Community | September 24, 2008 | 71 comments

It's time for science and reason

source: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/time_for_science_and_reason

Image
dkincheloe
There was a time when we sought our answers in superstition....

Now is the time when we should use scientific methods, rational thinking and evidence to determine our way....

Anyone agree with me?
  1. groups:
    Community,   Politics,   Green,   Culture,   6 more
  2. tags:
    News,  Politics,  Culture,  Green,  23 more
  3.     
    |

71 comments // It's time for science and reason

  • av8r
    • 0
      av8r  

    • since when does science need to support evolution? why not support creation with science? Answers in Genesis does it, and very well i might add. if anyone wants to know what they have to say go ahead and google it. i think you might enjoy it.

    • 3 years ago
  • Humdrum
    • 0
      Humdrum  

    • Er...as to Einstein -

      "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

      ~From a letter Einstein wrote in English
      March 24, 1954.

    • 3 years ago
  • khromadjo
    • 0
      khromadjo  

    • God = concept created to try and understand what is not understandable
      Religion = entrapment, using magical beliefs in an attempt to steer one's life towards another's value set
      Spirituality = relating one's individual self with the Natural world and its' interconnectedness
      Science = labeling and identifying natural phenomena that which have no designations beyond human intellect

      Question everything, especially those who seek to convince you of superstition, prophecy, dogmatism or indoctrination.

      As I see it, spirituality and science are easier to grasp than God and religion. You can touch a rock on the ground. You know that on a molecular level (via scientific observation and proof) that you and the rock are made of the same essential constituents. But you can never know how you or the rock got there, only that you are there. You can only speculate to creation's origin. Speculation is at the root of all religious faith. Speculation is not providence, nor will it ever be. Nothing anyone has ever said has or will prove otherwise.

    • 3 years ago
  • arcticspirit
    • 0
      arcticspirit  

    • My theory:
      We understand God, and the Universe as much as.... the flea on my neighbor's dog understands that the earth round and is covered mostly by salt water.

      (smiles sweetly)

    • 3 years ago
  • jahbini
  • khromadjo
    • 0
      khromadjo  

    • Albert Einstein also said:

      It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

    • 3 years ago
  • khromadjo
    • 0
      khromadjo  
    • khromadjo:

      I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.
      -- Albert Einstein, The World as I See It

    • 3 years ago
  • arcticspirit
    • 0
      arcticspirit  
    • khromadjo:

      Check the post above for the entire thing you are quoting, so you can "get" what dude is saying, as you are missing the point.

      Also, this was important to me about science & religion
      EXACTLY WHAT DID HE SAY IN HIS OWN WORDS ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP OF SCIENCE & RELIGION?

      Einstein published a paper in Nature in 1940 entitled "Science and Religion"[61] in which he said that: "a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value … regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a Divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation … In this sense religion is the age-old endeavour of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals, and constantly to strengthen their effects." He argued that conflicts between science and religion "have all sprung from fatal errors." "[E]ven though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other" there are "strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies … science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind … a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist." In Einstein's view, "neither the rule of human nor Divine Will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted … by science, for [it] can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot." (Einstein 1940, pp. 605–607)

    • 3 years ago
  • arcticspirit
    • 0
      arcticspirit  
    • Image

    • Albert Einstein believed in God. Do you think you're more intelligent than him (probably a good portion here would answer yes, but think about the time that he lived in.. and then... yeah are you?"--based on the comments... hell no! )

      Einstein did once comment that "God does not play dice [with the universe]." This quotation is commonly mentioned to show that Einstein believed in God.

      Please don't make me throw down with more technical quotes, as they are much harder to "get".. but they still say the "same" deal.

    • 3 years ago
  • khromadjo
    • 0
      khromadjo  
    • arcticspirit:

      It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

      -- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side

    • 3 years ago
  • arcticspirit
    • 0
      arcticspirit  
    • Image
    • arcticspirit:

      Damn, his life went down hill.
      (sighs)
      That bummed me out.

      Good thing I realized that the quote you took was way out of context. He was simply saying that he didn't believe in the Christian God, but believed in God in the Jewish tradition.

      Here's more if you care to read...

      The question of scientific determinism gave rise to questions about Einstein's position on theological determinism, and whether or not he believed in a God. In 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."[52] In a 1950 letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated that "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."[53] Einstein also stated: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth." He is reported to have said in a conversation with Hubertus, Prince of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Freudenberg, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."[54] Einstein clarified his religious views in a letter he wrote in response to those who claimed that he worshipped a Judeo-Christian god: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."[55] In his book The World as I See It, he wrote: "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms—it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."[56]

      In a 1930 New York Times article,[57] Einstein distinguished three styles which are usually intermixed in actual religion. The first is motivated by fear and poor understanding of causality, and hence invents supernatural beings. The second is social and moral, motivated by desire for love and support.

      Einstein noted that both have an anthropomorphic concept of God Einstein noted that both have an anthropomorphic concept of God. The third style, which Einstein deemed most mature, is motivated by a deep sense of awe and mystery. He said, "The individual feels … the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves in nature … and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole." Einstein saw science as an antagonist of the first two styles of religion, but as a partner of the third style.

      (CONTINUED BELOW)
      btw... I requested not to have to throw down a bunch of the same facts... but.. oh well.. enjoy!

    • 3 years ago
  • arcticspirit
    • 0
      arcticspirit  
    • arcticspirit:

      (cont from above... )

      EXACTLY WHAT DID HE SAY IN HIS OWN WORDS ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP OF SCIENCE & RELIGION?

      Einstein published a paper in Nature in 1940 entitled "Science and Religion"[61] in which he said that: "a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value … regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a Divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation … In this sense religion is the age-old endeavour of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals, and constantly to strengthen their effects." He argued that conflicts between science and religion "have all sprung from fatal errors." "[E]ven though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other" there are "strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies … science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind … a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist." In Einstein's view, "neither the rule of human nor Divine Will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted … by science, for [it] can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot." (Einstein 1940, pp. 605–607)

    • 3 years ago
  • nufsenuf
  • desertcat
    • 0
      desertcat  

    • If one must believe in a religion then I suggest either the Flying Spaghetti Monster movement or Fictionology. In Fictionology you get to pick your own deity from anything offered. I chose to go dual and selected Bullwinkle and Rocky. You can't go wrong with moose and squirrel. And they teach moral lessons. Besides talking moose and squirrel make as much sense as talking snake and donkey. And who wouldn't want their deity with meatballs and cheese.

    • 3 years ago
  • jahbini
    • 0
      jahbini  
    • desertcat:

      Rocky and Bullwinkle:
      "Hey, Rocky, watch me pull a miracle out of my hat!"
      "Not again, Bullwinkle"
      "This time for sure!" Poof....

      But I think that Rocky would be especially uneasy with all the religious adulation directed at him.

    • 3 years ago
  • jahbini
    • 0
      jahbini  

    • OK, My Dear Friends of Current.com

      I would like to give you a bit of viewpoint that may be 'different' than you have been exposed to, but nonethe less valid. This is from mathematics.

      Now Math is not really a science, because it does not adhere to 'the scientific method' -- there are no hypotheses or 'experiments.' Math is simply the study of patterns. And many patterns have everyday utility. 'nuff said on that one.

      This result from the arena of math called 'theory of computation' I will tell you about, but I will not 'prove' ( If you want proof, go to a local University and ask the head of the computer science department. They'll know all about it.)

      1) In any sufficiently complex system (and the real world is way past 'sufficiently') there are problems (Duh). an infinite number of them. I'm going to use 'problem' and 'question' as pretty much synonymous, I hope you are not too upset with that.

      2)There are an infinite number of problems that you can prove true.

      3) There are an infinite number of problems that you can prove false.

      4) and here is where it gets spiritual: However, for all the questions that can be solved as true or false there are orders of infinity MORE problems that can never be solved as true or false.

      Let me summarize: these problems can never be solved. Can't be done. Not even with grit and determination. Not even with yelling or putting ... between every half thought.

      And... You can't tell ahead of time if the question you are working on is one of these bad guys.

      Some questions must remain, well out of the realm of the devices you have: science, religion, economics, rhetoric, hope, 'the secret,' affirmations, guns, brutality, whatever. And that's just the way it is.

    • 3 years ago
  • arcticspirit
    • 0
      arcticspirit  
    • jahbini:

      My theory:
      We understand God, and the Universe as much as.... the flea on my neighbor's dog understands that the earth round and is covered mostly by salt water.

      (smiles sweetly)

    • 3 years ago
  • nufsenuf
  • PlatoTacius
    • 0
      PlatoTacius  

    • Thanks to you, nufsenuf, and all of you for being you...otherwise, life would be so boring, especially if we were all alike and agreed on everything...

      I have no serious objections to Buddhism or to any spirituality that seeks higher enlightenment...

      PEACE!!!

    • 3 years ago
  • nufsenuf
    • 0
      nufsenuf  

    • Plato Tacius - Well Said! However, if I may, one distinction - Buddhism purports that the "higher intelligence" is not outside of oneself - but an inherent aspect of all life, human or otherwise. It is the equalizer, and the realization that nothing exists alone - all existence is interdependent! Whoa... just got myself into another conversation - anyway, thanks for being you!

    • 3 years ago
  • nufsenuf
    • 0
      nufsenuf  

    • Philosophy, religion, same, same. Of what use is a "religion" if it does not cause you to reflect upon your behavior, try to do better, and enable you to grow as a human being? I find the distinction between "philosophy" and "religion" an academic device.

    • 3 years ago
  • PlatoTacius
    • 0
      PlatoTacius  

    • The human, since ages past, has invoked the name and the blame of a God when attempting to explain the way things are or why they may have happened the way they did. For lack of understanding or as an excuse for many to follow dogma that would gather the sheep into a collective flock, the leaders have often, actually mislead the followers, at least to some extent. Luckily, we are developing a better understanding of science, logic, and reasoning to better explain, now, why things are the way they are.

      However, consider that the ones many deem to be God, the celestial masters of the many universes, are as much scientists as they are spiritualists. They have been around long enough to know how the earth was formed, and I'm not refering to the creation theory that many religious fanatics believe happened only four or five thousand years ago. Those misconceptions need to be eroded into and return to the dust, from whence they came.

      The true purveyors of ultimate wisdom, logic, and reason, are overflowing with the knowledge and understanding of the many universes, that which makes civilizations non-viollent and that which leads them to peaceful co-existence. So, without faith in these higher personalities of altruistic and benevolent nature, many would have little courage to face tomorrow, little hope for a better life ahead, and far less structure and social fabric to their lives...call that religion, or call it what you will, but that propensity to look to a higher being for guidance and moral support, has its place in every facet of the human collective consciousness. If you don't believe in such things, then so be it, not even a God would want to force you out of or away from your free will...

      The reality of it all, is that the conduit of universal knowledge is there for all to tap into and, at least in part because it is infinite, consists of the principles of science, logic, and reason, which cannot be separated entirely from spirituality. I do believe, however, that many religious individuals miss altogether the concept of true spiritualism as they miss the inherent knowledge and revelations of science...

      So, to say that we need more science and reason, but we don't need religion, is, in itself, entertaiining a notion leading to more questionable misconception...

      The true prophets always reflected upon non-violence, living a peaceful coexistence, and the awareness of a higher intelligence, more knowledgable than we mere mortals have yet to attain...so too, as others have said, the path toward more logic and reasoning, toward a better understanding of science, lies upon the same path as a better understanding of and more spiritualism...

    • 3 years ago
  • onechance
    • 0
      onechance  

    • By the way, I don't consider Buddhism a "religion".

      It's a philosophy, a great on at that. Thank you Nettle and Nufsenuf for bringing it up.

    • 3 years ago
  • Nettle
    • 0
      Nettle  

    • Thank you Nufsenuf! I was hoping I wouldn't have to make the first point.

      My religion professor taught us that Buddhism is a non-theistic religion. It's merely a set of principles that you should live by in order to reach enlightenment (which is mistakenly called Heaven by Westerners). Anyone is allowed to join and there's no discrimination against different people; just those who commit crimes.

    • 3 years ago
  • onechance
    • 0
      onechance  

    • Religion and superstition are fear breeding stories for the weak.

      Science and reason are the facts and reason that replace doubt and a "Someone else will fix everything. I can keep driving my gas guzzling stomper and never care about the environment, animals or anyone/thing else because god will fly down and give me a do-over..." attitude.

    • 3 years ago
  • nufsenuf
    • 0
      nufsenuf  

    • So far, I am only hearing about the "Big Three"- I think that MrRah also referenced this. However, I would like to offer the following:

      "The Buddhist attitude to an omniscient God outside ourselves is on the whole negative. In this sense Buddhism can be regarded as being distinctly atheistic. In neither Hinayana nor Mahayana Buddhism is a Buddha or a Bodhisattva conceived of in any way as a god possessing extraordinary creative or omniscient powers; nor is any such other entity identified or postulated. This lack of a central God-figure might indeed be seen as a positive attribute, for men have been known in the past to fight bitterly to defend the gods they believe in. It is quite remarkable that Buddhism has spread across vast tracts of Asia and has maintained itself in many countries without recourse to religious wars or crusades."
      This quote is from Prof, N. C. Wickramasinghe, Dept. of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy, University College, Cardiff, and is part of his Foreward to the book "Unlocking the Mysteries of Birth and Death: Buddhism in the Contemporary World", by Daisaku Ikeda, first published in 1988 by Macdonald & Co Publishers Ltd.

      And further:

      "Buddhism teaches that all individuals innately possess infinite power and wisdom and reveals the process whereby these qualities can be developed"-
      Daisaku Ikeda

      The point that the "Big Three" are indeed a problem is not in dispute - but just so ya know....

    • 3 years ago
  • HolyCity2012
    • 0
      HolyCity2012  

    • I read a book called "Jack and His Magic Beanstalk" when I was a kid so that is what I believe.

      Every night, before bedtime I throw beans out a window and hope that they lead to singing harps and not angry giants.

    • 3 years ago
  • WhiteNoise
  • Virtual_Will_Rogers
    • 0
      Virtual_Will_Rogers  

    • ...Human beings are solar powered computers...many different types...brands...colors...speeds...sizes...I use to say...all I know is what I read in the newspaper....now I say...all any one person knows is what they have been fed......the ones that work best are the ones that were programmed by other well programmed ones....the ones that were programmed with crap from the first....well....there is always hope..and it is not their fault....never use the word programmed this many times in one post.....it becomes hypnotic.......Golden Ruler....Will..........

    • 3 years ago
  • isnamthere
  • J_Jammer
    • 0
      J_Jammer [removed]  
    • isnamthere:

      How?

      Because so many things are based on "because animals do it"...such as sexuality....to make things "right".

      If that is the case then murdering your children or another person shouldn't be seen as wrong but as an animal instinct that can't be punished but only accepted.

    • 3 years ago
  • Egnatius212
    • 0
      Egnatius212  
    • isnamthere:

      J-Jammer, logic is the brain's main function. Animal "Instincts" do not use logic, it is reason which creates logic. To say that animals and logic are the same is wrong, they are opposites.

    • 3 years ago
  • hew2702
    • 0
      hew2702  

    • How close minded to say reason and logic are the only correct way of thinking!

      Besides, without God, there's no basis for morality.

    • 3 years ago
  • HolyCity2012
  • HolyCity2012
    • 0
      HolyCity2012  
    • hew2702:

      More info: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com If you are an educated Christian, I would like to talk with you today about an important and interesting question. Have you ever thought about using your college education to think about your faith? Your life and your career demand that you behave and act rationally. Let's apply your critical thinking skills as we discuss 10 simple questions about your religion. The answers will amaze you.

    • 3 years ago
  • HolyCity2012
    • 0
      HolyCity2012  
    • hew2702:

      By watching this short video, you will be able to prove to yourself that the belief in prayer is a superstition. Every "answered prayer" is a coincidence, nothing more. For more information, please visit WhyWontGodHealAmputees.com.

    • 3 years ago
  • Dmitri_Molotov
  • WhiteNoise
    • 0
      WhiteNoise  

    • Faced with death, we are all left to ourselves facing the unknown... Understandably so, we don't ask a fish to explain the molecular structure of water.

      So the notion of God appears to be the rationalization that appeases metaphysical anguish. That is why we defend liberty of religion as a ground floor to democratic accommodation.

      So far, so good !

      It is the intrusion of religion in the workings of the state that is the problem. Hence the separation of state & church our founding fathers insisted on.
      Chris Hedges nailed it in ;American Fascism : The Christian Right And The War On America.” http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/865/81/

      The train of thought denounced in the book has given us one mean crusade with the rapture as the cherry on the proverbial sundae of obscurantism.

      BLACKWATER : THE CRUSADE
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DpRz4CvMqo

      Bill Maher is about to throw a brick in the window too with his movie Religulous;
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm8l7u9Zs3E

      As my personal point of view, I haven’t found a better statement than this one & I invite any scholar to translate it to English for it is beyond my ability to do it & keep the intent 100% accurate...

      « Les trois monothéismes, animés par une même pulsion de mort généalogique, partagent une série de mépris identiques : haine de la raison et de l'intelligence ; haine de la liberté ; haine de tous les livres au nom d'un seul ; haine de la vie ; haine de la sexualité, des femmes et du plaisir ; haine du féminin ; haine des corps, des désirs, des pulsions. En lieu et place de tout cela, judaïsme, christianisme et islam défendent : la foi et la croyance, l'obéissance et la soumission, le goût de la mort et la passion de l'au-delà, l'ange asexué et la chasteté, la virginité et la fidélité monogamique, l'épouse et la mère, l'âme et l'esprit. Autant dire la vie crucifiée et le néant célébré... » - Michel Onfray

      BTW : I'm an agnostic which I define by having the humility to admit that I don't know the inner workings of the universe.

      Human made religions make me cringe at best while I totally embrace the peace & love message of most of their original leaders but I also firmly believe that anybody that claims he knows what happens after death is a pathological liar about to ask for a deductible donation ;)

    • 3 years ago
  • MrRah
    • 0
      MrRah  

    • Reading several of the post, it seems that most of the opinions are based off of the big three (Islm, Chrstnt, Jdsm). Religion is slightly larger than those "superpowers".

      I am a huge proponent of rational thought, but that same rational thought tells me that humans will always have gods. Let me see if any of you are familiar with these dieties: Money, Self, Earth, Car, Home, Starbucks :).

      It was similar to the Iraq War. We went in and removed a dictator only to have it back-filled by a threat that is far more deadly. It is the old axiom...meet new boss, same as old boss.

    • 3 years ago
  • Humdrum
    • 0
      Humdrum  
    • Image
    • MrRah:

      Exactly! We'll ALWAYS believe in things bigger than ourselves, and worship them, whether we call them "gods"/ consciously worship them, or not.
      I believe in science and reason, and as much as science differs from blind religious dogma (or should differ), it does indeed reach divine levels when thinking deeply on it. Sometimes people forget that the scientific method is infallible, not "what science has learned/ guessed up to this point."
      I'm working on an art project that hinges on the idea of modern gods/ American Gods.
      This one's "Currency."

    • 3 years ago
  • J_Jammer
    • 0
      J_Jammer [removed]  

    • Uh...how old is scientific thinking?

      Are they suggesting (in that video about reason on that website) that those who invented things or theories in the past are irrelevant because they are from the past....they are ancient as the text that people believe?

      It would be nice that those who believe in reason actually used it.

      And that video gives me the creeps just like religion videos give me the creeps.....like Hitler gives me the creeps...like those odd comic books for sick religious thinking give me the creeps....just like old men in short shorts give me the creeps.

    • 3 years ago
  • NaCl
  • jbone1983
    • 0
      jbone1983  

    • I'm split on this. People need some faith and superstition but when it comes to the majority of goings on in the world, science and reason win out, at least in my humble opinion.

    • 3 years ago
  • bss05g
    • 0
      bss05g  

    • If we did not have science in a hundred years the tsunami (a few years back) would be explained by religious leader as some sort of act of god. Lucky for us we do have science and no longer need the rock of God to hide under. Our science can tell us why changes in the earth occur, we no longer have to pray for rain we can just watch the weather channel. Religion was what we needed for a few thousand years telling us why things happened how they did and that we should populate the earth and be friendly to our neighbors. The bible is a survival guild used to explain thing that people just didn't have the answers for back then.
      when i'm getting it on with some very sexy atheists all your going to here coming from my room is "Oh Science! Oh Science" yeah

    • 3 years ago
  • AveryMoore
    • 0
      AveryMoore  

    • dkincheloe writes,

      Now is the time when we should use scientific methods, rational thinking and evidence to determine our way....

      Anyone agree with me?

      Yep. But with a stipulation or two.

      It's time to recognize that what we are arguing here is also a very specific elopement of the churchy\state with Business into the matrimonial conjugation we call Politics.

      This hairy sitcom relies - mostly for excuses - on a pseudo-science called Economics.

      A spooky discipline populated with poltergeists - market forces, invisible hands, and a strange end game where all things wicked flow back into remission because the Market God really likes us when we do as we're told. And when we don't fully unfetter the trade of nations and maximize profits for the Faithful we are to be punished by evil tymes..

      Too many of the same people who insist that there is 'no true scientific consensus' on global warming will trot out the minority of holy names of their economic saints, Hayek, Von Mises, Ricardo, Rand, and so forth, and gush with a credulous zeal the envy of all other faiths.

      Recently Secretary Paulson [who keeps reminding me of Festus Addams] observed that the economic breakdown started with a "housing correction." We should have supreme faith in this man's diagnostic skill, if not analytic candor.

      If the stock market blows its bubble and crashes - it's a "market correction". It is a random act of the Market God feeling larky. Regardless of what they are paid for swearing it is their duty no one is responsible for a series of Titanics sent to the bottom with all hands.
      "rational thinking and evidence to determine our way.... "

      Absolutely.

      With special attention paid to who decides which evidence is admissible - to themselves and the cult they may represent.

    • 3 years ago
  • rainbowryan420
    • 0
      rainbowryan420  

    • I think I agree, unless you think religion is superstition then I don't

      because spirituality is important for both your mental and physical health

    • 3 years ago
  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  
    • rainbowryan420:

      There are huge differences between religion and spirituality. One can have religion but be devoid of spirituality while someone can be very spiritual but completely religion free.

      Religion is based on dogma, hard and fast rules that can never be broken without wrath, punishment, or vengeance; while spirituality is a living experience and is subject to forces of evolution and change.

      Religion is a dinosaur gasping for its last breath.

    • 3 years ago
  • rainbowryan420
  • HolyCity2012
    • 0
      HolyCity2012  

    • Critical philosopher Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason, offers a cogent outline of the dangers inherrent within the ID movement. While the portion of the presentation that he actually discusses the ID movement is brief, maybe 4 minutes or so, he is frighteningly concise and articulate in pointing out the dire ramifications that that this movement has had on both the classroom environment and across the gross politcal spectrum.

    • 3 years ago
  • J_Jammer
    • 0
      J_Jammer [removed]  
    • HolyCity2012:

      If one believes that there is no God or gods and that once one person dies they are dead....why care about the future you won't be a part?

      That's not reasonable. That's bizarre.

      Reason would dictate that you'd care for yourself and those around you and how your life is, not how the life is for those that come after, because you won't be there and therefore (reasonably) it doesn't matter to you...in the here and now.

      Selfishness is the wave of reason if there is nothing to look forward to that you will take part in why care about the results?

      I know that those who do not believe in what the religions of the world believe in have hearts and love their families as deeply, if not more so, as those in religion. But it makes no sense to care about the well being of anyone if you are going to be so dead that the benefit of it isn't even going to be within your decaying lifetime.

      Once you're dead...that's it. End game. Why bother?

    • 3 years ago
  • homunculus_14
    • 0
      homunculus_14  

    • There was a time when we had optimistic faith in a higher power as a guiding hand

      Now is the time we should pessimistically declaim the legitimacy of anything that has not been "proven" (elsewhere defined as: popular among the media), then change our minds when something else is en vogue, only to be proven wrong yet again

      PS: marpunk, i concur

    • 3 years ago
  • jubal
  • kitkatmeow
  • desertcat
    • 0
      desertcat  

    • Religion is just politics invoking the name of a God/Goddess. the more converts to their belief, the more money they take in. we should take the biblical stories as we do Aesop, cute with a lesson. Believing in talking snakes and donkeys, dinosaurs roaming with man 4, 000 years ago, seas parting, dead rising from their tombs is stuff made up in Hollywood. Cold hard facts should be the order of the day. Its a paradox, which would you rather be the man selling the Brooklyn Bridge or the man buying it?

    • 3 years ago
  • marpunk
    • 0
      marpunk  

    • I would say science and reason are good but I think that too much of anything makes people incredibly closed minded. I still think that a lot can be learned from past or "ancient" forms of inquiry. I don't think that and I've read that "primitive" is in no way less intelligent. Even science and reason have their flaws but to say that everything has a rational, scientific explanation would be a lie. I would agree that there should be more science and reason in policies (drugs, sexuality, etc.). This is a touchy subject like religion, politics, etc. but only in my opinion science and reason should not be deified. It has both its advantages and disadvantages but should be used intelligently. The definitions of science and reason could be argued around in a circle, so I would agree partially that it should be used more frequently but I would disagree with it becoming a dogma people don't question as fairly as anything else.

    • 3 years ago
  • HolyCity2012
  • AveryMoore
    • 0
      AveryMoore  
    • marpunk:

      I agree with Marpunk,

      In every human discipline orthodoxy eventually intercedes.

      It can be called "entropy," corruption, stagnation or whatever is current jargon but as often as not humans of whatever IQ form into groups and close ranks around whatever will protect their own interests. Continental drift! Impossible? Quantum Gravity! Absurd! We've heard it all before.

      It wasn't that long ago the scientific community - among them were some friends - ridiculed even the existence of "folk medicine." How primitive! How irrational!

      How profitable!

      While the catcalls were resounding in the universities, Big Pharma hedged its bets, ignoring the clamor to teach the natives drug-dependency western style. The pharmaceutical giants sent chemists, biologists and so on, off into the jungles to inventory local cures and later reverse engineer the remedies constituent physics. Later to be patented for enormous proifit - like bark the basis of aspirin..

      No one however can explain scientifically how so many untutored primitives managed to find real cures that escaped the attention of 20th century science.

      As a matter of pure pragmatism all that really matters is - does it work?

      Holycity 2012 writes,

      "your interpretation of the point is skewed"

      Saying it is, isn't demonstrating it is. Exert yourself please.

    • 3 years ago
  • marpunk
    • 0
      marpunk  
    • marpunk:

      I don't see how my interpretation of the point is "skewed". My point is that the past has provided a foundation to current "science and reason". I simply stated in response to the website, with no specific references to any specific "superstitions", that definition is subjective. I also agreed that science and reason are great things but a point I was not specific on was on human error and the means to which modern science and reasoning were achieved. My concluding point was that science and reason must continue to be subject to the same obstacles as "superstitions, etc.", since I do not buy into beliefs dogmatically. The way that I came to this conclusion was through reasoning but the only way that I was able to get myself here was through the irrationality and superstitious beliefs of the past. To discount and discredit the very foundations of modern reasoning and science is to say that where they are today is because of where they are now. Superstition was required and a lot of stupidity to figure out that we may need more Scientific studies and well reasoned choices in this day and age. The point that I am making is that in order for reason or science to exist there has to be an equal opposite to it. It would be nothing without illogical, unreasonable, unscientific information. Like many scientific theories, laws and hypothesis they are never true one-hundred percent of the time. Reason as seen in courts is not always just or at least there is an ever changing definition of what exactly justice is. Before I make a commitment to follow any set of beliefs in this case the belief in "science and reason" I will have to be familiar with the motives of those who are directing the effort. Many of the people who set the "standards" for what is correct at the time of their declaration are proven wrong. So if you believe that my interpretation of "Now is the time when we should use scientific methods, rational thinking and evidence to determine our way" give me reason to understand where you're coming from. I also have the option to disagree with you since my sense of right and wrong are subjective, just like your own.

    • 3 years ago
  • AveryMoore
  • HolyCity2012
  • WhiteCrow22
    • 0
      WhiteCrow22  
    • marpunk:

      I have to agree with marpunk. Spirituality, not "organized" religion, serves humanity. Spirituality serves humanity just as much as science and reason. Science and reason may have passion behind it though it lacks compassion. Only spirit has the ability to foster compassion. Does that mean that "Intelligent Design" should be taught alongside the theory of evolution? Good question, its one that I do not have the answer to.

      I happen to believe that we are all divine beings, and that we create our world as we go along. Do we want our world to be hellish and hateful, or do we want our world to be heavenly and compassionate? Personally I prefer a compassionate life lived in heaven here on earth in the here and now.

      Namaste

    • 3 years ago
  • Argon18
    • 0
      Argon18  
    • Image

    • Well we definitely should get more people up to the rational stage of development since it's been 400 years since the Renaissance and a majority of the cultures still haven't made it yet.

      That way it would be easier than to have the 3-way split between the people that are at egocentric stage, the ones at the ethnocentric stage and those that are worldcentric stage.

      If we got more people up to the middle stage of modernism then we would only have to deal with the the duality of the people at the post-modern stage that only happened 50 years ago so more progress could be made.

    • 3 years ago
  • jahbini
    • 0
      jahbini  
    • Argon18:

      I'm glad there is someone here that is familiar with Wilber's philosophy.

      Still all those AQAL ideas get a bit muddled as I read about them: KW speaks better than he writes. But then you might say I chew gum better than I speak or write...

      Is there a definitive cheat sheet of his concepts?

    • 3 years ago
  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  

    • Amen to science and reason.

      Myth, superstition and religion are things of the past. They are milk for babies. Science and reason is the meat of that will sustain us forever.

    • 3 years ago
  • Argon18
    • 0
      Argon18  
    • jubal:

      The trouble is that everyone still starts out at square one and none of the stages can be skipped so it will not stay part of the past.

      The best that can be done is to help people move through the stages as easily as possible so that they do not become stuck in any one of them as they have been up to now.

    • 3 years ago
  • J_Jammer
  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  
    • jubal:

      JJammer, what are you talking about "pimped"?

      Since when does science need to be pimped out?

      Science is not a whore! It is more like a vestal virgin.

    • 3 years ago
  • khromadjo
  • Virtual_Will_Rogers
    • 0
      Virtual_Will_Rogers  

    • ...I would like to see people get more interested in thought reception.....there is nothing about a human being that can think....you can be a great receiver and processor...once you learn to be open to it.....all of the technology we enjoy came through thought reception....the Universe is full of wonderful things cycling over and over....you probably have had something zoom through your mind seeming so foreign....you might have been thinking about your girlfriend.....bills...taxes...etc....and did not pay any attention.....dreams are the best way and time to receive....when your mind is not totally occupied with trying to live......all that you read and hear is from someone who received something...put their spin on it and released it back to the Universe either recently or many years back....Einstein claimed to not understand the things he received.....the man who made the first silica chip was the same....Religion wants you to be scared of it...but they had quite a few good receivers...such as Jesus...Mohamed....they all received the Universal truth of Love and Kindness....so the next time something foreign grabs your interest...embrace it....it might be the cure for AIDs or Cancer....or a new flavor of ice cream....and open your mind.....it gives your antenna more area.....the very same things that are happening on Earth right now have happened many times before.....cavemen to spacemen....spacemen to cavemen....you can receive the positive and negative from all the past occupants....I suggest you spend more time on the positive....the negative gets you exactly where you are presently.......Golden Ruler...Will.........

    • 3 years ago
more from Community:
from the community

top videos