Is religiousity a matter of aesthetics?

gc1765 · October 14, 2006

I would never put my "faith" in something that I couldn't confirm
----SNIP---- - ----SNIP---- - ----SNIP----

that those genetic traits are passed onto the next generation (easily verifiable).

I will cut to the chase.
All of that stuff, I "know" too but I never did the original research to rediscover it all from scratch. I take most of it for granted because it simply makes sense or it is just easier to do so.

By the way, I have never seen DNA. Have you?

Also, I have never seen tectonic plates, either. In fact, I have never even seen the other side of the Earth but I believe it is there.

When you say "confirm" you are hiding your faith in science. You are actually accepting bodies of common scientific knowledge on a faith basis too. You must.

Actually, I have "seen" evidence for DNA. Evidence that is consistent with everything I've ever learned in such a way as it would be highly unlikely that it's not true....but that's irrelevant, and very difficult to explain.

The beauty is that you don't have to see DNA or believe in it to understand evolution. All you have to know is that if you do "something" (ie mutate DNA, if that's what you believe in) to an organism, that organism will have a better chance of survival. If you do this "something" to a bacteria, you can make it resistant to antibiotics (yes I've done this) and thereby give it a better chance of surviving. You can also notice that the offspring of this bacteria will also be resistant to antibiotics. That bacteria has therefore "evolved". I have "faith" in the mechanism of how this is occuring, but like I said the mechanism is irrelevant. I can still see evolution happening without faith.

I like your example of "the other side of the earth". I have faith that Africa exists, even though I've never been there. I still wouldn't bet my life on it though, since I have never been there. The only comfort I have is that I have been to some places, and those places are consistent with what I have been told, so why would someone lie to me about africa but not lie to me about the places I have been to...especially when no one can predict where I will travel to next.

EDIT: I suppose I have "faith" that what my eyes see and how my brain interprets it is actually more or less reality. I could be hallucinating...

Charles Anthony · October 14, 2006

Actually, I have "seen" evidence for DNA. Evidence that is consistent with everything I've ever learned in such a way as it would be highly unlikely that it's not true....but that's irrelevant, and very difficult to explain.

No. The mechanisms are most relevant because it is the mechanisms which demonstrate the "faith" that comes into your acceptance of science. My response is that they are NOT "difficult to explain" but rather, I just read the science books, listen to the science lectures and blindly accept the mechanisms. It is just not worth doubting them and I have no particular interest.

The beauty is that you don't have to see DNA or believe in it to understand evolution.

Maybe not DNA per se but you have to understand that genetic information is transferred.

All you have to know is that if you do "something" (ie mutate DNA, if that's what you believe in) to an organism, that organism will have a better chance of survival.

Forgive me but that is a very incomplete understanding of evolution.

Evolution in a nutshell:

- mutations happen and are transfered to offspring

- therefore, offspring DO NOT have to be exact matches of parents

- new mutations can be maintained and repeated in 2nd, 3rd, etc. generation offspring

- enough mutations can make future offspring NOT ABLE to reproduce with original non-mutated lineage

- therefore, new "species" can develop

Now, understanding genetics and how information is mixed/transferred to offspring allows us to understand how different (better/worse/neutral) physical traits are maintained in a population. That is all. Old-fashioned evolution theory talks about survival but that describes only a fraction of the practical application of evolution. You need to understand gene transfer to describe population genetics completely or in a useful manner.

If you do this "something" to a bacteria, you can make it resistant to antibiotics (yes I've done this) and thereby give it a better chance of surviving.

That is the 5-second newspaper headline version. The success of your science experiment depended on the fact that organisms contain genetic information.

I have "faith" in the mechanism of how this is occuring, but like I said the mechanism is irrelevant. I can still see evolution happening without faith.

Quite the contrary. You need faith to be able to "see" what you think you are seeing. If nobody told you anything about the mechanisms of evolution or heredity, you would not see any of them.

Everything is context. If we lived a thousand years ago, it would make sense to believe the Earth was flat.

I have faith that Africa exists, even though I've never been there. I still wouldn't bet my life on it though, since I have never been there.

That is a bizarre statement. "why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith?"

I would bet my life that Africa exists even though I have never been there either. If it was proven to me (how, I do not know!) that Africa did not exist, I doubt that I would be able to cope psychologically -- I would feel horrifyingly mentally ill or possessed by an evil spirit beyond my control. [i know, I know, I can hear it already... nobody has to say it.... ]

EDIT: I suppose I have "faith" that what my eyes see and how my brain interprets it is actually more or less reality.

Technically, that is correct. Practically, it also makes sense.

Electric Monk · October 14, 2006

I have the feeling that for this thread to go anywhere productive, we are going to have to agree on a definition for the word "faith".

Electric Monk · October 14, 2006

My answer to the OP is that yes, I think that some people choose a religion for aesthetic reasons. My sister became a member of an Anglican church at least partly because of the beauty of the church, music, and ceremony she experiences there. I chose my lack of religion partly because I find the universe a much more beautiful and wonderful place without a god.

gc1765 · October 14, 2006

No. The mechanisms are most relevant because it is the mechanisms which demonstrate the "faith" that comes into your acceptance of science. My response is that they are NOT "difficult to explain" but rather, I just read the science books, listen to the science lectures and blindly accept the mechanisms. It is just not worth doubting them and I have no particular interest.

I've alredy said that I have faith in the mechanisms of evolution, but to witness evolution without understanding the mechanism is possible (assuming that my eyes are not deceiving me). I can take a bunch of cells (which I believe to be bacteria cells from what I've been told) and they will multiply. This is easy to see. I can add "something" to some of them (antibiotics) and they will stop growing. I can then introduce "something" into them (a gene) and that "something" that I previously added (antibiotics) will no longer stop the bacteria from growing. I can then let them grow and take those offspring and add that "something" again (antibiotics) and they will continue to grow. I have just witnessed evolution in action. I can't explain how it is occuring without at least some faith in the work of other scientists. I can say though that I've seen very good evidence for the mechanism involved. Every bit of evidence I have seen is consistent with what I have been taught. In science, if your theory can stand up to any and all evidence you acquire then you have a pretty good theory (or you just need to think of more creative experiments to disprove it). So, in summary I can say that I believe evolution can occur with no more faith than believing what my eyes see. I can say that I believe in the mechanism of evolution (something derived by someone else) by having "faith" in the scientific process.

Maybe not DNA per se but you have to understand that genetic information is transferred.

All I have to know is that the offspring have the same characteristics (in other words they are also antibiotic resistant) as the parent.

Quite the contrary. You need faith to be able to "see" what you think you are seeing. If nobody told you anything about the mechanisms of evolution or heredity, you would not see any of them.

I might not realize that what I am witnessing is in fact evolution, and I might not have done the experiments in the first place if this process was not understood....but I can still confirm with my own eyes that it is true.

That is a bizarre statement. "why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith?"
I would bet my life that Africa exists even though I have never been there either. If it was proven to me (how, I do not know!) that Africa did not exist, I doubt that I would be able to cope psychologically -- I would feel horrifyingly mentally ill or possessed by an evil spirit beyond my control. [i know, I know, I can hear it already... nobody has to say it.... ]

I don't think it's bizarre, what I meant was that I have "faith" that Africa exists becuase I have never seen it with my own eyes. Evolution, on the other hand, I can see with my own eyes.

Rue · October 14, 2006

I have 2 aspects of this thought:
First, could it be that the main difference between persons of religious vs. non-religious mind-set is simply that the latter just don't like the indeterminate/meaningless quality of religious concepts?

Second, since there is no rational way to choose the 'right' religion, can we conclude that a person's choice of religion is basically an aesthetic one (eg. between an angry vs. loving deity)?

Well to start with your construct that you can simpluy lump people into religious and non religious categories probably reflects your intellectual neurotic tendency to need to define things in black and white.

"Religious" people, is an interesting label. I take it you mean someone who follows an organized religious ideology.

If that is what you mean please be careful in your simplistic differentiations. Many non-religious people are spiritual and many religious people are not spiritual.

I would prefer to put it in less black and white terms and say this. People who follow organized religions do so because they seek comfort and certainty in what would otherwise be a world that seems threatening and

without meaning. They turn to religion as a consequence of neurotic anxiety and needing meaning and structure in chaos. Organized religion provides comfort from conformity.

For me, I do not like religion or to be specific organized religion because I find it sets out to control the individual and impose rules as to how to think and behave and conceptualize that which we do not really know.

I believe all our organized religions, are necessarily political, necessarily create intolerance in the name of righteousness, and are imperfect and defective precisely because they are creations of humans, the only life form on the planet that kills for the sake of killing.

I think many people like me are not "religious" because in fact we are spiritual and feel there is something beyond it all, and we find religion negates or bastardizes or rapes or molests or contaminates this feeling of innocence and awe with dogma.

Thanks but I have never liked joining organizations to define who I am. Thanks but my thought processes and belief systems don't fit into black and white dogma, bibles, korans, holy books.

I think like many, I share Marx's beliefs and I do not mean Karl Marx, but Groucho Marx who said, any club that would take me as a member ain't worth joining.

That said I am a Habs fan and so M. Dancer speaks eloquently for me as well. Now we ex-Montrealer hab fans know Montreal is our Mecca because its the only place that knows how to make smoked meat, bagels, and steamies and toast hot dog buns properly.

The Forum was a religious shrine. Its a shame they had to move.

Interesting, in the most intense periods of the French v.s. English debate in Montreal, regardless of whether you were French or English, this evaporated once you walked inside the Forum and sat down. For the three periods of the game, everyone was plugged into the same values and beliefs. Sitting at a game in the Forum was magical and some would say a mystical or religious experience. There are some games in that Forum where truly we all shared for a brief moment a common belief...something no organized religion has been able to do for me.

Figleaf · October 14, 2006

[

ll

Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf

Charles Anthony · October 14, 2006

If that is what you mean please be careful in your simplistic differentiations. Many non-religious people are spiritual and many religious people are not spiritual.

I agree.

Organized religion provides comfort from conformity.

I agree and I believe people also have blind faith in science for the same reason.

There are some games in that Forum where truly we all shared for a brief moment a common belief...something no organized religion has been able to do for me.

Just for the sake of argument -- I mean, to start a religious war -- the Habs suck.

All I have to know is that the offspring have the same characteristics (in other words they are also antibiotic resistant) as the parent.

No. There is a different hypothesis that can explain or recreate your biology soup mix. You choose to identify it as "evolution" because you are prejudiced by having prior knowlege. You see what you want to see.

I might not realize that what I am witnessing is in fact evolution, and I might not have done the experiments in the first place if this process was not understood....but I can still confirm with my own eyes that it is true.

No. I will explain why and the answer lies in your recipe.

Here it is:

I can then let them grow and take those offspring and add that "something" again (antibiotics) and they will continue to grow. I have just witnessed evolution in action.

Your "something" could have just put the same organisms in a dormant state. Genetics or reproduction may have had nothing to do with what occurred. That is an other hypothesis.

You are actually blind. You can not say that you "witnessed" or "saw" more than one generation of organisms in your soup. You see what you want to see based on prior knowledge. You blindly have faith in the current scientific base.

But how do they choose WHICH religion?

My opinion is:

1) whatever their parents taught them (that is the easiest one to accept)

2) whatever one happens to be attended by similar people (making them feel welcomed or unthreatened)

I do not think there is anything profound in the #2) scenario. Some people choose social organizations for the purposes of just blending in to the crowd while other choose social organizations for the purposes of standing out or showing off. The original question could be the same as asking WHICH nightclub people choose to frequent on a regular basis or WHICH shopping mall people prefer or WHICH school people choose to attend or WHICH internet discussion fora they prefer to participate or anything else.

gc1765 · October 14, 2006

No. There is a different hypothesis that can explain or recreate your biology soup mix. You choose to identify it as "evolution" because you are prejudiced by having prior knowlege. You see what you want to see.
No. I will explain why and the answer lies in your recipe.

Here it is:

I can then let them grow and take those offspring and add that "something" again (antibiotics) and they will continue to grow. I have just witnessed evolution in action.
Your "something" could have just put the same organisms in a dormant state. Genetics or reproduction may have had nothing to do with what occurred. That is an other hypothesis.

What is the different hypothesis? That the antibiotics are putting the bacteria into a dormant state rather than killing them? Fine, they still don't reproduce in that "state". If a bacteria (resistant to antibiotics) can still reproduce in the presence of antibiotics, that is still evolution. The theory of "survival of the fittest" should really be changed to "survival of the most likely to reproduce" anyhow.

You are actually blind. You can not say that you "witnessed" or "saw" more than one generation of organisms in your soup. You see what you want to see based on prior knowledge. You blindly have faith in the current scientific base.

Sure you can. If not with a microscope, you can at least see the colony getting much, much larger.

Charles Anthony · October 14, 2006

you can at least see the colony getting much, much larger.

You extrapolated from that observation by incorporating prior knowledge of genetics -- an auxiliary field of study which you take for granted.

People comfortably have faith in science and take it for granted -- as you do. They believe certain tenets blindly as some people comfort themselves in religion or some form of supernatural.

Figleaf · October 14, 2006

Charles:

There are people who accept religious eksplanations without applying rational assessment, and people who accept scientific eksplanations without applying rational assessment.

The difference is that when someone does choose to apply rational assessment they will find that it's possible with science, but not with religion.

gc1765 · October 14, 2006

you can at least see the colony getting much, much larger.
You extrapolated from that observation by incorporating prior knowledge of genetics -- an auxiliary field of study which you take for granted.

I can observe a colony start from a very small size, and grow quite large. Assuming that the size of the cells are not increasing dramatically (something which I've never seen) then the number of cells must be increasing. That is using logic (something which I have faith in).

People comfortably have faith in science and take it for granted -- as you do. They believe certain tenets blindly as some people comfort themselves in religion or some form of supernatural.

I agree. As a scientist, my job requires that I depend on & have faith in the science done by others. However, there are certain things (like the evolution example & other examples I showed earlier) that I can confirm/decide for myself.

Charles Anthony · October 14, 2006

I can observe a colony start from a very small size, and grow quite large. Assuming that the size of the cells are not increasing dramatically (something which I've never seen) then the number of cells must be increasing. That is using logic (something which I have faith in).

Where is it that you can observe that you have a subsequent generation of organisms that CAN NOT reproduce with the original parent colony? ? ?

Answer: nowhere.

By the very nature of your choice example (single cell organisms), you can not describe it as evolution. It is just mutation. As a "scientist" you should have caught that one before I did -- actually, before you even said it.

Like I said before, you see what you want to see based on taking other science for granted. Your faith is "science" and your holy book is some great big thick text book. Your priests are some researchers who lecture the same old thing year in and year out.

gc1765 · October 15, 2006

I can observe a colony start from a very small size, and grow quite large. Assuming that the size of the cells are not increasing dramatically (something which I've never seen) then the number of cells must be increasing. That is using logic (something which I have faith in).

Where is it that you can observe that you have a subsequent generation of organisms that CAN NOT reproduce with the original parent colony? ? ?

Answer: nowhere.

By the very nature of your choice example (single cell organisms), you can not describe it as evolution. It is just mutation. As a "scientist" you should have caught that one before I did -- actually, before you even said it.

I understand what you are saying, but evolution within a species is still evolution. To say that one species evolves into another does require faith, but to say that species evolve does not.

Like I said before, you see what you want to see based on taking other science for granted. Your faith is "science" and your holy book is some great big thick text book. Your priests are some researchers who lecture the same old thing year in and year out.

Like I said before, for a lot of science I do take what I hear on faith. But for some issues, especially more philisophical & religious issues, I can decide for myself what to believe based on simple concepts that are "logical".

Leafless · October 15, 2006

Like I said before, for a lot of science I do take what I hear on faith. But for some issues, especially more philisophical & religious issues, I can decide for myself what to believe based on simple concepts that are "logical".

Why do you find it so hard to understand that most native Canadians (Christians) are not overly religious nor do they believe in all aspects of their faith, but simply follow it since it supports family and society in general.

Do you actually think your the only one intelligent enough to reason on the basis of science?

Figleaf · October 15, 2006

... Canadians (Christians) are not overly religious nor do they believe in all aspects of their faith, but simply follow it since it supports family and society in general.

Can you say 'hypocrisy', kiddies?

Charles Anthony · October 15, 2006

Can you say 'hypocrisy', kiddies?

It is no more "hypocrisy" than a scientist pretending he understands evolution of species when he clearly does not.

For some people, aspects of "science" are accepted as fact (and sometimes morphed as a message would during a game of telephone!) with no more logic than somebody believing in the supernatural or religion. It is just easier to take things for granted than to require proof all of the time.

I understand what you are saying,

It does not come across in your posts.

but evolution within a species is still evolution.

However, your experiment is not an example of species evolution.

Figleaf · October 15, 2006

Can you say 'hypocrisy', kiddies?
It is no more "hypocrisy" than a scientist pretending he understands evolution of species when he clearly does not.

What scientist are you talking about? Anyway, whether she is hypocritical depends on whether she knows she doesn't understand.

For some people, aspects of "science" are accepted as fact with no more logic than somebody believing in the supernatural or religion.

That may be true for some people, but as I pointed out above, the difference is that with science it is at least possible to make rational assessments of it, whereas religion precludes that possibility.

gc1765 · October 15, 2006

Why do you find it so hard to understand that most native Canadians (Christians) are not overly religious nor do they believe in all aspects of their faith, but simply follow it since it supports family and society in general.

I don't.

Do you actually think your the only one intelligent enough to reason on the basis of science?

No.

gc1765 · October 15, 2006

but evolution within a species is still evolution.
However, your experiment is not an example of species evolution.

My example shows that "something" (ie a mutation) can happen to organism which provides it with an advantage when it comes to survival & reproduction, and that advantage is passed on to the offspring. According to my definition, this is evolution. This species has "evolved". Do you have a better definition for "evolution" within a species?

Charles Anthony · October 15, 2006

According to my definition,

I give up.

Do you have a better definition for "evolution" within a species?

The correct one -- it can found in a high school biology text. I am not creating defintions.

Either you are not being serious or you are seriously running around.

Have I been had??? I feel like just walked into something.

gc1765 · October 15, 2006

I give up.
The correct one -- it can found in a high school biology text. I am not creating defintions.

Either you are not being serious or you are seriously running around.

Have I been had??? I feel like just walked into something.

The definition I provided is essentially the same as what is in every biology textbook I've ever read. Do you have a definition which is inconsistent with my example of antibiotic resistant bacteria?

Am I the one being had?

Charles Anthony · October 15, 2006

Am I the one being had?

Just when I thought that I was out, I pull myself back in.

Do you have a definition which is inconsistent with my example of antibiotic resistant bacteria?

I already identified species evolution in this same thread. You replied and quoted my post repeatedly. I think it is fair to say you read it but did not understand it. Here it is again:

Evolution in a nutshell:

- mutations happen and are transfered to offspring

- therefore, offspring DO NOT have to be exact matches of parents

- new mutations can be maintained and repeated in 2nd, 3rd, etc. generation offspring

- enough mutations can make future offspring NOT ABLE to reproduce with original non-mutated lineage

- therefore, new "species" can develop

I did not look that up. If you asked me in which horizon the Sun sets, I would not look that up either.

However, just to get things rolling faster, I did a search for "what is evolution" on the internet -- just like you can. This is what I got:

It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,
Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

What is Evolution?

Now, referring back to your "experiment", where do you have proof that you created a new species and not just a mutation?

Answer: nowhere.

My whole point is that you (and many other people) take aspects of science for granted truths. Thus, your faith in "science & logic" as as you put it, is no more logical than being a part of a different organized religion. However, it might be easier and less demanding upon you.

Figleaf · October 15, 2006

My whole point is that ... many ... people... take aspects of science for granted truths. Thus, your faith in "science & logic" as as you put it, is no more logical than being a part of a different organized religion.

Sorry, but it is different. A person who accepts given assertions of science without any reflection on them may fit your complaint. But not so for someone who, knowing the nature of science and scientific inquiry, accepts established consensuses of science as "very probably mostly right" to the extent they perceive no merit in chasing the question any further. That is not 'faith' in a religious sense. It is a calculation of probability based on real knowledge.

gc1765 · October 15, 2006

I already identified species evolution in this same thread. You replied and quoted my post repeatedly. I think it is fair to say you read it but did not understand it. Here it is again:
Evolution in a nutshell:
- mutations happen and are transfered to offspring

- therefore, offspring DO NOT have to be exact matches of parents

- new mutations can be maintained and repeated in 2nd, 3rd, etc. generation offspring

- enough mutations can make future offspring NOT ABLE to reproduce with original non-mutated lineage

- therefore, new "species" can develop

Now, referring back to your "experiment", where do you have proof that you created a new species and not just a mutation?
Answer: nowhere.

I never claimed that a new species was being created. I think you are getting Speciation confused with Evolution . You might want to read these Link and Link as well. Then you will understand that my example is an example of evolution, not speciation. For me to believe in speciation would required some faith, but believing in evolution does not. I believe I already said that a few posts back.