# Fact vs Fantasy



## Anthony G Williams (Mar 7, 2009)

This week I'm looking at a couple of items on the irrational beliefs front, concerning first creationism (again) and then the Mayan 2012 confection.

The good news is that the Texas State Board of Education has voted to get rid of wording which invites teachers and students to debate the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories. This wording had allowed evolution to be attacked in Texan science lessons for the last twenty years. The bad news is that a recent British poll (reported here: Half of Britons do not believe in evolution, Darwin anniversary survey finds | Science | guardian.co.uk appears to show that half of the British population doesn't believe in evolution. Only around 25% believe that evolution is "definitely true" and another 25% believe it's "probably true", with 22% preferring creationism or "intelligent design" and rest confused. I say "appears" because the exact wording of the question asked isn't given, and that is of course critical in affecting the responses. By comparison, it's only three or four years since a poll putting the question *"human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals: true or false?"* resulted in 75% of Britons saying, "true", with 18% "false" and 7% "not sure". It will be interesting to see the results of any polls taken later this year, after the deluge of publicity and TV programmes about the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's *The Origin of Species*. 

While on this subject, there was an amusing item by Amanda Gefter in *New Scientist* magazine (28/2/09) concerning how to spot attempts to disguise religiously-inspired (or other unscientific) work as science. Samples of some key phrases to look for:
"Darwinism": scientists rarely use the term – they use "evolution" instead
"irreducibly complex": implying that it couldn't have evolved from something simpler
"academic freedom": when appealed to, usually means the freedom to teach creationism
"common sense": when appealed to; science works on theories based on evidence and may reach conclusions entirely opposed to common sense.
"scientific materialism": implying that the immaterial exists
"quantum physics" in an article which is clearly not about physics ("quantum" being the latest mystical buzz-word to give apparent respectability to bonkers notions)
There's more, but this gives the general idea!
-----------------------------------------------------
I have only recently stumbled across the Mayan 2012 cataclysm belief, which I gather is very popular in some quarters. For those as yet unexposed to this wonder, it concerns the fact that the Mayan "long count" calendar (they were fond of grouping years into various different cycles) comes to an end on 21 December 2012, when some terrible event is predicted to happen. It is also claimed by one Terence McKenna, who invented something called "Timewave Zero" which "purports to calculate the ebb and flow of novelty in the universe as an inherent quality of time", that "the novelty [is] progressing towards the infinity on 21st December 2012". (see this item: Timewave zero - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ). Wow! With modern mathematical theory backing up ancient Mayan beliefs, there must really be something in this, right? 

Just a couple of problems with this: the Mayans did not predict catastrophe at the end of the long count – in fact, they had celebrations at the end of their year cycles to welcome in the next cycle, just as we did at the end of the Millennium. The predictions of doom were the recent invention of a New Age theorist, José Argüelles, whose ideas have been dismissed by all professional Mayan scholars. As for McKenna, it turns out that no serious mathematician has accepted his ideas: they are just numerology (which is in the same category of scientific validity as astrology). Even more damning, McKenna (an advocate of "magic mushrooms" as the key to understanding), deliberately changed his initial calculations to match up his critical date with the end of the Mayan long count, so it is hardly surprising that they are the same.


I must once more recommend, to anyone who might be tempted to believe such nonsense, Gilovich's book 'How We Know What Isn't So', which I reviewed earlier on this blog (see the review list on the left). It really should be essential reading. You might also pay a visit to the UK-Skeptics forum ( UK-Skeptics Forum - Powered by vBulletin ) where all manner of irrational beliefs are viewed with a critical eye. As one contributor pointed out in a discussion on 2012, we needn't worry about it even if you believe such catastrophe theories because we're not going to last that long. The end of the world is supposed to happen in 2010 according to the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, or 31st December 2011 (if we fail to rid ourselves of all evil) according to Solara Antara Amaa-ra, leader of the "11:11 Doorway Movement". The fact that countless "end of the world" predictions have come and gone doesn't seem to discourage such fantasists. I suppose it could be regarded as the triumph of pessimism over experience! 

(An extract from my SFF blog)


----------



## dustinzgirl (Mar 7, 2009)

Evolution is a theory, so why would you have to believe in it?

Can you believe in a theory?

Hmmmmmm....................

Wouldn't it require some form of faith to accept an occurrence that one can not actually substantiate, recreate, or see? 

And how can a theory be a fact anyways? 

Sorry....I guess I'm just not smart enough to get all that.

/me doesn't believe in Darwin's THEORY of evolution, anyways. 



But hey, I'm an irrational woman.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Mar 7, 2009)

dustinzgirl said:


> Evolution is a theory, so why would you have to believe in it?


Well, I believe that the sun's going to rise tomorrow, and that's rather more than just a theory.

There are beliefs supported by evidence, and beliefs which are not so supported - the latter category comes under the heading of "faith". It's useful to keep the distinction clear.

But I seem to recall that we've had this debate before...


----------



## ManTimeForgot (Mar 7, 2009)

Most people do not understand the difference between the vernacular usage of the word "theory" and the scientific usage of the word "theory."  In the vernacular a theory amounts to something little better than a guess.  In science it amounts to something that fits a body of evidence without being to live up to the strictures of a law.


The problem with phrases like: "believing in evolution" is that you allow for room to disagree with the key tenets of evolution.  Evolutions problem is not a function of truth or falsity but one of completeness.  Evolution remains a theory in science for the simple reason that we cannot state with certainty that evolution driven by natural selection along the lines of punctuated equilibrium can account for all the structures and organisms in nature.

We don't know for certain that there are not other engines driving evolution or that some sort of artificial influence was not responsible for a small part of our genetic make-up.  So long as those questions remain unresolved evolution will always remain a theory.


Again the problem here is common people thinking that because this is "just a theory" and continues to remain so after countless decades of debate that this lends credence to their claims that evolution must somehow be wrong.  Another issue is one of irreducible complexity in the arguments of people appealing to irreducible complexity.  Their arguments are not actually so...  Intelligent design (not creationism) and evolution are not mutually exclusive in their applicability.  It is entirely possible for an intelligent being to have set the initial stage for development of life and then let evolution take its "natural" course.  But common people want "simple" explanations to believe in, whole-heartedly, and so long as this remains so people will either give wholly to one entire explanation or another, but will be unable to reconcile differences or gaps in multiple explanations..

MTF


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 7, 2009)

I'd like to add another to this one: *Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science*, by Martin Gardner. Half a century on, this still has a lot to say on this sort of subject....


----------



## The Procrastinator (Mar 7, 2009)

Hahahahaha Day Ja Voo, Voo, Voo.
K Dusty, here's a Rational Hat and a comfy chair. Feel free to take it off when we're finished, its only a hat and noone wears one all the time. Not even scientists.

So here's a theory. I'm sitting in my cave, listening to a storm. My theory is, thunder occurs because the Sky God is angry. Its a good theory, covers all the bases. It feels _right_. Now this is what we call a Speculative Theory because actually I'm just guessing (b*llsh*tting). I don't really have a clue about the thunder, I've just made up a story about it that seems to fit. Not that I'm going to let on about that, because it sounds good and it sounds cool and best of all it sounds reasonable. In fact it sounds so good and reasonable that it impresses everyone I know and they all love that theory. It's a winner! Ka-ching!

Ok here's another theory. Things fall down, why do they fall down? Because the ground sucks. This theory is doomed to unpopularity because if the ground really sucked, we'd be able to feel it sucking us, so this theory makes no sense. Bzzzt.

OK here's another one. My theory is, the earth is flat. In fact this is not even a theory, its a fact, I mean look out there. Flat as a tack. Except for the bumpy bits of course but you know what I mean. It stands to reason. Ka-ching! Winner!

Another: the sun goes around the earth. This one stands to reason, too. If you stand there long enough you can actually see the sun moving around the earth. Common sense. Ka-ching!

So there's three reasonable theories and one unreasonable one. The three were winners for quite some time, thousands of years. All of them are Speculative because they are based on guesswork - they don't actually take into account facts. They are bascially stories that fit the facts on a superficial level only. Why? Because the people involved were not in a position to be able to find out all the facts, so they didn't know about them. That's one reason - the other is that its human nature to go with the "reasonable" and be happy with that - most people do that all the time, nothing's changed in this respect. So they had no reason to find out otherwise because the theory they had seemed right. Why look further? Especially when it works on an emotional level, like the Sky God business does. 

Now this is the kind of theory people normally think of what they say something is a theory, right? Basically its a story made up to fit the superficial aspects, so that its plausible in some way. Good enough for the goose. Good enough for the lynch mob.

What makes the Theory of Evolution different? Or the Theory of Relativity? Or Gravitational Theory?

These theories are different because they are not speculative. They aren't stories, they are serious investigations. These are theories formed by those pesky few who can't help looking further and wanting to know why or how it all works. The ones who start to wonder about the thunder god and various inconsistencies. The ones who saw the implications of circumnavigation. These theories, Scientific Theories, require two things as a starting point: factual knowledge and evidence.

What lies behind the Theory of Evolution is pieces of fossilised bone, lots of those, various things preserved in rock, and close observation of the behaviour and anatomy of different species of animal, particularly (but not exclusively) those on islands. Also lots of knowledge, like how to work out how old something is. This evidence has been accumulating for a long time, hundreds of years, and for a lot of that time no sense could be made of it - it couldn't easily be made to fit into the prevailing narrative theory, which was the God made the earth and everything in it in 7 days etc etc. As more and more of this stuff turned up the significance of it could no longer be downplayed or ignored and scientists began to give it serious thought. A new type of Theory was slowly born - Scientific Theory. This theory doesn't have to feel right or even be reasonable. It has to deal with the facts as they are. It investigates thoroughly with all the tools at its disposal. It makes a conscious attempt to be dispassionate and rational in dealing with the facts, to prove and disprove, to collect data on the unprovable until knowledge or technology enables resolution or further understanding. No magic, no storytelling, no guesswork.

That is why scientific theorising is often so boring, uncomfortable, difficult to deal with and makes your eyes cross. Its kind of anti-human in a way - it puts imagination, emotion and creativity in constrictive harnesses. It denies magic. It ignores anything that cannot be measured. It seems very harsh to those who would rather the comfortable old stories, those who can't bear to look into the empty abyss it uncovers. 

Even worse, and this is what people really hate, it calls itself a Theory even though it deals with facts and doesn't tolerate guessing. Very confusing to the average bear. But don't be fooled by its modesty: it's calling itself a Theory because the facts are not all in. For a topic as huge and complex as Evolution, the facts may never all be in. Scientists actually love this kind of uncertainty as it keeps them all in a job. Now don't jump on that sentence "the facts are not all in" and take heart that Evolution may not be true after all. No, too many facts are in for Evolution to be wrong in the large. The fact is, Evolution happens, its already proven. Its just that not everything about Evolution is understood. Its a bit like finding all the pieces of a jigsaw except a few that might have been eaten by the dog. You can still do the jigsaw, you can still see what the picture is supposed to be, but certain details are irretrievable for the moment. Maybe forever, maybe not. So its probably going to be a Theory forever.

And belief? Well of course even scientists are human, everyone has beliefs. But Scientific Theory doesn't really have beliefs. It makes predictions and it tests them. It uncovers facts and drops fictions by the wayside. It makes us Use Our Brain. It ignores wishful thinking and just deals with what is really there.

For most people its really not a comfortable way to see the world, this idea of only looking at the facts. No easy on dreamers, philosophical types, creative nuts, lazy thinkers, magical thinkers, those who don't much like thinking in general, those who are in it for the fun, emotional types, most people really. 

See, no wonder people go for the Mayan Calendar, Roswell aliens, conspiracy theories, Intelligent Design, the Moon Landing Hoax. Comfort food for the brain. We like our illusions and our mysteries.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Mar 7, 2009)

I'm still rather unconvinced that Darwin's theory on evolution is a fact. 

But hey, I'm not a scientist.

And I hate rational hats, they give me dandruff. 

I completely accept that science does not have all the answers, nor covers all the possibilities, nor can completely dictate facts from objects that can not be observed---whereas, the sun rising in 12 hours is an observable fact, but will not be an observable fact in a few hundred billion years, which is of course a theory entirely based on the relativity of time to the human condition, but I digress. 

Evolutionism is a true fact that can not be discussed rationally except by those who completely agree that evolutionism is a true fact.  

I'm of faith that humans are utterly incapable of even beginning to understand the facts of the universe. 

And yes, evolution does happen. We can record it in small scale fish and frogs.

Consider Bohr's quantum shell theory, it only applies perfectly to hydrogen but generally fails with exponential atomic mass increase, which took other scientist guys *schrodinger?* a while to figure out.

Essentially, it is entirely possible and plausible that Darwin's theory will fail (as will creationism, but hey, that's another post) with exponential human knowledge increases. 

Might take a while.

My point being that NOTHING is completely true. People who take a theory as an irrefutable fact tend to take the opinion based stance that any person who disagrees with them or attempts to offer a completely relevant and plausible theory based on alternate recordings of historical events are ignorant. I'm a lot of things, but I am not ignorant. Crazy, yeah, I'll take that and run with it like a rottweiler after a hot dog tied around a cat. If I was rich, you'd all call me eccentric. 

PS: MTF: Yeah, basically what I was getting too. Only I talk differently. And with more pinache...or is that pistachios?


----------



## The Procrastinator (Mar 7, 2009)

dustinzgirl said:


> I hate rational hats, they give me dandruff.


 
I find it helps to wear it backwards, and not for too long.



> I completely accept that science does not have all the answers, nor covers all the possibilities, nor can completely dictate facts from objects that can not be observed...
> 
> Evolutionism is a true fact that can not be discussed rationally except by those who completely agree that evolutionism is a true fact.
> 
> I'm of faith that humans are utterly incapable of even beginning to understand the facts of the universe.


 
How would you like that served, with black and white or shades of grey? 

Well, I'm of faith that humans are capable of beginning to understand the facts of the universe, though I'm not so sure about how far our capacities will extend in that regard. And I tend to reckon that Evolution can be discussed rationally by anyone capable of a rational discussion, just like most things. I do think Evolution is on the right track, although I am well aware of the shortcomings of the scientific method, especially when it comes to more "ethereal" matters. I like to keep an open mind but I'm not comfortable with blind faith of any kind. I like my illusions and mysteries as much as the next person, but I don't know what this means in terms of reality - reality is awfully subjective on the whole - its hard to see the objective stuff sometimes. Do we search for meaning because its there, or just because it makes us feel better?


----------



## Drachir (Mar 7, 2009)

dustinzgirl said:


> I'm still rather unconvinced that Darwin's theory on evolution is a fact.
> 
> But hey, I'm not a scientist.
> 
> ...



I wonder if you have read Richard Dawkin's _*The God Delusion*_?  If not, you might give it a try, then you could better understand the science behind evolution so that you know where we rational thinkers are coming from.   It is available at most libraries (at least it is in godless Canada) if you don't want to buy it.


----------



## Nik (Mar 7, 2009)

Um, at least this discussion is more intelligent than one I'm wrangling on another board: There, the chief protagonist is claiming the origin of life due 'watchmaker' plus down-fall of Darwinism, quoting a book written by a biochemist in 1985.

For some reason, he cannot grasp that genetics etc has advanced *light years* since then, so his vaunted authority's evidence & arguments are as obsolete as geology books written before 'plate tectonics' explained the 'ring of fire'...

It is almost embarassing...


----------



## The Procrastinator (Mar 8, 2009)

Speaking of intelligent - Intelligent Design. 

This is a nice philosophical idea and represents a step forward in religious thinking as far as I can see. But it is not science and cannot be science. Clearly the scientific types on this board would agree, but what about those less rigid in their thinking? Parson? Dusty? MTF?


----------



## Drachir (Mar 8, 2009)

There is, and always will be, an unanswerable question in dealing with a concept like intelligent design or any sort of creation myth, and that is who designed the designer?  I have yet to find anyone who can answer this satisfactorily.  In the end it always comes down to blind faith.


----------



## The Procrastinator (Mar 8, 2009)

Yes thats a pretty can of worms, isn't it. I can sort of come to terms with the idea that God (whatever God is) comes _with_ the universe like a big Siamese twin - if you have a universe, you have a God of some sort. Both self-creating so to speak. But that God, if that God is a Creator, would not have created the Universe (though intelligent designers might say that God created us in a round about way). A God who created the universe would have to sit "outside" it. Which is all very well but it leads one to:
1. The eternity issue. God having neither an ending or beginning. Easy to say but impossible to understand or relate to anything observable. Basically its magic.
2. The power issue. Aside from the matter of God not doing much down here, there is the issue of why he would do anything. Why care about individual beings if you are the omnipotent creator of the universe? Well apparently God is Love and then you get into all the twaddle about how Love lets us make our own mistakes and strive for perfection through suffering etc and that's why suffering and pain exists. Not to mention the Devil, at which point it all gets a bit much for me. 

Time for a bit of chocolate, I feel.


----------



## Dave (Mar 8, 2009)

I feel the Evolution/Creationism argument is one that we have thoroughly worn out here. 

The second item about the Mayan Calendar - I was under the impression that it was simply as far ahead as it had been written down - for example, I won't buy a new calendar for next year until November, but that doesn't mean that for 11 months of every year I believe the world is going to end on 31st December.


----------



## Laiko Su Katara (Mar 8, 2009)

dustinzgirl said:


> Evolution is a theory, so why would you have to believe in it?
> 
> Can you believe in a theory?
> 
> ...




She have a point.

Why are you forced to believe in evolution since its a theory?

I think science is the new religion that do not allow people to think outside the forced and locked logic of the scientist mind.

I dont care much about where we came from, I think more about what we can become...


----------



## Nik (Mar 8, 2009)

Um, critical part about Science is that its tenets are falsifiable: Okay, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and 'too-early' proponents may be pilloried by their un-civil peers, but things move on. Only takes one unfortunate fact to invalidate the most beautiful theory and/or move the goal-posts...

quote:
Friedrich Chladni is usually called the Father of Meteoritics. In 1794 he published a book that declaired that, not only were meteors associated with stones that fell from the sky, but that they originally came from space. His idea was ridiculed by many as being completely preposterous. Up until then, there had been many eyewitnesses to actual meteor falls and some historic recoveries of stony or iron material, but these were usually considered unreliable anecdotes by the learned community. 

The tide turned in 1803 when the town of L'Aigle in Normandy France was bombarded by thousands of fragments which were then analyzed by the famous physicist Jean-Baptiste Biot who declared them to be rocks from space. 

After a December 1807 spectacular fireball and meteorite recovery in Weston, Connecticut, Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States, responded with great skepticism: "Gentlemen, I would rather believe that two Yankee professors would lie than believe that stones fall from heaven."
quote/

Now, we have sky-watchers. Scroll down...
SpaceWeather.com -- News and information about meteor showers, solar flares, auroras, and near-Earth asteroids


----------



## Nik (Mar 8, 2009)

*Read the article to the end...*

Researchers find brain differences between believers and non-believers

Of course, this is only based on a small sample...

Will the same findings apply to Astrology etc ??

Will the 'reaction' mentioned anti-correlate with TMS' infamous 'godSpot' sensitivity ??


----------



## Urlik (Mar 8, 2009)

The Procrastinator said:


> So here's a theory. I'm sitting in my cave, listening to a storm. My theory is, thunder occurs because the Sky God is angry. Its a good theory, covers all the bases. It feels _right_. Now this is what we call a Speculative Theory because actually I'm just guessing (b*llsh*tting). I don't really have a clue about the thunder, I've just made up a story about it that seems to fit. Not that I'm going to let on about that, because it sounds good and it sounds cool and best of all it sounds reasonable. In fact it sounds so good and reasonable that it impresses everyone I know and they all love that theory. It's a winner! Ka-ching!


 
I have an hypothesis that that is nearer the end of the creation of a religion than the start.

in my opinion, a wise member of a tribe notices that eating certain foods tends to make members of the tribe unwell, sometimes fatally.
he also notices that by preparing certain foods in certain ways makes them safer to eat.
he also notices that behaving in certain ways towards others makes life easier and happier for all.
and most importantly, he knows that when told to do or not to do something, humans always ask "who is going to make me?"
so before he tells the tribe what they should or should not do, he starts telling the stories about gods who live in the clouds and on top of mountains. he tells how they move the sun and moon and cause storms, earthquakes, volcanos and tidal waves.
once a suitable level of fear and respect for these fictional beings is in place it is a piece of cake to say how eating certain foods or behaving in certain ways offends them.


----------



## Nik (Mar 8, 2009)

Um, that sounds like 'promiscuous teleology'.

;-))

FWIW, it is also how kids were warned NOT to go into places of danger-- Big Bad Wolf in the DarkWood, Giants Throwing Rocks in Taboo Valley, Witch in the Pond waiting to drag you under...

Snag comes when kids grow up too fast, don't see the hazards for the obvious flim-flam, so fall victim to wolves, avalanches and water-weed...


----------



## Urlik (Mar 9, 2009)

Nik said:


> Um, that sounds like 'promiscuous teleology'.
> 
> ;-))
> 
> ...


 
the original reasons for the creation of monsters and gods are valid and that creation serves a purpose.
it is when some bright spark sets himself up as the middle man with special rights and priveleges just to pass on the "word of god" from generation to generation that things get messy.


----------



## Drachir (Mar 9, 2009)

Laiko Su Katara said:


> She have a point.
> 
> Why are you forced to believe in evolution since its a theory?
> 
> ...



No one in the world of science forces anyone to believe anything.  The facts are simply presented and one is left to judge for oneself.  This is quite different from many religions, where those who are taught are often intimidated or coerced into believing.  As for evolution, since unlike any religion it is accepted by scientists and educated people throughout the world, it should be taught, just as basic astronomy and geography are taught.  Not to teach a scientific belief that is accepted worldwide would be a failure of the education system.


----------



## ManTimeForgot (Mar 9, 2009)

I am not one iota less rigid in my analysis of a problem; what I am is honest with myself and willing to engage in speculation about what might be.  I am perfectly willing to be wrong.  This is something that most scientists and rationalists (if they were honest with themselves) are not actually willing to be.

I am ready, willing, and able to speculate about the beginnings of reality (not the universe, but reality; as evidenced by my postings on another thread).  I am willing to entertain ideas at the fringe or cutting edge of science.  Intelligent design has an interesting spin to it actually.  There are some quantum cosmologists who are also die-hard determinists toying around with the idea that we are a determining factor (as a function of our status as an observer contained within the system enabled by the fact that quantum effects do not seem to recognize the arrow of time; backward is just as good as forward...) in the creation of our own universe...

I want to look at the deep structure of the universe, and so for me ontological and metaphysical questions are almost as relevant as empirical evidence.  If you all want to understand where I'm coming from, then I suggest you read some of the books by David Bohm.  The universe is far more vast than just about anyone really gives it credit for, and reality must necessarily be even more vast.  The amount of vastness is truly mind-boggling, so much so that I believe that this is why many scientists balk in the face of looking at those areas of understanding the universe/reality that traditionally "belong" to theologians and philosophers.

Old Joke: What's the only thing that a good scientist must not have?
Answer: A good sense of proportion.  (In an infinite universe you, as a finite being, amount to nothing).

But I think that in truth this nags pure rationalists in the back of their minds, constantly telling them that any discourse along those lines is wrong.

Having falsifiable claims and an, as yet, unknowable answer are _NOT_ mutually exclusive, yet so many people seem want to treat them as such.  If someone was perfectly willing to be wrong, then those two would not seem at all exclusive.



I am interested in the why of all that was and will be and the how of all that is.  Does an argument stand up logically to all facts?  Is it elegant enough to be a part of a designed universe?  Is this a designed universe, and if so what influences are there?  What would Occam say about this?

So every now and again when things like "null physics" and "helical wave-particles" and "Anti-Relativity" get espoused I take it seriously, up until the point where someone can show me how the evidence shows one side to be more correct or one side to be fundamentally in error.  It looks like null physics is going to turn out to be bull physics, but some interesting mathematical quirks have shown up that may just shed some light on unexpected areas of the universe.  Maybe some day helical wave particles and the anti-relativity theories will supplant general relavitity.  Maybe not.

Until such that theory becomes _Law_ I am open to alternative explanations, if only as a thought experiment.  However, try and convince me that a Law is wrong, on account of anything man-made (which includes all books, religious or otherwise), and I will balk.  I don't care what the Bible says; Noah's flood did not cover the whole earth in water for 49 days (or whatever it was), and then suddenly recede to normal levels.  More-over I can't seriously accept that any God that prohibits incest would force Noah to impregnate his children (which were evil as sin, literally if you believe the biblical texts) in order to repopulate the whole planet, which was devoid of all other humans.  No gravity is not a function of midichlorians (or whatever other magic force you want to invoke).


But am I willing to entertain the idea that even now we are being watched from a higher/alternate dimension/remote location in spacetime by beings far more advanced than ourselves.  Absolutely.  Such a thing does not run counter to any known tenet of physics we yet possess, moreover I believe the answer is definitely, yes.

Clarke's Law (paraphrased to some extent, as I don't know it by heart): If a preeminent scientist says something is possible, then it almost certainly is.  But if a preeminent scientist says something is not possible, then almost certainly the scientist is wrong.  Essentially anything which does not violate what we know must be, at least for the moment, at the very least entertained since what we know for certain about the universe approaches zero when compared with what we don't know.

An open mind does not equate with sloppy critique.  And if science is going to be able to win over people from millennia old superstitions, then science is going to have to try and venture into that "other" realm and posit beliefs that are both palpable and consistent with the evidence we have.

MTF


----------



## HareBrain (Mar 9, 2009)

Urlik said:


> I have an hypothesis that that is nearer the end of the creation of a religion than the start.
> 
> in my opinion, a wise member of a tribe notices that eating certain foods tends to make members of the tribe unwell, sometimes fatally.
> he also notices that by preparing certain foods in certain ways makes them safer to eat.
> ...


 
The trouble with all these ideas of how religions began is that they assume the people who "invented" them were basically like us, but with lower scientific understanding. I believe very strongly that this wasn't so. At the time when humankind's religious life began, there was no concept of "me"; the level of consciousness we take for granted today, as adults, was unimaginable then. (Just as it's almost as difficult for us to put ourselves in their place; the idea of an egoless state of being to a modern adult is anathema.) The first religious people had a state of self-awareness equivalent to young children, if that, and the kind of logical reasons to invent gods that you give just wouldn't have occured to them. The beginnings of religion come from the beginnings of the realisation of separation from the world, and the insecurity that that brings.

For a great analysis of where religion comes from, I'd recommend Joseph Campbell's *Masks of God *series. The first volume in particular, *Primitive Mythology*, draws very interesting parallels between stages of consciousness in humankind in general and those in developing children.

And if anyone else is tired of the polarisation of the materialism/creationism "debate" and wants to read a spiritual theory that accepts all of science and explains everything else too, without the need for a "giant parent" model of God, read Ken Wilber.


----------



## Moonbat (Mar 9, 2009)

Fact v's Fantasy

I find all this talk of facts/theory very interesting. 
Evolution is a theory, made up of hundreds of thousands of facts, any specific fact isn't enough to draw a conclusion of evolution but together they make a very strong argument.
God is an undefined word, a word that can mean different things to different people, I have never heard a definition of God that I don't find implausible, that's not to say impossible. The God I was taught about in my youth definitely couldn't and didn't do all the things that Christians/The Bible say He did.
What is the Theory of God known as? Theology? Because I don't know of a Theory of God that is based upon hundred of facts about God/Humans/Spirituality. Where/What is this theory and where/what are the facts it is based upon?

Except for the 'classic' Prime Mover argument (and other similar circular logic arguments) are there any facts to the theory of God? I can't think of many/any

M


----------



## HareBrain (Mar 9, 2009)

Moonbat said:


> What is the Theory of God known as? Theology? Because I don't know of a Theory of God that is based upon hundred of facts about God/Humans/Spirituality. Where/What is this theory and where/what are the facts it is based upon?


 
Say "God" is the entirety of existence, both material and non-material. The trouble is that the bit of "God" most people would call "God" is the non-material or subjective aspects, since the material aspects they already have a name for, i.e. the "real" universe. Facts relate solely to this universe, ie the material or mathematical realms, and can't be used to explore the non-material or subjective realms. So facts can't demonstrate the existence of "God" outside of the material/mathematical realms. It's a purely subjective phenomenon.

You can derive facts from reports of subjective experiences, but the facts are purely statistical - eg X% of people who've been meditating regularly for Y years claim to experience something they call "non-dual awareness". The similarity of subjective experiences across thousands of cases might lead you to conclude that they're based on some kind of "truth", but you could never prove it or call it a fact. You wouldn't be able to demonstrate that it wasn't a psychological effect.


----------



## Moonbat (Mar 9, 2009)

> Say "God" is the entirety of existence, both material and non-material.


 
what? so God is everything and nothing? so God isn't alive? or God isn't dead? 



> a purely subjective phenomenon.


 
that's crazy, that means God is everything real or unreal, so God is not only the pile of poop being excreted from my dog's rectum, but also God is the notion of evil.

In this sense God is nothing, there is no binding sentience or intellect behind everything real or unreal (certainly no proof of, and if you invoke high science to say all things are joined there is still no intelligence behind it), how is my idea of a purple caterpillar attached to God and his mountain ranges? 

Subjective aspects of life can be quantasised (should there be a z?) 
Surely it is possible to demonstrate that non-duality awareness is a psychological effect, by scanning the brains of those meditating and asking them when they feel the NDA (non-duality awareness) to make it known.

Beauty is subjective and yet has been quantasised and explained in terms of the 'real' symmetry.

Doesn't the word subjective, mean that a subject is required to measure whatever aspect is being subjectified?

So without a subject there is no God, so God only existed once Humans were able to subjectively experience him/it/her/them, so God could not have created man before man was able to subjectively experience the notion of God.

Indefinitely Confused

M


----------



## HareBrain (Mar 9, 2009)

Moonbat said:


> that's crazy, that means God is everything real or unreal, so God is not only the pile of poop being excreted from my dog's rectum, but also God is the notion of evil.


 
Yup - according to the philosophy I've outlined. Funny you should mention poop - a few years ago I had the thought that the greatest barrier to enlightenment was being able to accept that I and a dog turd were effectively one and the same thing.



> In this sense God is nothing, there is no binding sentience or intellect behind everything real or unreal (certainly no proof of, and if you invoke high science to say all things are joined there is still no intelligence behind it), how is my idea of a purple caterpillar attached to God and his mountain ranges?


 
There's no binding sentience in terms of self-awareness, only layers of consciousness, with rocks etc at the bottom. But these layers are devolutions, or increasing layers of distance, from ultimate "godness" which is effectively non-dual awareness (as I understand it, I have no interest in spending the thousands of hours on meditation to get me there). So rocks are god that have completely forgotten they're god, and we're god that have at best only just started to remember, very briefly and for some of the time.



> Subjective aspects of life can be quantasised (should there be a z?)
> Surely it is possible to demonstrate that non-duality awareness is a psychological effect, by scanning the brains of those meditating and asking them when they feel the NDA (non-duality awareness) to make it known.


 
Wouldn't that only demonstrate that the brain either reacts to NDA or causes it?



> Beauty is subjective and yet has been quantasised and explained in terms of the 'real' symmetry.


 
I'm not aware of those studies, but surely that just shows that statistically, some arrangements are more beautiful to more people than others? That's just analogous to the x% of meditators thing I said last time.



> Doesn't the word subjective, mean that a subject is required to measure whatever aspect is being subjectified?


 
I don't think so, you could have a subjective experience of a sunset, but the sunset would exist without you. The difference is that the sunset also contains elements that can be measured objectively. (So does God, eg the weight of the dog turd, but that's not readily accepted as being God) 



> So without a subject there is no God, so God only existed once Humans were able to subjectively experience him/it/her/them, so God could not have created man before man was able to subjectively experience the notion of God.


 
The idea of God only existed once human beings arrived, just as the beauty of the sunset only existed once there were people to look at it.



> Indefinitely Confused


 
My work here is done


----------



## Precision Grace (Mar 9, 2009)

Whenever this sort of debate spring up I'm always put in mind of chickens.
Or lambs. Or pigs. Or cows.

Consider what their perception of the world might be. We come to feed them, we protect them from predators, we maybe even coo at them and pet them and even care for them. And then, every so often, we pluck one or several and kill them. Are they capable of making the connection between the us that takes care of them and the us that takes them away never to be seen again? And if so, why don't they run away? (when they do, we find them and bring them back or they get killed by someone or something else)

And then there are crocodiles. Or ancient lizards. You just have to look into their eyes to witness Millennia worth of consciousness staring you back in the face. Before any God saw fit to show in an appearance. 

Trouble with science is that it can only function within it's own, often limited, parameters. It frequently takes some sort of miracle (usually referred to as a breakthrough or serendipitous discovery) to further it's boundaries and unimaginable hard work to make it an acceptable, widely acknowledged fact.

If science were to identify God, I dare say, not a lot would have changed in the way the community operates.


As for birthing of religions, you only have to look to the aboriginal cultures we are still privileged enough to have around and see how they've come about.

So far as we know, it's only humans that have a need of God; because of their rationality and the need to understand and explain the how and why of things. 

And the Mayan calendar - I also was under the impression that it was simply as far as it went; far beyond the end of the Mayan people - they were presumably capable of foreseeing their own extinction, so why bother predicting the time forever - they had to stop at some point - it would have been a logistical nightmare to organise the making of a calendar that never came to an end.

I think that the main preoccupation of people in general is with what is important. Trying to figure out what is truly important, because they are never sure. And this scares them. Which is why God is so handy - something with ultimate importance and respite from uncertainty.


----------



## mosaix (Mar 10, 2009)

Laiko Su Katara said:


> I think science is the new religion



But it isn't.

Religion is based on faith, science isn't.


----------



## mosaix (Mar 10, 2009)

Precision Grace said:


> Trouble with science is that it can only function within it's own, often limited, parameters.



All science is trying to do is find out what the fundamental laws of the universe are, to understand how the universe operates. Of course scientists can only operate within what they know already, parameters if you like, but that doesn't stop them discovering new things and expanding the parameters, etc., etc., etc.


----------



## Ursa major (Mar 10, 2009)

The difference between science and any belief system is that while both cling onto old ideas, science** will always drop them when they prove to be false, replacing them with ideas that are (in a very real sense) there waiting to be proved wrong in turn.



** - There will alwys be individual scientists who cling on longer than they should, but that is simply human nature: very few people like to be told that they've been wrong.


----------



## ManTimeForgot (Mar 11, 2009)

I don't think you all are seeing the connection when people say "Science is the new religion."  Science, Religion, and Philosophy are all connected under an umbrella term anthropology denotes: "World View."

They are all lenses that people can use to view the world with.  They all require certain fundamental assertions in order to be internally consistent.  What separates religion from science (as many have tried to point out) is that science is willing to drop _some_ of its tenets when confronted with new evidence.

The so-called "scientific method" is not in point of fact necessary in order to be "scientific" and yet much of what modern science does refuses to recognize anything which is not performed under the auspices of "scientific method."



Moreover, if scientists were willing to posit internally consistent postulates about the deep-structure of cosmology and maintain them as a tentative position science could (and in my opinion would) replace religion as a complete world view.

Prayer and meditation don't require religion in order to exist.  Close-knit communities don't require religion to come together.  Science doesn't require dramatic over-beings in order to exist.  So why is it that science (which has verified that prayer and meditation have beneficial effects) can't co-exist with prayer and meditation?  I don't see a reason.  Why is it that communities can't seem to do without religion?  I don't see why they couldn't.



Fear of the unknown ladies and gentlemen strikes at the root of all sentient beings.  Implying that religion at its core is about fantasy is a mistake.  It's about alleviating fear.  Take comfort in the strength of others; know that those who share your beliefs will aid you in time of need.  Know that there is an order to this mysterious and sometimes cruel universe.  This is what religion offers.

Its not weakness to crave comfort.  Its human nature.  And if its weakness to want to share the burden of life with my fellow man, then I'll take six gallons of it any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

MTF


----------



## HareBrain (Mar 11, 2009)

ManTimeForgot said:


> Implying that religion at its core is about fantasy is a mistake. It's about alleviating fear.


 
Yes, to a point. But there has always been a cross-over of influence between religion (exoteric, social, driven by fear or need) and mysticism (esoteric, personal, responding to individual insight)


----------



## ManTimeForgot (Mar 11, 2009)

Religion is (supposed to be at any rate) institutionalized mystical practice.  The problem is that religion is more institution than mystical practice any more.  It has ceased to fulfill any of the functions which allow for spirituality and thus religion only fulfills functions just as easily fulfilled by a youth club or the boy scouts.  Any group can teach morals and social cohesion.  But not just any time of group can foster faith and mystical fulfillment.

MTF


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Mar 11, 2009)

ManTimeForgot said:


> The problem is that religion is more institution than mystical practice any more. It has ceased to fulfill any of the functions which allow for spirituality and thus religion only fulfills functions just as easily fulfilled by a youth club or the boy scouts. Any group can teach morals and social cohesion. But not just any time of group can foster faith and mystical fulfillment.


True of the old-established Western religions (and especially the CofE) but much less so of the evangelical Christians or Islam.


----------



## katiafish (Mar 11, 2009)

I was reading some previous posts and what really puzzles me is that some people still view God as a man with a beard sitting on top of a cloud!!
However, saying that, there is something im not clear about: we are talking about universe, when we all ( I do mean all, even scientists who know more about it more than anyone else) have a very faint idea of what it actually is... How about we talk about reality? I guess what Im trying to say is that one thing we know more or less for certain is that our mind exists, so in some ways we exist also. So how do we know that everyhting else is not just purely created by our mind? 
Like for example, the new part of a universe is discovered, we read about it in the newspaper on our way to work, and now we know that part of the universe exists. What i want to know is did it exist before we found out about it or not? May be it never was there until someone thought that there might be something in that particular place, thus creating it purely by the power of their conviction?  And then by popularizing their discovery they get other people to believe in it, making it even more "real" by the power of their conviction? 
Think of placebo, how do we know what is reality and what is placebo? And if we believe in it hard enough, does it make it a reality?
I think that if you sit in a cave believing in Thunder God, then that Thunder God is as much a reality as an electric current that scientists believe create thunderstorm. That is the whole deal, things stop being theories and become reality when we believe that is what they are.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Mar 11, 2009)

katiafish said:


> However, saying that, there is something im not clear about: we are talking about universe, when we all ( I do mean all, even scientists who know more about it more than anyone else) have a very faint idea of what it actually is...


Actually we have a reasonable idea of what it *is* (although dark matter is currently the hot issue to pin down) but the great unknown is where it came from.



> How about we talk about reality? I guess what Im trying to say is that one thing we know more or less for certain is that our mind exists, so in some ways we exist also. So how do we know that everyhting else is not just purely created by our mind?


We can't. But the only practical approach is to behave as if there is an objective reality which we are observing. After all, what's the alternative? To sit there and starve to death while we're marvelling at how wonderfully our minds are simulating hunger?



> Like for example, the new part of a universe is discovered, we read about it in the newspaper on our way to work, and now we know that part of the universe exists. What i want to know is did it exist before we found out about it or not? May be it never was there until someone thought that there might be something in that particular place, thus creating it purely by the power of their conviction? And then by popularizing their discovery they get other people to believe in it, making it even more "real" by the power of their conviction?
> 
> I think that if you sit in a cave believing in Thunder God, then that Thunder God is as much a reality as an electric current that scientists believe create thunderstorm. That is the whole deal, things stop being theories and become reality when we believe that is what they are.


You need to distinguish between subjective and objective reality. Subjective reality is what is real to us, but not necessarily to anyone else. A belief in gods comes under this heading. Objective reality has solid evidence to back it up, of the sort which will convince (almost) anyone.



> Think of placebo, how do we know what is reality and what is placebo? And if we believe in it hard enough, does it make it a reality?


We can identify placebo effects clearly enough. Believing they are real can affect our subjective reality (e.g. we feel less pain) but not the objective reality (if we're terminally ill, we'll still die).


----------



## HareBrain (Mar 11, 2009)

Anthony G Williams said:


> We can't. But the only practical approach is to behave as if there is an objective reality which we are observing. After all, what's the alternative? To sit there and starve to death while we're marvelling at how wonderfully our minds are simulating hunger?


 
This is true - the idea that objective reality is created by consciousness being convinced of its existence is philosophically interesting, but for the practical functioning of the world we need to treat the illusion (if such it is) as real. Of course all these books on Attraction or whatever it is (eg Noel Edmonds) show that a good many people believe that objective reality can be affected by the will. This is also the basis of magic.


----------



## katiafish (Mar 11, 2009)

Heh, i liked that bit about starving, reminds me of a time when i was ravaged with a present moment dilemma... 
Shame not too many people recognize the difference between subjective and objective reality, if they did, we'd have no wars based on religious or intolerance reasons...
I guess I have not seen a lot of hard evidence to prove anything, or indeed believe in objective reality. Even going through the birth of my children, I had no painkillers so i had a chance to really be present and make it a reality by feeling it and therefore believing it.


----------



## ManTimeForgot (Mar 11, 2009)

Any system that produces individuals more obsessed with death than on life fails as a means of producing spiritually aware or enabled individuals.  Islam is just as secular as any other religion nowadays.  Yes, there are exceptions, but those are small sects (just like any other religion nowadays).




And as far as the universe goes: we still don't know all that much about it.  The macroscopic world is pretty well-mapped (but that is only from the perspective of our current level of technological ability), but our knowledge of the cosmos (totality of reality) is a drop in a universe sized ocean.

If a person is intellectually humble they will refrain from making absolute statements about what is or is not at the deep levels of cosmology (and to some extent just about any level of cosmology).  State what you believe and why: and leave it at that.

MTF


----------

