Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

[White Doors]

String theory is a new Unifying theory. When Einstein discovered Relativity, his theories work for large scale celestial bodies, like suns, planets, moons and how they interact with each other. Quantum mechanics (won't be abanonded anytime soon) deals with interactions of the smallest particles like atoms, quarks, positrons, electrons, protons, ect. The rules for Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are drasticly different and can't really be interchanged with each other. String theory is a new theory that some how fills the gaps to unify the interaction between the drasticaly different rule sets. Can string theory be proven at this point? No, but the science gives us results which steers us in this new unifying theory direction.

Quantum mechanics and Relativity MUST interact with each other somehow. Planets are made of atoms. So how do we explain the interaction between them ... well ... one has to start somewhere. For all we know this theory will be disproven as time goes on. Yes the possibility of it is there.

If you think they just 'made them work', you really need to understand all that math behind it. I am no mathemetician, never was really good at math, but I know that much of it will make many people's head spin. And yes there are still some unknown variables. Again claiming to know everything off the get go is foolish and also dangerous.

Yes, I know what quantum mechanics was for, however it was my understanding that it was falling out of favour. It was also my understanding that string theory was replacing it as a theory on the very small (and hence unifying it with relativity). I will never be so arrogant as to claim to know the math behind string theory, but I was reading recently that the math on quantum mechanics was very ugly and something like 23 variables had to be plugged into it to make it 'work'. This was from a physicist who presumably knew alot about quantum mechanics. As far as I can tell quantum mechanics and string theory and an either/or proposition. Not 100% on that however.

White Doors

Science will never make that claim that it has it all figured out. The Scientific Method is there because we do not know everything. Once we get an answer for one scientific question, we find out that there is more than we though there was before. This makes us refine the science.

Science has brought us so much advancement technologicaly as a race/species. Religion has given us some basic and common core morals to live by.

Understood and this was basically what I was saying. Human nature has a tendancy to want answers and to dislike the evolvement of understanding at times. One can see this displayed in the scientific community when new theories are often greeted with hostility. Look at the new theory of the pre cambrian mass extinction as an example. As I said, the scientific method is what needs to be protected, not the 'answers' that science has given us. As we get older we can see this to be true. Some things that were virtually scientific fact not so long ago have been changed radically by using the scientific method.

White Doors

If you can grant the same to Athiests who do not beleive in god to have a more open mind. Holding out for that higher power does not make one humble. Learning through your mistakes, and admitting you were wrong will make you humble. I was one that was quick with opening the mouth to state a fact. More often than not, I got myself into trouble for it. I don't shoot off my mouth much anymore if I know little about the subject.

So wait, maybe I am not Atheist in whole. I am really agnostic, which says, there is a possibility that god does or does not exist. This is something I do not expect to discover in this lifetime.

I do grant the same to atheists. Just atheists like Drea who claim to know everything immediately lose my respect.

However, I disagree on the humble aspect. I think people who accept what we know today and think there are alot of things that are un answered, are more humble. Mabe not personally, but perhaps they have a more humble view on humanities achievements - which I do.

I am probably more agnostic too, but I hate to put a label on it as I think about it everyday.

Edited June 18, 2008 by White Doors

[White Doors]

But today, even if some form of Supersymmetry String theory can make testable predictions, and show how gravity works in very small, very dense situations like the Big Bang, it still will not "replace" the other theories. They will still be used in situations where they work best.

I'm not sure what gives you the enormous hubris that you can say this - since the most research in physics for the past 50 years has been in this direction, one grand unifying theory on everything. And yes, if they ever get it, it will replace anything that does not fit into it - if it works better at explaing it.

That even includes relativity itself.

You need a HUGE helping of humble pie bud.

[JB Globe]

I can't expect academia to be a flourishing centre for professors with any religious inclination.

Why not? If those profs are secular, but religious, there shouldn't be a conflict, right?

To make my point another way - I think it has to do a lot with institutional culture. College/Uni I would say has not just a secular culture (which is fine) but an atheist culture. Just like it also has a left-leaning culture - if you're not down with that, you're a lot less likely to stick around. Doesn't mean you're less intelligent - on the flip side, the Corporate world is conservative - but does that mean that people who aren't conservative aren't smart enough to make it in the corporate world? I don't believe so, and I don't think the numbers support that either. It could just be that folks don't want to live within that culture their whole lives - it could have nothing to do with intelligence.

And let's be honest here - college is definitely not the only place one can attain intelligence. I value knowledge learned through observing and participating in everyday life as much, perhaps more than knowledge learned through studying texts. Sometimes the best thing you can do to become more intelligent is to leave college - especially if your program is filled with stuffy profs who forget what actual reality is like for most people.

[JB Globe]

I'd like to bring up a point, if I may . . .

This notion that people (whom I'll call self-righteous atheists) have that they are incapable of prejudice, because they're an atheist. That calling oneself an atheist, or not believing in god - means you're of a higher intelligence, because atheists are wholly rational beings and therefor are wholly objective in their conclusions about things (reminds me of objectivism).

I reject this outright, 1 - because no one thinks completely rationally/objectively anyway. ie - we're all products of our environment, and even if we question some of the social norms we were brought up with, we can NEVER consider ourselves as some sort of island who's worldview isn't influenced by our social environment. We have to be constantly aware of where we're speaking from - being humble is the only way to avoid being self-righteous in our opinions.

2 - I reject this because clearly, as history has shown us, atheists are just as capable of subscribing to irrational worldviews and ideas as anyone else. I don't believe an atheist is any more or less likely to be racist, to be a zealous nationalist, or to have an extreme interpretation of a political ideology (ie - ridiculously hardcore socialist). And personally I don't find fanatical belief in a religious ideology to be any less "intelligent" than fanatical belief in say, a Laisse-Fair free-market economy.

3 - It's not about what you call yourself, it's not about the "rituals" you perform, it's what you do. A Christian can say as many hail mary's as they want - but if they sin on a regular basis, they're not being a good Christian. Similarly an atheist can make all sorts of claims about how open-minded they are, how objective they are, how rational they are - but if in their day-to-day actions they're doing the opposite, than they're not being a good atheist, are they?

[GostHacked]

I'm not sure what gives you the enormous hubris that you can say this - since the most research in physics for the past 50 years has been in this direction, one grand unifying theory on everything. And yes, if they ever get it, it will replace anything that does not fit into it - if it works better at explaing it.

That even includes relativity itself.

You need a HUGE helping of humble pie bud.

It still will not replace anything. The Theory of Relativity does not replace any former theories, it unifies them in away that we understand the interaction between two different rule sets. You still need those separate theories when dealing with the individual parts of the equation. IF you completely replaced them, then you would need to work out a whole new equation theory to work from.

The speed of light constant cannot be changed at all, Relativity uses the constant component so it can work in the whole unifying theory. String theory does not replace anything, it unifies the Relativity and Quantum Mechanics so we can begin to understand the interaction between R and QM. But this is still a work in progress, and the scientists working on this understand that it could be the wrong direction of thinking.

If a theory is replaced by another one, it is because the premise of the original theory is wrong.

Think of the universe as a car. You need all these parts for it to work right. Change some of those parts, and you could end up with a plane. The car is the overall unifying theory of how all the individual parts connect and interact with each other. Replace some of the major components with something new/different, and you might not end up with a car.

JB

3 - It's not about what you call yourself, it's not about the "rituals" you perform, it's what you do. A Christian can say as many hail mary's as they want - but if they sin on a regular basis, they're not being a good Christian. Similarly an atheist can make all sorts of claims about how open-minded they are, how objective they are, how rational they are - but if in their day-to-day actions they're doing the opposite, than they're not being a good atheist, are they?

Athiests don't have a text/book/guide to show them how to be an athiest. Neither do agnostics. So there are really no preconceived rule sets to govern how an athiest should act. Most major religions have some text to show them how to be a good Christian/Catholic/Jew/Muslim. So those people can be judged based on how they live in accordance with their respected religious text.

[White Doors]

It still will not replace anything. The Theory of Relativity does not replace any former theories, it unifies them in away that we understand the interaction between two different rule sets. You still need those separate theories when dealing with the individual parts of the equation. IF you completely replaced them, then you would need to work out a whole new equation theory to work from.

The speed of light constant cannot be changed at all, Relativity uses the constant component so it can work in the whole unifying theory. String theory does not replace anything, it unifies the Relativity and Quantum Mechanics so we can begin to understand the interaction between R and QM. But this is still a work in progress, and the scientists working on this understand that it could be the wrong direction of thinking.

If a theory is replaced by another one, it is because the premise of the original theory is wrong.

Think of the universe as a car. You need all these parts for it to work right. Change some of those parts, and you could end up with a plane. The car is the overall unifying theory of how all the individual parts connect and interact with each other. Replace some of the major components with something new/different, and you might not end up with a car.

I don't know that you can say that. The Theory of relativity changed how we think of gravity for example.

It had many many impacts on other theories that either had to be updated or disregarded.

You also cannot say that the speed of light constant cannot be changed. What happens to the speed of light around a black hole for instance? Massive gravity has all sorts of affects on things that we are only beginning to understand.

As far as string theory and quantum mechanics, the way I understand it, if string theory is to be accepted quite a bit of quantum mechanics has to be updated. For example, if string theory is correct, there really are not hard particles at all. Mass and everythng solid are really just 'rhythmns' on a minute scale. Quantum mechanics does not predict this so obviously that part would have to be discarded or updated. Quantum mechanics also does not explain dark matter for example. Quantum mechanics also breaks down when more dimensions are added to the equation whereas string theory predicts at least 5 dimensions and more likely 7 so I am not sure what authority is giving you the ability to make these blanket statements.

Perhaps you do not know as much about physics as you are letting on - and that's ok.

Also, the universe could never be a car, unless that car was infinitely big and if the car was infinitely big, you would never be able to see all of the componets so you may want to cut the grade 8 analogies.

just sayin.

[eyeball]

I bet this debate rages wherever and whenever consciousness evolves in the multiverse. Its everywhere, like hydrogen.

[WIP]

Yes, I know what quantum mechanics was for, however it was my understanding that it was falling out of favour. It was also my understanding that string theory was replacing it as a theory on the very small (and hence unifying it with relativity).

Wrong understanding then! Quantum mechanics works fine in describing what goes on at the atomic scale, what it doesn't work with is general relativity -- the theory used to describe gravitational effects as curving the spacetime that surrounds a mass, and that's why a unifying theory is sought after, not to replace existing theories!

I will never be so arrogant as to claim to know the math behind string theory,

no one would believe you, if you did!

but I was reading recently that the math on quantum mechanics was very ugly and something like 23 variables had to be plugged into it to make it 'work'. This was from a physicist who presumably knew alot about quantum mechanics.

And this is a classic problem with accepting arguments from authority-- your physicist, like all physicists, is aware that there are a number of competing interpretations of the effects discovered in quantum mechanics. I don't know where the number 23 comes from, but it sounds like he is referring to an interpretation that the uncertainty observed in measuring a particle's location and velocity is not caused by a random Uncertainty Principle, but instead because there are an undetermined number of local and non-local hidden variables at the atomic scale that are still unknown. This interpretation is popular with physicists who desire a classical physics approach that eliminates uncertainty and randomness, and makes the Universe a deterministic, orderly system again. But the majority of physicists still accept the Copenhagen Interpretation that particle reactions are suspended in a superposition of varying probabilities until one of those probable choices is made when the wave-function collapses. There are no hidden variables in this interpretation; randomness is assumed to be an inherent part of the system.

As far as I can tell quantum mechanics and string theory and an either/or proposition. Not 100% on that however.

Good, because it's not an either/or situation! Quantum mechanics can still be used as long as gravity doesn't have to be incorporated into the model, as would happen if you're trying to describe they physics of a Black Hole or the original black hole -- the Big Bang Model. And String Theory is only one of a number of quantum gravity theories proposed to resolve this issue. And since no one has figured out a way of testing string theory models yet, many physicists are hedging their bets and continuing the development of earlier quantum gravity theories like Loop Quantum Gravity.

Human nature has a tendancy to want answers and to dislike the evolvement of understanding at times.

And that's how religion and mythology is generated! When there are no answers, people make up their own. The Cargo Cults of the South Pacific in the 20th century (especially the John FRum Cult) provided a laboratory for anthropologists to observe the origins, development, propagation, and stubborn resilience of a myth to persist and grow, even after failed prophecies and new knowledge should have caused the cult to disappear. But why just pick on the John Frum Cult? The organized religions that dominate most people's thinking today have no more evidence to support them than the Pacific Islanders' belief that John Frum will still return from the sky at the end of times bearing valuable cargo, and either slay or drive out all of the whites and non-native Indians who have settled on their islands.

One can see this displayed in the scientific community when new theories are often greeted with hostility.

Because the scientist with a new hypothesis has to prove its value to his or her peers. That's the whole principle behind peer review. Something that pseudoscientists and creationists have no respect for, and that's why they take their fake medicines, fake evidence for psychic phenomena, fake evidence for creationism directly to the public! They know that many people, if not the majority of people are not critical thinkers, and do not know how to determine what theories can be supported with evidence, from those that are convincing-sounding fakes!

Look at the new theory of the pre cambrian mass extinction as an example.

Okay, I'm looking! What's wrong with it? This is a very ancient period in geologic history that's difficult to study, since our planet's plate tectonics, erosion, plants and animals, not to mention human development, all make it difficult to study this period in the Earth's history. From what I gather, many geologists studying this period believe there was a massive glaciation event that likely covered the planet about 600 million years ago, and this caused a mass extinction of micro-organisms. Since these are small, soft-bodied organisms that would leave behind little fossil evidence compared to later post-cambriam hard-shelled life forms, it is obviously still speculative work. Are you saying that the geologists and paleontologists shouldn't be bothering to attempt a study of this period in the planet's history? The young-earth creationists certainly are! And that's why they want to discredit all research done on the distant past.

As I said, the scientific method is what needs to be protected, not the 'answers' that science has given us.

And that's the whole point of the scientific method! Scientists have their pet theories and can develop rivalries, that's just human nature! But unlike religion, a prominent scientist cannot stonewall the acceptance of a new theory that is providing testable, repeatable results -- so disregard the lies and propaganda spewed forth by Ben Stein in his documentary! If that's where this is coming from!

As we get older we can see this to be true. Some things that were virtually scientific fact not so long ago have been changed radically by using the scientific method.

I do grant the same to atheists. Just atheists like Drea who claim to know everything immediately lose my respect.

Did Drea actually say she knows everything? Or is that just the charge thrown at her by everyone who doesn't like her and wants to make a personal attack instead of dealing with the subject?

However, I disagree on the humble aspect. I think people who accept what we know today and think there are alot of things that are un answered, are more humble. Mabe not personally, but perhaps they have a more humble view on humanities achievements - which I do.

I am probably more agnostic too, but I hate to put a label on it as I think about it everyday.

I've been arguing all along that beliefs should not be held as absolute and should be re-examined an re-evaluated when they are challenged by new and possibly better explanations. I'll believe in gods, demons, souls, ghosts, ufo's, faith-healing, psychic powers and homeopathy, as soon as one of their advocates can make a convincing evidence-based argument for their existence! Otherwise, I'm going to stick with a naturalistic method to understand the world.

The people who compromise their flexibility to adapt, are not the scientists or the atheists, they are the adherents to religious and even political dogmas that are treated as absolute, inerrant truth!

[WIP]

QUOTE

But today, even if some form of Supersymmetry String theory can make testable predictions, and show how gravity works in very small, very dense situations like the Big Bang, it still will not "replace" the other theories. They will still be used in situations where they work best.

I'm not sure what gives you the enormous hubris that you can say this - since the most research in physics for the past 50 years has been in this direction, one grand unifying theory on everything. And yes, if they ever get it, it will replace anything that does not fit into it - if it works better at explaing it.

That even includes relativity itself.

You need a HUGE helping of humble pie bud.

Talk about hubris! If you actually picked up a book in your local library on the subject of quantum mechanics, instead of trying to BS your way through, you would be aware that the descriptions of atomic and sub-atomic events described by the theory of quantum mechanics has layed the groundwork for just about every major development in electronics from the transistor to the electron microscope and M.R.I. machines. The development of the laser was proposed as a practical application of the principle of quantum entanglement.

There are new experimental "quantum computers" being developed which are trying to make use of wider number of choices a quantum chip would have if it could make use of the full range of probabilities available, instead of the simple binary gates currently available. So why would they feel the need to scrap their work and switch to a new theory?

Any theory with as many practical applications as quantum mechanics, is not going to be scrapped!

[GostHacked]

I don't know that you can say that. The Theory of relativity changed how we think of gravity for example.

It had many many impacts on other theories that either had to be updated or disregarded.

You also cannot say that the speed of light constant cannot be changed. What happens to the speed of light around a black hole for instance? Massive gravity has all sorts of affects on things that we are only beginning to understand.

Well gravity is something we are beginning to understant and this is where string theory plays a major role in explaining gravity and how it works between obects of celestial size to objects on the atomic level. Again Einstien's theory does not replace anything. It unifies the constants/variables into one equation to explain the interaction between all involved in the equation.

Relativity is one theory .......Quantum Mech is another theory

They do not play nice together, because they have different rule sets. But we know for a fact that they must interact somehow, or else it simply would not exist the way it is. This is what Einstein had problems with. He could not understand it at first and was upset with how unpredictable QM really is. But since he discovered E=MC(squared) science has proven his theory as correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

The speed of light in the vacuum of free space is an important physical constant usually denoted by the letter c.[1] It is the speed of all electromagnetic radiation, including visible light, in free space. It is the speed of anything having zero rest mass.[2] The SI metre is defined such that the speed of light in a vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second (1,079,252,849 km/h).[3] The speed of light can be assigned a definite numerical value because the fundamental SI unit of length, the metre, has been defined since October 21, 1983,

I may have failed physics in high school, and I am not very good at math. But I have known since highschool that the speed of light had a constant and it is the value we call 'c' . Or else E=MC(squared) could not ever exist as a theory. Many constants have been established and have a designation. Yes there are variables, and they are taken into consideration.

As far as string theory and quantum mechanics, the way I understand it, if string theory is to be accepted quite a bit of quantum mechanics has to be updated. For example, if string theory is correct, there really are not hard particles at all. Mass and everythng solid are really just 'rhythmns' on a minute scale. Quantum mechanics does not predict this so obviously that part would have to be discarded or updated. Quantum mechanics also does not explain dark matter for example. Quantum mechanics also breaks down when more dimensions are added to the equation whereas string theory predicts at least 5 dimensions and more likely 7 so I am not sure what authority is giving you the ability to make these blanket statements.

I suggest watching something called The Elegant Universe. 3 Part series on string theory. You will get a better understanding on what string theory really is. I had to watch the series twice, there are some really mind blowing things in there. Some concepts did not make sense at first, but after a second run through, it made a lot more sense. One you wrap your head around what a unifying theory is, then this all makes a lot more sense. And we have barley worked out the math for the dimensions we are in, let alone the dimensions we are not sure exaclty exist. Once we discover those dimensions, then it is a whole new ball game to learn. We may find yet another unifying theory that encompases all we know.

http://www.superstringtheory.com/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/ <--- catch it on video.google.com

Perhaps you do not know as much about physics as you are letting on - and that's ok.

It sucks I failed it in high school, but holy crap this stuff is fascinating.

Also, the universe could never be a car, unless that car was infinitely big and if the car was infinitely big, you would never be able to see all of the componets so you may want to cut the grade 8 analogies.

I like simple grade 8 analogies. And you can use those analogies with anyone. Even grade 7 students.

http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php

This grade 8 analogized bit shows up to the 10th dimension, and talks about string theory as part of it.

just sayin.

[GostHacked]

I also want to throw this into the loop and see what it garners. I will try to look for the video of it...

... There are scientists working on all these theories, and also working with the god question. Through one program I watched, these scientists were using real science and math and physics to explain god. This has me interested because they are truely testing the concept of god through the scientific method.

These guys have the best shot (in my view) of either proving or disproving the theory of god. Because god is just an unproved, untested theory. Remember in high school where you had to show your work to be able to prove your point? Teacher always said, show your work.

[WIP]

I'd like to bring up a point, if I may . . .

This notion that people (whom I'll call self-righteous atheists) have that they are incapable of prejudice, because they're an atheist. That calling oneself an atheist, or not believing in god - means you're of a higher intelligence, because atheists are wholly rational beings and therefor are wholly objective in their conclusions about things (reminds me of objectivism).

Okay, thanks for providing a textbook example of a straw man argument! These assumptions that atheists are claiming to be incapable of prejudice and even claiming to be more intelligent, are part of your prejudiced view, not ours! The study that started this thread is making a claim based on averages that skeptics who have dropped their religious dogmas are going to be more intelligent than the people who accept them! It's an argument based on population averages, and I have seen anything in what I've read so far, that the researcher (Richard Lynn) is claiming that becoming an atheist will raise your IQ! That's just extra baggage being thrown on to discredit the study.

Feel free to agree or disagree! It's only one study and with all of the money that organized religion has at its disposal, you'll be able to cite contrary studies very soon, which will more than likely point out the weaknesses of using IQ tests to accurately determine intelligence. I've already stated previously that I don't put a lot of trust in IQ studies (interesting that many rightwing extremists like to use them when they give the results they like, such as The Bell Curve), but I'd still like someone to give a good reason why the majority of the top scientists who are members of the N.A.S. do not share the belief in the supernatural that the majority of the population does. My suspicion is that people who are not very bright, are going to be less likely to make a break from magical thinking than the smart people. It doesn't mean that the geniuses are going to follow through and be rational, but they should have a greater likelihood of doing so than someone who has trouble evaluating the evidence.

I reject this outright, 1 - because no one thinks completely rationally/objectively anyway. ie - we're all products of our environment, and even if we question some of the social norms we were brought up with, we can NEVER consider ourselves as some sort of island who's worldview isn't influenced by our social environment. We have to be constantly aware of where we're speaking from - being humble is the only way to avoid being self-righteous in our opinions.

Right! No one is completely rational, and the smartest naturalistic thinker still cannot be completely objective about how he or she forms their beliefs. We begin our lives accepting everything our parents teach us, and we may hold on to some of their unfounded beliefs and prejudices without even being aware of them. And once we are sure about a belief, it is given the emotional reference of a favourite memory, since we don't want to forget or lose track of it. The emotional connection to a favoured belief makes it more difficult to abandon.

2 - I reject this because clearly, as history has shown us, atheists are just as capable of subscribing to irrational worldviews and ideas as anyone else. I don't believe an atheist is any more or less likely to be racist, to be a zealous nationalist, or to have an extreme interpretation of a political ideology (ie - ridiculously hardcore socialist). And personally I don't find fanatical belief in a religious ideology to be any less "intelligent" than fanatical belief in say, a Laisse-Fair free-market economy.

Not if you take more than a superficial examination of belief systems like Communism that were based on a materialistic worldview! An atheist has the freedom to adopt any naturalistic worldview ( and for most, this means incorporating any phenomena presently regarded as supernatural, if it is proveable) that is available. You've just shown this in your example, since Marxism and the extreme laissez-faire capitalism advocated by Objectivists are at opposite extremes of the political spectrum. As far as I am aware, most atheists adopt some type of humanist philosophy that is not on the fringes.

But the religious are already starting off with a transcendent worldview that they have varying abilities to adapt and re-apply when new knowledge becomes available. Every new discovery that challenges a faith-based belief system can create a cognitive dissonance that leads many to adopt a hostile attitude to everything new that might threaten this carefully crafted model.

3 - It's not about what you call yourself, it's not about the "rituals" you perform, it's what you do. A Christian can say as many hail mary's as they want - but if they sin on a regular basis, they're not being a good Christian. Similarly an atheist can make all sorts of claims about how open-minded they are, how objective they are, how rational they are - but if in their day-to-day actions they're doing the opposite, than they're not being a good atheist, are they?

Right! But physicist Steven Weinberg says it best: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

When people are told it's their Christian duty to torture and kill heretics, they may otherwise be good people, but a religious belief forces them to be barbaric; and with the revival going on in the Muslim World today, many might have otherwise been productive citizens if their religious beliefs and the exhortations of their trusted religious leaders didn't tell them God wanted them to commit a terrorist attack, become a warrior, or stone a young woman to death for talking to an infidel British soldier!

[WIP]

I suggest watching something called The Elegant Universe. 3 Part series on string theory. You will get a better understanding on what string theory really is. I had to watch the series twice, there are some really mind blowing things in there. Some concepts did not make sense at first, but after a second run through, it made a lot more sense. One you wrap your head around what a unifying theory is, then this all makes a lot more sense. And we have barley worked out the math for the dimensions we are in, let alone the dimensions we are not sure exaclty exist. Once we discover those dimensions, then it is a whole new ball game to learn. We may find yet another unifying theory that encompases all we know.

Brian Greene is a good source to go to learn about String Theory, and the Elegant Universe book that the series is based on has a unique feature of giving readers the choice of skipping over some of the detailed technical sections, so they can focus on the concepts that are discussed. The only problem I have with Greene and some of the other popular advocates of string theory, like Michiou Kaku, is that they have their whole careers tied up with proving some form of string theory model. Neil De Grasse Tyson and Lee Smolin have written books recently from the skeptical vantage-point that some physicists and department heads are concerned about the way all of the eggs have been placed in the string theory basket by putting all of the best brains in physics and mathematics to work developing string theories instead of devoting adequate attention to other possible quantum gravity theories.

[White Doors]

Wrong understanding then! Quantum mechanics works fine in describing what goes on at the atomic scale, what it doesn't work with is general relativity -- the theory used to describe gravitational effects as curving the spacetime that surrounds a mass, and that's why a unifying theory is sought after, not to replace existing theories!

So you are saying that if a theory became viable to explain how gravity behaves at a sub atomic level that quantum mechanics would remain unchanged? That seems rather silly wouldn't you agree?

And this is a classic problem with accepting arguments from authority-- your physicist, like all physicists, is aware that there are a number of competing interpretations of the effects discovered in quantum mechanics. I don't know where the number 23 comes from, but it sounds like he is referring to an interpretation that the uncertainty observed in measuring a particle's location and velocity is not caused by a random Uncertainty Principle, but instead because there are an undetermined number of local and non-local hidden variables at the atomic scale that are still unknown. This interpretation is popular with physicists who desire a classical physics approach that eliminates uncertainty and randomness, and makes the Universe a deterministic, orderly system again. But the majority of physicists still accept the Copenhagen Interpretation that particle reactions are suspended in a superposition of varying probabilities until one of those probable choices is made when the wave-function collapses. There are no hidden variables in this interpretation; randomness is assumed to be an inherent part of the system.

I see, so I should trust your authority over that of a physicist? lol you'll forgive me if I do not I presume.

The math in quantum mechanics is described as ugly by more than a few experts in the field. When the math is ugly it usually means that the theory is inept, needs adjustment or is just plain wrong. We will probably find out in the next 10 years so stay tuned.

Good, because it's not an either/or situation! Quantum mechanics can still be used as long as gravity doesn't have to be incorporated into the model, as would happen if you're trying to describe they physics of a Black Hole or the original black hole -- the Big Bang Model. And String Theory is only one of a number of quantum gravity theories proposed to resolve this issue. And since no one has figured out a way of testing string theory models yet, many physicists are hedging their bets and continuing the development of earlier quantum gravity theories like Loop Quantum Gravity.

From what I have gleamed, if string theory continues to evolve, it will have consequences to quantum mechanics and particle theory. I think you can understand that.

Because the scientist with a new hypothesis has to prove its value to his or her peers. That's the whole principle behind peer review. Something that pseudoscientists and creationists have no respect for, and that's why they take their fake medicines, fake evidence for psychic phenomena, fake evidence for creationism directly to the public! They know that many people, if not the majority of people are not critical thinkers, and do not know how to determine what theories can be supported with evidence, from those that are convincing-sounding fakes!

Yes, and new theories are sometimes met with hostility. Like I said, look up the new theories on the precambrian extinction event. Scientists are proposing a meteor impact likely caused that event too. They are being met with outright hostility by the galciation theorists. See last Months Nat Geographic for the write up. My point is, even scientists like to 'believe' sometimes.

Okay, I'm looking! What's wrong with it? This is a very ancient period in geologic history that's difficult to study, since our planet's plate tectonics, erosion, plants and animals, not to mention human development, all make it difficult to study this period in the Earth's history. From what I gather, many geologists studying this period believe there was a massive glaciation event that likely covered the planet about 600 million years ago, and this caused a mass extinction of micro-organisms. Since these are small, soft-bodied organisms that would leave behind little fossil evidence compared to later post-cambriam hard-shelled life forms, it is obviously still speculative work.

I didn't say anything was wrong with it but thanks for putting words in my mouth and repeating what you read on wikipedia. Like I said there are competing theories on this. Do you research and you will see.

Are you saying that the geologists and paleontologists shouldn't be bothering to attempt a study of this period in the planet's history? The young-earth creationists certainly are! And that's why they want to discredit all research done on the distant past.

What are you talking about? Why are you subscribing views to me that I have not expressed? Does it make you angry when people don't fall in line with you? If it does, perhaps a discussion board isn't the best place for you to be. I am certainly not a young earth creationist, but thanks for applying your stereotype of religious people to me. Do you do the same with race and ethnicity too? Again, I was simply referring to competing theories on the precambrian extinction event as an example on how new scientific theories are sometimes greated with hostility. I am perplexed as to why you have an issue with this fact. Moving on..

And that's the whole point of the scientific method! Scientists have their pet theories and can develop rivalries, that's just human nature! But unlike religion, a prominent scientist cannot stonewall the acceptance of a new theory that is providing testable, repeatable results -- so disregard the lies and propaganda spewed forth by Ben Stein in his documentary! If that's where this is coming from!

Ben Stein and his documentary? wtf? Look bud, how about you read what I write instead of presuming to know where I am coming from. It makes a fun topic rather boring and predictible if you insist on persisting in the stereotypes. If I tell you that I am African American will you start asking me how fast I can run the 100m?

Did Drea actually say she knows everything? Or is that just the charge thrown at her by everyone who doesn't like her and wants to make a personal attack instead of dealing with the subject?

I've been arguing all along that beliefs should not be held as absolute and should be re-examined an re-evaluated when they are challenged by new and possibly better explanations. I'll believe in gods, demons, souls, ghosts, ufo's, faith-healing, psychic powers and homeopathy, as soon as one of their advocates can make a convincing evidence-based argument for their existence! Otherwise, I'm going to stick with a naturalistic method to understand the world.

Drea is openly mocking people who do not subscribe to her narrow views on existence and reality.

That for me automatically makes her a bigot. I have been reading her posts for along time though so perhaps it is easier for me than you.

I will say your vigorous defence of her does your reputation as an honest poster no favours to go along with your bigoted attempts of stereotyping my thought process.

The people who compromise their flexibility to adapt, are not the scientists or the atheists, they are the adherents to religious and even political dogmas that are treated as absolute, inerrant truth!

This is pure Bull Shit. Fanatics of every creed, philosophy, ethnicity and politics all compromise their flexibility to adapt. One needs only look at the humanist failure of communism (where they banned religion) to see this. I seem to remember alot of 'scientific' experiments in the gas chambers too...

Odd don't you think?

If you cannot see this then I will have to question your flexibility to adapt and that would make you a poor adherent to the scientific method now wouldn't it?

[White Doors]

Talk about hubris! If you actually picked up a book in your local library on the subject of quantum mechanics, instead of trying to BS your way through, you would be aware that the descriptions of atomic and sub-atomic events described by the theory of quantum mechanics has layed the groundwork for just about every major development in electronics from the transistor to the electron microscope and M.R.I. machines. The development of the laser was proposed as a practical application of the principle of quantum entanglement.

There are new experimental "quantum computers" being developed which are trying to make use of wider number of choices a quantum chip would have if it could make use of the full range of probabilities available, instead of the simple binary gates currently available. So why would they feel the need to scrap their work and switch to a new theory?

Any theory with as many practical applications as quantum mechanics, is not going to be scrapped!

It would appear that you have a religious like adherence to quantum mechanics.

Newton 'discovered' gravity and alot of practical applications came from that wouldn't you say?

When Einstein came up with General and Special relativity did that all of a sudden make gravity's applications irrelevant?

You can't see the forest for the trees man. lol

[White Doors]

Gosthacked, yeah I watched the elegant universe. loved it. Man, I wish our cbc was half as good as PBS in the states..

WIP

Right! But physicist Steven Weinberg says it best: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

I disagree and this is just showing that Weinberg is a bigot.

A better way to state this would be:

"Group think is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes group think."

Do you believe that Russians are inherently more evil than westerners? How about Cubans? Are Eastern Europeans more evil than Western Europeans?

I mean religion was banned there so are they either:

- Just bad people or

- good people, but religion made them communists?

You pick

Edited June 19, 2008 by White Doors

[GostHacked]

It would appear that you have a religious like adherence to quantum mechanics.

I have looked into quantum computing as well, if they pull this off, the processing power of computers will just be light years above the current technology. Lots of scientists are betting on this. For there will be a limit to how fast computes in their current configuration will be. The chips are not really getting faster at the moment, we are stuffing more processors on a single die. Mind you the bus speed is getting pretty fast, and the cache on the chips are just incredible as it is.

Newton 'discovered' gravity and alot of practical applications came from that wouldn't you say?

When Einstein came up with General and Special relativity did that all of a sudden make gravity's applications irrelevant?

Well this is exactly what you proposed. That new theories will replace others. When in fact it compliments them. Gravity's applications will never be irrelevant. Relativity unified the theories, replacing nothing.

So you are saying that if a theory became viable to explain how gravity behaves at a sub atomic level that quantum mechanics would remain unchanged? That seems rather silly wouldn't you agree?

Well we understand that things can and/or do change with more understanding. That is what science is all about. We expect and understand changes can occurr. Religion offers nothing like that at all. It essentially has not changed or evolved to keep up with the modern society. Science is an ever adapting/evolving process of understanding our world around us. Religion just tells us that god did it, and that is all there is to it.

I recall watching a video on creationism. There was a man on stage with a guitar in his hand singing about how stupid evolution was. The crowd was made up mostly of grade school children. In another part of the video, there was a bunch of people standing around a dig site. One person says, 'well about 2 million years ago, this happened', another pipes up says 'Where you there?' This seems more stupid than saying evolution is stupid. Of course we were not there, but the evidence lying around the planet gives us a pretty good picture of what the world's history was like.

We can turn this around on the creationist. God created the earth 6000 years ago, but are you sure? Where you actually there? There is even a creationsists museum in the US. Depicting man living along side the dinusaur. But how do they know for sure? Where they there?

So maybe we can equate intelligence with having an open mind period. Instead of discounting things outright, take time to investigate and check the facts, and recheck the facts. To me the bible and other religious text give in to the closed minded mentality. They are brought up to think a certain way, it has been engrained into them from the start, never even knowing or possibly thinking about 'what if there was no god'. Ignorant people will say, god did it, how dare you say otherwise. Those people are closed minded and are probably not that intelligent. If you ask others 'what if there was no god' and they don't say anything, they are at least thinking about it. Those to me are people that are more open mindend and more intelligent.

You can switch it around, what if there really is a god? Well, the possibility is definately there, but for all evidence presented before me, it really is a matter of faith and beleifs. For the most part they are untestable. You can test one persons faith, but testing the faith itself is an impossible task. I am the kind of person that puts faith into proveable testable theories and concepts. I cannot prove or disprove god, and I have a problem with that when it comes to most devout people. They cannot even fathom that anything but god did it.

[Pliny]

The speed of light is constant, is it. Would that be a red light or a blue light? Of course science has proven that light of different colors is moving at different speeds. This is how they can tell the universe is expanding. Objects in space that are moving away show up blue and objects that are moving in the opposite direction are red, or vice versa, I forget but the point is that light speed varies with color or we would not see a rainbow.

Quantum mechanics and string theory evolved out of the theory of relativity which had certain anomalies. A simple one is that of energy not being able to be created or destroyed yet a fridge magnet will stick on your fridge forever - perpetual energy production?

String theory has already had it's day. What comes out of theories is practicality. If there is no practical application then the theory doesn't explain anything at all. If it does have some practical application then it does contain some some understanding of it. It may not be correct but we can make use of it. Such as electrical theory which is proven by physics to be wrong but we use the theory because it has practical application.

Anyone read Michael McCutcheons - Theory of Everything. I like the theory. It is simple and explains the anomalies of the Theory of relativity and the Newtonian theory of gravity.. Complexities lead to more complexities ,in my view.

I also agree with White Doors here that "group think" is the problem and not religion or politics. What can we define group think as but the use of the force of numbers to gain agreement which is entriely what this thread is about. Drea's group think. She believes that there is a group of people who are more intelligent than those who believe in a religion. It may be true or not but the assertion that it is and therefore elevates one's position is "group think". As an individual she believes she is quite intelligent and if there are others that hold the same beliefs claiming the group is generally more intelligent she will think of herself as more intelligent. Not necessarily true. Each individual in a group will have his own level of intelligence and jgb is correct that religion and intelligence are not mutually exclusive.

If I have an IQ of 100 and am an athiest that doesn't make me more intelligent. It makes me part of a group that thinks athiests are generally more intelligent. Drea, or anybody for that matter, would obviously feel more intelligent in having the agreement of that "group think". It elevates her position and puts down her detractors.

I do not understand, in a universe where we have no concept of it's origin, (and science makes no claim to know it but has it's theories) that someone would decide that there couldn't be a God. Science definitely is proceeding to make that conclusion but can't as yet.

[White Doors]

I have looked into quantum computing as well, if they pull this off, the processing power of computers will just be light years above the current technology. Lots of scientists are betting on this. For there will be a limit to how fast computes in their current configuration will be. The chips are not really getting faster at the moment, we are stuffing more processors on a single die. Mind you the bus speed is getting pretty fast, and the cache on the chips are just incredible as it is.

Well this is exactly what you proposed. That new theories will replace others. When in fact it compliments them. Gravity's applications will never be irrelevant. Relativity unified the theories, replacing nothing.

Well we understand that things can and/or do change with more understanding. That is what science is all about. We expect and understand changes can occurr. Religion offers nothing like that at all. It essentially has not changed or evolved to keep up with the modern society. Science is an ever adapting/evolving process of understanding our world around us. Religion just tells us that god did it, and that is all there is to it.

I recall watching a video on creationism. There was a man on stage with a guitar in his hand singing about how stupid evolution was. The crowd was made up mostly of grade school children. In another part of the video, there was a bunch of people standing around a dig site. One person says, 'well about 2 million years ago, this happened', another pipes up says 'Where you there?' This seems more stupid than saying evolution is stupid. Of course we were not there, but the evidence lying around the planet gives us a pretty good picture of what the world's history was like.

We can turn this around on the creationist. God created the earth 6000 years ago, but are you sure? Where you actually there? There is even a creationsists museum in the US. Depicting man living along side the dinusaur. But how do they know for sure? Where they there?

So maybe we can equate intelligence with having an open mind period. Instead of discounting things outright, take time to investigate and check the facts, and recheck the facts. To me the bible and other religious text give in to the closed minded mentality. They are brought up to think a certain way, it has been engrained into them from the start, never even knowing or possibly thinking about 'what if there was no god'. Ignorant people will say, god did it, how dare you say otherwise. Those people are closed minded and are probably not that intelligent. If you ask others 'what if there was no god' and they don't say anything, they are at least thinking about it. Those to me are people that are more open mindend and more intelligent.

You can switch it around, what if there really is a god? Well, the possibility is definately there, but for all evidence presented before me, it really is a matter of faith and beleifs. For the most part they are untestable. You can test one persons faith, but testing the faith itself is an impossible task. I am the kind of person that puts faith into proveable testable theories and concepts. I cannot prove or disprove god, and I have a problem with that when it comes to most devout people. They cannot even fathom that anything but god did it.

It is a facile, simplistic exercise in reductionism to equate the argument for/against God to creationism and evolution.

I know you can do better than that.

I think that there are alot of very intelligent closed minded people.

It is not limited to religion at all and closed mindedness is not a measure of intelligence - it is a measure of curiosity.

[GostHacked]

It is a facile, simplistic exercise in reductionism to equate the argument for/against God to creationism and evolution.

I know you can do better than that.

I think that there are alot of very intelligent closed minded people.

It is not limited to religion at all and closed mindedness is not a measure of intelligence - it is a measure of curiosity.

So maybe it is not a question of intelligence, but more of a question of wisdome learning from lessons through life?

But we have to start with simplistic models, it would be hard to start with the complex issues first, those should only come out after the simple issues are worked out.

[WIP]

So you are saying that if a theory became viable to explain how gravity behaves at a sub atomic level that quantum mechanics would remain unchanged? That seems rather silly wouldn't you agree?

No, I would not agree! I said before, we can still use Isaac Newton's Laws of Motion today as long as we are working in the world of middle dimensions that we live in. Classical mechanics doesn't run into problems until it has to deal with wave/particle duality and uncertainty on the atomic scale, and it's ability to describe gravitational effects on the astronomical scale is impaired when curvature of spacetime becomes a factor. Otherwise, for everyday use they work fine. And similarly, any work done on the atomic or sub-atomic levels that doesn't deal with very massive objects like black holes or the singularity at the start of the big bang, can be studied with quantum mechanics.

I see, so I should trust your authority over that of a physicist? lol you'll forgive me if I do not I presume.

No, but as a rule of thumb, when dealing with these sort of highly specialized, technical subjects, the best advice is to take the consensus of expert opinion and be a little more skeptical of the expert who is off on his own. Sometimes the heretic is right; but he still has the burden of proof to make his case before a peer review panel.

It's the same thing if your financial adviser told you now is a good time to invest in U.S. mortgage-backed securities; he may be right and ahead of the curve, but if you heard all of the other money experts were convinced that the real estate market was way overpriced, you might be a little wary of taking the advice of your money guru, even though he knows the subject much better than you do! Rather than taking one man's advice, or just taking a public poll to see what the majority of people think, you might want to know what the consensus of expert opinion is on the subject -- and the same thing goes for scientific questions!

The math in quantum mechanics is described as ugly by more than a few experts in the field. When the math is ugly it usually means that the theory is inept, needs adjustment or is just plain wrong. We will probably find out in the next 10 years so stay tuned.

Math is not my department, so I'm a little lost when mathematicians and physicists talk about "beautiful" and "elegant" mathematics! But this seems like a very subjective judgement by the people who work in physics departments around the world. For one thing, QM stands in the way for the physicists who believe there must be a unified field theory underlying nature, since the situations where quantum mechanics is applied to studying subatomic effects in spacetime (such as quantum tunneling, where the "special" theory of relativity, which assumes flat spacetime, is used) since QM generates meaningless infinities when attempts are made to incorporate the curved spacetime of general relativity.

The presupposition that the math will be "elegant" may be another one of those situations where our intuitive expectations for how things should work are violated under dimensions that we didn't need to deal with during our evolution. The real world may be ugly by our standards of aesthetics and there may be no unifying theory -- even at the start of the big bang! And of course, many physicists, including Einstein himself, could not accept uncertainty and uncaused events because our everyday understanding of the world is a determined universe that works by strict laws of cause and effect.

And that may be the source of the search for hidden variables in quantum theory; besides the Copenhagen Interpretation, the next most popular interpretation of the range of probabilities is the 'Many Worlds Interpretation' -- where instead of the collapse of a wave function, the probabilities represent different dimensional pathways chosen by the particle. If there were three probable choices, the particle would follow all of the paths in three different dimensional parallel universes. Many Worlds meets the criteria of being deterministic, but it has it's own inelegance, since there would have to be an infinite, or near infinite number of alternative universes to allow every probability to follow its course.

No surprise that science fiction writers love this interpretation! They can use this interpretation to create alternate universes where Hitler won WWII, dinosaurs still roam the earth since the comet or asteroid that struck the earth 63 million years ago didn't happen -- the possibilities for writing fiction are also endless, but not necessarily based in anything real.

From what I have gleamed, if string theory continues to evolve, it will have consequences to quantum mechanics and particle theory. I think you can understand that.

But, once again, it will only have consequences where gravity becomes an issue at the atomic scale -- very dense objects like black hole singularities.

Yes, and new theories are sometimes met with hostility. Like I said, look up the new theories on the precambrian extinction event. Scientists are proposing a meteor impact likely caused that event too. They are being met with outright hostility by the galciation theorists. See last Months Nat Geographic for the write up. My point is, even scientists like to 'believe' sometimes.

Of course they do! In geologic history, there is a contentious debate over whether collisions of asteroids/comets caused previous mass extinctions, or whether natural earth changes like volcanic flood basalts and plate tectonics, were the main culprits that cause mass extinction. There is not enough evidence to make an either/or case for most mass extinctions, but the consensus of opinion is that the K/T extinction that we are most familiar with, since it wiped out the dinosaurs was caused by a comet/asteroid. There is still a minority opinion that a volcanic flood basalt was the primary cause since some geologists have noted that the Deccan Traps in India were formed during the period of the extinction, 60 to 65 million years ago.

A previous mass extinction called "The Great Dying" 250 million years ago, was an even more pivotal event since it wiped out over 90% of plant and animal life on land, and virtually all sea life. But the P/T extinction is also contentious since there is also evidence of impact and earth changes at that time! The consensus seems to be shifting towards earth changes, thanks in large part probably to the work of paleontologist Peter D. Ward, who discovered evidence for sulphate-producing bacteria in sedimentary rocks he was exploring in the Canary Islands a number of years back. His explanation for the re-emergence of lethal cyanobacteria at the time, was that volcanic activity of the massive Siberian Traps flood basalt, dumped so much carbon dioxide, methane, sulpher dioxide and other noxious gases in the atmosphere over a period of one million years, that it created an anoxic situation in the planet's oceans, killing off sea life and allowing anaerobic bacteria to return and flourish.

Ward's theory is presented in a book I read last year called:"Under A Green Sky," and received a lot of notoriety outside of the earth sciences community because he believes that a continued increase in CO2 levels will at some point cause the polar ice caps to melt and the ocean circulation system to grind to a halt, or at least slow down so much that it can't replenish the oceans with oxygen. Ward's conclusions may not be 100%, but one thing that I admire about him is that he had the courage of conviction to stick by what he considered to be correct at an early point of his career -- Ward was a graduate student working for renowned paleontologist Luis Alvarez, who discovered the correlation between the Chixulub Crater in the Yucatan, with the demise of the dinosaurs. Alvarez assumed that all mass extinctions were caused by impact events, and was so offended that Ward was developing an earth changes theory, that he yanked funding for his work in the Canary Islands! Ward had to scramble to search for alternative benefactors so he could continue his work.

So, I have no illusions that scientists don't always act rationally and altruistically, but can be motivated by ego, pride, jealousy, greed, revenge, just as much as the rest of society! One cynical physicist commented many years ago that:"new theories are accepted when old dept. heads die of old age!" -- so it may take time, but eventually a worthy new idea will win acceptance if it has strong support. In religion, that process is either non-existent or could take centuries to change doctrines!

I didn't say anything was wrong with it but thanks for putting words in my mouth and repeating what you read on wikipedia. Like I said there are competing theories on this. Do you research and you will see.

see above!

What are you talking about? Why are you subscribing views to me that I have not expressed? Does it make you angry when people don't fall in line with you? If it does, perhaps a discussion board isn't the best place for you to be. I am certainly not a young earth creationist, but thanks for applying your stereotype of religious people to me. Do you do the same with race and ethnicity too? Again, I was simply referring to competing theories on the precambrian extinction event as an example on how new scientific theories are sometimes greated with hostility. I am perplexed as to why you have an issue with this fact. Moving on..

Ben Stein and his documentary? wtf? Look bud, how about you read what I write instead of presuming to know where I am coming from. It makes a fun topic rather boring and predictible if you insist on persisting in the stereotypes. If I tell you that I am African American will you start asking me how fast I can run the 100m?

I haven't figured out yet exactly what standpoint you are arguing from, except that you take a relativistic view that scientific inquiry is no more valid than any other statement of beliefs, including religious authority. Whether some people consider it offensive or not, I am not going to grant the same degree of authenticity to religion, mysticism or any other belief system that claims to receive knowledge from outside of our natural world. And I just used Ben STein as an example of someone who tries to make a claim by trying to discredit evolutionary theory and the scientists who work in fields that depend on evolutionary theory to do their research. And, it is not necessarily just a Christian thing! On this board, Charter Rights seems to be the biggest denier of the scientific method that we have here. He rejects the "out of Africa" theory of human origins for a belief that the natives always lived here since time began -- even though it flies in the face of fossil and DNA evidence.

Drea is openly mocking people who do not subscribe to her narrow views on existence and reality.

That for me automatically makes her a bigot. I have been reading her posts for along time though so perhaps it is easier for me than you.

I will say your vigorous defence of her does your reputation as an honest poster no favours to go along with your bigoted attempts of stereotyping my thought process.

Well, from what I've seen so far, her views are attacked as narrow and intolerant primarily by liberal religious people who think that just asking the Why question is objectionable. After running in circles with the abortion debate, I am also more inclined to demand that people such as those who present the mantra: "life begins at conception" do more than say " I believe!" If I have to defend the reasons why I believe there has to be a stage in fetal development where we start conferring human rights to a fetus, the people at opposide ends of the debate should not be allowed to hide behind the privacy of personal belief! That's why these sorts of issues never reach any real consensus! On the prolife side, if the policies you are advocating are just based on a belief that a "soul" is dropped into the embryo after fertilization, that is no longer a private religious belief, and the evidence for this soul and the doctrine of ensoulment should be subject to evalutation as well!

This is pure Bull Shit. Fanatics of every creed, philosophy, ethnicity and politics all compromise their flexibility to adapt. One needs only look at the humanist failure of communism (where they banned religion) to see this. I seem to remember alot of 'scientific' experiments in the gas chambers too...

Odd don't you think?

If you cannot see this then I will have to question your flexibility to adapt and that would make you a poor adherent to the scientific method now wouldn't it?

Communists are materialist, but they are not humanists, since they deny the rights of the individual in favour of collective rights. A secular dogma like communism can take on many of the properties of a religion, and if you use Cambodia for a comparison, the religion of communism was not "hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists," but instead it was the true believers in Marxism who decided that classes of people like city-dwellers needed to be exterminated, since they could not be moulded in to a true proletarian class. This is similar to Thomas de Torquemada, the Grand Inquisitor, who became the greatest mass murderer of heretics because he was a devout Catholic and could not be corrupted by bribery attempts like other inquisitors. He was described as ascetic and beyond reproach and could not be corrupted by the accused who attempted to buy him off!

But, have you noticed how communism has pretty much come and gone in less than a hundred years? I don't know how communist North Korea's regime is; many analysts have pegged it as more in line with the old aristocracies of that region that depended on emperor worship to maintain their power over the people. The Communist China of today is a far cry from the Maoist regime of "the Great Leap Forward!" Today it is just another one-party dictatorship, no different than other similar regimes in the Third World. A big part of the reason is that since communism is atheistic and cannot promise supernatural rewards or threaten supernatural punishment, a communist regime could not make a faith-based appeal to the people to disregard the continued failure of their system and have faith that God would soon be coming to either begin a new world order, or take them all off to heaven to live happily everafter! Communism was doomed by the very rationalism that they appealed to. Over the years, people could see through the propaganda, since they couldn't make an anti-intellectual appeal like "blessed are the sheep, since they just do what their told and don't ask tough questions!"

[eyeball]

I'd still like someone to give a good reason why the majority of the top scientists who are members of the N.A.S. do not share the belief in the supernatural that the majority of the population does. My suspicion is that people who are not very bright, are going to be less likely to make a break from magical thinking than the smart people. It doesn't mean that the geniuses are going to follow through and be rational, but they should have a greater likelihood of doing so than someone who has trouble evaluating the evidence.

In the same vein, I wonder what the comparative ratios of atheists and deists with strong views towards and against AGW are? I'm betting most AGW deniers are religious and most AGW believers are atheists. I have little doubt most mainstream economists also fall into the camp with the highest capacity for suspending its disbelief.

Its just an observation.

[WIP]

In the same vein, I wonder what the comparative ratios of atheists and deists with strong views towards and against AGW are? I'm betting most AGW deniers are religious and most AGW believers are atheists. I have little doubt most mainstream economists also fall into the camp with the highest capacity for suspending its disbelief.

Its just an observation.

Yes, I was surprised to notice this connection awhile back on an American forum -- that the majority of religious conservatives who accept so much on faith from their pastors and their favourite Republicans, were skeptics on issues like evolution and global warming, which have broad support among the scientific community.

And it's apparently not a random anomaly! This survey conducted by the Barna Group, shows that evangelicals are really out there on their own on global warming: only 33% believe it is a major problem! A similar low number of 35% of evangelicals believe that it is important to invest in protecting the environment. Other religions average around 55% to 60%, relatively close the atheist/agnostic 69% average, on the issue of whether global warming is a problem.

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=Ba...rnaUpdateID=279

Evangelicals are more likely to adhere to apocalyptic views of the near future, believing they will be raptured soon from whatever problems are going on here on Earth; and that may be a key link to their nonchalance over the environment, and their enthusiasm for conflicts in the MiddleEast, like the Israeli raid of Hezbollah's strongholds in Lebanon a little over a year ago. Bad news is good news to people with this dangerous outlook on the world, and attempts to solve environmental problems or prevent wars are viewed as setbacks for those anxiously awaiting Armageddon!

[White Doors]

A much better post WIP. Thank you for the improved communication style - appreciated.

But you got this wrong:

I haven't figured out yet exactly what standpoint you are arguing from, except that you take a relativistic view that scientific inquiry is no more valid than any other statement of beliefs, including religious authority

I do not agree with that at all. Scientific inquiry is more valid than a statement of religious orthodoxy from a religious school of thought in trying to explain the realities of our existence. Religion is obviously better at giving people a set of rules to live by as science does not attempt to do this (with some notable exceptions such as AGW fanatics).

My point was that 'scientists' can become fanatics too and that religion is no more of a 'problem' to human advancement than any other creed or philosophy that has a critical mass of fanatical thought.

Communism was my example and it thoroughly discredited your singular obesession with religion being a net negative to humanity.

You mention communism having lasted onky 100 years more or less, however in that 100 years that philosophy killed more people than all the religions of the world ever has combined. You also mention the inquisition. That gets alot of play in history classes. The best estimates are that the spanish inquisition was responsible for somehting like 7000 deaths. A drop in the bucket compared to communism.

Human nature is what both propels us and holds us back.

Two steps forward and one step back.

Edited June 20, 2008 by White Doors

[Remiel]

One note I would like to mention: A direct comparison between people killed by ideologies in the 20th century and people killed by religions previous is to that does not give the best picture of the scale of destruction. Relatively speaking, in the 20th century there were a lot more people to kill, a lot more people to do the killing, and a lot more deadly weapons to help in the grisly task.

Proportionately, the craziest war ever is probably still the An Shi Rebellion of 756 to 763, with an estimate of over 33 million deaths.