Book Burning

[thir]

I'm sure there are some atheists out there who have not seriously considered their position. Primarily those who were raised without any religious training, children of atheists or agnostics or lapsed religious parents. But it's been my experience that most atheists were formerly religious believers, from many, many different faiths, who at some point began examining what they were being spoon-fed and realized that it was all mush. I have read many accounts (and seen videos) by these people, and they are quite remarkable in both their similarities and differences. In almost all cases they have rebelled from their parents' religions. Some went directly to atheism, but many went through other religions first, before coming to the conclusion that it was all a bunch of hokum.

As I say, culture matters, and it is hard to distinguish cultural matters from religious ones. In basically atheist countries that is what you get, and not from a lot of thinking.

Also, the Catholic Church is historically responsible for far more misery and pain than any other religious organization. Even in modern times, these so-called arbiters of morality are far more interested in protecting the image of the Church than in protecting those people who depend upon them. But I have also examined other religious organizations and I found all of them lacking in any evidence to support their beliefs and dogma. And without evidence all they have is hearsay and wishful thinking.

I keep wondering at this emphasis on there being no actual evidence. There isn't any - that is what faith means. And what does it matter what people think? As long as they keep it to their own lives. Do you see any damage to them, or to society as such, from that?

Even the pagan faiths are still professing a belief in some sort of supernatural beings, with absolutely no evidence for the existence of such beings.

Not all of have supernational beings in our beliefs or outlook. But for those who do, they need no scientific proof. Why should they? It would mean that only that which science can prove, and has so far been interested enough in to work with, or even thought of, or know about, is real. That is a very limitted world indeed! Don't you think that there is tons of stuff out there and in there that noone has thought of yet, or are you on the page with the 'plateau' people who think that basically we now know everything, and the rest is just tinkering?

Personally, I find such beliefs no different from the belief in lucky numbers, astrology, four leaf clovers, lucky charms and any other superstition.

All different from any actual faith ;-)

Personally I belive in luck, and bad luck too, as they excist. Fate too - as in we cannot control nearly as much as we think we can. And good-luck charms too! If I decide that I can 'store' energy in a charm, and that it will help me in a specific case, then it will. Proven fact ;-)

Knock wood.[/QUOTE]

[Thorne]

As I say, culture matters, and it is hard to distinguish cultural matters from religious ones. In basically atheist countries that is what you get, and not from a lot of thinking.

Exactly my point! People tend to believe (or not believe) based upon how they were raised. Some never venture beyond that.

As long as they keep it to their own lives. Do you see any damage to them, or to society as such, from that?

That's my entire point! They SHOULD keep it to themselves, NOT try to push it into everyone else's lives. Too many don't!

It would mean that only that which science can prove, and has so far been interested enough in to work with, or even thought of, or know about, is real.

Not at all! Science doesn't define reality. It catalogs it, measures it, tries to understand it. And since much of Western science has it's origins in the Church, one of the things they have tried to prove is the existence of gods, heaven, hell, spirits, afterlife, etc., etc., etc. And to date there is nothing there!

That is a very limitted world indeed! Don't you think that there is tons of stuff out there and in there that noone has thought of yet, or are you on the page with the 'plateau' people who think that basically we now know everything, and the rest is just tinkering?

Far from it! Science doesn't know everything. But it's my belief (and you can call this a faith if you want) that science CAN know everything, eventually. Given enough time and enough resources mankind just might learn how everything works. They might even find out WHY everything works, if there IS a why. Who knows? They might even find God someday. If they do, though, I think He'll have a lot to answer for!

Personally I belive in luck, and bad luck too, as they excist. Fate too - as in we cannot control nearly as much as we think we can. And good-luck charms too! If I decide that I can 'store' energy in a charm, and that it will help me in a specific case, then it will. Proven fact ;-)

NOT a proven fact. It's called a placebo effect. You THINK it helps you, which can have some positive effects, but when tested under controlled conditions we find that it does nothing at all.

This is the importance of science. It shows us what works and what doesn't. It helps to keep us from deceiving ourselves. Without science we'd still be wallowing around in the mud, dying of mysterious diseases, grubbing out a dangerous existence plagued by fear of imaginary beings. Science has brought us medicine that works, an understanding of our place in the world, near instantaneous communications with the rest of the world, the ability to travel to any place we want to go.

Sure, it's also brought us nuclear weapons, and more efficient ways to kill ourselves. Nobody claimed it was perfect. Science is, and should be, dispassionate, uncaring. It's people who can take the lessons of science and use them for either good or evil.

[thir]

That's my entire point! They SHOULD keep it to themselves, NOT try to push it into everyone else's lives. Too many don't!

And mine too, most definitly.

Not at all! Science doesn't define reality. It catalogs it, measures it, tries to understand it. And since much of Western science has it's origins in the Church, one of the things they have tried to prove is the existence of gods, heaven, hell, spirits, afterlife, etc., etc., etc. And to date there is nothing there!

Well, seems to me many scientists try to monopolise reality. If they do not have it in their books, it isn't there.

Far from it! Science doesn't know everything. But it's my belief (and you can call this a faith if you want) that science CAN know everything, eventually. Given enough time and enough resources mankind just might learn how everything works.

I do not think so, there will always be more! Even if we manage to survive the next hundreds or thousands of years.

NOT a proven fact. It's called a placebo effect. You THINK it helps you, which can have some positive effects, but when tested under controlled conditions we find that it does nothing at all.

Wrong. There is enough research that proves that placebo works, even when you know it is placebo. You can learn to use that.

This is the importance of science. It shows us what works and what doesn't. It helps to keep us from deceiving ourselves. Without science we'd still be wallowing around in the mud, dying of mysterious diseases, grubbing out a dangerous existence plagued by fear of imaginary beings. Science has brought us medicine that works, an understanding of our place in the world, near instantaneous communications with the rest of the world, the ability to travel to any place we want to go.

And weapens, pollution, overpopulation...science helps us eat up the world.

Sure, it's also brought us nuclear weapons, and more efficient ways to kill ourselves. Nobody claimed it was perfect. Science is, and should be, dispassionate, uncaring. It's people who can take the lessons of science and use them for either good or evil.

Science isn't something mysterious that comes from above or out of nowhere! Scientists are people, and they are responsible for their results, and should be using their heads!

I do not buy the idea that if it is called scientific, then anything goes.

[Thorne]

Well, seems to me many scientists try to monopolise reality. If they do not have it in their books, it isn't there.

That's not quite it. If it cannot be measured, cannot be touched, cannot be seen, and does not appear to have any measurable effects on the universe around us, then for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist. Even if it does exist, if it has no effects upon us, then it might as well not exist. That doesn't mean that sometime down the road we won't develop a means to detect it, if it's there. And if we should do so we would certainly have to revise our hypotheses about the existence of gods. As would the religious.

I do not think so, there will always be more! Even if we manage to survive the next hundreds or thousands of years.

I tend to agree. But infinity is a funny thing. If humanity manages to survive long enough, who knows what is possible?

Wrong. There is enough research that proves that placebo works, even when you know it is placebo. You can learn to use that.

To some extent, perhaps. Though most of what I've read indicates that if the patient KNOWS it is a placebo it's unlikely to work. Most of the benefits from the placebo effect (as I understand it) seem to allow the body to relax, relieving stress, and letting the natural systems work to their full potential. Very similar to the effects of prayer, I believe.

And weapens, pollution, overpopulation...science helps us eat up the world.

And science will help us repair the damage we've done, if we allow it. Of course that would require sacrifice from everyone, something which is not likely to happen voluntarily.

Science isn't something mysterious that comes from above or out of nowhere! Scientists are people, and they are responsible for their results, and should be using their heads!

Very true. Science is a process. The scientific method is the best tool we have to make sure that science is done properly and that results mirror reality. Yes, scientists are people, and can be just as corrupt and dogmatic as any other people. But the method tends to expose such, eventually, and helps to insure that progress marches on. Sometimes there are steps backwards, and mostly the forward steps are baby steps, but the general movement is towards a better understanding of reality.

I do not buy the idea that if it is called scientific, then anything goes.

Neither do I.

[thir]

That's not quite it. If it cannot be measured, cannot be touched, cannot be seen, and does not appear to have any measurable effects on the universe around us, then for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist.

Like for instance gravity used to be, x-rays used to be, many bacteria and virus used to be, black stuff, and so on. Many many things.

Our whole history of science is one of keeping discovering things, species articles, vira and what not we did not know existed. But they were there all the time, even if we did not know it.

I think it is a narrow and - speciescentric? - way of seeing things: If we cannot measure it, it isn't there.

Even if it does exist, if it has no effects upon us, then it might as well not exist.

Isn't that a quite narrow and uncurious way of seeing things?

That doesn't mean that sometime down the road we won't develop a means to detect it, if it's there. And if we should do so we would certainly have to revise our hypotheses about the existence of gods. As would the religious.
<snip>
If humanity manages to survive long enough, who knows what is possible?

What is very likely is that as long as we funtion the way we do now, we'll keep finding new things about our world we did not know.

most of what I've read indicates that if the patient KNOWS it is a placebo it's unlikely to work.

Surprisingly, this is not so: "However, placebos can also have a surprisingly positive effect on a patient who knows that the given treatment is without any active drug, as compared with a control group who knowingly did not get a placebo.[4]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

Most of the benefits from the placebo effect (as I understand it) seem to allow the body to relax, relieving stress, and letting the natural systems work to their full potential. Very similar to the effects of prayer, I believe.

Actually, noone knows how placebo works. and it has puzzled reserachers for awhile. Theories abound, but noone can prove how it works

And science will help us repair the damage we've done, if we allow it. Of course that would require sacrifice from everyone, something which is not likely to happen voluntarily.

I read your words almost as if 'science' is some independent force that can be of assistence. But science is inseperateble from the society in which it works, and nowadays sciene has one purpose, and one purpose only: to make money.

General reserach which is the kind that really finds out new things is almot non-existent, because it does not immidiately mean profit.

Add to that the idea that 'search for knowledge' justifies any means to that end, and you have a very bad situation. That is a holy cow that needs slaughtering, and sommon sense - as of neccesity seperated from profit - kicking in instead.

What is it with this idea that 'progress' is enevitable, that all new stuff must neccesarily be better than the previous, that we are 'gong forward'?

I think it has to do with Darwin, and the idea that 'evolution' equal 'preogress' or getting better, when what is acutaly means is arbitary change which sometimes turns out to be benificial, sometimes not, and something else takes over.

I think it is time to start thinking about what we actually need, and what we should not have or do, to control what happens with us and the globe instead of running along with all possible speed - blindfolded, because noone is interestes in anything but immediate profit.

Very true. Science is a process. The scientific method is the best tool we have to make sure that science is done properly and that results mirror reality.
Yes, scientists are people, and can be just as corrupt and dogmatic as any other people. But the method tends to expose such, eventually,

Yes, after a number of people have died, and with great difficulty.
How many scandals are still out there, which will never be revealed?

and helps to insure that progress marches on.

Will you define for me excatly what you mean by 'progress', and why it is enevitable?

Sometimes there are steps backwards, and mostly the forward steps are baby steps, but the general movement is towards a better understanding of reality.

I so wish science was all about a better understanding of reality. But it is only about one thing: MONEY.

[Thorne]

Like for instance gravity used to be, x-rays used to be, many bacteria and virus used to be, black stuff, and so on. Many many things.

There is a difference, though. The EFFECTS of gravity, viruses (virii?) etc. could be seen, or touched, or measured. How do we measure the effects of God?

Our whole history of science is one of keeping discovering things, species articles, vira and what not we did not know existed. But they were there all the time, even if we did not know it.

Yes, which is why we cannot absolutely say that something does not exist, only that we do not YET have evidence for its existence.

I think it is a narrow and - speciescentric? - way of seeing things: If we cannot measure it, it isn't there.

True. But if we not only cannot measure it, but cannot see any effects of it?

Isn't that a quite narrow and uncurious way of seeing things?

In this case, we have been searching for those effects, and that evidence for thousands of years. People, including reputable scientists, are STILL searching for evidence of gods. That does not imply a lack of curiosity, does it?

What is very likely is that as long as we funtion the way we do now, we'll keep finding new things about our world we did not know.

I agree.

Actually, noone knows how placebo works. and it has puzzled reserachers for awhile. Theories abound, but noone can prove how it works

Kinda sounds like prayer. Which is fitting, since religion in general, and prayer in particular, do seem to act very similarly to a placebo.

I read your words almost as if 'science' is some independent force that can be of assistence. But science is inseperateble from the society in which it works, and nowadays sciene has one purpose, and one purpose only: to make money.

I know a lot of scientists who would love to see some of that money!

General reserach which is the kind that really finds out new things is almot non-existent, because it does not immidiately mean profit.

Partly true. More accurate is that such research has become prohibitively expensive, as the cost of equipment soars. But I would ask you, where is the profit in sending rovers to Mars? Where is the profit in the Galileo probe at Jupiter, or any of the vast number of other missions probing our universe? In fact, it's the very LACK of profit that has the anti-science types protesting about the money invested in space research.

Add to that the idea that 'search for knowledge' justifies any means to that end, and you have a very bad situation.

Very bad indeed. And just where do you see that happening?

What is it with this idea that 'progress' is enevitable, that all new stuff must neccesarily be better than the previous, that we are 'gong forward'?

Since we cannot (as yet) go backward in time, we are always moving forward. Whether or not such movement is better or worse is generally a matter for the historians to solve. Change is usually chaotic, and an be downright painful, even when it is for the benefit of all.

I think it has to do with Darwin, and the idea that 'evolution' equal 'preogress' or getting better, when what is acutaly means is arbitary change which sometimes turns out to be benificial, sometimes not, and something else takes over.

Darwin never implied that evolution was always moving forward. Evolution is a slow, natural process with many side branches and reversions. Sometimes species decline and go extinct, sometimes they evolve into other species. Tracing back the evolution of humanity we tend to assume that we are at a pinnacle, but that is just hubris. There is still more evolution to come, even for humans, and only future species will be able to determine whether we were a successful evolutionary branch or just another failed twig.

Yes, after a number of people have died, and with great difficulty.
How many scandals are still out there, which will never be revealed?

Once again, scientists are people, just like politicians and priests. All we can say is that scientists, in general, are trying to find the truth, objective truth. Sometimes they fail, sometimes they succeed. Politicians and priests, however...

Will you define for me excatly what you mean by 'progress', and why it is enevitable?

In this context I mean the search for reality. Progress means learning more about the way the world, the universe, actually works. And it is NOT inevitable. As long as we continue to study and to learn, we can hope to make progress. Everyone may not be happy with this progress, but to my mind it is better to understand the truth (reality) of how things work than not. And this is my biggest problem with dogmatic religions. They would have us stop the search, put away our telescopes and test tubes, and just accept that "God Did It".

I so wish science was all about a better understanding of reality. But it is only about one thing: MONEY.

Again, I know many scientists who would like to see some of that money.

And if you can accomplish ANYTHING in this life WITHOUT money, I'd like to know what it is. In my experience, without money you don't eat, you don't wear clothes, you don't travel. You die.

[thir]

We are at cross purposes in much of this. I meant to discuss science on its own terms, not compare it to religion in any way.

Quote Originally Posted by thir View Post
Like for instance gravity used to be, x-rays used to be, many bacteria and virus used to be, black stuff, and so on. Many many things.
There is a difference, though. The EFFECTS of gravity, viruses (virii?) etc. could be seen, or touched, or measured. How do we measure the effects of God?

In former times nobody noticed gravity, and sickness was certainly not connected to small small beings in people's bodies. My whole point was that there was (and undoubtedly is) lots of stuff we are not researching because we haven't noticed it or thought of it yet.

Our whole history of science is one of keeping discovering things, species articles, vira and what not we did not know existed. But they were there all the time, even if we did not know it.
Yes, which is why we cannot absolutely say that something does not exist, only that we do not YET have evidence for its existence.

Actually, noone knows how placebo works. and it has puzzled reserachers for awhile. Theories abound, but noone can prove how it works
Kinda sounds like prayer. Which is fitting, since religion in general, and prayer in particular, do seem to act very similarly to a placebo.

I would not know about that. I only know there is more about mind-body connection than is researched at this point. And I think it comes from religion as culture, when body and mind was really seen as two different things.

I read your words almost as if 'science' is some independent force that can be of assistence. But science is inseperateble from the society in which it works, and nowadays sciene has one purpose, and one purpose only: to make money.
I know a lot of scientists who would love to see some of that money!

You know what I mean. That the object of research is to make money, not to increase knowledge.

Add to that the idea that 'search for knowledge' justifies any means to that end, and you have a very bad situation.
Very bad indeed. And just where do you see that happening?

Animal use in reseach. Biological warfare. Weapens.

What is it with this idea that 'progress' is enevitable, that all new stuff must neccesarily be better than the previous, that we are 'gong forward'?
Since we cannot (as yet) go backward in time, we are always moving forward. Whether or not such movement is better or worse is generally a matter for the historians to solve. Change is usually chaotic, and an be downright painful, even when it is for the benefit of all.

You used the word 'progress'. Did you mean anything by it?

Darwin never implied that evolution was always moving forward. Evolution is a slow, natural process with many side branches and reversions. Sometimes species decline and go extinct, sometimes they evolve into other species. Tracing back the evolution of humanity we tend to assume that we are at a pinnacle, but that is just hubris. There is still more evolution to come, even for humans, and only future species will be able to determine whether we were a successful evolutionary branch or just another failed twig.

Exactly so. So what is it with this 'progress'?

Yes, after a number of people have died, and with great difficulty.
How many scandals are still out there, which will never be revealed?
Once again, scientists are people, just like politicians and priests. All we can say is that scientists, in general, are trying to find the truth, objective truth. Sometimes they fail, sometimes they succeed. Politicians and priests, however...

We? You are not talking for me here. Pure science, as was done in universities mostly, is cut off, and what is left is now sponsored by industries, and guess what they want? Science is not a quest for knowledge, but for products which can make money.

You talk as is scientists are mostly paladins, pure of heart as opposed to others, mysteriously totally objective regardless of their culture and their own situation - a trick which nobody else can manage. And what about what use their science is meant for? Do they have nothing to do with that?

Will you define for me excatly what you mean by 'progress', and why it is enevitable?

In this context I mean the search for reality. Progress means learning more about the way the world, the universe, actually works. And it is NOT inevitable. As long as we continue to study and to learn, we can hope to make progress. Everyone may not be happy with this progress, but to my mind it is better to understand the truth (reality) of how things work than not.

So do you think we need to know more about biological warfare, for instance?
Or do you claim that all science is really useful?
In my opinion science is misused so much we really have to stop and use common sense instead of claiming that quest for knowledge is a holy cow noone may touch or even discuss.

And this is my biggest problem with dogmatic religions. They would have us stop the search, put away our telescopes and test tubes, and just accept that "God Did It".

True.
The biggest problem with dogmatic religions is that they cannot and will not keep it to themselves and let others be!

And if you can accomplish ANYTHING in this life WITHOUT money, I'd like to know what it is. In my experience, without money you don't eat, you don't wear clothes, you don't travel. You die

Money is power, not just survival. And there are power mongers out there who wants to control everything.