A mind so wrecked.

Omg that's just fucking horrible... I can't believe it.. This guy guy CHOOSES to be ignorant for the rest of his life? I guess he doesnt wanna face the facts that the world IS a cruel place, with no reward after life just by following a book.. I guess life is just -easier- when you keep yourself oblivious from the fact that there is a VERY great chance that you just wasted your life following a book made by some prankster.

I dunno, that IS horrible, but this guy isnt any different from all other religious people to that degree, that DIDNT go through university. They found something that makes their life easier.. They dont have to take as much responsibility.
These guys are just not worth our time. Once I realize I'm talking to a religious person of THAT degree, I give and say: "Well, do what you want with your life, just don't force other to follow your path(by this I mean, don't try to change the laws and make EVERYONE follow your religion)"

I don't mean to bash religious people, but seriously.. people of THAT degree are just NOT worth the friggin time.. They are gone... 100 % gone, and the only way to make them change their mind would be through a total re-brainwashing.

I mean this guy admitted HIMSELF that religion went against almost all science... That means that he WANTS to be religious.. He WANTS to believe in his bible. There's no "You have to believe or you go to hell" anymore, there's just: "I like my religion and I choose to keep it because it fulfills me." or something like that.

If they chose this path out of their own will, who are we to try and change them? WHY change them?
Just let it be... There's plenty of not-so-religious people around to argue with :P... Well as long as they don't become very extremist, I don't care...


Sorry for rambling like this, and I hope someone at least understood a BIT of what I was trying to say x_x.

The real issue at hand is common sense.

Whether we're looking at religion or science, both of these things can be taken by a person as a 'belief system' instead as a 'stepping stone' toward mental/spiritual growth and maturity.

In a "belief system" nothing is questioned with common sense by the 'believer', and I see this going for both religion and science.

Looking at religion, the level of conditioning that happens in a person being 'brought up' in the religious environment seems to naturally induce a perception of the young person's (and later on, the adult person's) perception of reality, and in many cases, when this perception of reality is not allowed to be questioned, this person's ability to use their own faculties of common sense becomes inhibited.

But the one that most people don't think of when it comes to 'blind belief' is science. Our schools teach us from a young age to look to science for answers, and to look to scientists to explain things for us. Nobody needs to be a scientist to use common sense..... science can be just as revered as 'truth' and can thus be just as blindly followed as any other type of belief system. Science is a tool for learning, not a system of belief. When we realize this and use it, as I mentioned above, as a stepping stone to greater knowledge.... and don't try to confine ourselves to limited systems of thinking, we're on the fast track to real understanding of our world.

Sadly, I see no common sense being used by this person, and this is all that is needed to overcome his 'black and white' perception of reality.

No, Science is the only doctrine in the world which spends 100% of it's time and resources trying to disprove itself.

This level of critical analysis means that my money is on Science.

Indeed, the very opposite of dogma is science. Everything there is available to be tested and recreated by anyone skeptical of the claims and conclusions, as well they should be.

Unfortunately for common sense, science continues to show us that what common sense tells us the way the universe should work, it always turns out to be utterly wrong. When common sense runs the universe, you get Terry Pratchett's Discworld.

It is very much fashionable to sit firmly in the middle and accuse science of being "just as bad" as religion, when it is simply not the case. We'd do well to remember that when two opposing ideas meet, the truth does not necessarily lie between the two. It is possible, as in this case, simply for one side to be wrong.

The phrase "greater knowledge" is meaningless. Either knowledge is based firmly on our observations of reality and tested to its limits, or it isn't. And if it isn't, it can only turn out to be correct by chance and coincidence. There is no other way we have of properly understanding the universe than science, and when you look at modern civilisation, you must admit that it works.

Yes, but do well to make sure you don't see the comparison between the two as one being "just as bad" as the other because this is thinking in terms of black and white. Religion vs. Science? Why should the focus remain on this when there is so much more in between to be analyzed?

Where I'm coming from is the angle that there are people who just 'swallow' whatever they're told without using common sense per se, regardless of the 'system' of belief. (And 'belief' it indeed must be in order to be swallowed.)

Science is based upon common sense and the systematic evaluation of things through logic... but is it logical to 'believe' something because a purported 'specialist' says so without checking for ourselves?

I think you'll find thats rather the whole point of Science...

You are most welcome to check for yourself, of course, but keep in mind that these "specialists" rely on and have had many other specialists check and criticise, correct and improve their work long before you hear of it.

Unless the newspaper has misreporting the most tentative musings as absolute fact, a they are wont to do. I hate what the media does to science.

And please, what is this middle ground between logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence, and unsubstantiated belief?

This is the key really, and what seems to be the issue we're discussing is not cross-checking facts or data so much as the 'understanding' that the average person has and 'how' they come about the understanding. You, as a scientist, can work with other specialists to cross check your info, but this is meaningless to someone else who just wants 'answers' or 'facts.'

I understand that you're studying marine biology; what I can relate to this is that you're taking not just the steps, but the initiative to 'study' everything that the science of marine biology encompasses- your understanding and knowledge of the subject is based upon what you've sought to learn yourself- and so by this you've been able to have a type of real-world knowledge of the subject, based on the common sense you've applied to it....


To someone else not studying this subject, anything you could tell them would be coming from your experience... but not theirs, so any 'facts' you might share may be remembered but not necessarily 'understood' if the person is not interested in knowing the specific 'whys' this subject. This is the blind belief I'm talking about, so in turn these 'facts' that you've shared may go from this person to the next, who really has no 'understanding' of the subject, but they're told that the info is from an 'official' source, and so the knowledge spreads, often, by people with no personal understanding or experience..... and in turn many misconceptions and skewed facts arise.

You're right, I hate what the media does to anything anymore because it's usually in the interest of certain individual parties to withhold or craftily present only 'certain' information for their benefit. The whole basic thing about this relating back to the original article, is that people wake up and start using their noggins instead of just "believing" what they're told because often common sense does not apply...

As far as the 'middle ground' between overwhelming observable evidence and unsubstantiated belief- this includes the things that science nor religion can explain as they're not geared to examine it. I'm talking about the scientists who are ostracized for presenting evidence of things 'outside' the normal status quo- or quite possibly the things that, by their nature are not based in the physical. Science can not limit itself to what can be 'seen' or 'measured' when it comes to these things- these scientific methods are fine for what we well understand to be our 'physical world' but limit us in seeing beyond that- particularly as individuals in individual experience and not what someone else has experienced for us.... We've come a long way as human beings in our evolution and in our science, but we learn new things every day and we don't know it all....

Unfortunately there's a lot of 'junk science' about which requires people to check through themselves in order to weed out the junk from the 'fact,' particularly about matters considered to be within the realm of 'mysticism' .... and my outlook is that this is good because it requires folks to think.

Reality is always a relative function of an individual's experience, not always the absolute function of a scientific equation.... but we need both in order to see things as a 'whole.'

Aaaaand... you've just proven my point. Which is that that is only true in theory. In reality, there are plenty of scientists just as dogmatic and bloody-minded as any pope.

Plenty of scientists spout how perfect and pure science is as a concept, but there are so many 'scientists' who have their set beliefs and refuse to hear others. Look at the wars about string theory. Look at the doctors who won the Nobel prize last year for proving that stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria - they had to test it on themselves because they couldn't get the funding to test something that went against established beliefs.

Richard Dawkins is the worst of them all. The guy is a close-minded, arrogant douche. Also, it made absolutely no sense for him to appear in the second-last Doctor Who episode.

Pilot: for anything I tell you about marine biology, I can also provide the evidence for it. The studies that were done, their results, the data it provided, in many cases I can show you physical evidence itself, as far as our means of communication will allow. Of course, I can never prove that these studies ever took place, but on that level of existentialism I can't prove to myself that I ever did the studies I remember doing either. Technically, nothing in science can be proven, only supported or disproven by evidence.

As for things not based in the physical, a: how is that different from belief, and b: how do we know that there is anything to study at all?

If you are talking about qualia, the vivid impressions and experiences we get as a result of the input of our senses, for example, the experience of the colour red, then in fact, science is indeed approaching this, but from a materialist angle. Or at least, it will when our understanding of the brain improves. Currently it is something beyond science's grasp, but that does not make them unknowable. A great many things we know now were once considered unknowable: the conception of new life, the stars, the moon, the nature of matter etcetera. Whenever it has been said about questions of this nature "will will never be able to address them and they will always be a mystery," which ploughs a very fertile field for the god of the gaps fallacy, they have always been shown to be wrong in the years that follow.

See? That is exactly what I am talking about. People are not perfect, and can get attached to ideas, this is unfortunate, but even they understand and respect the scientific method above all else. Just look at what happened in this example: scientists challenged the status quo, scientists found the evidence, and all the other scientists were convinced by this evidence and changed their minds, which can be demonstrated by their shiny new Nobel prize. This is the perfect example of the anti-dogmatism of science. I hear so often people giving me examples of scientists who have lied or perfromed other acts of acedemic fraud, but they never seem to realise that the only way we know they lied in the first place was that other scientists exposed it. Without proper evidence, nothing stands up to poper scientific scrutiny.

As for those others, those "wars" are debates. Those involve most certainly do hear what other people are saying,which is why the debate platform for theories that are not yet cut and dry exists: it gets all the available evidence on the table and discussed, and we've done this ever since there have been scientific communities. Eventually one will win because of the evidence, and because everyone has heard the evidence. And further challenges to the status quo are never a bad thing.

I don't see anything wrong with Richard Dawkins. But I do understand the automatic disgust people feel about him, since we are so unaccustomed to proper criticism of religion and still feel that we should not do it, even if we are unbelievers ourselves. I do not hold to that. But remember that that is his work as an atheist, not as a scientist, which is the topic at hand and that no reasonable person can fault except by genuine scientific objection to a particular theory of his. But I agree that is appearance in Doctor Who was frivolous.

I am so glad to be a semi-theistic evolutionist. Just knowing that I was able to see past my parent's "imprinting" makes me feel like a God among a sea of idiots.

BM: We're talking on different wavelengths. You're talking about SCIENCE as an over-reaching concept and ideal and I don't disagree with what you're saying in theory. I'm talking about the individuals who carry it out. Seeing as this discussion started from your example of one individual, I thought it best to discuss it on that level.

Also, I agree with you about Dawkins as a scientist. I thought evolution was a crock of shite until I read The Blind Watchmaker. But as an atheist, he's worst than most religious people I know. He bases his criticism of Christianity off specific negative examples and selectively quoting texts. And, frankly, in any religion there is a huge gulf between what the texts say on a literal level and what people understand and do. In Judaism that's what's called the difference between Written Law and Oral Law.

Well the fact is, that one individual left the scientific community, but if you are going to talk about scientists individually it is like talking about specialised cells in a metazoan organism: they don't make sense as individuals outside of the organism as a whole. Scientists are part of the scientific community, which means they are being watched closely at every step by other scientists, mostly as part of the scientific method upheld by people with a common and genuine interest in discovery, but partly because disproving someone else is a very good way of getting well known in the community (which is a very good immunological response to those few who aim for the same by betraying academic integrity). Frankly, any genuine example of scientific embarrassment is also a scientific success story, because only through the actions of honest scientists do we know about these indiscretions in the first place.

As for Dawkins, it is what people understand and do that led him to his opinions and latest book in the first place. He is no expert in theology or Biblical study at all (criticisms of which are dealt with by the the courtier's reply, which as you know references the fable The Emperor's New Clothes). Yes, it is mainly the nutjob fundamentals that are addressed in such books. But of course they are! they are the people who are the problem! If everyone were gentle moderates then there would be little incentive for such a book, and despite having the arguments there we would probably rarely have to use them. It is the fundamentals who expose religion as the dangerous nonsense it is. It has become in these past seven years something of a cliché, but it was the terrorist attacks in September 2001 that awoke the world (or rather, those bits not already very aware of it) to what fundamentalist religion in the modern age can do.

And frankly, it is a good thing that there is a gulf between scripture and sensible religious people. It's a mercy for which I am thankful (to nobody) for every day. But that doesn't mean that even they don't have some absurd ideas, and they have gone too long with a sort of diplomatic immunity from general criticism.

1) You're still talking about religion with specific examples of people or subgroups like funtamentalists whilst talking about Science as a perfect ideal.
2) Dawkins stated goal is to destroy all religion, fundamentalist or no. And, frankly, he's even ignorant about fundamentalism.
3) You should have brought this up in April. This would have been such a fun argument to have in person, with alcohol involved.

1) Well yes. I don't see where that's a problem? As for science, as a method for studying the Earth and the universe, it is a perfect ideal, second only to systematically acquired omnipotence. I'm only involving it now in the argument to portray it correctly as the antithesis to dogmatism.
2) Actually, at the launch of the Conservative Humanist Association (he is not conservative) he said "We don't necessarily want to be against religion, we want religion to know its place." He is opposed to all irrational thought, But would not ban religion. It is a human right, after all. Incidentally, all three major British parties are now part of the British Humanist Association.
But what is there to know about fundamentalism in order to be against it? Certainly not the particulars of the faith or the literature surrounding it. The Courtier's Reply puts that into perspective. You don't need to be an expert on leprechaun mythology to campaign against the belief in leprechauns.
3) Reciprocated verbal communication is inefficient. Under alcohol influence, doubly so.

1) ... I have no idea what that means. I was only saying that you should not judge either science or religion as a group by selecting individuals who you don't approve of.
2) I can't give specific examples because it's a long time ago since I heard him talk about religion, but he was clearly tarring all of religion by taking quotes out of context. Quotes of an 'Eye for an eye' sort of thing (ie that sounds horrible if taken literally but has never, ever been practiced as such).

1) I don't, I select the individuals I don't approve of and say I don't approve of them, and then I select a thought process I don't approve of, and say I don't approve of that.
2) Yes, it does sound horrible. But there are people who both believe that and take it literally. Mistaken or no, it is these people that he always criticises.

Faith vs. knowledge, etc.

Some people see things outside the bounds of our physical reality. As long as it doesn't hurt anyone, I don't understand how that's so offensive.

It does hurt people though, especially in America where the war between Religion and Science is more of a war for dollars, cents and politics than it is a way to show freedom of belief.

How does it hurt people?

I see it more as idiots and/or assholes with religion are the ones who hurt people.