field.

Well, you are one very good example of why science has failed humanity. Scientific truth in your oppinion can be replaced by public vote, any lack (or maybe personal inability) of desire to actually confront ideeas openly with your peers is blamed on the others, you ramble about your persecution on obscure websites, and so on and so forth.

You are using the very same methods religion uses,or politics for that matter;public support instead of rationality. This is not to ay that I hold the scientific world blameless, by no means. But what you have not yet realized is that despite its several shortcomings, it is still the place where you can be heard if you can provide any cogent argument to support your ideas. But you have chsen to ignore this aspect, wilfully or not.

I am making general points.
You, are talking that I am this and that...

e s

ES:"I am making general points.You, are talking that I am this and that..."

ES, don't play the innocent with me. I can post the links to your posts where you actually do exactly what I said you did. Have a backbone for once, will you?

You do not comprehend what I am saying.

This is an excuse, but a pretty damning one

e s

There are a number of problems, none of which is insurmountable. Collectively, however, they constitute quite a juggernaut.

There are many handicaps a child can have. Among the worst is having idiots for parents. The first important responsibility a parent has with regard to his children's educations is to instill in them the fact that their educations are their own responsibilities. This is because learning only occurs in one place - and it's not a classroom, but between the ears of the student. Education is not the same thing as schooling.

We can sit around and complain or we can do something. I spend a very large amount of my "free time" in educating my own kids past the deficiencies of their public schooling. I also volunteer at a local high school, mentoring teachers in programming, tutoring students (physics, algebra, but mostly geometry), judging science contests, what have you. If they needed the toilets cleaned, I'd be happy to do that too. Whatever they need, I'm there.

But I don't think this is what most people want to do. I sense that most people want good education the way couch-potatoes want a million dollars - if it just happens to fall into their laps, they're elated, but they aren't willing to work for it. On the other end, we have people who are only interested in "doing something" if they can get credit for it somehow or if they can do something "really cool" like "helping" some kid win a science fair. To me, one of the coolest things is taking a kid who is making straight Ds and over the course of a semester getting their grade up to a B - or having a kid who has always made straight Fs break down crying during a session and say, "oh my god! oh my god! I understand it! I REALLY understand it!"

For the life of me I don't understand why in an area like where I live (northern va) the schools are pushing tutors away. It shouldn't be a struggle here to find people who know enough to be useful. Almost anyone can do something - it doesn't have to be perfect.

I recall a science day at my kids' elementary school in which some parents manned a number of the booths. Some of the parents really understood the thing they were demonstrating, while others were obviously lost. It's a little depressing that the parents don't understand some elementary aspect of science, but on the whole it's a great thing that they're actually putting out the effort. Often that's all it takes - for kids to SEE that their parents actually think a thing is important.

Feynman wrote in one of his books that his dad used to take him for walks and explain some scientific facts to him - how things work, so to speak. Later, he discovered that some of his dad's explanations were really off, but it was the fact that he actually nurtured that interest, got him thinking about what he was doing that got little Richard excited. Neither parents nor teachers have to be perfect - but they can do SOMETHING. The problem I see is that many parents don't even do the parent thing very well - like make sure their kids do their homework.

We as a society are loosing perspective - our economic well-being depends on our producing people who can understand science and practice it. Nowadays even some of science's staunchest promoters don't actually understand it very well. It's no wonder there's a creationist revival.

The US is not the only country to have these problems though. It's beginning to strike Britain. Chem Engineering is an important industry there and they now have a shortfall of people to fill the bill - they actually need to import chemical engineers to keep their factories running. Turns out there are more people interested in psychology and other proto-sciences than in the hard sciences. Chemical Engineering is considered "dirty." I'm not sure what good they think "Environmental Science" would be without chemical engineering - it's not about facts, but perceptions at that point.

ES:"You do not comprehend what I am saying."

Well, as I said before, you are not very articulate when it comes to writing (at least), and to make things worse, you are also very brief.

You are right, I may not "comprehend" you.So please enlighten me. Sentences are welcome, phrases will actually be appreciated.

ES:"This is an excuse, but a pretty damning one"

Well, I'm glad "this" is a damning excuse, but what is "this"? Once again, complex sentences and phrases are welcome.

My point was that you personally are the least qualified to judge how science has failed humanity, simply because of the way you practice what you call science. No real scientist that I know has ever tried to impose their oppinion by public polling and support, and for sure they have not given up publishing their ideas in peer reviewed journals(just because their paper was rejected by one or several journals), so that they can at least discuss it in scientific forums.

Religion rightly identifies the problem: corruption.

Science fails to deliver any alternative to religion, because scientists have all sold out to corruption.

Join the mob, and you have a job.

I think that's painting scientists in general with a very wide brush. I think a chemical company is entitled to a certain amount of loyalty from its employees, in measure with their loyalty to their employees. As long as this does not interfere with the truth being told accurately about the subject of the research.

Would you buy a Ford from a person who drove a BMW? How does that differ from the researcher who studies the effects of chemicals his employer is interested in producing? Sure, it's in the best interest of the company to have a drug approved, but it is NOT in the best interest of the company to get a drug okayed that ends up killing the people it is supposed to help. We've seen this happen recently; it did nothing to encourage the public's faith in that company.

I think that the problem has more to do with the human brain. We are susceptible to religion/superstition, because our brains are programmed in this way. This may have helped us in the past to survive, but today this is hampering progress.

Perhaps there is also an Anthropic reason why we are not more science minded. Civilizations consisting of intelligent beings that are very rational will evolve much faster than backward civilizations such as ours. These civilizations will develop machine intelligence much sooner than we will. These machines will become so different from the biological creatures that you could justify saying that you couldn't have been a machine.


Because the ''biological'' history of backward civilizations lasts much longer than that of rational civilizations, our type of civilization will have produced more biological individuals before the machines take over. It is thus much more likely to find yourself living in a backward civilization.

Is this the reason that "scientists" produce any garbage that gives them money? Or maybe if they were more honest, they just would do their job, and do not badmouth religion?

ES

DA MOrgan

I didn't understand your reply to me. Do we have a different definition/understanding of the term "lay-people"?

Extrasense

Why don't we turn my original question around and ask:

Could the current round of unmistakably immense rises in the volatility and vociferousness of the conflict between the "religious" and "scientific" communities in the United States actually be evidence of contemporary religion's failure to promote levels of harmonious understanding, clarity, and most importantly, unambiguous-ness, adequately satisfying to the "scientific" and even arguably the majority of the lay community?

Have religious leaders become the poorest of harmonizers and synthesizers? Preferring to plug their ears than roll up their sleeves and get to the hard work of clarifying, unifying, and answering the seemingly infinite disparities within just itself for a start? And do lay-people and scientific people, because of this, feel their understanding of religion slip further and further out of their grasps so that they feel they are choosing a much more understandably basic/fundamental religion over a more complicated and conflicted one? For example, what is religion's answer to the question: "Does God have a beard?"

Oh come on now! You just said that the proof of the system working is that it failed! And that failure may hurt the company in the very short term, but who the hell can remember which company sold what weird pseudo-scientifically named drug? I already can't remember which one of the company's it was, and I barely recall that the drug started with a V. And who is gonna even try to remember, when that company comes out with the next life saving wonder-drug that everyone believes having is a matter of life and death and its stock starts inching up again causing a rush for shares?

Maybe that's another tendency pushing people away from science and towards religion: That science is more and more discounting individual death in favor of the "greater good" while religion is nominally moving or holding on to the opposite end. I mean look at your own feably passive choice of wording to characterize the result of those deaths, "it did nothing to encourage the public's faith in that company." Instead of, "It caused the public to drive a stake through this company's heart." And of course the logical conclusion for the roots of your subconsciously understated choice of wording is the acquired belief that the benefit of this company is worth its mistakes. It of course is a valid argument, but how apologist is it?

And are you following the Golden Rule?

Kate, please delete this post, I hit quote instead of edit by mistake and can't find any delete button.

**** man! You have a plethora of hypotheses with no indication of why we should accept any of them!

I'll start for now by asking you: What makes you think that our brains supposedly being "programmed" in a way to makes us susceptible to belief in religion/superstition helped us to survive or was essential to survival? Because I don't see the link: from ambulatory amphibian eating flies, to monkey, to religion/superstition being a necessary part of survival...? I would like to see the link though...how religion was necessary for something as basic as survival...so please expound.

Going on, what makes you so sure that this particular brain "programming" that we evolved out of survival necessity is no longer necessary for survival? Are you instead insinuating that it is religion/superstition that we no longer need for survival, so that it should be replaced by some alternative intellectual construct satisfying the brain "program" which manifests itself through belief in religion/superstition? Aren't you then in effect saying that the very brain "program" which manifests religion/superstition should be altered and thus is itself at fault and no longer necessary for survival in its current form?

And lastly, for now, what makes you believe that you have this insight over nature and when was the line finally fully crossed when humans could understand the faults and deficiencies in the fundamental system which produces them enough to call for its alteration?

Are we completely part of the system or partly above the system?

This one too...did it again

Extrasense: I don't see in my job description "bad mouth religion." But I do see in my job description "teach critical thinking skills."

If you can find a difference between an invisible purple rhinoceros and a sentient omnipotent diety you are in desperate need of developing critical thinking skills. Well there is one difference between them: The sentient omnipotent diety is more of a pinkish-orange.

Planko: I think it well established ... certainly as well as anything in psychology ... that we are pack animals genetically engineered to follow an alpha.

The members of the pack engage in pack behaviour. Part of that behaviour is what we refer to as brain-washing.

Convince someone it is in their best interest to believe in an invisible purple rhinoceros and they will. Scaring children with stories of death, disease, and eternal damnation in hell is just part of the process.

If the choice of a theological perspective was not an act of brain-washing we would wait until children were adults: Say age 18. Then teach them about many different theological perspectives and let them make a choice of their own free will. There is no religion of which I am aware that indoctrination is not expected to be complete by the age of puberty: Bar Mitzvah, Confirmation, etc.

If you don't like the conclusion ... then consider the trail of bread crumbs that lead to it.

Huh? DA Morgan? Your answer is too scattered for me to make the connections:

We are pack animals *genetically engineered* (!? oh no they got to you too!) to follow an UNSEEN alpha???

Surely the connection has to go much deeper than that, given that there is no visible alpha male here!. Possibly maybe something to do with the brain's need to come to swift conclusions in order to properly perform its function of subconsciously and consciously regulating the body?

If we don't scare the kids with stories of death disease and eternal damnation then what would we scare them with? What, assuming my above hypothesis, would we use to make them come to swift and decisive conclusions? Construct actual incidences of death, disease, and damnation to show them, real-time, instead?


I don't quite get the jump from pack behavior to brain-washing, much less your mixing of the ideas of whether this brain-washing is for best interest purposes or purely to promote more detrimental pack behavior. If pack behavior is an ingrained evolved system, then why the need for brainwashing? I don't get whether you mean brainwashing is a contrived unnatural and unnecessary product or an integral and essential part of our evolved means of survival.

You are delusional about this. There is no such rises whatsoever.
There is atheistic liberal community, and it is stupid to no end. You want to blame somebody else for this stupidity.

The scientific part of the atheistic community get corrupted, and you probably again will blame somebody else for that.

e s

What? You were happy to quietly agree in the rise 2 pages ago when I originally mentioned it in the first post, but now you say there is no such rise? Make up your mind.

You agreed somewhat with my first post but when I try to turn the table around to see what happens you just call me delusional to begin with and dismiss me outright? Not very honorable of you.

extrasense:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.

When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
~ Steven Roberts

My friend, a scientist "expert in religion" is nonexistent utopia. Science would be at paradise, if scientist could be expert in science, not its parasite as it is usually now.


ES

Remind me precisely, I do not recall agreeing with you ever.



ES

I'll leave it up to you to decide what you feel obliged to deny or confirm, extrasense.

Planko:

extrasense is demonstrating the strenghs of those that are religious and believe lying is a sin: Denial and obfuscation.

He wishes to blame scientists for discovering fire while denying it was his church that used it to burn witches at the stake.

Damned scientists invented gun powder too. Yet it is the Christians, using it in guns, that keep killing people.

Blaming scientists for what is done with the knowledge they gain is like blaming Eve for eating the apple given to her by her creator as an intentional temptation.

I would like to point out the obvious:

1. Scientists are a few, elite people who take the trouble to try to understand the very difficult. Hence you should not expect the masses to understand what you understand.

2. Many people here are highly competive, tearing into any other people's ideas with the shout "defend yourself". Might work well in the scientific community, doesn't work well in the rest of the world. Hence: you turn off the masses with your people skills. Calling others idiots will never market an idea.

3. I would postulate that science alone does not fill the needs of most people. Here in the US, to a lesser extent in Europe, but also to a great extend in third world countries, religion fills a need in many people's lives.

4. I would futher suggest that for some of you, your strict adherance to an only science belief resembles a form of religion, much as Communisum, though without a god, likewise used many of the forms of religion including hymns. Religion is a way of looking at life, a pholosiphy, a way of living. There are many religions in the world that do not believe in a supreme god.

Some of you guys are way too stressed out. Now if you have already made your great contribution by age 30, go ahead and kick the bucket. Otherwise hang cool, teach and learn. It takes a long time for new ideas to be accepted and understood.

Sparky: Lets examine what you've said and see what survives.

1. "Scientists are a few, elite people"

If by elite you mean educated and inquisitive I confess. If by elite you mean powerful, well paid, and influential you are smoking something illegal.

2. "Calling others idiots will never market an idea"

True. But then I would consider science and marketing to be mutually irrelevant. The point of science is to discover truth. The point of marketing is to obscure truth.

3. "I would postulate that science alone does not fill the needs of most people"

I'd stop using the word postulate and suggest that sex does not fill the needs of most people either.
So what is your point?

So religion fills people's needs. So does heroin. So does tobacco. So does watching reality shows on TV. So what? Like I asked ... is there a point here somewhere?

4. "your strict adherance to an only science belief resembles a form of religion"

Your insistence on demonstrating your ignorance in public is a bit embarrasing. We have no "belief" in science. We find value in substantiating things before accepting them. Now the great and all powerful invisible purple rhinoceros insists you send 10% of your income to him as tribute.

Thank you God DA Morgan, but you are not the judge of such things, and not a very thoughtful judge at that. Though I am ignorant (it is called humility), I am not embarrassed. I am far more embarrassed by your lack of a broad education, and your willing to be combative on any and every subject.

From a philosophical point of view, many here use science the same way others use religion, and I am not talking about tithing. Your ability to dismiss any subject with a single comment reminds me more of fundamental Christians and Moslems.

Life is not black and white; it is many shades of grey. And science is interesting because there is still so much unknown. If you can?t deal with that I know a few religions you might be interested in that have all the answers. Otherwise get back to teaching and learning and drop the nasty part.

Sparky: "1. Scientists are a few, elite people who take the trouble to try to understand the very difficult. Hence you should not expect the masses to understand what you understand."

Besides the fact that scientists are not as few as you say, you are right. Many people do not understand what scientist do, or what they discovered. But this begs another question: why do they accept blindly religious tenets, and do not accept as blindly scientific tenets? It is basically the same "process": some "guru"(priest or scientist), tells them something is true.

Sparky: "2. Many people here are highly competive, tearing into any other people's ideas with the shout "defend yourself". Might work well in the scientific community, doesn't work well in the rest of the world."

Oh, come on Sparky, get real. Have you ever tried to apply for a loan at a bank? How about applying to get into college? Have you been to a job interview in the real world? In all cases you have to prove yourself, to defend your intentions in front of other people. So why treat science differently?

Sparky: "Hence: you turn off the masses with your people skills."

So does your internet provider, or your bank, or even your university administration if your questions become uncomfortable to them. And yet, you still subscribe for internet services, and still apply for a loan, and still pay inflated tuitions in college.

Sparky:"Calling others idiots will never market an idea."

Science is not, and has never been a bargaining matter, you know?

What is equally interesting is that the analogous religious situation (the "calling ione an idiot" situation) is slightly different. If a priest tells someone in his congregation that he has sinned, instead for that someone to flip the priest a birdie, in most cases he/she takes the path of repentence, at least formally. Which is very interesting, since the church(es) have an even worse set of bedside manners than science!

Sparky:"3. I would postulate that science alone does not fill the needs of most people. Here in the US, to a lesser extent in Europe, but also to a great extend in third world countries, religion fills a need in many people's lives."

You may be right, science may be not as fulfilling as science. But the question is why?And it is rather easy to make an argument pointing towards human egocentrism. Which would be a rather sad conclusion in the 21st (and a a half) century!

Sparky:"4. I would futher suggest that for some of you, your strict adherance to an only science belief resembles a form of religion, much as Communisum, though without a god, likewise used many of the forms of religion including hymns."

For those who choose to see it like this, it might indeed resemble a form of religion. But that would be a poor oppinion, since science can prove the claims it makes, mathematically in the very least, and observationally in most cases. Which is more than I can say, or that anyone can say about religion. And one major characteristic that differentiates science from religion and communism is its flexibility, dictated ultimately by observation. Any theory, no matter how compelling or how on fashion, will be dismissed once it does not agree with observation. Nothing like this happens in religion, nor has happened (spontaneously) in the communist regiomes.

However, religion gives something that science doesn't. Prosmises of a clean slate. In life, and after. Which seems to be much more agreeable to people than what science can offer.

Sparky:"Religion is a way of looking at life, a pholosiphy, a way of living. There are many religions in the world that do not believe in a supreme god."

It is indeed a philosophy of life, or at least, it was a philosophy of life, very long ago. Now it doesn't seem to be that anymore. Many tenets of religion have become anachronistic, and in certain cases, even antisecular. Very many use religion as a front, and in many cases, religion itself has become (not that it has not been) a more subtle front for a power structure (many know who the Pope is, but how many know that there is actually a Vatican Bank, which does business as cut-throat as any other bank today - nothing like love thy neighbor precept, and which has been involved in scandals like the BCI or the Banca Ambrosiano).

Sparky:"Some of you guys are way too stressed out. Now if you have already made your great contribution by age 30, go ahead and kick the bucket."

Well, some may choose not to follow your advice. But it would be nice if you would send this piece of advice to your congressman too.

Sparky:"Otherwise hang cool, teach and learn. It takes a long time for new ideas to be accepted and understood."

In other words, mind your own business, no matter what, and stop making the others who don't (want to) understand what you say uncomfortable for one reason or another. Well, that would be a possibility. But some may choose differently.

"Scientists are a few, elite people who take the trouble to try to understand the very difficult. Hence you should not expect the masses to understand what you understand."
They are a relatively small group. I don't think that everyone can understand everything, but I'm pretty sure that MOST people (who are not retarded) are capable of understanding MOST things. Moreover, for a democracy to work ... for an advanced technical society to work ... science MUST be imparted.

My feeling is that people tend to do what is easiest, taking the path of least resistance in most cases.


"2. Many people here are highly competive, tearing into any other people's ideas with the shout "defend yourself". Might work well in the scientific community, doesn't work well in the rest of the world. Hence: you turn off the masses with your people skills. Calling others idiots will never market an idea."

Well, you're kinda right here. "You're an idiot" is not an argument. Not surprisingly, talking about science is a lot easier than practicing it. I highly recommend a book to you - by Daniel Boorstin called "The Discoverers." Most people - including some practicing 'scientists' and many of science's vocal proponents have a sort of comic-book understanding of it. One thing a person can do to get a quick label of dunce is make a firm statement of something in an area where he clearly hasn't done his homework. Unfortunatley, it's not obvious that there are many people on gogo who could make such a determination.

"3. I would postulate that science alone does not fill the needs of most people. Here in the US, to a lesser extent in Europe, but also to a great extend in third world countries, religion fills a need in many people's lives."

I agree with you. This is a HUGE cry from saying that religion is true. I've always considered that the question "is religion necessary" is the wrong question posed by exremist atheists who are more interested in making their opinions sound scientific than in solving problems. Science alone is unfulfilling to most people. But it's not just the fault of scientists. Understanding science takes some effort and focus - a lot more than which most people are willing to submit themselves. I've realized that for a long time, but it's only been in the last few years that I've come to undrestand exactly how dire the consequences might be.


"4. I would futher suggest that for some of you, your strict adherance to an only science belief resembles a form of religion, much as Communisum, though without a god, likewise used many of the forms of religion including hymns. Religion is a way of looking at life, a pholosiphy, a way of living. There are many religions in the world that do not believe in a supreme god."

I ALMOST agree with this. For some people, science is like a religion. This is nothing new. Many people who followed science in history were convinced that they were "in the know" and rationally justified, but were dismally mistaken.
Science doesn't say anything about god. Science CAN'T say anything about any supernatural god. I personally consider the idea of god to be asinine - but that's a philosophical opinion, not a scientific one. I think one area where scientists have really failed is in conveying a serious appreciation of it to the masses. Again, I strongly encourage you to slowly and carefully read "The Discoverers." But this is a far cry from saying that science is on the wrong track or that science should consider explanations other than natural for phenomena.

If there are supernatural explanations for natural phenomena, science is incapable of addressing them.

Pasti: 3 technical papers published, many magazine articals published, frequent lecturer- I know what it is to be challenged. In one presentation, the accepted expert in the world told me I was wrong. I invited him to look at my data, and he came around to my point of view. But we did it in a friendly way, and with mutual respect.

To TheFallibleFiend. Thanks for your comments. I think humility and awe are two things that science and religion should have in common. This universe is much greater and more beautiful than anyone can imagine.

I was educated as a Metallurgical Engineer, but my school taught the subject as if it were solid state physics. Hence my interest in science. I have also done graduate work in Computer Science and Business Management. I have been Quality Control manager, Quality Assurance manager, and did a short stent filling in as Purchasing Manager. Then I went into business myself and have developed a thermal analysis instrument for the industry that keeps food on the table. That has made me a kind of expert in the field of thermal analysis for foundry alloys (grey iron, ductile iron, and aluminum alloys mostly).

Most of the people I know do have some knowledge of science, but they wouldn't think of wanting to become a scientist as a profession or as a hobby, or even sitting down and reading a scientific article. So with the title of this thread, what is the objective? To intrest more people in careers in science? To incourage more hobbiests? To incourage more readers? To incourage people to abandon religion and adopt one of many changing scientific views on the universe? I will settle for just interesting people in science and being open minded.

"Most of the people I know do have some knowledge of science, but they wouldn't think of wanting to become a scientist as a profession or as a hobby, or even sitting down and reading a scientific article. So with the title of this thread, what is the objective? To intrest more people in careers in science? To incourage more hobbiests? To incourage more readers? To incourage people to abandon religion and adopt one of many changing scientific views on the universe? I will settle for just interesting people in science and being open minded."

I didn't start the thread, so I don't know what the objective is. I have a tendency to digress and it could be I have hijacked the thread to beat the dead horse I'm riding.

But maybe not. The question was "have scientists failed humanity." It's a provocative statement, but I'll take it at face value. Science has done a great deal for humanity - and could do more. There are some areas that need work - and some that need a lot of work.

There are some areas where scientists are failing, but it's not clear that it's entirely their fault. But I'm not really interested in ascribing fault. For now I'm content to try to define the problem better.

If I agree that scientists in some sense have failed humanity, I mean this in a different sense than the OP. If I understand correctly, he is lamenting the fact that science hasn't been emotionally or spiritually fulfilling to people.

I think that's true, but I don't think it's a failure of scientists. It isn't the purpose of science to give people purpose in their lives. Science describes the physical world and provides us with clues to how we might make use of these descriptions to change our environment favorably.
It doesn't tell us how we ought to behave or what we should value. It can give us insights, but not answers. Wrong tool for the job. Jackhammers are great tools, but they're not useful for performing surgery. Neither is a scalpel of much use for knocking out concrete.

Science doesn't say "this is all there is." It says, "This is all I'm able to tell you." Some people feel that is not enough. First, some religious types feel threatened by science. They want to believe - and they want potential acolytes to believe - that their religious beliefs deserve to be held in the same position in society as scientifically derived beliefs. They want the prestige, but they don't want to play by the rules. Second, people often have a deep desire to invent answers in situations where there aren't any to be had. Some are like children who just can't take "I don't know" for an answer.

In any event, these fellows, just as the OP, feel that science is inherently unfulfilling because it doesn't give them the answers they're looking for.
But the sense in which I mean it is this:
Life is pretty easy for us moderns living in the first world. We have luxuries that most people in the world can't even imagine - and I'm not talking about television sets and walkmen. I'm talking about choices. We can actually DECIDE our careers - how we want to make money and get along in the world. And a lot of us -- to many of us -- are doing things that look like fun - and are a lot easier and often more profitable than a career in science. It's ironic that the scientific and technological penchant that produced this environment has, in so doing, created the means and the will among people to prefer study in other areas - which, if it continues, could be the start of an extended period of technological decline for us. (not decline in the sense that we are forgetting stuff, but in the sense that we are developing at a slower pace.) The economies of the first world countries depends on technological expertise.

To answer your last questions, yes.

1. I think the government and industry needs to step in an encourage young citizens to take up technical careers.

2. I also think that encouraging hobbyists is a good thing. Amateurs have made phenomenal contributions to science over the centuries.

3. Okay, in my heart of hearts, I kinda want people to abandon religion. But I don't think that's actually necessary - and maybe not even desirable. But we can't go around giving out the label of "science" to every idea just because a lot of people believe it. I'm all in favor of some kind of compromise, but it shouldn't involve changing the definition of science.

A MASSIVE part of the problem is that children are raised in such a way as to believe that they JUST HAVE TO KNOW certain things and BELIEVE certain things. The scientist is limited in this case. It's not very scientific to just make up any old explanation, so he resorts to "I don't know."
But these adults hearing that answer were brainwashed from very early ages that they have to have a purpose in life and they have to know it. They're emotionally incapabler of admitting they don't know some things for certain.

4. I think it's great to interest people in science. It's an admirable thing, it's doable, it's practical, it's economical - you don't have to have a committee figure it out, you just jump right in and do it. It's sufficient for you to do this, if that is your community service. But it's not sufficient for society or humanity. Human societies that have any hope of maintaining their current standards need to accept the responsibility to educate their citizens in the methods and results of science. To some extent this has happened. The school boards I know about have pretty high standards for science education in their districts. Looks good on paper anyway - and in fact is reasonably good in practice.

In reality, we have places like KS, though, where the most intellectually lazy people get to decide the science curriculum for everyone else. And we have declining interest in the sciences among the youth. (And as I said in the previous post, we're not the only ones suffering through this.)

Amen. I would add:

Amateurs and hobbyists teach their children to respect science, and some of their children become scientists.

I do also think that there are changes going on in Religion as well caused by the outbreak of science. There are the anti-science religions, the diluted down religions that tired of the conflict, and I predict there will be if not already, religions that embrace science and fuse the two together to one level or another with varing degrees of success.

I don't think there has to be a conflict between science and religion, but the way religion works, it seems like a dangerous combination. As long as religion gets the idea of "demarcation" and doesn't try to use science as a tool for proving religious doctrine, I think there's room for compromise.

Ok here's a perfect example of what I was talking about in the openning post of this thread, on the growing inarticulateness of the scientific community and their inability to express knowledge in terms understandable and meaningful to the general public:

Below is the first few paragraphs of the wikipedia entry for "Quantum Computer". This entry is the product of no less than 4 years of constant updating and editing by hundreds of supposed "experts" in the field (a non-expert would dare not try to make an entry or would very quickly be corrected and edited out by an expert). Now obviously people write these wikipedia articles with the lay masses in mind, since what expert would rely on a wikipedia page for their knowledge. Here it is

Wiki QComputer
Overall the first paragraph is not bad, but here already in the first sentence we are asked to go learn about the not-insignificant quantum properties of superposition and entaglement before we can understand anything about what sets a quantum computer apart from a conventional computer. Some unanswered questions a typical lay person might have after reading this first paragraph:

* What the hell is an "operation on data" (1st and
4th sentences)?
* When and how did "particles" (4th sentence) come
into this?
* What is meant by "structuring data" (4th
sentence) and how the hell do you
"represent data" (4th sentence) in a computer in
the first place, I thought computers just
"stored data"?

The first paragraph ends with an obviously self-conscious instruction to read another article about quantum computers in Scientific American which supposedly is "more accessible" than this one (but which is in fact just as poor), all but admitting its own failure before even getting started. The entry continues:

A link to a highly technical page which contrary to the stated objective provides NO SENSE to the lay person but serves instead to further alienate him.

Great. I guess this was supposed to make the lay person feel better and more trusting of the technology??

Oh great, they ran Shor's algorithm. What the F*ck is factorization and what the F*ck is an algorithm? But it was done at IBM so I guess that means that I should trust and believe it. Maybe I'll pray to IBM.

And THAT WAS JUST THE PREFACE. Here's the first paragraph of the first entry listed as chapter one in the contents of this wikipedia page:

I rest my case with that one!

I don't believe the politically correct nonsense that imputes equally abilities to all people; however, what I do believe is that in the spectrum of human knowledge, most people are able to understand most things.

I loathe teachers who make subjects more complicated than they need to be. The purpose of instruction is to assist in the process of education, not to be an impediment. OTOH, there are some areas of human inquiry that do require a rather large ante just to get into the game. While most people's opacity is due not to the subject material, but to their own intellectual sloth, some of them - and QC in particular - really does require a substantial intellectual investment.

I've read several articles on the subject and can't claim to know any more now than I did before I started. It doesn't seem appropriate, though, for me to blame the authors for my own ignorance. If I *really* wanted or needed to learn this stuff, I'd make time to sit down for extended pperiods till I had soaked it up. It's not their fault that I haven't set QC as a priority.

Most people, I think, or many people, at any rate, want education the way couch potatoes want a million dollars. This is to say, they want a million dollars if someone just hands it to them, but they aren't necessarily willing to hoist their carcasses, stroll down to the paper stand, and scour the want ads - or sit down with pencil and paper and work their the details of a specific plan. Life isn't only about what you want, though. It's mostly about what you're willing to struggle for.

I think scientists have failed in communicating some important aspects of science. But I don't think yours is a good example of that. Some subjects are just hard.

As for your questions, I'm not sure if you meant for them to be answered, but I'll give it a whack:


"operation on data"
This is a vague term. In traditional computing an "operation" is something like loading a value (data) from memory into the processor (or a register in the processor). Another operation would be adding the contents of another memory location to register and another still would be storing those contents in another memory location.

At a higher level, a single operation might consist of a long string of these machine code operations. Something like:
Let a = b + c
might be 3 (or even more) machine code instructions. QC operations might be substantially different. I recall one article I read was saying that it was still an open question whether, for example, QCs might solve NP-Complete problems in polynomial time (effectively instantaneously). It's not clear to me what "operation" means in that context. If I weren't busy at the moment, I'd make time to review some current literature on the subject.

"When and how did "particles" (4th sentence) come
into this?"

Current computers represent bits of data via the states of transistors. QCs go smaller than that - to particles. I have too vague an understanding to explain any details on this.

My job requires me to go into areas where I essentially know nothing and - within a few months or years - to gain a sufficient understanding of the subject to explain it in simple terms to people who - in general - are a lot smarter and knowledgeable than I am. It's always a frustrating thing, because most of what is written presumes I know a lot more than I actually do. All I can say is that if you really want to understand something, you have to be willing to make the investment. I just sit down and start reading papers, doing net searches, writing equations, organizing thoughts. I sit down and resolve that I'm going to not get up till I understand this little sub-part. I don't learn much with each sitting, but you do this several hundred times over the course of a few months and pretty soon you almost know something important.

It would be nice if PhDs could write well. In their defense, they're usually writing to other PhDs and they tend to write (and speak) in a sort of jargonated shorthand. That just makes the value of people who can jump in, figure it out, and translate it into terms that other technical people can understand more tangible.


"What is meant by "structuring data" (4th
sentence) and how the hell do you
"represent data" (4th sentence) in a computer in
the first place, I thought computers just
"stored data"?"

Computers do more than store data. Structure means organize. You realize that data in digital computers is represented by 0s and 1s. But it's a little more complicated than that. Let's say we have a 4 bit (nibble) Imaginary Computer. There is an LED display on this computer that allows you to see the binary numeric contents of any memory location in our computer. We look and it says, "1111" and we ask "What does it mean?" Well, it means nothing - or rather, it could mean almost anything - it could be an opcode telling the processor to stop. It could be a 4 bit two-s complement integer, or it could be an unsigned integer, or it could signify an address. How can one know? How does the computer know? The only way to tell is by context. Even though I don't recall any specifics on this in regards to QCs, I get the gist of what they're saying.

The problem is not that they haven't explained well, but that they (the authors) have assumed a certain level of understanding for their readers. I don't know whether it is justified, but it seems that they have to start somewhere - do they assume that the reader doesn't know English and begin each article with a development of grammar?

I don't know that the assumptions they make are the best ones, but it seems to me that they are not unreasonable.

page 4 seems to have vanished.

well, now, and here it back again.

the example of quantum computing is perfect!!!

It is a pure hoax, and they write about it as it were reality.
Talking about religion being not reliable!

e s

Well, I believe Planko's example is perfect for illustrating the "consumer" approach to science The Fiend was talking about a few posts earlier (the couch-potato approach to understanding scince).

I do not believe that it is reasonable to expect that science "should happen" onto you with no effort, nor do I think that by reading some internet blog (no matter that it's called Wikipedia or else) should one instantly become an expert in a field or have a complete understanding of an issue.

In Planko's example, Wikipedia offers a starting point for understanding what a quantum computer is in an elementary form, and I think it offers enough information for the interested person to continue the learning process. Those who want to understand more, will keep reading; those who don't want to understand more, will claim that it was not well explained to them and they could not understand the concepts.

Most people expect to be spoon-fed information at no matter what level of (lack of) knowledge they are without any effort from their part. As I said before, this is an unreasonable expectation. But somehow, "someone" failed to teach them that you need to invest effort, and sometimes large amounts of it before you can say you have some understanding of an issue. And it is not the scientists who failed to teach them this aspect.

And furthermore, there is a wide-spread belief that any issue in science can be brought down to any level, including highschool and below. Which in fact is not true. And worse, by insisting that it is true, kids are taught things that are incorrect. And even worse, those who teach the kids such incorrect things don't know themselves that what they teachis incorrect, nor do they want to know.

But it is always easy to throw the blame on the scientists for the general lack of knowledge. God forbid to tell someone that instead of watching wrestling, or Oprah, they'd better open a book and heresy!, read it.

For those having kids, have you noticed that at the PT meetings the issue is more often how to make the learning process "more interesting for the kids" and not how to make the kids (and the corresponding parents) more concerned about learning? And that if it is not the parents proposing such a politically correct approach, they are the first to buy it?

I think these are root causes why science does and did not have too much "success" with the large public.

Absolute nonsense. The writers have done an excellent job here. Terms like superposition, quantum mechanics, etc. etc. are all explained. All you have to do is click on the link and you go to the page where that is explained. This is really a very good way of explaining complicated things from basic principles.

Not all wiki articles are well written, but this one apperantly is, see discussion page:

And I have to say that I agree 100% with that. Also note that people who are editing are mostly students and interested lay people.
People who professionally work in science are usually too busy to spend much time on these things.

You either have further questions or you don't have them. If you don't understand what superposition is then go to the relevant page. It is explained in a way that even a five year old can understand it. As for your other comments, these things do not stand in the way of getting a basic picture of what a quantum computer is. So you either ignore them or you click on ''computer'', ''computation'', ''integer factorization'' or whatever.

Kids can be taught a lot more than they are now, but you have to avoid dumbing thing down. What is wrong in today's educational system is that children aren't taught mathematics at all.


You ask a 17 year old student why -1 times -1 equals 1 and you won't get the correct answer. Is it then too complicated to teach this to students? Obviously not. Many 17 year olds write complicated computer programs which involves a lot more logical reasoning than the proofs of most maths theorems that students learn at university.


Prof. 't Hooft has started an initiative to teach children the basics of modern physics. Instead of dumbing down the physics you dumb down the mathematics a bit (instead of avoiding it altogether). A lot can be achieved this way.


If you compare science education with language education then you can see the point of this. Foreign language teachers don't wait with teaching literature until students have mastered grammar, spelling etc. perfectly.


't Hooft's concern is that student in high school waste a lot of time solving irrelevant artificial problems instead of learning the real stuff. This gives students the wrong impression of what physics is all about. Today, when students go to university they start at the beginning anyway, because as far as the Profs are concerned, they know nothing.

Count Ibis wrote:
"Kids can be taught a lot more than they are now, but you have to avoid dumbing thing down. What is wrong in today's educational system is that children aren't taught mathematics at all."

Exactly.

Children should be learning Boolean logic, algebra, and second languages in grades 1-6. Our education system holds mind-expaning concepts back often until it is too late for the student to actually "get" them.

The governments, federal, state, local, want masses of uneducated citizens. If everyone were shown how to amass and apply critical thinking skills, and to acquire knowledge (that would lead them to seek a higher education in order to further their chances for a better job and better income) then you would not have a mass of maladroit idiots who will not take the menial jobs. The U.S. has a service economy driven by consumer debt. The government wants a small percentage of unemployment. Not everyone should be "educated" or have a job. My understanding of the inception of modern American schooling was a means of keeping children out of the workforce and from taking jobs away from adults, at much less pay. While I agree that children are not challenged by material (although some Russians I know took calculus in the sixth grade, but that's Russia) there should be more emphasis, at an early age, for a broader and also deeper education.
However,I disagree DA, the world Does need many "idiots". (insert your caustic comment here )

p.s. what are your favorite single malts?
Sincerely,

Here is one page refutation of Quantum Computing:

http://groups.google.com/group/freeviews...3f09c5c89b6d70b

For those who know something about science


ES

That's a refutation of quantum computing in a Universe which operates according to ''ES'' laws.

Mung: I haven't met an old Abelour, Ardbeg, Glendronach I didn't like. Though I do have a 1975 Glenfiddich waiting for the right occassion.

Which are the laws of Nature.

The nitwits that came up with quantum computing sham, did not know that the measurement takes time. Whuch is the cornerstone of quantum theory.

ES

extrasense:

Which parts of your post are intended as serious commentary and which as sarcasm? Is the sentence beginning with "Which" intended to be a question?

I have made my point, at the freescience forum.
QuantumComputing is a sham

But is is funny too

e :p s

Sham or what ever, the idea of storing permanent data in as small a box as a quantum trap is silly. Any energy disruption will flip bits if powerful enough. In space we use multiple computers because cosmic rays are constantly getting though the lead shields and corrupting memory. Imagine what a single cosmic ray could do to a tightly packed "box" of quantum traps. A quantium computer would be highly unreliable and would require multiple redundencies. So forget about one the mass of the earth, pull in Jupiter instead.

extrasense:

You have no point. You haven't the education or intelligence required to critique the subject. Commenting on that which you don't understand reminds me of more than a few choice quotations. Here's the one that applies best:

Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how it's done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves
~ Brendan Behan

Except in your case you've never seen it done, you have no clue how they do it, but you are also unable to do it yourself.

Your knowledge of QM wouldn't have passed muster in 1905 much less 2005.

Heh, why not you would go to your favorite professor of physics or two, and you together point out what is incorrect with my refutation

I am MS in the theoretical physics... Let's see where it places you, the criticist from your quotation

ES

HI GUYS
ONE PLACE WHERE IT HELPS TO BE AN INDIAN IS IN AVOIDING THE TRAPPINGS OF RELIGION WHEN IT COMES TO SCIENCE. I FIND CHRISTIANITY ONE BIG NASTY THING - TO POKE ITS *** INTO SCIENCE.

Dear Patriot,
there are many religions (phylosophies) that value science. And there are many different kinds of Indians including American Indians who worship the great spirit. Welcome to our website, and please use lower case. Upper case is used for shouting, and I don't think you meant to shout.

yes.mr.patriot.pls.shut.up.

Sparky,
I can handle it. Take it easy.

"Amaranth"

Indian:

1. Don't shout. We really don't care.

2. Given that your ancestors, up until a little over a hundred years ago (had yet to enter the iron age) I'd not be so quick to proclaim any level of superiority.

I haven't read all the discussion in this thread.
But I will try to answer the question:
Have Scientists Failed Humanity?
REP:In all probablity if you are not dead then you must thank Science and Scientists.Sincerely.
With so many Ceasarians I think Science has already taken the role of giving Birth to Humans.Test tube babies owe their existence to Science.The system is not only taking care of humans but also producing them!!Who knows tomorrow Sceince may actually help us to create the kind of child we want to have...It will be like configuring your own toyota.
I know there are destructive aspects as well.. but it will hard to imagine that Science will try to hijack humanity...thats stupid and irrational.

You bet it is trying. The thing is that science is going deranged. Diod array and quantum computing are just tip of the iceberg.

e s

"I know there are destructive aspects as well.. but it will hard to imagine that Science will try to hijack humanity...thats stupid and irrational."
-DKV

Surely you can not be serious. Science is a human construct for understanding and manipulating our universe, as such the application of science, by madmen (irrational; possibly stupid but probably not) is a reality. A scientist can even have good intentions and fall into corruption for monetary success (for example), or have his or her ideas adopted by a malevolent person (or group of people) in order to cause harm. Technology has and will be used for purposes of terrorism, torture, oppresion and warfare etc...
Of course I am responding to your term of "hijack" as to mean altering the course of science to perform harm to our world.
Humanity needs science; it is its lifeline, but it will not (and has not) always be(en) used to benefit the whole of society.
This also assumes that science has a moral goal to benefit society. There is a clear distinction between understanding science in order to further the success of humanity and using science in order to understand reality. You can adopt the position that science only has to explain that which is real (our physical universe and the interaction of matter) and has no moral responsibility. Fine. You make a hypothesis, you make observations, you analyze your data, you make conclusions based upon facts.
DKV, science alone does just that- sorts out the facts. What scientists, politicians, the militarys or terrorists do with science is another realm.
Should there be morality in science, I think so yes. But who is to say what morality is to be formatted after? These questions are not so clearly understood.

When you dabble into sociology or psychology it gets murky...observations in those two arenas are more recalcitrant to "nail down".
Further, is sociology or psychology science at all? Why are they referred to as "soft science"? Do they not have methods of theory, discovery and analysis? What exactly is a "hard science"? Does that imply that it is more comprehendible or concrete? I do not know.
Sincerely,

Some have, but many scientists have not. Galileo Galilei, famous for his scientific achievements in astronomy, mathematics, and physics and infamous for his controversy with the church was, in fact, a devout Catholic who saw not a divorce of religion and science but only a healthy marriage: "God is known by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word."

~Galileo Galilei

So the reason Galileo didn't fail humanity is because he remained a devout catholic?

IMO, yes. Many of the great scientists, such as Amp?re, Bacon, Boltzmann, Copernicus, Fermi, Lavoisier, Mendel, Pascal, Pasteur, Pauli, Poincar?, Schr?dinger and Volta realised early on, just like Galilei did, that the Father of religion is the Father of science.

The Father's great experiment is Universal (Catholic) Humanity.

The Father's great experiment is Universal (Catholic) Humanity.
That sounds like an unjustified religious statement in a science forum.

Those people were religious because they were raised in it. They were drowning it every second of their lives.

There are numerous legitimate ways in which Galileo did well by humanity - not one of them includes his faith, which was essentially a no-op.

You put on an artificial criteria of success. He was plenty successful by real criteria without adding on the lame and irrelevant stuff.

Galileo humanized science. He wrote in the Italian vernacular. He worked tirelessly. He did his homework. He *UNDERSTOOD* what he was trying to refute. His religion saved his life - had he not been catholic he would likely have been put to death by the close-minded, religionist thugs.

dkv, understand this:

Science has been spectactularly successful experiment in itself for humanity. Religion, for all its pomp and blather, has been, continues to be, and for all we see into the future, WILL continue to be among the most abysmal of failures.

It is only natural that religionists would be jealous of science - cast aspersions, change the subject, claim the laurels - anything but straighten up its own act.

Get a clue. No society have been able to survive without religion yet!

e :rolleyes: s

[Quote]Originally posted by extrasense:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend:
[qb] Religion, for all its pomp and blather, has been, ...among the most abysmal of failures.[QUOTE]Originally posted by extrasense:
Get a clue. No society have been able to survive without religion yet!


Come on, give humanity a chance. We are historicaly barely out of the religious Dark Ages.
Prehaps you have failed to notice that most all Countrys that had been previously governed/ruled by religion, have been forced to step down from being the rulers, in favour of adopting a non religious democratic elected Parliementary system of rule.

Mohammadism, has yet to evolve and adopt this new non combative favourable ruling system. However, being the newest religion, I imagine they will need many, many, more years before coming to their senses.

It fascinating to note that up until only a hundreds or so years ago the fastest way for a human to travel on this planet was on the back of a horse.

Electricity wasn't discovered that long ago.

Penicillin barely before I was born and before that there were no antibiotics.

These "children" have no perspective. They live in a world where there has always been radio, TV, microwave ovens, refrigeration, computers, calculators, local anesthesia, manned flight, etc. and they can't even conceive of how thin the line between where we are and the caves in which we lived no that long ago.

ES: Why limit the issue to "scientists"?

I am an old fellow and I have heard complaints and recited failings about all styles of living creatures in all services and intelectual endevors.

Lawyers are usually #1. Doctors place a close second. Many forms of academics have no reasonable bsais for existence as parasites on the rest of us. To avoid getting too deeply into the issue I will some what follow up on the idea that your ideas may have met with some reluctant views by "scientists".

There is a great example of science that you are using to argue against the value of science- your computer. A fantastic tool, a living proof of the benfits of science. It is not prejudiced against anything. There are no prohibited words or ideas and you can take advantage of the great mathematical gifts this friend has to offer and prove to the world that you have something good to share. Just the facts guy. Show your stuff.

Jim Wood

"Why not just stop all research because it's "God's will"?" -Amaranth Rose

I am confused on the goal of a "theory of everything" Because if everything can be explained through a mathematical formula then is there "free will"? What is the point of researching anything if it is fruitless because of scientific predeterminism?

Does a "theory of everything" support the idea of predeterminism? Such to mean as everything we do or do not do matters not because it is mathematically predestined?

Sincerely,

Until and unless philosophy has been created and accepted and a society formed based on it - a philosophy which is able to substitute for religion - the humanity without religion has no chance.

e s

IMO, no. According to Sir Isaac Newton, "The Universal Ruler" (from Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Book III: The System of the World), and Encyclopaedia Britannica (Catholic from Greek katholikos, "universal"), Sir Isaac Newton's "The Universal Ruler" is "The Catholic Ruler" in etymology.

Please correct me if I am wrong dkv, but was not Sir Isaac Newton a great scientist?

http://www.britannica.com

I wonder what Newton would say if he were alive today and in possession of what we know today? The man is not alive to defend himself. He was doing the best he could with what he had to work with in the time he lived. Remember that he had to get along with the orthodox bureaucracy of his time. How much of what he wrote then would he write today in a more liberal, religiously free era? He may have believed in what he wrote, but would he believe it today?

Somehow I think not. Science builds on the foundations of men like Newton, but it does not pay homage to the effigy; it moves onward and forward in thinking and practice. Newton would be amazed at the progress we have made, much based on his foundation. To quote his religious beliefs is to dishonor the scientist he was, IMHO. He can't defend himself today. He was a great scientist IN HIS TIME but this is today and we know things he did not. Quit using him as a cudgel and get your perspective rearranged; he is a foundation of modern science, not a theologian. You're as bad as the Inquisition trying to enforce Ptolemy's view of the universe when you do that.

Jim,

you apparently concede that science have gone pseudo.

Why not do something about it?
The good science will not badmouth religion too.

ES

Hey Isa, would ya?

"Yea"

Es:

I try to keep some harmony in my ways so instead of saying "rant after all professionals because you are not focused anyway" I offer you what I see as a way for you to see where I think you are. I can not get uptight about your various posts because I do not understand them. Are you making a case for religion or are you making a case for scientists lacking communication skills. A not close friend of mine once offered that he "had never seen a picture of Einstein with his hair combed", every now and then I still wonder if that was a phylosophical comment that i failed to grasp a meaning of or simply a casual statement of fact. I conclude non-sense.

I am making a case for religion as the only way humanity have found yet to ennoble human spirit and condition.
And at the same time I am making the case that "scientists" that badmouth religion are halfwits, in science itself in the first place.
They use the topic to get the importance that they do not deserve for their nonexistent scientific achievements.

E S

ESless:"I am making a case for religion as the only way humanity have found yet to ennoble human spirit and condition."

Enoble human spirit and condition? Bwa ha ha ha ha! Show me one major religion (excepting buddhism maybe) where the adherents didn't have to sacrifice something by killing (symbolism included) to indulge the omnipotent object of their beliefs.

Heck of a way to enoble one's spirit and condition. Good one, ESless!

ESless:"And at the same time I am making the case that "scientists" that badmouth religion are halfwits, in science itself in the first place."

Well, I know of someone, who shall remain unnamed , who is badmouthing science, and who is also a halfwit "in science itself in the first place". And in this case I can see how religion would be the only thing that could eventually make you feel good about yourself(i.e. enoble your spirit).

But more important, are you by any chance arguing that only those scientists that are anti-religion are "corrupt"?

ESless:"They use the topic to get the importance that they do not deserve for their nonexistent scientific achievements."

ESless, when was the last time you prayed for a Blackberry and your prayer became through?

And BTW, don't you realize how well what you said applies to you? you are the perfect illustration of what you said. Really a noble spirit!

Probably Newton really believed what he said. He was surrounded by religious influences. Would he believe it today? Probably not.

The closest thing we had to a Newton was Richard Feynman. He was an atheist. OTOH, while Newton was a brilliant person, I think his accomplishments have been exaggerated and that he was, frankly, not a very nice guy. If he's an xian, then the xians aren't near so xian as they profess.

Clearly, you think the science you know do not care about such nonsence.
Ability to sacrifice is nothing to such science, but it is necessary for the humanity you claim to care about. Who will teach us to sacrifice for the sake of greater good, if the religion is gone?

Not "only", yet those who are "anti-religion" are corrupt. One thing to be an atheist, but they are anti-theists. It is a bigotry of the worst kind, and anti-constitutional too.

e s

Even though his reputation rests on his scientific work, science occupied Isaac Newton?s interest for a relatively short period of his life. Even while he was finishing his monumental Principia at age 28, he had grown tired of science and became engrossed in interpreting the book of Daniel which had fascinated him since his youth. Over the remainder of his life he would write over 1,300,000 words on religious subjects with prophecy his principal focus.

His consuming interest in prophecy stemmed from three fundamental beliefs:

1. The book of Daniel was a pre-written history of the world and to interpret it would unlock a treasure of understanding.
2. The book had been sealed (Daniel 12:4) and Newton believed the appointed time had arrived to break the seal.
3. God had chosen him to interpret it. This remarkable fact surfaced from recently discovered manuscripts of his.

He was haunted all his life by this calling.

http://www.historicist.com/newton/title.htm

He was secretary of the Royal Society for 25 years and had an influence on the developing new science that is difficult to imagine today.

To the extent that he produced good science, he was successful and produced benefit to all humanity. To the extent that he 'investigated' Daniel - well, it's not benefitted anyone.

ES:"Clearly, you think the science you know does not care about such nonsense."

I have no idea where you learned "to do science", so to speak, but you seem to have missed the entire point of doing it, and of learning it.

I don't know if you have ever noticed, but not all scientists are Leo Szilard or Ernst Mach. Science at the personal level is supposed, at least according to the old school to enoble your spirit, and to develop your conscience. If this doesn't happen, then there is nothing religion could do more. But have you done science as you claim, you would have known this thing.

ES:"Ability to sacrifice is nothing to such science, but it is necessary for the humanity you claim to care about. Who will teach us to sacrifice for the sake of greater good, if the religion is gone?"

You need religion to teach you human values? I don't belive that. This is not a popularity issue, it is a personal quest, and each person should be able to develop his own personal values.

Learning them in a flock organized manner has the effect of very few understanding these values, and very many following rules they do not understand, and have no ideea how to apply them. There is no substitute for individual thinking, and religion is not yet ready to accept this kind of truth.

But I am happy that you agree with someone teaching you such values. You have just endorsed the crusades,the inquisition, as well as the modern jihad. Had you used your own thinking, I believe you would have thought twice before making such an argument for the obvious reason

ES:"Not "only", yet those who are "anti-religion" are corrupt."

All of those that are anti-religion are corrupt, that is what you want to say? Hm, this sounds very much like bigotry from your part. To me at least. Maybe you should look for a tutor in religious matters, because it seems that the spirit enoblement part has eluded you.

ES:"One thing to be an atheist, but they are anti-theists. It is a bigotry of the worst kind, and anti-constitutional too."

Well, you seem to also need to brush up on your constitutional skills too. Just in case you didn't know, atheists, anti-theists, believers and anti-science zealots have the same rights under the Constitution. They also should respect each others beliefs, and this is the part religion has a very hard time understanding. Oh, and also the freedoom of speach issue.

In your oppinion, as stated above, you just want atheists and anti-theists to mind their own business, while the various religions do what they always did. Namely medling into things where they have no right to do so ("teaching" others the "right things to", right?). I.e. not respecting the other oppinions and beliefs (or lack of, for that matter), because they already know all the "right" answer. This is what you claim above.As I was saying, the sprit enoblement part has eluded many such religious people. Not to mention the meaning of the term bigot. So very sad.

extraNONsense wrote:
"Who will teach us to sacrifice for the sake of greater good, if the religion is gone?"

Are you so morally bankrupt that it takes threats of burning in hell and eternal damnation to get you to be decent to others?

Are you so lacking in conscience and civility that if god and the devil don't exist you are going to commit murder, rape goats, and steal children's lunch money?

I worked as a life guard for many years while in high school and college. Do you think I threw myself into the water to rescue people because "someone" was watching? Disgusting.

To be fair, DA, these guys are brainwashed since before they could even think that society would break down without belief in a god, that god is the only thing that makes morality worthwhile, etc.

Of course it's asinine, but when you get that message continually when you're growing up, it's easy to believe something ridiculous.

Fiend wrote:
"but when you get that message continually when you're growing up, it's easy to believe something ridiculous."

Well said. There is a phrase in the English language used to describe someone believing something ridiculous because it was pounded into their head. That phrase is "Brain Washed:" And they are.

Well, TheFF and Dan, while what you say is true for those raised in a religious environment, your comments beg the following question: what about those who suddenly become fervent believers?

And the extension of this question, which is an issue that has puzzled me for some time now: if indeed believers are so closed minded and "focused" on their particular set of values(determined by the denomination they belong to), how do you explain for example modern phenomena as the appearance of mormonism (roughly 200 years old) or more recently, the appearance of scientology? In both cases, believers from other denominations have "transfered their credits" to the new religion.

Sure, and his own personal science
And his own personal literature?


Anti-theists are not scientists.
Scientists are not anti-theists.

ES

"Anti-theists are not scientists.
Scientists are not anti-theists."

Nonsense. Some anti-theists are scientists as some theists are scientists.

ESless:"Sure, and his own personal science.And his own personal literature?"

You mean like you do?Including the scifi literature you have developed so far on various issues?

As I said, religion is not a prostethics for lack of use of the brain. In case you want to use it as a prostethics, you end up with the known effect called bigotry.

ESless:"Anti-theists are not scientists.Scientists are not anti-theists."

Oh boy! If you only had a usable brain...

Is not it interesting that normally 99.9% of everything we know and use, was developed before us.
But some geniuses claim that everyone can and even must develop own world view...

They do not tell the young listeners that that world view will be 99.9% crappy. Or 100%, in most cases.

e s

I never heard of any real scientist badmouthing religion. Only halfwits do, those admirers of village idiot Karl Marx.

e s

extraNONsense:

Please see a psychiatrist and discuss the value of antidepressant therapy.

There is nothing in what you wrote:
"normally 99.9% of everything we know and use, was developed before us"
is pure nonsense unless you are a 5 year old.

Heh, to make a human being, one has to borrow at least 98% of genes from monkey. So, be more hamble in assessing what you have personally contributed in the effort of 10 billion of us.

e s

I'm not sure what your qualifications are for judging what constitutes a good scientist.

Are you sure you have qualifications to question my qualifications?

e s

ESless:"Is not it interesting that normally 99.9% of everything we know and use, was developed before us."

So? You still need to develop your view about it.unless you realy like someone to think in your place. Or TV.

ESless:"But some geniuses claim that everyone can and even must develop own world view..."

God forbid the use of the brain! Might lead to cerebral cramps! Your ideal human being has a small head, with a thick bone and the brain freely moving inside.Oh boy.

ESless:"They do not tell the young listeners that that world view will be 99.9% crappy. Or 100%, in most cases."

And your alternative is what? Because in your stupidity you have just stated the communist creed that religion is opium of the masses.Boy,you work very hard to show how dumb you are! Well, you succeeded briliantly.

Since this is your believe, you are looking for it. But I despise village idiot, Marx, and surely did not express anything you are hallucinating about.

e s

I don't know that I need qualifications to question your assessements. I would need qualification, perhaps, to evaluate your assessment - but I don't think I need qualifications to ask.

Your criterion that a good scientist must believe in god seems utterly orthogonal to the facts. You're telling me that Dirac, Crick, Marie Curie, and Feynman were not good scientists? One might just as defensibly say that no good scientist dislikes peanut butter.

I never said that. I think that good scientist is likely to have good common sense to support the institution of religion. And he is the most unlikely person to be rabid anti-religionist in any case.

ES

I don't see what good supporting religion would do for any "good" scientist. Upon what do you base this statement? What is religion going to do to benefit the scientist? What if "bad" scientists support religion? Bad scientists being those who misuse or misapply the scientific method. Does a religion have to have the support of scientists in order to be a "good" religion?

extraNONsense wrote:
"to make a human being, one has to borrow at least 98% of genes from monkey"

Nothing was borrowed and your comment is irrelevant. Genes have nothing to do with the subject.

And then continued with:

"So, be more hamble in assessing what you have personally contributed in the effort of 10 billion of us."

Well I must confess to not being hAmble. But what precisely does my, or anyone's humility, have to do with your comment:

"Is not it interesting that normally 99.9% of everything we know and use, was developed before us."

Once again ... unless you are only 5 years old, something seemingly likely given your use of English grammar, 99.9% of everything you know and use was NOT developed before us whoever "us" is.

"I never said that. I think that good scientist is likely to have good common sense to support the institution of religion. And he is the most unlikely person to be rabid anti-religionist in any case."
Regardless of what you maintain, your requirement seems orthogonal to the facts...orthogonal meaning "irrelevant." Some antitheists are stupid. Some are brilliant. You provide no evidence of predominance one way or the other.

Your artificial criterion could be much more succinctly stated as, "I dislike anyone who doesn't believe in God." and "If someone doesn't believe in god then I am justified in making any claim I wish against this person."

As William James asserted, "Most people think they are thinking when they are are really just rearranging their prejudices." Logic is a non-trivial exercise for the vast majority of people - and that includes people who have "studied" logic, such as trivial philosophers, as well as, many who have just used logic, such as programmers.

Saying someone is illogical does not mean they are stupid. Often, they're just in over their understanding.

Well, you can put it this way. It is true about anti-theists.

e s

I am very embarrassed to discuss such a topic.
Science is getting rebuked by its Preachers.
The sacred objectivity of science is getting dragged into politics for nothing.
Science and Scientists hardly ever cared money.
To many it is as religious as Religion.
Some accusations sound similar to me...
Has religion and its followers failed Humanity ?
looks identical to
Has sceince and its followers failed Humanity ?
Respect Science as you respect Religon(as you probably fall on the Religion side... and are emotional about GOd.)
The only error Science ever made was made without any intention of making it happen.
It corrected itself whereever it was wrong like humble Genius.
Even today it correcting its own understanding...
Thats the beauty of it.
(Religion has its own beauty.)


Such genralized remarks are dangerous as many will interpret it as a failure of Science.
Which is just not ture as we have progressed and today we owe everything around us to its maginificient existence.

ESless:"Since this is your believe, you are looking for it."

What exactly am I looking for?Do you actually read what you reply to? And for that matter do you understand what you read? because it seems to me that you are just spewing oxymoronic archetypes.So read again what I wrote and what you replied. Who knows, maybe you will understand, though it is quite unlikely.

ESless:"But I despise village idiot, Marx, and surely did not express anything you are hallucinating about."

Boy, you really are dumb. I can only conclude that you simply do not understand slightly complicated arguments above the level "God is good and the devil is bad". I am really sorry for you, although I hope for your sake that whatever it is that you have is treatable.

ESless:"I never said that. I think that good scientist is likely to have good common sense to support the institution of religion. And he is the most unlikely person to be rabid anti-religionist in any case."

The same common sense would also dictate that a pious man/religious person should support and respect science, which unfortunately it is not the case in too many instances. Including you.

You somehow want scientists to be good natured, support and respect the religious institution and stand by idle when bigots like you denigrate science in the name of one greater good or another. And somehow this makes them good scientists in your pitiful view. You don't need very high IQ to understand that under these circumstances this will not happen.

You are begging for respect and understanding from the part of scientists just to be able to insult them in return. What religion do you belong to, that taught you to be such a moron? Oh, sorry, I forgot. You are probably just expressing views from the already existing 99.99% pool of what is already known, without actually filtering it out. Good job.

There's no evidence of that - just a claim.

Falliable:

There is a lot of evidence. A staggering amount. And you have spewed it all over SAGG for quite some time.

Certainly enough to convince a jury of your peers.

I said: Saying someone is illogical does not mean they are stupid. Often, they're just in over their understanding.

ES responded: Well, you can put it this way. It is true about anti-theists.

You responded: There is a lot of evidence. A staggering amount. And you have spewed it all over SAGG for quite some time. Certainly enough to convince a jury of your peers.

I have no idea what you are referring to. What have I spewed?

"Well, TheFF and Dan, while what you say is true for those raised in a religious environment, your comments beg the following question: what about those who suddenly become fervent believers?"

It is nearly impossible for a person in a western society not to be continually bombarded with religious influences. Relatively few people are raised as actual atheists - and many of them may actually understand the philosophy behind the opinion. This can make even skeptical people susceptible to religious indoctrination.

***how do you explain for example modern phenomena as the appearance of mormonism (roughly 200 years old) or more recently, the appearance of scientology?***

Some people like being told what to do and how to think. They want a guru. It's not enough to figure out, they want someone else to tell them the right way to think - perhaps they are trying to avoid taking responsibility for their decision. A common xian belief is that the consequences of coming to the wrong conclusion are dire. Much better to let someone else take credit (or blame) for leading one about by the nose.

FF:"It is nearly impossible for a person in a western society not to be continually bombarded with religious influences. Relatively few people are raised as actual atheists - and many of them may actually understand the philosophy behind the opinion. This can make even skeptical people susceptible to religious indoctrination."

I agree that even skeptical people may be susceptible to religious indoctrination. What puzzles me is not the general statistical case, but the extreme case. People switching from hard skeptics to fervent believers. And while this can be seen as the "tail of the distribution" from the statistical viewpoint, the issue is why is religion the preferred choice of this antipodal change? I am aware that this may be better approached from the psychological viewpoint, but to me it is a puzzling fact.

FF:"Some people like being told what to do and how to think. They want a guru. It's not enough to figure out, they want someone else to tell them the right way to think - perhaps they are trying to avoid taking responsibility for their decision."

I am aware of this issue. Your argument would explain why they followed the "leader of the pack". But think about mormonism. Almost all who followed Joseph Smith had previously belonged to other well established religious denominations. What is strange is that they accepted a new doctrine in an epoch when appartenance to a denomination/church was almost sacrosanct, and openmindedness towards other churches was almost inexistent.

FF:"A common xian belief is that the consequences of coming to the wrong conclusion are dire."

Gee, you mean someone should be responsible for their actions? Perish the thought in the western society. There is common sense and then there is the letter of the law, which often enough may be disjoint concepts

FF:"Much better to let someone else take credit (or blame) for leading one about by the nose."

Hmm, this seems like an argument made in hindsight. I don't agree with it because it would make the flock smarter that its leader, and also capable of planning in advance. And I don't find evidence for such arguments for neither mormonism, nor scientology, as far as their beginning is concerned. As far as I am aware, it has been rather the other way around, the flock has been ruled by a (smarter/more cunning) leader.

"People switching from hard skeptics to fervent believers."

It's not clear to me that this should be unexpected. Skeptics can be just as ignorant of their philosophical underpinnings as believers. I was raised a Baptist. I made a quick conversion early on to atheism - I call it a brush with infantile atheism. I was an atheist for the wrong reasons. Later, I realized that I was mistaken. I declared myself an atheist, but I wasn't REALLY an atheist. I still believed the first time around. Gradually I realized that I was something of a deist. Eventually I grew to agnosticism and now I consider myself an agnostic of the atheist persuasion.

"Almost all who followed Joseph Smith had previously belonged to other well established religious denominations."
Even ardent believers can be swayed when they see something that is a supposed miracle. Besides mormons consider themselves christians - they're kinduva new sect of an ancient religion.

Overaching issue though is that in that time period (1800s) there was a lot of mystical stuff floating about. I'm not that this was a period when being tied to a single church was sacrosanct. This was a period when people believed in fairies (literally), mediums, ghosts. It was a time when people who wanted to believe felt their beliefs under attack from science. They desperately WANTED to see miracles - or at least hear of them. Legends of tablets with strange and beautiful writing on them fit that bill.

"you mean someone should be responsible for their actions?"

Most incarnations of Xianity involve a god that doesn't just punish actions. It punishes beliefs. You can do the right thing your entire life and still got to hell. In fact this is an essential part of most xian beliefs.

Leader vs follower. I'm not sure that following a cult makes a person more intelligent than the cult-leader. While many religious people no doubt believe many stupid things, it's a big mistake to assume that they are necessarily stupid peole. The individual psychology is perhaps similar - though not identical - to the psychology of the powerful CEO who is into masochism.

Two of the smartest guys I've ever known joined up with two different cults: 1 was absorbed into the JWs and the other into the church of christ of boston.

Perhaps this can be explained by the Anthropic Principle

Civilizations consisting of creatures which are very rational will evolve fast toward some form of machine civilization. This means that the total number of biological observers that will ever live in such a civilization will be far less than in civilizations were creatures are less rational.

This might explain the need in simple religious humans.

e s