# Sam Harris: Religions Are Failed Sciences



## Ken Morgan (Aug 7, 2011)




----------



## fangjian (Aug 7, 2011)

"The Moral Landscape" is a great book.


----------



## Omar B (Aug 7, 2011)

I like Sam's stuff.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 7, 2011)

One of the four horsemen


----------



## Big Don (Aug 7, 2011)

2*:* militant or crusading zeal 
Why does atheism and/or agnosticism need evangelism?


----------



## billc (Aug 7, 2011)

That's a good video Ken Morgan.  A 5 minute video can be a great starting point to conversation, debate and even argument.  I have to say that science is a great way to help us understand how God makes the universe work.  

***********A FEW WORDS OF CAUTION*************

1)   POSTING THIS VIDEO MAY LEAD SOME ON THE STUDY TO BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE ISLAMAPHOBIC. (not me)
2)   POSTING THIS VIDEO MAY LEAD PEOPLE TO COMPLAIN THAT YOU ARE NOT EXPRESSING YOUR OWN IDEAS AND THEY MAY ASK THAT YOU BE BANNED FROM THE SITE AS A TROUBLE MAKER. (not me)
**********END OF A FEW WORDS OF CAUTION********


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 7, 2011)

Big Don said:


> 2*:* militant or crusading zeal
> Why does atheism and/or agnosticism need evangelism?



How so?

I see an informal de facto leadership of sorts having emerged in the past decade or so within the atheist movement, one with money, intellect, and no longer willing to sit idle while religions and other charlatans push their agenda on the populace. It&#8217;s past time to hold religion and its leaders responsible.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 7, 2011)

billcihak said:


> That's a good video Ken Morgan. A 5 minute video can be a great starting point to conversation, debate and even argument. I have to say that science is a great way to help us understand how God makes the universe work.
> 
> ***********A FEW WORDS OF CAUTION*************
> 
> ...



Do not include me in your games.
We've had many religious discussions on here.


----------



## billc (Aug 7, 2011)

Then are you an islamaphobe for posting this video?


----------



## Big Don (Aug 8, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> How so?
> 
> I see an informal de facto leadership of sorts having emerged in the past decade or so within the atheist movement, one with money, intellect, and no longer willing to sit idle while religions and other charlatans push their agenda on the populace. It&#8217;s past time to hold religion and its leaders responsible.


Proselytizing for atheism is no less annoying to people than door to door religion salesmen. Honestly, I have more respect for someone who will go out and tell people what he believes than for someone, like Bill Maher, who is an anti-religion bigot. Were he to restrict his hatred to ONE particular religion, he'd be a bigot and widely reviled. (Look around the Study, I'm sure you can find an example...) Since he fires his anti-religion bile with a wide spread, he is "enlightened"? What  a crock. I don't see religious people, aside from the Westboro jackasses running around screaming "You're all going to hell!" But, if you look around the Study again, you will find MANY examples of people belittling those who are religious. Cracks like "Invisible man in the sky..." etc aren't anything less than anti-religious bigotry, but, it is so common, it is largely ignored. I have NEVER mentioned my personal religious beliefs or lack thereof anywhere online, because, they are (or aren't  ) just that, my personal beliefs. I don't feel the need to ram them down anyone's throat or rub them in anyone's face.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 8, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> *Do not include me in your games.
> *We've had many religious discussions on here.



Me neither, thanks for a good OP Ken.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 8, 2011)

I think while the premise of the video may well be true, I think I would take the view that organised religions are failed (or perhaps not so) systems of jurisprudence initiated to keep their believers in line.  I think that organised religions have given us much of our legal bedrock upon which we have built our modern law.  

On that basis, I think the only *true athiesm* would disavow that legal bedrock simply because it encourages humanity to be what it is by default not: loving and civilised.  We are animals.  A highly evolved (with a small e ) species yes and but nonetheless we are animal in our biological makeup.  

I propose that the true athiest should live as did our plain-dwelling antecedents, hunting, gathering and killing competitors who would try to wrest our scarce resources from our bloody hands.  This is our true nature as humans told in the circulation of our almost societally defunct hormones.  

To believe we are (at our base level) in some way more enligntened than this is almost to take on the mantle of some kind of *orthodox religious piety*.  Therefore, be a *true athiest* and not some semantically correct one - eschew piety, accept our true animal nature far from any notion of the paraphernalia of mythical deities and strive to have our religion-engendered laws repealed, Jenna


----------



## fangjian (Aug 8, 2011)

Jenna said:


> I think while the premise of the video may well be true, I think I would take the view that organised religions are failed (or perhaps not so) systems of jurisprudence initiated to keep their believers in line.  I think that organised religions have given us much of our legal bedrock upon which we have built our modern law.
> 
> On that basis, I think the only *true athiesm* would disavow that legal bedrock simply because it encourages humanity to be what it is by default not: loving and civilised.  We are animals.  A highly evolved (with a small e ) species yes and but nonetheless we are animal in our biological makeup.
> 
> ...



Saying that 'Atheists should behave like our ancestors millions of years ago', is silly. Our civilization, ethics, morals, etc. are all part of our evolution. This *is* our nature. Just because we don't believe that 'gods and goddesses transmitted morals into each of our brains', doesn't mean we have to 'act like Australopithecines now'. We *are* Apes, yes. However, we are apes that realized the value of working with other apes for similar goals. So this *is* our nature.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 8, 2011)

We gave our morality to religion; religion did not give it to us.

The judeo &#8211;christian religions have been around for only a few thousand years, prior to them we still had writing, art, theatre, democracy, clothing, marriage, adoption, charity and dozens of other things that can make us moral. Religion was our creation, hence it will have our core values. To say that religion gave us our morality is to say that for the tens of billions of people who have existed and have died since the existence of our species 200000 years ago, were immoral barbarians because they didn&#8217;t have our or any religion. I&#8217;m sure these people loved their children, their spouses, shared resources and laughed.

It is the nature of all primates to fight territorial wars, to fight over mates, to look after family, to look after the tribe, to love, to share resources and to work together. It has been that way arguably for a few millions years of development of all primates. It is what we are.


----------



## cdunn (Aug 8, 2011)

Jenna said:


> I think while the premise of the video may well be true, I think I would take the view that organised religions are failed (or perhaps not so) systems of jurisprudence initiated to keep their believers in line. I think that organised religions have given us much of our legal bedrock upon which we have built our modern law.
> 
> On that basis, I think the only *true athiesm* would disavow that legal bedrock simply because it encourages humanity to be what it is by default not: loving and civilised. We are animals. A highly evolved (with a small e ) species yes and but nonetheless we are animal in our biological makeup.
> 
> ...



And yet, despite the solemn declaration of so many holy books that this is God, and his words are law, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; we have an economic system that is directly and deliberately built around the idea of coveting; and I cannot remember the last time I saw a teenager stoned to death for disobeying his parents. 

The only thing atheism provides us with is that we are responsible for ourselves, and that there is no God to prostrate ourselves to, either for guidance or forgiveness. Humanism helps us understand a rational basis for behaving like decent, civilized people. We are animals - but altruism is a part of ourselves. We are animals - but we have broad communication, reason, and culture. We are animals - but we are what we choose, as well.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 8, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Saying that 'Atheists should behave like our ancestors millions of years ago', is silly.


Thank you.



fangjian said:


> Our civilization, ethics, morals, etc. are all part of our evolution.


Though a substantial part of that has been handed to you through the mechanisms of orthodox religions, irrespective of where those morals as you put it may have originated.   Our nature is still that of the plain dweller.  Yes, the environs are for most of us vastly different and but our chemical makeup remains the same.  

My point however is not that.  My point is that since much of our law has been inherited through the doctrines of various religions, mostly Christianity in westernised nations, as a true athiest, one should disavow these things in favour of our true animalistic natures.  

By way of example, your children are (like those in Norway recently) gunned down mercilessly by some maniac on a spree.  You are inconsolable with anger.  They are dead.  You will never see, hear or feel them again.  So, why - without citing or referencing religion-borne morals, *why is is wrong for you to kill* the man who is subsequently convicted of their murder?


----------



## fangjian (Aug 8, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Though a substantial part of that has been handed to you through the mechanisms of orthodox religions, irrespective of where those morals as you put it may have originated.   Our nature is still that of the plain dweller.  Yes, the environs are for most of us vastly different and but our chemical makeup remains the same.
> 
> My point however is not that.  My point is that since much of our law has been inherited through the doctrines of various religions, mostly Christianity in westernised nations, as a true athiest, one should disavow these things in favour of our true animalistic natures.


 'Much of our laws' ?  What laws in your opinion are from religious doctrine? 


> By way of example, your children are (like those in Norway recently) gunned down mercilessly by some maniac on a spree.  You are inconsolable with anger.  They are dead.  You will never see, hear or feel them again.  So, why - without citing or referencing religion-borne morals, *why is is wrong for you to kill* the man who is subsequently convicted of their murder?


 So the scenario is:   A person gunned down my kids, and I in return killed him. Well did I kill him right after he killed my kids?  Or did I stalk him, months later, and put a sniper round in his dome while he was being escorted by police? Or is he 'still a fugitive', but I knew where he was so I got to him and took care of things like Dexter Morgan would?


----------



## Omar B (Aug 8, 2011)

Ethics and morality don't need religion to exist.  In fact, the need to write down in a neat little list what is right or wrong seems to me to be there for people who can't wrap their head around such concepts.  Yeah, it serves the guy who needs it written down that he must respect another man's right to life and property to exist within a society of men.

Religions serve their purpose, but I would caution about tieing them to ethics and morality.  It's not anarchy was all there was before the wagging finger and the list of rules.


----------



## cdunn (Aug 8, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Thank you.
> 
> 
> Though a substantial part of that has been handed to you through the mechanisms of orthodox religions, irrespective of where those morals as you put it may have originated. Our nature is still that of the plain dweller. Yes, the environs are for most of us vastly different and but our chemical makeup remains the same.
> ...



Negatively: 
Perpetuation of the vengance cycle puts my own life at risk. Counter-punishment may also be asserted by legitimate authority in order to interrupt this cycle. This is something observed in far more than just human life

Death, in the absence of a Hell, provides for no further punishment of the perpetrator - he will not suffer in any meaningful fashion. 

More positively: 
Humans have, as part of our broad band communication suite, an unusually well developed empathy, built in to our ability to learn and socialize. We readily project our anguish onto others, and are thus more unlikely to inflict this upon the relatively innocent family of the killer, once the immediate rage has passed.

We recognize that a life is irreplacable; it belongs to the liver of that life. We do not take it, because _it is not ours to take_.

Meanwhile: 
Exodus 21:12 "Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death." 
Quran 2:178 "O you who believe, equivalence is the law decreed for you when dealing with murder - the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the female for the female. If one is pardoned by the victim's kin, an appreciative response is in order, and an equitable compensation shall be paid. "
In Hinduism, though i don't have the time to chase down the holy writ:
"According to Vedic injunctions there are six kinds of aggressors: 1) a poison giver, 2) one who sets fire to the house, 3) one who attacks with deadly weapons, 4) one who plunders riches, 5) one who occupies another's land, and 6) one who kidnaps a wife. Such aggressors are at once to be killed, and no sin is incurred by killing such aggressors. Such killing of aggressors is quite befitting for any ordinary man,..."


----------



## billc (Aug 8, 2011)

I like what Jenna has to say.  Without a civilizing influence each generation comes out a barbarian, someone else pointed that out somewhere.  The atheists can make any claim they want about religion and ethics but there is no way to untangle the effect of religous teaching on the development of a moral society.  You would need to take children and raise them somewhere with absolutely no reference to the moral codes currently influencing our society.  Try that first, and then see what happens.


----------



## billc (Aug 8, 2011)

With no punishment expected in the after life, the only thing that keeps people from behaving in a bad way would be a fear of being caught and punished, in the present.  With no silent watcher seeing everything a person does, there would be no reason to comply with any laws a society might make.  If I kill you, so, if I don't get caught, what is the big deal.  To you, yeah, and your family, but to me, if I got what I wanted from the killing and didn't get caught that would be the end of it.  As humans show time and again, compassion is something that has to be taught, at least to most of the people in the world.  Look at any play ground, it isn't exactly a paradise of peace and understanding, the adults, who have been taught through a long history of religously based ethical codes, step in to correct the behavior.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 8, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I like what Jenna has to say.  Without a civilizing influence each generation comes out a barbarian, someone else pointed that out somewhere.  The atheists can make any claim they want about religion and ethics but there is no way to untangle the effect of religous teaching on the development of a moral society.  You would need to take children and raise them somewhere with absolutely no reference to the moral codes currently influencing our society.  Try that first, and then see what happens.


I will not deny that religion has influence on morality and culture etc. 

However Jenna and billcihak, what laws in your opinion are from religious doctrine?

I like your thought about 'raising the children far removed from religion' as a thought experiment. It would greatly depend on the caregivers ideas. Are the caregivers giving them moral concepts, just without religious foundation? Or is it more sterile than that? Is it more like they are 'rats in a maze'?  If they are rats in a maze with 'no guidance whatsoever', I think the natural way of things will push them to work together, seek each other for comfort, since we are social animals etc. 

Many other creatures display moral codes as well. Not just Homo sapiens.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 8, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I like what Jenna has to say. Without a civilizing influence each generation comes out a barbarian, someone else pointed that out somewhere. The atheists can make any claim they want about religion and ethics but there is no way to untangle the effect of religous teaching on the development of a moral society. You would need to take children and raise them somewhere with absolutely no reference to the moral codes currently influencing our society. Try that first, and then see what happens.



Without socialization, children will grow to become selfish barbarians.  This is practically a truism; nobody's really arguing otherwise.  Most of those in the thread are contending with the claim that one cannot socialize said child without reference to religion.  I happen to be one of those who disagrees.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 8, 2011)

billcihak said:


> With no punishment expected in the after life, the only thing that keeps people from behaving in a bad way would be a fear of being caught and punished, in the present.  With no silent watcher seeing everything a person does, there would be no reason to comply with any laws a society might make.



Since I am not religious I have no reason to suspect there is a cosmic justice system. So, why do you think it is I help people when it is needed, and generally display good moral values etc. ?  There are many things that I can 'get away with' but still don't, even though I know I won't get punished. Most people are like this.


----------



## billc (Aug 8, 2011)

Well, here are the six of the ten that I think have had the most effect on the moral and legal code:

SIX: '_You shall not murder._' 

SEVEN: '_You shall not commit 
adultery._' 

EIGHT: '_You shall not steal._' 

NINE: 
'_You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor._' 

TEN: 
'_You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your 
neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor 
his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's._' 

Also, as to raising kids without religion, there is no safe, or moral way to test that theory, even in "communist" countries, you cannot completely expunge the effects of religion completely.  Even an experiment that tried to raise children without a belief in any after life is tainted by the existence of those beliefs for so long in the evolution of society.   I guess we would need to narrow down what we are talking about.  No concept of an after life with judgement at the end would be one part of the process.   A set of rules passed down to children, but that presents a problem, what rules.  Stealing and killing can be harmful but they can also be rewarding, why not do it, why shouldn't it be allowed or sanctioned?


----------



## Nomad (Aug 8, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Without socialization, children will grow to become selfish barbarians.  This is practically a truism; nobody's really arguing otherwise.  Most of those in the thread are contending with the claim that one cannot socialize said child without reference to religion.  I happen to be one of those who disagrees.



Lord of the Flies aside, are you sure about that?  While I certainly agree that some chaos would ensue, I strongly suspect that the children involved would create their own society, with multiple different roles and possible outcomes depending on the personalities and predilections of those involved.  I think claiming that the children would be "selfish barbarians" is overly simplistic and ignores a host of other possibilities.  

Who knows, without having been trained in their parents prejudices and insecurities (including religiously spawned ones), they could even end up with a better model than our current society.


----------



## billc (Aug 8, 2011)

Fang jian, I don't know where you may have grown up, but if you grew up in the states, at least, you will have been swimming in a society steeped with moral and ethical traditions based on religuos teachings.   It would be hard to isolate those out of your upbringing.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 8, 2011)

Jenna said:


> My point is that since much of our law has been inherited through the doctrines of various religions, mostly Christianity in westernised nations, as a true athiest, one should disavow these things in favour of our true animalistic natures.



Nothing about atheism requires a complete disavowal of all things religious.  Your conclusions do not follow from your premise.  Atheism is a lack of belief in God(s), that is all.  There is no other requirement to atheism.  There are even religious atheists.  Most (not all) buddhists, for instance, would qualify as religious atheists.



Jenna said:


> So, why - without citing or referencing religion-borne morals, *why is is wrong for you to kill* the man who is subsequently convicted of their murder?



So the only reason you don't kill anyone who you might want to is because God told you not to?

There are entire ethical and moral philosophical traditions that make no reference to the supernatural.  Utilitarianism, for instance.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 8, 2011)

I just mean that as an example, yes it is facile and but necessarily so to give the point brevity.  I would be interested in answers to that example whereby a man has slain your family and is convicted of it, why - without reference to religion-engendered moral teachings - would it be wrong for you to kill him?


----------



## fangjian (Aug 8, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Fang jian, I don't know where you may have grown up, but if you grew up in the states, at least, you will have been swimming in a society steeped with moral and ethical traditions based on religuos teachings.   It would be hard to isolate those out of your upbringing.


I am from the states. 



billcihak said:


> Well, here are the six of the ten that I think have had the most effect on the moral and legal code:
> 
> SIX: '_You shall not murder._'
> 
> ...


 All of this stuff was around before the Abrahamic mythologies though. Why do you think that is?





Jenna said:


> I just mean that as an example, yes it is facile and but necessarily so to give the point brevity.  I would be interested in answers to that example whereby a man has slain your family and is convicted of it, why - without reference to religion-engendered moral teachings - would it be wrong for you to kill him?


It depends on the circumstaces. It could be completely reasonable or completely horrific


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 8, 2011)

Religion gives us our morality?:BSmeter:
Yeah sure, tell that to the thousands raped and tortured by the priests of the Roman Catholic church, that the ones who defiled them are some ideal of morality


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 8, 2011)

Jenna said:


> I just mean that as an example, yes it is facile and but necessarily so to give the point brevity.  I would be interested in answers to that example whereby a man has slain your family and is convicted of it, why - without reference to religion-engendered moral teachings - would it be wrong for you to kill him?



I gave you a link to one such reasoning system.  Here are arguments from others:
Utilitarianism: Killing Breivik would be wrong because it would not produce the greatest good or best outcome for the world at large.
Kantianism: Killing Breivik would violate the first and second formulations of the Categorical (Moral) Imperative because doing so would not produce a greater good if everyone did what you do in all times and situations (Universality) and because you would be treating Breivik, a rational agent, as a means instead of an end in himself.
Pragmatic Ethics: Killing Breivik would be wrong because it would be damaging to current social mores and order.
Virtue Ethics: Killing Breivik would be wrong because it would be damaging to one's character and virtue.
Consequentialism (generally):  Killing Breivik would be wrong because it would have bad consequences, to the individual and society at large.

As I said, there are many ethical systems that make no reference to the supernatural.  Divine Command Theory (God said so) is generally frowned on in Philosophical circles because it rests on a logical fallacy.  It's also subject to Socrates' famous critique: "is it right because the gods say it is, or do the gods say it is because it is right?"


----------



## billc (Aug 8, 2011)

Also remember that those who claimed to be atheists killed close to if not over 100 million people from 1918-1946 and beyound.   And it would be right to kill the man for the same ethical reasons listed above.  A proven killer, in jail, can still kill again, either prisoners and guards, or if he escapes, more innocent people, so the greater good would dictate ending his life to save other innocent life.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 8, 2011)

Nomad said:


> Lord of the Flies aside, are you sure about that? While I certainly agree that some chaos would ensue, I strongly suspect that the children involved would create their own society, with multiple different roles and possible outcomes depending on the personalities and predilections of those involved. I think claiming that the children would be "selfish barbarians" is overly simplistic and ignores a host of other possibilities.
> 
> Who knows, without having been trained in their parents prejudices and insecurities (including religiously spawned ones), they could even end up with a better model than our current society.



Maybe they would, then again maybe they'd create an even more stratified, savage society.  But you are correct that society didn't arise from nowhere, and that a large enough group of unraised children forced to live together would eventually form their own society with its own rules.  

I'm pretty comfortable in saying, however, that all the notions of fairness, justice, right and wrong, values, and whatnot are all dependent upon being conveyed through socialization.  The idea of a noble savage who just internally develops and upholds a moral code is largely a fantasy; human beings aren't born with these values, they learn them.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 9, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> I gave you a link to one such reasoning system.  Here are arguments from others:
> Utilitarianism: Killing Breivik would be wrong because it would not produce the greatest good or best outcome for the world at large.
> Kantianism: Killing Breivik would violate the first and second formulations of the Categorical (Moral) Imperative because doing so would not produce a greater good if everyone did what you do in all times and situations (Universality) and because you would be treating Breivik, a rational agent, as a means instead of an end in himself.
> Pragmatic Ethics: Killing Breivik would be wrong because it would be damaging to current social mores and order.
> ...


I appreciate your reply and you have outlined several pertinent social theories cogently.  Can you tell me please, in your example, which one(s) of those particular social theories would make it wrong for you personally to kill Breivik had he gunned down and murdered your children?

fwiw, if it is relevant, I myself have a personal faith and but I am no supporter of orthodox religions in general, which are more often than not, hypocritically secular in their operations.  I am simply trying to open the discussion (as you seem open to doing) beyond the utter closed-minded indoctrination of many athiests, Jenna.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 9, 2011)

Jenna said:


> I am simply trying to open the discussion (as you seem open to doing) beyond the utter closed-minded indoctrination of many athiests, Jenna.


and what do you think I have been 'indoctrinated' with?


----------



## elder999 (Aug 9, 2011)

Arguments about the origins of morality aside (morality is a construct, and, within various frameworks, quite flexible), it might have been more cogent for him to argue as some do that "creation myths" are failed attempts at scientific explanations. In that most of them were originally intended to be allegories, this would only be partially correct, but it would at least make more sense than labeling "religion" as failed science, when many religious _technologies_, like Buddhist meditation, yoga, Christian mysticism and shamanism are actually quite functional, and scientifically tested.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 9, 2011)

fangjian said:


> and what do you think I have been 'indoctrinated' with?


I am sorry I do not know you well enough to make a guess as to what doctrine you follow.  I apologise if you felt I was directing that comment at you.  I meant it in a general sense.  I have had many conversations with friends professing atheism (as opposed to what I see as a more strictly logical agnosticism) who are quite dogmatic and incapable of taking in the notion of validity in views other than theirs. They are in that case as indoctrinated by the sovereignty of science as many religious faithful are by their holy texts.  It is not for me to comment on whether you are or are not thus indoctrinated.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 9, 2011)

In its simplest terms, if anyone is NOT prepared to acknowledge validity (to me personally) in my view as a believer in God, or regards my belief in God as "BS" then there is no chance of any discussion here, and all that remains is for you to beat me over the head with your own view.

Science has done much to prove that many of the former notions that were throughout history TAKEN as proof of God are not in fact any such thing.  That does not stop me from believing in God and trusting my personal faith.  Why? Not because I have no trust in science and but rather because for me personally, science is not my only metric in assessing the things that happen in my life and the world that bears me.

Plainly none of us would be where we are now without scientific advances.  I do not seek to put faith against science where many of my athiest acquaintances would seek to put science against faith and have them fight it out, ensuring that the fight rules are somewhat unfairly, "the rules of science".  I guess that is reflective of the differing nature of people.  I feel there is a drive among certain branch scientists that they would almost seek to metaphorically "kill" God through incontrovertible proof.  Personally I feel that displays a level of hubris which at the very least makes discussion in a place like this nigh impossible.  

So, I personally am apt to OPEN discussion without preconceptions and but only if any of you (as atheists) are also.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 9, 2011)

elder999 said:


> when many religious _technologies_, like Buddhist meditation, yoga, Christian mysticism and shamanism are actually quite functional, and scientifically tested.


-Christian mysticism is scientifically tested-     huh?


Jenna said:


> I am sorry I do not know you well enough to make a guess as to what doctrine you follow.  I apologise if you felt I was directing that comment at you.  I meant it in a general sense.


No need for apologies. 





> I have had many conversations with friends professing atheism (as opposed to what I see as a more strictly logical agnosticism)


 I do not understand your wording. What is this 'strictly logical agnosticism' ?


> who are quite dogmatic and incapable of taking in the notion of validity in views other than theirs.
> They are in that case as indoctrinated by the sovereignty of science as many religious faithful are by their holy texts.  It is not for me to comment on whether you are or are not thus indoctrinated.


 I recognize the scientific method as being, thus far, the best approach in finding out if something is true or not. ( Observe phenomena-develope hypothesis-test/experiment/observe-publish results ). Whether you want to find out about specific scientific questions, or simple things, like "how do you know your spouse loves you?" type of question, the 'scientific method' and its variations, is what you use. Is this 'indoc' ?


----------



## fangjian (Aug 9, 2011)

Jenna said:


> So, I personally am apt to OPEN discussion without preconceptions and but only if any of you (as atheists) are also.


Most Atheists are open to a possible existence of gods and goddesses. Most, in general, do not 'cling' to a particular belief. It's just that the 'scientific method' is so far the best way to find if something is true or not


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 9, 2011)

I dunno. I think that people who make as loud a statement about their atheism (have to bring it up in every conversation, fill their FB page with all the atheist quotes/books/videos/etc they can find, pay to put up billboards during the holidays, etc) are exhibiting as much of a psychological "need" to express their "belief-nonbelief" as the religious do. Their atheism appears to fill some sort of need in their lives...as much as religion does for others.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 9, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I do not understand your wording. What is this 'strictly logical agnosticism' ?


I think agnosticism is a more strictly mathematically logical position than atheism.  Until such times as there is definitive proof or refutation of God either way, I mean. 



fangjian said:


> I recognize the scientific method as being, thus far, the best approach in finding out if something is true or not. ( Observe phenomena-develope hypothesis-test/experiment/observe-publish results ).


This is what I mean, it is difficult to have an open discussion with an advocate of science because advocates of science are prepared to countenance the validity in only one system of measurement and it is that science itself.  Yes! Science has given us almost all fundamentals that we exist under besides a few remaining (what happened before the big bang; the actual mechanisms of gravity etc.), however those that hold a personal faith in God measure aspects of our lives in a different system: the system of BELIEF.  Naturally belief has no concomitant proof system and therefore the two, science and faith cannot be measured against each other because they are the proverbial apples and oranges.  I cannot "prove" the existence of God to you using my system of measurement: belief, any more than you can refute the existence of God to me using your system of measurement: science.

I accept science as a system of measurement of course I do even though it is at times at odds with my system of belief.  The problem when attempting a discussion such as this is that many athiests (speaking in general terms) can give no validity to belief as a system of measurement.  Therefore the discussion generally must be held in the arena of science in which case, there is generally little actual useful enlightenment at all forthcoming from it.  Does this make sense?


----------



## billc (Aug 9, 2011)

Jenna, Absolutely.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 9, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> I dunno. I think that people who make as loud a statement about their atheism (have to bring it up in every conversation, fill their FB page with all the atheist quotes/books/videos/etc they can find, pay to put up billboards during the holidays, etc) are exhibiting as much of a psychological "need" to express their "belief-nonbelief" as the religious do. Their atheism appears to fill some sort of need in their lives...as much as religion does for others.


That seems fair. 

A lot of it is, I think, that the non-religious population is not very 'active'. Usually non-religious people simply 'don't care'.
 I've been an Atheist all my life. However, I never identified as one because it's not really an accurate label of my worldview, as it only deals with 'one' claim. My 'worldview' is one that is based on evidence, logic blah blah blah. I only started calling myself an "Atheist" because I feel the need for all of us (non-religious) to 'fly under one flag'. Atheists, Agnostics, Pearlists ........Generally we're all the same. 'Atheist' is the most common label though, so I use it so that there can be a bigger 'community'. I hope that one day people like us will have our own political party and such. I think that's why Atheists in the past decade have gotten 'louder'. Your comment of 'the way religion fills a part of their life', "science" fills that part of mine. The same feeling people get while they are 'speaking in tongues', 'praying' and stuff like that, is I think the same feeling I have when I look through my telescope or when I am solving Physics problems.


----------



## billc (Aug 9, 2011)

An atheist political party or a political party with atheism  as a plank in its platform.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 9, 2011)

Jenna said:


> I think agnosticism is a more strictly mathematically logical position than atheism.  Until such times as there is definitive proof or refutation of God either way, I mean.


I think you are unaware of the terminology
Atheism is just a 'lack of belief'. Agnosticism is a 'lack of knowledge'. ie I have a lack of belief that gods exist. I also do not have knowledge. Therefore I am an Agnostic Atheist toward these claims. 



> I accept science as a system of measurement of course I do even though it is at times at odds with my system of belief.  The problem when attempting a discussion such as this is that many athiests (speaking in general terms) can give no validity to belief as a system of measurement.  Therefore the discussion generally must be held in the arena of science in which case, there is generally little actual useful enlightenment at all forthcoming from it.  Does this make sense?


I just don't see how '"belief" as a system of measurement' makes sense. Would you explain your 'system of measurement' to me?



> An atheist political party or a political party with atheism as a plank in its platform.



What does this sentence mean? -sorry I'm kinda slow


----------



## Razor (Aug 9, 2011)

Jenna said:


> I think agnosticism is a more strictly mathematically logical position than atheism.  Until such times as there is definitive proof or refutation of God either way, I mean.
> 
> 
> This is what I mean, it is difficult to have an open discussion with an advocate of science because advocates of science are prepared to countenance the validity in only one system of measurement and it is that science itself.  Yes! Science has given us almost all fundamentals that we exist under besides a few remaining (what happened before the big bang; the actual mechanisms of gravity etc.), however those that hold a personal faith in God measure aspects of our lives in a different system: the system of BELIEF.  Naturally belief has no concomitant proof system and therefore the two, science and faith cannot be measured against each other because they are the proverbial apples and oranges.  I cannot "prove" the existence of God to you using my system of measurement: belief, any more than you can you can refute the existence of God to me using your system of measurement: science.
> ...



Very true. Faith by its very nature is what people believe and has no place in explaining anything; science does not have a place in what people choose to believe spiritually. Belief cannot be used to measure anything, and I don't think most atheists try to use science to disprove "god", as an entity like that cannot be disproved because there are umpteen magical ways in which evidence or interpretation or whatever were wrong, and of course the whole idea of what religion's role is has changed in relation to explanations for things.

Just a note though; agnosticism isn't a separate position to atheism. It refers to what you know (or claim to know) rather than what you believe. So you can be an agnostic atheist (as most are), and agnostic theist etc...


----------



## billc (Aug 9, 2011)

I heard an interview about two weeks ago by an author who compiled all sorts of research on how the human mind works.  He gave an example of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who can sense ambushes just by looking at a crowded busy street.  They reported getting a cold feeling in their stomach and from that they knew their was an ambush set up or an I.E.D. in the area.  Now the science behind this is explainable, now, the brain processes information subconciously and then reports the findings to  the conscious brain as that cold feeling of anxiety in the belly.  Not all soldiers, even in a combat environment, experience this abiltiy to compile seemingly inconsequential data and use it to determine danger.  Belief may work the same way.  Maybe there are things being compiled in the subconcious of the mind that creates the foundation of belief.  Maybe once science understands the brain better, they will figure out what the believer is picking up that the atheist isn't.

For example, try to tell that soldier that it's just a busy street and that there is nothing wrong, you can point to every indicator that there is nothing amiss, but you won't convince that soldier.  He may not be able to explain how he knows, but he still knows something is wrong.  Belief may work in the same way but at a deeper level or perhaps on the same level, just a different topic.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 9, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I heard an interview about two weeks ago by an author who compiled all sorts of research on how the human mind works.  He gave an example of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who can sense ambushes just by looking at a crowded busy street.  They reported getting a cold feeling in their stomach and from that they knew their was an ambush set up or an I.E.D. in the area.  Now the science behind this is explainable, now, the brain processes information subconciously and then reports the findings to  the conscious brain as that cold feeling of anxiety in the belly.  Not all soldiers, even in a combat environment, experience this abiltiy to compile seemingly inconsequential data and use it to determine danger.  Belief may work the same way.  Maybe there are things being compiled in the subconcious of the mind that creates the foundation of belief.  Maybe once science understands the brain better, they will figure out what the believer is picking up that the atheist isn't.


Hehehe. I've had the same experience when I was in Iraq. I recall an unsettling feeling, say 5 seconds before we got ambushed one day. It happened again the 3rd time we were ambushed. However, I've had that feeling on a few occasions where nothing happened as well. So I don't take it too seriously. 

I would get this feeling though as a direct result, I think, of the 'scientific method'. The first step is to observe phenomena (We are working with Iraq Police on a patrol in our sector  -  Hmm I'v never seen these guys before. Usually we work with the same group of guys ever night. They keep taking us down this one street. That's strange. Wow, there is like no one outside right now. I would expect some people to be out. *BANG* an IED goes off. Aww man we should have put all the pieces together. New guys we've never seen. They keep leading us down the same street in our sector etc.   We got set up. See what I mean? The scientific method could have been used to evaluate what was going on and find out ahead of time before the explosion. Observing phenomena forming hypotheses etc. I think this is actually why we get this 'feeling' sometimes. Things aren't 'adding up' so I am getting this 'strange feeling'. It was the _scientific_ _method_ that did it ( and not some kind of psychic or magic phenomena).   Am I making sense at all?


----------



## Jenna (Aug 9, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I think you are unaware of the terminology
> Atheism is just a 'lack of belief'. Agnosticism is a 'lack of knowledge'. ie I have a lack of belief that gods exist. I also do not have knowledge. Therefore I am an Agnostic Atheist toward these claims.


Goodness, no I am happily aware of terminology thank you  Atheism holds the doctrine that there is NO God or ever was, whereas Agnosticism is simply the disbelief in ANY claims of ultimate knowledge, though thank you for your interpretation. 



Razor said:


> Just a note though; agnosticism isn't a separate position to atheism. It  refers to what you know (or claim to know) rather than what you  believe. So you can be an agnostic atheist (as most are), and agnostic  theist etc...


No, you are correct, the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive and but yes they are entirely separate and discrete positions.  Until such times are there is irrefutable proof, agnosticism is the only strictly logical position to hold.  I am still a believer though irrespective of whether that is logical or not


----------



## billc (Aug 9, 2011)

Sure, it was the scientific method, after you understood what was going on.  Perhaps, as science progresses, it will be discovered that people who believe in God were also using the scientific method, but just didn't know it at the time.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 9, 2011)

fangjian said:


> -Christian mysticism is scientifically tested- huh?



Brown University, for one example:



> During the past four decades, as neurological research on the mind has grown, a considerable portion of this research has been devoted to identifying the physiological substrates of various mental states that arise through meditative practices that are derived from Asian meditation traditions.8 Health practitioners have made increasing use of contemplative practices in all aspects of the treatment of disease and disorder.9 Cognitive neuroscientists have examined the impact of meditation on the development of positive emotions such as compassion.10 Physicists have also entered the picture with research on the role of observer on the observed, of sentience on the insentient world, and on the problematic relationships between the ontologies of the Asian meditative traditions and such new paradigms as quantum mechanics and string theory.11 These sources indicate that there is an extensive and serious scientific interest in the investigation of contemplative states of mind and a growing body of research in their methods and effects. It is this body of scientific research that will constitute the basis of our proposed concentration



Contemplative prayer is a key element of Christian mysticism, and has been rigorously tested in several laboratory settings, and shown to have various positive effects similar to those gained from eastern forms of meditation.

Additionally, I can't recommend _Why God Won't Go Away_, on the neurological and biological reasons for belief in God, enough. The Amazon.com review:



> Over the centuries, theories have abounded as to why human beings have a seemingly irrational attraction to God and religious experiences. In _Why God Won't Go Away_ authors Andrew Newberg, M.D., Eugene D'Aquili, M.D., and Vince Rause offer a startlingly simple, yet scientifically plausible opinion: humans seek God because our brains are biologically programmed to do so. Researchers Newberg and D'Aquili used high-tech imaging devices to peer into the brains of meditating Buddhists and Franciscan nuns. As the data and brain photographs flowed in, _the researchers began to find solid evidence that the mystical experiences of the subjects "were not the result of some fabrication, or simple wishful thinking, but were associated instead with a series of observable neurological events," explains Newberg. "*In other words, mystical experience is biologically, observably, and scientifically real.... *_Gradually, we shaped a hypothesis that suggests that spiritual experience, at its very root, is intimately interwoven with human biology." Lay readers should be warned that although the topic is fascinating, the writing is geared toward scientific documentation that defends the authors' hypothesis. For a more palatable discussion, seek out Deepak Chopra's _How to Know God_, in which he also explores this fascinating evidence of spiritual hard-wiring.


----------



## billc (Aug 9, 2011)

Interesting experiences.  Thanks for doing what you did over there, it couldn't have been easy or pleasent so thanks.  You know, with so many combat vets out there now, it might be interesting to have a combat experience thread here on martialtalk.com.  I know there is a general self-defense thread and some similar threads, and it might be hard to filter out the posers, but that would apply to the self-defense thread as well.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 9, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Goodness, no I am happily aware of terminology thank you  Atheism holds the doctrine that there is NO God or ever was, whereas Agnosticism is simply the disbelief in ANY claims of ultimate knowledge, though thank you for your interpretation.


No Jenna you kinda got it backwards. Your comment 'Atheism holds the 'doctrine' that there is 'no gods', is false. That would be 'Gnostic Atheism'. 

'Agnosticism' is the 'position', that I do not claim to 'know' about the existence of gods. It isn't just 'my interpretation'. 
Hope this helps


----------



## billc (Aug 9, 2011)

:jediduel:Something for the science minded to contemplate:


----------



## elder999 (Aug 9, 2011)

billcihak said:


> :jediduel:Something for the science minded to contemplate:



Well, I'm "science minded." Hell, I'm a scientist. 

I don't lack faith-nor do I find anyone else's lack of faith particularly disturbing., let alone  enough to choke them.....:lol:


----------



## fangjian (Aug 9, 2011)

billcihak said:


> :jediduel:Something for the science minded to contemplate:


Contemplate?  How come? Does this mean you wanna kill me?


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 9, 2011)

fangjian said:


> That seems fair.
> 
> A lot of it is, I think, that the non-religious population is not very 'active'. Usually non-religious people simply 'don't care'.
> I've been an Atheist all my life. However, I never identified as one because it's not really an accurate label of my worldview, as it only deals with 'one' claim. My 'worldview' is one that is based on evidence, logic blah blah blah. I only started calling myself an "Atheist" because I feel the need for all of us (non-religious) to 'fly under one flag'. Atheists, Agnostics, Pearlists ........Generally we're all the same. 'Atheist' is the most common label though, so I use it so that there can be a bigger 'community'. I hope that one day people like us will have our own political party and such. I think that's why Atheists in the past decade have gotten 'louder'. Your comment of 'the way religion fills a part of their life', "science" fills that part of mine. The same feeling people get while they are 'speaking in tongues', 'praying' and stuff like that, is I think the same feeling I have when I look through my telescope or when I am solving Physics problems.



It has nothing to do with "Science" IMO. Are you implying that there are no, or can be no religious Scientists? Im talking about psychology. A persons "need" to believe in something..separate from the validity of that belief. Which includes Athiests IMO.


----------



## billc (Aug 9, 2011)

No, I am a man of peace, unless unduly provoked, just pointing out that there are things out there that science cannot explain.  Another clip would be when R2D2 is trying to take a reading on the force as yoda is lifting the fighter out of the swamp.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 9, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> It has nothing to do with "Science" IMO. Are you implying that there are no, or can be no religious Scientists? Im talking about psychology. A persons "need" to believe in something..separate from the validity of that belief. Which includes Athiests IMO.


I'm not sure what you got from my post but here it is. My post you're referring to is:
1. I hope that the non-religious community will be represented politically someday, and for that to happen, we all have to 'fly under the same flag'. The Atheist Party. The Rational Party. The Agnostic Party. Whatever the name. 
2. ( I thought )You mentioned about how religious rituals fill a certain need in one's life. I mentioned that 'science' fills that component for me. That 'spiritual' feeling and such. However what you were talking about was the 'need' for some people to be 'loud' or 'in your face' spreading their beliefs kind of thing right? Yes, some people like to be like that. I am sure Psychology can explain this behavior in great detail. BTW, Psychology follows the scientific method too. And I'm not sure about the 'religious scientists' thing you mentioned above. You now said 'some Atheists have a 'need' to believe in something'. What belief is that?



billcihak said:


> No, I am a man of peace, unless unduly provoked, just pointing out that there are things out there that science cannot explain.


What in your opinion can not be approached by using the scientific method?


----------



## billc (Aug 9, 2011)

It's not so much that I think there are things that can't be approached by science but that perhaps we don't have the measuring devices to measure things that we don't know exist, yet.  Imagine a scientist expaining U.V. rays to a medieval knight.  Or bacteria.  I'm sure those examples or ones like it aren't new, but the concept is the same.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 9, 2011)

billcihak said:


> It's not so much that I think there are things that can't be approached by science but that perhaps we don't have the measuring devices to measure things that we don't know exist, yet.


 Haha. Well, yeah.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 9, 2011)

fangjian said:


> What in your opinion can not be approached by using the scientific method?



Subjective, experiential evidence. Except, of course, when it is approached that way by the subject that experiences it, as they are experiencing it.


----------



## Razor (Aug 9, 2011)

fangjian said:


> You now said 'some Atheists have a 'need' to believe in something'. What belief is that?
> 
> What in your opinion can not be approached by using the scientific method?



On the issue of atheists and beliefs, A.C. Grayling (I think) put it best: "Saying that one who does not believe in God has faith is like saying that one who does not collect stamps has a hobby, or that a non-smoker has a habit".

Also, I think "god" cannot be approached using scientific method. Because you can't really prove that something intangible, invisible and with no discernible effect on anything doesn't exist, as in the eyes of those who believe it will just be that you "can't test god" or "god works in mysterious ways". I think Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot should get a mention here as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot


----------



## fangjian (Aug 9, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Subjective, experiential evidence. Except, of course, when it is approached that way by the subject that experiences it, as they are experiencing it.



So like the claim of people being abducted by aliens? This claim is not approachable using the scientific method? Not so sure about that.


----------



## billc (Aug 9, 2011)

What is that saying about advanced science could be mistaken for magic, perhaps the alien technology defeats our abiltiy to examine it.  Much like our stealth technology would defeat ww2 era radar.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 9, 2011)

billcihak said:


> What is that saying about advanced science could be mistaken for magic, perhaps the alien technology defeats our abiltiy to examine it.  Much like our stealth technology would defeat ww2 era radar.



No, I just meant 'the claim' itself. elder999 said 'subjective/experiential 'evidence' '.  So this would be like saying if someone claimed to have been abducted by aliens, they have 'experiential evidence' and it is not approachable using the scientific method to verify if it is true or not. Which seems silly.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 9, 2011)

Double post weirdness, sorry!


----------



## elder999 (Aug 9, 2011)

fangjian said:


> So like the claim of people being abducted by aliens? This claim is not approachable using the scientific method? Not so sure about that.



Not to any real conclusion, no, it's not. You can conclude that they weren't abducted by aliens, but you can't necessarily establish that they lied, or what actually did happen. You probably can't even conclude that they weren't abducted, in a few cases. Believing them is a matter of choice, application of the scientific method notwithstanding.

Case in point: I engaged in a ritual where I didn't eat, didn't drink water, and stood staring at the sky for four days. Sometime on the fourth day, I'm approached by a bear. I insist-and I do-that I had a conversation with the bear. I further assert that the bear was the universe/God's/"the force's/Foot's (sometimes I call God "foot," it's my way of making fun of Him) way of conveying a message to me-that I had a rather prolonged and meaningful conversation with "God."

The bear itself, at least, was not a hallucination, and was observed by another. 

We can hypothesize : 

1-It's as I say, the bear spoke to me with the voice of "God."
2-I was hallucinating.
3-I'm lying.
4- It's as I say, but the bear was just a talking bear messing with a dude's head.
5-It's as I say, but some other entity was speaking through the bear.
6-It was an escaped circus bear.

And so on, but we can't establish that any of them is correct, or the most likely. The only thing we can truly measure is that the bear was actually there, and behaved somewhat outside the ursine mean. While I can point to evidence that I am, in fact, quite sane-truly 100% government certified "sane" at the time, by virtue of my work assignment at the lab-there is also evidence that I am more than willing to play fast and loose with the truth from time to time. And, while the bear was, in fact, a real flesh and blood bear, there is no way to establish that what I perceived as a conversation was not in fact a hallucination-in spite of the bear's rather extraordinary behavior.

So, we can observe, but the only observations-besides Danny, who saw the bear and saw me talking with it-that have any real validity are mine. There are no measurements that can be taken, no experiments that can be undertaken, and very little testing or duplicability available. In short, all we're really left with is the ability to formulate and modify hypotheses, none of which is any more disprovable than any of the others.

On the other hand, *I* participated in a ritual where I didn't eat, didn't drink water and stared at the sky for four days. On the third day, I was approached by a bear, and the bear and I had a conversation. I won't say what the bear said-it's private-but I can certainly say that it was all true,or has since proven to be true, just as I can say, by virtue of bear scat and prints, that it was a real, flesh and blood bear.

So, what "evidence" there is is purely subjective, experiential, and of no use to anyone but me, and, perhaps, those who _choose_ to believe me.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 9, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Not to any real conclusion, no, it's not. You can conclude that they weren't abducted by aliens, but you can't necessarily establish that they lied, or what actually did happen. You probably can't even conclude that they weren't abducted, in a few cases. Believing them is a matter of choice, application of the scientific method notwithstanding.
> 
> Case in point: I engaged in a ritual where I didn't eat, didn't drink water, and stood staring at the sky for four days. Sometime on the fourth day, I'm approached by a bear. I insist-and I do-that I had a conversation with the bear. I further assert that the bear was the universe/God's/"the force's/Foot's (sometimes I call God "foot," it's my way of making fun of Him) way of conveying a message to me-that I had a rather prolonged and meaningful conversation with "God."
> 
> ...



What about repeatedly placing you in the same situation (fasting, 4 days without sleep and staring at the sky) and observing how often the same experience or similar ones occur?  They won't be determinative of that particular event, however they can provide observable data.  And by setting up some record, the observations would be falsifiable.  

Incidentally, what did the bear say?


----------



## fangjian (Aug 9, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Not to any real conclusion, no, it's not. You can conclude that they weren't abducted by aliens, but you can't necessarily establish that they lied, or what actually did happen. You probably can't even conclude that they weren't abducted, in a few cases. Believing them is a matter of choice, application of the scientific method notwithstanding.


Belief in their claim will be a product of your worldview. It's not exactly something you can choose in the way you can choose to have dinner tonight or not have dinner tonight. Like I can't 'choose' to believe in fairies or demons. 


> Case in point: I engaged in a ritual where I didn't eat, didn't drink water, and stood staring at the sky for four days. Sometime on the fourth day, I'm approached by a bear. I insist-and I do-that I had a conversation with the bear. I further assert that the bear was the universe/God's/"the force's/Foot's (sometimes I call God "foot," it's my way of making fun of Him) way of conveying a message to me-that I had a rather prolonged and meaningful conversation with "God."
> 
> The bear itself, at least, was not a hallucination, and was observed by another.
> 
> ...


Regarding this story, there are many hypotheses we can have, like you said. You can't 'disprove' any of them of course, cause that's not how it works. However that doesn't make them all equally valid. I also wouldn't use the word 'evidence' to describe an 'experience' you had.





> There are no measurements that can be taken, no experiments that can be  undertaken, and very little testing or duplicability available.


  No.  We have made numerous observations of nature. What we know about bears and humans makes the story very unlikely.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 9, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Belief in their claim will be a product of your worldview. It's not exactly something you can choose in the way you can choose to have dinner tonight or not have dinner tonight. Like I can't 'choose' to believe in fairies or demons.



Sure you can. People choose to believe in God, or the healing power of crystals, or UFOs every day.



fangjian said:


> Regarding this story, there are many hypotheses we can have, like you said. You can't 'disprove' any of them of course, cause that's not how it works. However that doesn't make them all equally valid. I also wouldn't use the word 'evidence' to describe an 'experience' you had.



Well, no, that's the point. They're not all equally valid: the only one that has any validity at all is *mine.* And why isn't it "evidence?" of an "experiential" nature, of course. Testimony in court is giving "evidence" of an "experiential" nature-why should this experience be any less valid as "evidence?" It is, of course, of no use to you, or anyone-but me, as I've been saying.



fangjian said:


> Belief in their claim will be a product of your worldview. It's not exactly something you can choose in the way you can . No. We have made numerous observations of nature. What we know about bears and humans makes the story very unlikely.




It is, nonetheless, completely true. The part about the real flesh and blood bear is even *factual*, in addition to being completely true, just as true as  my conversation with the bear was.



RandomPhantom700 said:


> What about repeatedly placing you in the same situation (fasting, 4 days without sleep and staring at the sky) and observing how often the same experience or similar ones occur? They won't be determinative of that particular event, however they can provide observable data. And by setting up some record, the observations would be falsifiable.



It wouldn't be "the same situation." While I might have any number of similar experiences-I might even have gotten another visit from the bear-it still boils down to who is observing the observable data-it's not objective, but subjective, and it's not falsifiable by anyone but me. 

Intersting that I got a visit from a real flesh and blood bear-which left evidence of its presence-though, since I'm a scientist...:lol:



RandomPhantom700 said:


> Incidentally, what did the bear say?



None of your business. Though, I will say that I'll be on my boat in somewhere in the South Pacific at the end of next year.....:lol:


----------



## fangjian (Aug 9, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Sure you can. People choose to believe in God, or the healing power of crystals, or UFOs every day.


Ok. 'Choose' to believe that Santa Claus exists and he flies to everyone's home in the world to give them presents. Can you 'choose' to believe that?



> Well, no, that's the point. They're not all equally valid: the only one that has any validity at all is *mine.* And why isn't it "evidence?" of an "experiential" nature, of course. Testimony in court is giving "evidence" of an "experiential" nature-why should this experience be any less valid as "evidence?" It is, of course, of no use to you, or anyone-but me, as I've been saying.


 Evidence of this nature in the courtroom is all 'cross referenced' with other testimonies and such, and not violating what we know about the physiology of bears would help too 
I think it *is* falsifiable since it completely contradicts what we know about bears. 
_
-*Falsifiability* or *refutability* is the logical possibility  that an assertion can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome  of a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean  it is false; rather, that if it is false, then some observation or  experiment will produce a reproducible result that is in conflict with  it._




> it still boils down to who is observing the observable data-it's not objective, but subjective, and it's not falsifiable by anyone but me.


 This isn't Quantum physics though. It's not an electron you're observing


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 9, 2011)

If you don't think that some atheists are not grasping onto, and finding personal identity with, their "non-belief" (and some even acting analgous with a crusaders in their vitriol) as the religious can be with their "beliefs" than I think you are being willfully bilnd.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 9, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Ok. 'Choose' to believe that Santa Claus exists and he flies to everyone's home in the world to give them presents. Can you 'choose' to believe that?



Indeed. I choose not to. :lfao:



fangjian said:


> Evidence of this nature in the courtroom is all 'cross referenced' with other testimonies and such, and not violating what we know about the physiology of bears would help too
> I think it *is* falsifiable since it completely contradicts what we know about bears.



Contradicts, what, exactly, that we know about bears? It was late summer, and the bear was, based on Danny's observation, well-fed. 

Polar bears cross breeding with grizzlies also contradicted everything we "knew" about bears, and apparently has for thousands of years. 

In any case, what we "know" isn't a valid falsification within the scientific method. Aristotle "knew" that a needle wouldn't float, and that men have more teeth than women....:lfao:\



fangjian said:


> _
> -*Falsifiability* or *refutability* is the logical possibility that an assertion can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then some observation or experiment will produce a reproducible result that is in conflict with it._



Now we're getting somehwere. 

Random proposed a physical experiment-I submit that this particular ritual will not produce a reproducible result that is in conflict, because the conditions themselves aren't reproducible at all. While there are shamanic rituals where the results are reproducible-even for different participants-this isn't one of them.

I'm not the same person as the one who went up that hill at the beginning of the ritual in the first place-I'm not the same at all-that's the entire point of it.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 9, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> If you don't think that some atheists are not grasping onto, and finding personal identity with, their "non-belief" (and some even acting analgous with a crusaders in their vitriol) as the religious can be with their "beliefs" than I think you are being willfully bilnd.


Sure yeah of course. I've googled 'atheist' and have seen pages of people having 'atheist' themed tattoos and stuff. Since I personally identify as one, I suppose I find 'personal identity' with my 'non belief', yes. (I was only curious in hearing what others had to say). Of course it's been turning into somewhat of a community, in the past few decades. 



elder999 said:


> Indeed. I choose not to. :lfao:


 Well, since you said people 'can choose what to believe, it's easy'. I'd like you to try to believe in Santa Clause for a few minutes. 




> Contradicts, what, exactly, that we know about bears? It was late summer, and the bear was, based on Danny's observation, well-fed.
> 
> Polar bears cross breeding with grizzlies also contradicted everything we "knew" about bears, and apparently has for thousands of years.
> 
> In any case, what we "know" isn't a valid falsification within the scientific method. Aristotle "knew" that a needle wouldn't float, and that men have more teeth than women....:lfao:\



You said the bear spoke to you and you had a conversation in a meaningful way with this animal. Your claim contradicts science. You didn't just say 'the bear came up to us and walked away peacefully'. You said 'it had a conversation with you'. How does this event seem likely?
....._then some observation or experiment will produce a reproducible result that is in conflict with it.
_ Observations of nature and bears are in conflict with your story. Wait a sec. You said it was 'you' who was talking to the bear, but then you implied that the bear spoke to you. 

Did the bear actually 'talk to you'?  Or were 'you' just talking to the bear?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 9, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Random proposed a physical experiment-I submit that this particular ritual will not produce a reproducible result that is in conflict, because the conditions themselves aren't reproducible at all. While there are shamanic rituals where the results are reproducible-even for different participants-this isn't one of them.
> 
> I'm not the same person as the one who went up that hill at the beginning of the ritual in the first place-I'm not the same at all-that's the entire point of it.



The exact conditions, of course not.  Just got to listen to Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park to understand why.  :lol: However, the exact conditions aren't the same between the numerous people being used to test new drugs, but the data they produce is still reliable within appropriate context.  Running with your hypothetical, if you were to submit yourself to, say, 20 of these exercises, 12 may be during sunshine and 8 may be during rainy weather, and 7 might be during hibernation season while 13 are in the middle of spring, but if 16 of 20 result in you having a conversation with a wild animal, we can scientifically establish that SOMETHING is going on.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 9, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Well, since you said people 'can choose what to believe, it's easy'. I'd like you to try to believe in Santa Clause for a few minutes.



I've more important things to do with my time-heck, it's not even Thanksgiving, yet. You should try it-I won't be, but you go right on ahead, though. :lfao:





fangjian said:


> You said the bear spoke to you and you had a conversation in a meaningful way with this animal. Your claim contradicts science. You didn't just say 'the bear came up to us and walked away peacefully'. You said 'it had a conversation with you'. How does this event seem likely?



Fairly certain I was careful not to say that the "bear spoke to me."



elder999 said:


> Case in point: I engaged in a ritual where I didn't eat, didn't drink water, and stood staring at the sky for four days. Sometime on the fourth day, I'm approached by a bear. I insist-and I do-that *I had a conversation *with the bear. I further assert that the bear was the universe/God's/"the force's/Foot's (sometimes I call God "foot," it's my way of making fun of Him) way *of conveying a message *to me-that *I had a rather prolonged and meaningful conversation* with "God."



While it might have implied verbalization, no where do I say that this conversation was _verbal_ on the bear's part. While I did actually verbalize, at the time (And wave my hands like the New Yorker I am: _like some kind of Italian, I thought the bear was going to eat you!_, Danny said) the bear didn't-in fact, I'm sure it _looked_ like a pretty long(_about 10 of the longest minutes of my life!_ Danny said) _one-sided_ conversation.

The event is likely because it did, in fact, take place. What _you_ choose to believe about it-based on your application of the scientific method, is, as I've said over and over, completely immaterial. You weren't there. You didn't experience it. I did. You cannot say that I didn't. Whatever you choose to believe, it's not going to change my belief about the actual event one iota, and I was the only one to make the observation at the time. You can't reproduce it, because, as I said, the event itself changed me: I'm not the same person that took part in the initial conditions that would have to be replicated for an experiment to take place. You can't try it with someone else, for the same reason.

Short of searching the Jemez Mountains for a talking bear (that I can almost guarantee you won't find :lfao: )i*t is outside the realm of the scientific method*.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 9, 2011)

Incidentally elder, is this experience of yours the reason you have an angelic polar bear as your avatar?  Just noticed it.


----------



## Carol (Aug 9, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Incidentally elder, is this experience of yours the reason you have an angelic polar bear as your avatar?  Just noticed it.



Heh.  El Oso del Dios = the Bear of God.  I'm surprised I didn't notice it either.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 9, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Incidentally elder, is this experience of yours the reason you have an angelic polar bear as your avatar? Just noticed it.



That's a brown bear. _El Oso de Dios,_ which is a name Danny jokingly hung on me before another ceremony, but, yeah, because of that day......(I've posted about it here before, though I'm not finding it.....)


----------



## fangjian (Aug 9, 2011)

elder999 said:


> 1-It's as I say, the bear spoke to me with the voice of "God."
> 2-I was hallucinating.
> 3-I'm lying.
> 4- It's as I say, but the bear was just a talking bear messing with a dude's head.
> ...



Sorry.  This is where I got the idea that 'the bear was speaking to you'. It's kind of implied above.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 9, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Sorry.  This is where I got the idea that 'the bear was speaking to you'. It's kind of implied above.


Those were possible hypotheses for *you* to make.I *know!* what happened. :lfao:

That's not to say that the bear did not tell meo anything .......


----------



## fangjian (Aug 9, 2011)

One more thing you said that    '...it won't change my belief about the event one iota'  How come? I welcome any challenge to my beliefs. I don't cling to any of them, as that would imply dogma. And if you have dogmatic beliefs that are resistant to the outside,  how can one learn anything? Is that true elder999? You can't be persuaded?


----------



## elder999 (Aug 9, 2011)

fangjian said:


> One more thing you said that    '...it won't change my belief about the event one iota'  How come? I welcome any challenge to my beliefs. I don't cling to any of them, as that would imply dogma. And if you have dogmatic beliefs that are resistant to the outside,  how can one learn anything? Is that true elder999? You can't be persuaded?




Nothing at all dogmatic about it: I know what I experienced. I'm open to conversation,  I mean, we're having one, after all, but "persuasion?"Better that you try to persuade me that the Sea of Cortez isn't wet....:lfao:l


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 9, 2011)

Jenna said:


> I appreciate your reply and you have outlined several pertinent social theories cogently.  Can you tell me please, in your example, which one(s) of those particular social theories would make it wrong for you personally to kill Breivik had he gunned down and murdered your children?



All of them.  They aren't social theories either, but philosophical systems of ethics and morality.

As I alluded to, theistic systems of ethics and morality are actually uncommon in the field of philosophy.  You will find that more systems of morality lack god(s) than have them.



Jenna said:


> I am simply trying to open the discussion (as you seem open to doing) beyond the utter closed-minded indoctrination of many athiests, Jenna.



This is not the first referral to close minded, hypocritical, indoctrinated, dogmatic and "religious" atheists in this thread.  Why is it even relevant?  No one here has shown such attitudes.  It basically sounds like poisoning the well, giving a reason to ignore arguments from atheists that cause discomfort.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 9, 2011)

I am sorely disappointed in the lack of elaborate and imaginative _gedanken _experiments in this thread.  Maxwell invented a Demon people!  We have big shoes to fill.



elder999 said:


> So, what "evidence" there is is purely subjective, experiential, and of no use to anyone but me, and, perhaps, those who _choose_ to believe me.



I don't accept that your general experience cannot be interrogated scientifically.  In fact, experiences like yours are already under laboratory investigation, which I think you yourself referred to earlier in the thread.

First, the method you used and the result you obtained, while perhaps unique to you in the details, is not unique at all in general.  Mystics, saints, holy men, hermits and heretics have been using similar methods to obtain similar results for thousands of years.  Deprivation, of sleep and food (yours).  Monomaniacal focus and/or repetitive motions and words, for hours or days at a time.  Ecstatic dancing.  Scourging.  Drugs.  All can produce experiences similar to yours.  That suggests a method, and a biological mechanism.

Subjective experiences and reports of the same count as evidence.  Otherwise we would never have been able to scientifically investigate the mechanism of hallucinations, perception disorders, and similar.  So you get a lot of people together, and you induce ecstatic states using some of the methods above, and have them report their experiences.  This is _gedanken, _so do them all, with thousands of people in every treatment and control group.  Then you start intervening.  5HT2A inhibitors, noradrenergic inhibitors, certain opioid inhibitors, all of the pathways involved in hallucination, but which do not affect normal perception.  Do self-reported numinous experiences decrease or stop entirely when hallucinogenic inhibitors are used?  That might tell you something about whether the experience is the result of a stress state leading to hallucination or whether an outside entity is communicating with the people.

Can the experiences be caused, instead of blocked?  Use 5HT2A agonists like psilocybin and other psychoactive drugs to see if we can replicate these religious experiences without the exogenous stressors.  You can use other methods like trans-cranial magnetic stimulation as well.  In fact, I already know that drugs and methods like these can induce "religious" experiences in the laboratory.  That tells you something too.

Once you have identified biological pathways involved in these religious experiences, do genetic studies to compare alleles of the involved receptor pathways with religiosity and religious experiences.  Maybe you will find the "atheist gene", a less active 5HT2A receptor or something similar.

People undergoing these experiences can also be monitored to learn more about the mechanism.  Blood hormone and other levels.  fMRI brain imaging to give insight to the brain structures involved.  

This is all just off the top of my head.  If your subjective religious experience is not subject to the scientific method, then *no subjective experience is*.  But we know this is not true, and indeed religious experiences themselves are already the subject of investigation.  See the neuroscientist Daniel Dennett for more information.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 9, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> I am sorely disappointed in the lack of elaborate and imaginative _gedanken _experiments in this thread. Maxwell invented a Demon people! We have big shoes to fill.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Still missing the point: *this* experience isn't subject to scientific interrogation-it's not duplicable. While, yes, other people have other, similar experiences, and while the methods used to attain them can be duplicated, this one cannot: it's *mine*.

In that context, it's just as you say: no subjective experience is subject to the scientific method.

In the context of the rest of your post-most of which, save the biochemisty (*Thanks!*) I'm well aware of-of course they're subject to investigation. Those contexts are particularly limited though: specific technologies under specific controls, most of wich already take place in ceremony, taking place in a laboratory setting: drumming and chanting at certain rates, keeping certan postures for prolonged periods, fasting an sleep deprivation all come to mind-all done in the laboratory.I wasn't in a laboratory, though, and no one is likely to pick out the exact spot I chose to stand on the hill-this is a vital part of the ceremony, and one with fairly vague instructions. No one could or would tie and string tobacco bundles in exactly the same fashion as I did-I don't know that *I* could, as I'm not partiularly fastidious about such things. Drives some people nuts! You could duplicate the time of year, and some generalities, but not quite duplicating any of them would be disqualifying, wouldn't it?

In any case, you help prove my point: the video in the OP makes a weak case, or, at least, not the right one: religions aren't failed science; in many cases, they aren't "failed" anything, in that they do exactly what they set out to do. There are several religious technologies which, quite simply, work.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 9, 2011)

elder999 said:


> drumming and chanting at certain rates, keeping certan postures for prolonged periods, fasting an sleep deprivation all come to mind-all done in the laboratory.I wasn't in a laboratory, though, and no one is likely to pick out the exact spot I chose to stand on the hill-this is a vital part of the ceremony, and one with fairly vague instructions. No one could or would tie and string tobacco bundles in exactly the same fashion as I did



Wait what?  This was a religious ceremony you were doing?  and not drinking water for four days?



> religions aren't failed science; in many cases, they aren't "failed" anything, in that they do exactly what they set out to do. There are several religious technologies which, quite simply, work.



I think most religious people would disagree with you that all of their books are *just* allegorical.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 9, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Wait what? This was a religious ceremony you were doing? and not drinking water for four days?



Yes, this was the _hanblechia_, or _ lamenting for a vision_-what you might have heard called a vision quest, and we often say "going up on the hill."

Got one drink of water each night after the sun went down. No food. No sleep, as long as I could help it. Plains Indians are pretty big on suffering as part of religion, and this was a religious ceremony. I think I made that part pretty clear, too:



elder999 said:


> *..... I engaged in a ritual *where I didn't eat, didn't drink water, and stood staring at the sky for four days. Sometime on the fourth day, I'm approached by a bear. I insist-and I do-that I had a conversation with the bear. I further assert that the bear was the universe/God's/"the force's/Foot's (sometimes I call God "foot," it's my way of making fun of Him) way of conveying a message to me-that I had a rather prolonged and meaningful conversation with "God."




...oddly, though, the bear was no vision....*I am so blessed!* :asian:



el Brujo de la Cueva said:


> The bear itself, at least, was not a hallucination, and was observed by another









fangjian said:


> I think most religious people would disagree with you that all of their books are *just* allegorical.



I didn't say all their books-I said most "creation myths." If they don't believe that they're allegorical-or meant to be-well, they are quite simply wrong. They can, of course, believe what they want-whatever they _choose_ to believe, as can you. :lfao:


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 9, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Still missing the point: *this* experience isn't subject to scientific interrogation-it's not duplicable. While, yes, other people have other, similar experiences, and while the methods used to attain them can be duplicated, this one cannot: it's *mine*.



You could say the same about any experience, any result, any chemical interaction.  Every single cell in my dish reacts slightly differently to the drugs I test, and the average differs slightly every time.  Every mouse has a slightly unique physiological reaction.  No physical phenomena is perfectly duplicable.  That's why God invented the Standard Error Measurement.   I don't see how your experience differs in that regard.  Aggregate experiences give insight to the mechanism.



elder999 said:


> In any case, you help prove my point: the video in the OP makes a weak case, or, at least, not the right one: religions aren't failed science; in many cases, they aren't "failed" anything, in that they do exactly what they set out to do. There are several religious technologies which, quite simply, work.



Very true, and religion succeeds at other things it sets out to do, like acting as a social tie or a social control.  I don't think anyone disputes this.  I didn't watch the video and I am only passingly familiar with Sam Harris, but this is how I would phrase this argument:

Science is more than a technology or a means to a specific utilitarian end.  Science is a method of epistemology, first and foremost.  To my knowledge, it is the only falsifiable system of epistemology in existence, which as we both know makes for a superior method.  Religions are also methods or systems of epistemology, except that they are non-falsifiable at the core and all testable claims of these systems have been shown to be false (i.e. the Bible implies the world is a few thousand years old, Nation of Islam claims the evil wizard Yakub created white people, etc.).  Religions are thus failed in some cases and inferior in all cases as systems of epistemology, renamed "sciences" to fit Harris' claim.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 10, 2011)

> In 1979 Pope John Paul II expressed the wish that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences would conduct an indepth study of the celebrated and controversial "Galileo case". A Commission of scholars for this purpose was established in 1981 and on Saturday morning, 31 October they presented their conclusions to the Pope. A summary of these conclusions was given by Cardinal Paul Poupard Receiving them in the Sala Regia of the Apostolic Palace, *the Holy Father took the occasion to thank the members of the Commission for their work and to speak to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on the distinct but complementary roles that faith and science fulfill in human life*. Also present were members of the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See and highranking officials of the Roman Curia.
> 
> The following English translation of the Holy Father's address, which was given in French, appeared in L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - 4 November 1992



http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci-9211.html

If you are REALLY interested in understanding the relationship between faith and science (at least in the view of the leader of MY religion) this is worth a read.

_PS:Note the number of Nobel prize winners who are members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences._


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 11, 2011)

Nothing?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 12, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Nothing?



On the one hand, the response of the Catholic Church and the last few Popes in particular to modern science is very heartening.  They have eschewed the fundamentalism of some of the Protestant traditions and have attempted to harmonize faith with the obvious and apparent facts of the world.  It is also admirable that the Church has had a scientific tradition for some centuries, and that some Orders, such as the Jesuits, are devoted to learning.  The Catholic Church does much better on this score than many other sects of Christianity and some other entire religions.

On the other hand, the Church still reserves a non-scientific postulate of the soul in their scientific agreement.  Not that they shouldn't of course, the soul is the base of the Christian tradition.  However, it's hard to make a scientific statement while still reserving an entirely non-scientific argument as part of it.  Sort of like saying "I accept that your computer works by physical laws, except I still believe that invisible hamsters running on invisible wheels are ultimately powering it."


----------

