Are we doing ourselves a disservice when we speak about our "belief" in evolution? Should we find a new way to talk about the "theories" that underlie our ideas? What about when we talk about the "design" of human anatomy? Why are we always finding ourselves on the defensive? Doesn't all of the natural evidence that the universe has to offer support the conclusions that scientists have drawn (and modified) over the past five centuries? I've had religious friends confront me about my passion for neuroscience, noting that my excitement often sounds suspiciously like religious fervor. And, very matter-of-factly, I must explain that there are two enormous differences between science and religion: doubt and faith.
Science is riddled with doubt, and religion is completely founded on faith. Rely on faith, and the scientific method falls apart. Insert doubt, and religious certainty quickly dwindles. Something tells me that the fundamentalist religious folks who want to add "creation-science" to state mandated science curricula don't really understand what the hell the word science actually means. Because let's face it, once intelligent design squeezes its way into the pages following evolution in our biology books, we might as well add astrology to our astrophysics lectures and toss some alchemy education into the chemistry lab.
So, what is science? Well, according to skeptic Michael Shermer, science is "a set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed or inferred phenomena, past or present, aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation."
It is important to note that by definition, science is modifiable and falsifiable. This is what the scientific method depends upon. Every young scientist begins their education with a review of Thomas Kuhn's "paradigm shift," the idea that consensus among scientists periodically undergoes major changes when enough evidence is gathered to overthrow an existing view. This simply does not happen with religious dogma. The scientific paradigm shift is altogether antithetical to the concept of faith. That's why we scientists no longer talk about the ether or ectoplasm. Meanwhile, the majority of religious Americans prescribe to a belief system that originated prior to the Middle Ages, when bloodletting and exorcism were typical treatments for disease.
What is religion? It appears as though the answer is a resounding, "Hmmm, it's hard to say." Religious scholars and historians often disagree on a comprehensive definition of the term. Seemingly, religion is made up of some combination of belief in one or more deities, sacred, or supernatural beings, a faith-based worldview, worship, and ritual. Some people say that through religion, we human beings find a place in the universe, along with a purpose.
But does science not seek answers to the big questions, like why we are here and where we are going, without resorting to the supernatural? Nearly 86% of Americans consider themselves to be religious, and close to half of the people in this country think that evolution is baloney, voluntarily checking the box next to, "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." Such individuals choose to ignore mountains of rational, objective evidence so that they can take biblical parables as literal fact. This is not only an insult to the intelligence of the human species, but also to modern religion.
Science and religion do not have to be mutually exclusive, but science and creationism definitely are. Science is the study of the natural world. When individuals start quibbling about the supernatural, science goes out the window.
Almost all strict, academic scientists (myself included) would agree that if tomorrow, an experiment were devised that provided clear, repeatable evidence supporting divine intervention, our paradigm would need to be overhauled dramatically. What if tomorrow, fervent, fundamentalist Christians, for example, were provided evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, or that hominids evolved from an earlier ape-like ancestor, or that...wait....
Matt J. Rossano: How the Myth of the Flat-Earth Dogma Started the Religion-Science War
Sister Joan Chittister, OSB: People of Faith Should Be Grateful for Doubt
Swami Kriyananda: The Real Issue: Reconciling Science With Experience
Love you man... but seriously... for the people... do the right thing here... the evidence is overwhelming... none of us know shit... we never will... anyone can be made to look "unhinged" with very little effort... so why pick on those who probably really don't know? Go after those bastards who do... but pretend they don't. Those who, in an obvious effort to protect whatever turf (tenured or not) into which they have managed to insert themselves.... selfishly refuse to come out of the closet. You're an honest guy... be a hero... tell it like it is... that it's the smartest, most educated and most respected folks in the community... who are the either truly stupid or dishonest. Some form of meta-physical intelligence actually exists... every educated person knows that... or can come to know it.... most just pretend they don't... and we all continue to play along. The pertinent question is not "does a superior intelligence exist"? ... but rather... "who gives a shit?"
Your "opinions" (like everyone's) are usually "epistemologically" unsound... you're smart and educated so I'm sure you already know that. No problem... we're all playing that game. I for example have noticed that I'm often wrong... but never in doubt. I admit it took me a while to notice and become suspicious of the fact that it was only the intelligent and reasonable people who would agree with me.
So trust me on this... because no drug, no life experience, no amount of rational thought can prepare you for this shit... Just take an hour... read a few pages of QED... and I guarantee... that you especially.... will see the humor... it's the funniest thing ever. There actually is a "god".... who knew!!!
Last paragraph to follow... sorry
Recall that Einstein said "if you can't measure it... you don't understand it". He was right.
He was also wrong... he knew it and he admitted it many times.... called it "Spooky". It turns out that "even when we can measure it... often we still don't understand it" (quoted from... "some guy taking a leak outside my neighborhood liquor store last night").
Future understanding regarding everything else... whether it be Higgs Boson (the so called god particle), singularity and/or polarization... will not countervail this or change it in anyway.
Here's the rub! If you reference the work of any reasonably accomplished physicist (certainly the major names like Einstein or Feynman) you will see that they have told us this repeatedly...that for many decades they have pushed and pulled these little suckers (photons and electrons) in every way imaginable... they have mountains of controlled, peer reviewed and published studies that conclude....without a doubt... There is a higher intelligence at work.... it exists... we can easily demonstrate it... but we cannot fathom it... and we never will (their words not mine). (e.g. See QED Page 82 Third Paragraph)...
Now if you already knew this... then shame on you... or perhaps wow!
Here's the point... your "opinion" of how various sets and sects interpret and react to "meta-physical stuff" is so far off base it would be comedic if it wasn't so embarrassing. Whenever you go off on a rant it's like watching someone trying to complete the Sunday crossword while falling down an elevator shaft (stolen from... Marlon Brando).
Take a few minutes... read just a couple of Feynman's examples of those experiments conducted and replicated (the essence of empirical derivation, accuracy and certainty) over the years that prove beyond a shadow of doubt to any reasonable mind... that meta-physical intelligence does indeed exist... in abundance.
Any physicist worth their salt understands this. In describing the physical "world" (quantum electro-dynamics) there are only three things to "measure".
1) Photons move around
2) Electrons move around
3) They interact with each other
(nuclear and gravitational forces continue to defy but cannot defeat this reality).
That's it! Everything else in the scientific "lexicon" (including Chemistry, Biology etc...) is just more complicated ways of measuring and describing these three basics.
I have no idea Cara...so it's completely up to you... however I believe that "Bill Maher" really needs to read this". Thanks
Dear Bill;
I'm a fan... I don't usually cuss... but for you... in this case... I'll try to come out of my shell...a bit. This is important! This is not me taking "data" and interpreting it with spin or perspective. This is unqualified fact... not my interpretation... Physics 101. I have absolutely no dog in the fight. You have some of the most brilliant and viable minds within reach. I can't presume to "advise"... but if course.. I will.
You need to read the book QED (perhaps you have... read it again). I know you are busy... I know you get a lot of requests for your time.... please.... just read the book... not the whole book if you don't want to (its a very short paperback anyway.... but.... you only need to read a bit of it... to "get it"). The first couple of chapters should do it... skip the intro by the other guy (the first 10 pages or so) and just start with Feynman's intro and chapter one... but I'll bet you won't be able to stop there.).
Part 1 - To be continued because of the word restriction
I am smart enough to recognize no scientist or pastor is qualified to tell anyone what happened to form the Earth or human beings or what ever plaging question we actually have so much time to think about.
That being said, we weren't created to solve the mystery, or we would have done it. Everybody needs to take a big chill pill and scientists need to focus thier efforts on finding cures to real problems so they can cure a Christian with cancer. Amen
On another none; most people do not realize that science and religion are related. Religion was the first attempt of humanity to understand their world. Due to their limited factual knowledge of the world the ancients relied on their creativity do devise explanations for their experiences. As society evolved and became more complex so did religion, and when the Greeks discovered logic they set the seeds for science. Most early scientists were religious, like Newton, Galileo, Copernicus thus modern science is an evolution of religion. It's like the horse and buggy versus the car. People who still hold on to religion are people who navigate our modern world, still in a horse and buggy.
It's interesting to think about why people would want to say science is just another system of belief that people have faith in. Supposedly they want to take science down a notch, which says more about their esteem of faith than it does about science. Also, I suppose people don't want to be bothered by pesky scientists who are always telling them that their ideas about the world are wrong. They'd rather keep believing whatever they want, without interference. So, they want to make science out to be just another religion, which can then be safely discarded in favor of their own. Unfortunately for these people, and fortunately for them as well when they sometimes need to consult such a thing as a doctor, science has been wildly successful in uncovering truths about the way the world works. You can't argue with success.
I recall a jarring experience I once had in a doctor's office. I was sitting in the waiting room and an older couple sitting across from me were quietly reading magazines (don't remember what they were). All of a sudden, the man piped up and started to carp on "those d@mn eggheads" talking about their "crazy evolution garbage," and yet there he was, waiting to see a doctor whose discipline depends heavily on the findings of evolutionary theory.
People are truly bizarre.
Being willing to change the "paradigm" in light of new evidence is not the same as living with the withering certainty that you're wrong.
I well remember one day years ago, when I was in a sophomore biology class. The teacher, a Darwinist, set aside one whole class period in order to debate, actually debate and discuss, this theory against that of a student, who strictly believed in Creationism. The irony there was that the student was, apart from this belief, one of the most intelligent students in the high school. The 'debate' was very civil and very respectful. In the end, both combatants agreed to disagree, but the Creationist student was in the minority there. I'm old enough and Southern enough to remember when the State tried to inculcate religion (specifcally the Protestant, Christian variety) into the curriculum; but when the Supreme Court ruled otherwise, that was stopped. Thank you.
http://emiliawahoo76.blogspot.com
http://myspace.com/virginiadem
I guess I was lucky in that scientific method and thinking were explained to me pretty clearly at school (in England) when I was about nine or ten years old. Do people not learn this stuff any more? It should be as basic a foundation of education as arithmetic.
Why in the world don't we run public schools in a similar way to our universities? I don't have a good answer for that, but I imagine that it has everything to do with money.
When I was in high school in the 70s, part of the curriculum, especially for those intending on furthering their education at university, was 'critical thinking' - in all areas. Somewhere along the line, interlaced with heavy pressure from successive conservative governments enhanced by the religious right, a lot of that critical thinking/deductive reasoning got wiped.
http://emiliawahoo76.blogspot.com
http://myspace.com/virginiadem
Here is an example of some scientific thought that could shed some light on why we think the earth may be older than it actually is . . .
"A critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating has to do with the ratio between two different varieties of carbon. It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. What could cause this ratio to change?" Read more at http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible
http://theflatearthsociety.org
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html#isoprobs
Religion can not be proven or disproven. You cannot conduct experiments that produce any consistent tangible conclusion.
I should also point out that although I disagree with Creationism, I do not believe it is mutually exclusive from science. If there is a God, why couldn't he/she/it have created evolution? Isn't that more or less what Deists believe? That God merely created the building blocks and put things in motion, but everything since creation is random. Almost like God's experiment. (Most of our founding fathers were not Christians, but Deists)
Just because we don't know everything yet doesn't mean science was made up to either make us feel better or keep in line, which is the purpose of religion. Stupid question, author, move on. Of course science is not a new religion. You might as well have penned an article called "Are cats the new dogs?"
The fact is that as time has gone by and science has helped us understand our surroundings better, religion has had to give way over and over again. If people want to hold on to belief in the immaterial then that's fine -- spirituality is very appealing in a lot of ways and brings out a lot of good in humanity. But to insist on a belief in something that is demonstrably false (creationism, that the world is flat, that the sun orbits the Earth) is irrational and demeaning to human intelligence.
My Catholic mother was adamant that man should never have gone to the moon - she said that if God had meant us to fly, He would've given us wings. My response was always that if God hadn't meant us to think, He wouldn't have given us brains. (Or, indeed, curiosity.)
Creationism as in Scientific Creationism or the Intelligent Design folks have no scientific theory of any kind. They simply say that evolution is wrong. They don't provide a falsifiable, testable scientific theory of their own. So it is not science by default.