# Science, Ignorance, and Fruit Flies



## elder999 (Apr 12, 2006)

Scientific study has been getting a bad rap lately from the religious right and the current presidential administration. Its almost as if the central mission of science-_uncovering the truth about the universe through observation and experimentation_-is diametrically opposed to the worldview of Bush and his followers. This strikes me as quite odd, considering that the religious righties always seem to be certain that they-and they alone-know the truth about god, the universe and everything. Youd think that theyd welcome the application of objective, scientific principles to their centuries-old belief systems. Instead, they seem to fear that scientific inquiry holds the power to _disprove_ them. These are generally the same people who think that the concepts of evolution and a creator are mutually exclusive. To me, these concepts are only mutually exclusive in the narrowest of minds.

I think thats sad, because, so far, science has been really useful behind eliminating the flimsy excuses behind much of the worlds moralizing, bigotry and hatred that comes from ignorance and fear of the unkown. For example, no one still believes that a person in the throes of an epileptic fit is really being possessed by the devil, and hardly anyone still believes that a persons intelligence is determined by the color of their skin. Unfortunately, science can only eliminate the flimsy excuses-not the actual moralizing, bigotry and hatred. There are still white people who insist that black people arent as smart. Such white people clearly think such things because theyre not all that bright themselves. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





At any rate, I think science has only just begun to feel the wrath of those who would rather staunchly defend ignorance than consider new ideas and compelling evidence. This new chapter of science-busting will begin, I believe, with the fruit fly. Researchers, working at the Austrian Institute for Molecular Biology, havc found that they can change the sexual orientation of fruit flies by manipulating *one* gene. They can, in effect, make fruit flies even fruitier. Researchers watched as genetically-altered males fruit flies turned their sexual attention to other males, the _New York Times_ reported recently. When the dormant male portion of this sex gene was activated in female fruit flies, they began courting other females using all the time-honored panoply of fruit fly mating rituals. The altered females engaged in these flirtations despite the fact that they lacked the male equipment to make good on their promises.*They did it because their genes told them to.*

The article did not say whether or not the genetically altered flies set about opening their own night clubs or petitioning the government for the right to marry, but did say that the impact of this study could be far-reaching:



> * Dr. Barry Dickson, researcher*
> _"What this tells us is that instinctive behaviors can be specified by genetic programs"_


 

Although the research makes no claim as to whether the same is true for human sexual orientation, it does hold great promise in that regard. In the same article, Dr. Michael Weiss, chairman of the biochemistry department at Case Western Reserve University, said, _Hopefully this will take the discussion about sexual preferences out of the realm of morality and put it in the realm of science._

..and this is what makes the religious right unhappy. First of all, such scientific evidence-in a sort of academic I told you so- would verify what gays and lesbians have been saying forever-that they do not *choose* their sexual orientation. Also, it would make discriminating against them no only incredibly unfair, but unlawful as well. Society could no longer say that some people, due to genetic conditions beyond their control, did not deserve the same rights as everyone else. Even if everyone else thought that what some people do in the privacy of their own homes is icky. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I dare say, though, that if-or, more likely,_when_-scientists can say beyond all doubt that human sexual orientation is a result of our genetic mapping, there will be people who choose to believe otherwise. In a hundred years or so, well look back upon them the same we now look back on people who believed the world was flat.

These naysayers are probably already clearing their throats in order to point out that there are a great many differences between humans and fruit flies, and thats an entirely valid point. One of the biggest differences, which was pointed out by the very same _Times_ article, is that fruit flies copulate for 20 minutes at a stretch-and thats *not* counting foreplay. Few humans, past the age of 19, are capable of or desirous of such sustained sexual activity-unless they are on something.

Consider; the average life span of a fruit fly is 30 days, while the life expectancy of us humans averages 76 years. So, in human terms, 20 minutes of fruit fly copulation is equivalent to nearly 13 days dancing in the sheets, Without water or a bathroom break. Not only is that not possible, I cant imagine it would be all that pleasant.

This brings me to one other way in which fruit flies and humans differ: we seem to obsess about sex much more than they do. After all, given that the female fruit fly can lay up to 1,200 eggs in her month-long life, theyve got other things to think about. Whats more, the human obsession with sex is one of the major forces behind the moralizing, bigotry and hatred by the religious right. If they spent more time reading up on science, and less time pondering what homosexuals do in bed, wed all probably be a lot happier


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Apr 12, 2006)

Spoken like a true homophilic, fruit-fly envy-having, black athiest. (Did I cover all the bases?).

Excellent post; I'd be interested to see where the implications of this research taske us in the next 20 years. I don't think it'll take a hundred for th flat-earth effect to happen; science is moving too fast. We'll see it in our lifetime, as well as the reaction formations against the findings.

Best Regards,

Dave


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Apr 12, 2006)

I'm surprised the mass media hasn't jumped on this story yet.  No, wait, I'm not.

Jeff


----------



## Matt (Apr 12, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> At any rate, I think science has only just begun to feel the wrath of those who would rather staunchly defend ignorance than consider new ideas and compelling evidence. This new chapter of science-busting will begin, I believe, with the fruit fly. Researchers, working at the Austrian Institute for Molecular Biology, havc found that they can change the sexual orientation of fruit flies by manipulating *one* gene. They can, in effect, make fruit flies even fruitier. Researchers watched as genetically-altered males fruit flies turned their sexual attention to other males, the _New York Times_ reported recently. When the dormant male portion of this sex gene was activated in female fruit flies, they began courting other females using all the time-honored panoply of fruit fly mating rituals. The altered females engaged in these flirtations despite the fact that they lacked the male equipment to make good on their promises.*They did it because their genes told them to.*



As much as I would like to think that this might lead to a coherent social adjustment based on rational thinking, this news isn't too new. Apparently fruit flies have been 'playing cowboy' since at least 1995. 

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=180572&postcount=90


----------



## Monadnock (Apr 13, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> Whats more, the human obsession with sex is one of the major forces behind the moralizing, bigotry and hatred by the religious right.


 
Sounds like you have some of your own hatred to deal with.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 13, 2006)

Monadnock said:
			
		

> Sounds like you have some of your own hatred to deal with.


 
So what?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 13, 2006)

You may think I am making light of this by asking this question, but I assure you I am not. 

You mention the religious right, how far right are you talking?

Depending on the degree that can go from opinionated religious to zealot/extremist to Terrorist.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 13, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> You may think I am making light of this by asking this question, but I assure you I am not.
> 
> You mention the religious right, how far right are you talking?
> 
> Depending on the degree that can go from opinionated religious to zealot/extremist to Terrorist.


 
zealot/extremist generally-even more, though,chiefly the people who are, for the most part, currently running my country.....


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 13, 2006)

First let me state I am not taking a political stance nor am I taking a religious one. 

But how would you answer those you are saying are the religious right when they respond with "the term Religious Right involves stereotyping by leftwing political activists."


----------



## elder999 (Apr 13, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> First let me state I am not taking a political stance nor am I taking a religious one.
> 
> But how would you answer those you are saying are the religious right when they respond with "the term Religious Right involves stereotyping by leftwing political activists."


 
Uh, that''s what they often call themselves......or, that it's another lie, like "liberal media."

http://www.cc.org/

http://www.christianvoiceonline.com/

they may disguise it with catch-words like "pro-faith," "pro-life," "pro-family" and most commonly call themselves  "Christian conservatives," and I don't always disagree with them, politically, but they are making an effort-in my opinion-to turn this country into a Christian theocracy, promulgating the lie that we are a "Christian" nation, and they all too often use their faith to discriminate-they appear to me to be exclusive, rather than inclusive....


----------



## Kacey (Apr 13, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> This strikes me as quite odd, considering that the religious righties always seem to be certain that they-and they alone-know the truth about god, the universe and everything. Youd think that theyd welcome the application of objective, scientific principles to their centuries-old belief systems. Instead, they seem to fear that scientific inquiry holds the power to _disprove_ them. These are generally the same people who think that the concepts of evolution and a creator are mutually exclusive. To me, these concepts are only mutually exclusive in the narrowest of minds.



That is because religious belief is not based on science, it is based on faith.  I rarely quote movies, but I am including this piece from "Keeping the Faith", because it describes the concept better than I could:And it's very important to understand the difference between religion and faith.  Because faith is not about having the right answers. Faith is a feeling. Faith is a hunch, really.  It's a hunch that there is something bigger connecting it all... connecting us all together. And that feeling, that hunch, is God.
from http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/k/keeping-the-faith-script-transcript.html​


			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> I think thats sad, because, so far, science has been really useful behind eliminating the flimsy excuses behind much of the worlds moralizing, bigotry and hatred that comes from ignorance and fear of the unkown.


For centuries, science was used to prove things we now know are false - for example, 'the world is flat', and 'whites are smarter because they have a larger brain capacity' (a truly flawed study based on measuring the brain pans of deceased men using rice... it was later proven that the scientist had [supposedly unknowingly] shaken the skulls of the white men more, causing the rice to settle more, thus allowing more rice into the brain pan).  Yes, science has managed to debunk some of these myths... but at the same time, many people _live_ for their beliefs, and they do not _want_ to have the faith-based truths on which they live their lives 'debunked' - because that would mean they were wrong, or worse, that their religion, from which they gain much, if not all, of their moral values, was wrong.  The implications of this for many people are staggering, and not worth changing, because it would shake the roots of their personal worlds and values.



> For example, no one still believes that a person in the throes of an epileptic fit is really being possessed by the devil, and hardly anyone still believes that a persons intelligence is determined by the color of their skin.


Sadly, my experience shows that this is incorrect... many people still judge others by the color of their skin (think 'racial profiling'), or their clothing, or any one of a number of other externally-demonstrated preferences... and they judge their intelligence, their moral values, their worth as a person, based solely on appearance.  If your experience is different, more power to the people you spend time with... but the news media are full of examples that show the opposite.  From "Gilead", in Ingathering, by Zenna Henderson:
"'All I can say is:  remember that whatever you do, wherever you live, different is dead.  You have to conform or-or die.  But Peter, don't be ashamed.  Don't ever be ashamed!'...'Be different!' she whispered.  'Be as different as you can.  But don't let anyone see-don't let anyone know!'" pg.44

"I learned bitterly what Mother had told me.  Different is dead-and one death is never enough.  You die and die and die." pg 45​From a fiction story, certainly - but the concept remains the same.  History is littered with people killing those who are different from themselves, and justifying by pointing to the difference and saying:  "see, they are [evil/stupid/inhuman/unworthy/fill in other negative adjective here] because they don't [look/act/dress/eat/pray/etc.] like us."  The reason and response may change - but the concept that different is wrong remains constant.



> At any rate, I think science has only just begun to feel the wrath of those who would rather staunchly defend ignorance than consider new ideas and compelling evidence.


Science has been feeling the wrath of the rightfully ignorant as long as science has existed.  How many great thinkers were villified (outcast from their society in any number of ways, up to and including death) for proposing scientific theories, thoroughly supported by verifiable evidence, that opposed religious doctrine?  The list is extensive, and growing.  Can you say 'stem cell research'?



> I dare say, though, that if-or, more likely,_when_-scientists can say beyond all doubt that human sexual orientation is a result of our genetic mapping, there will be people who choose to believe otherwise. In a hundred years or so, well look back upon them the same we now look back on people who believed the world was flat.


There are quite a few people who still* do* believe the world is flat - see http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm for details.

In the end, this debate rests on the difference between faith and science.  Faith, by definition, is not scientific - it is a response based on emotion, and one which is often ingrained in people from a very young age (childhood training), during a very emotional time (a period of extreme stress followed by a religious conversion), or both.  People who have incorporated such beliefs into their world view are not interested in science disproving (or even proving) the concepts their faith provides them - *because* faith is based on the mystique of believing in something beyond what can be seen in everyday life - and because accepting scientific proof, even scientific proof that supports their position, takes away from that faith.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 13, 2006)

In the dust storm kicked up by proponents of &#8220;Intelligent Design&#8221; over what should be taught in the public schools, the science of evolutionary biology&#8212;the Darwinian model of evolution&#8212;is dubbed as materialistic, reductionistic, and atheistic. The Intelligent Design advocates suggest that to be a Christian one must take a stand against Darwinism. According to them, to pursue scientific research under the principles of random variation and natural selection is un-Christian. So-called &#8220;theistic evolutionists&#8221; (a phrase actually coined by the creationists as a term of derision) are accused of selling out to the enemy.-Last year Pat Robertson basically told the town of Dover, PA. that they were going to hell for voting out a pro-intelligent design school board.

In turn much of the scientific establishment tries to assert that to be religious is like having a disease that quarantines a person against participation in science. To accuse someone of holding a religious view about evolution helps to defend the hegemony of the Darwinian model in the public schools. Why? Because science is not subject to First Amendment proscriptions, while religion is. So, if you label your opponents &#8220;religious,&#8221; you get the courts on your side.

The implication is that those who continue to believe in religious things are simply not smart enough to advance. When they become smart, they&#8217;ll drop their religion and join the scientific community.

Intelligent Design proponents and creationists insist that the Darwinists are blinded by their atheism so they cannot see the limitations and gaps in their theory. These advocates argue that the very existence of complexity contradicts the standard theory of evolution, which assumes that change occurred gradually, slowly, step by step. They say that a qualitative leap to a higher order of complexity must be acknowledged, and that only an appeal to a transcendent intelligent designer provides an adequate explanation. Without quite using the word &#8220;stupid,&#8221; intelligent design advocates suggest that insistence by Darwinists that natural selection suffices as an explanation shows at least a lack of open-mindedness.

What all of this leaves out is *my* group of friends and colleagues. I hang out with some so-called theistic evolutionists. Being scientists, we tend to think that most scientists are pretty smart. In fact, many of my colleagues are even evolutionary biologists. We are convinced that the neo-Darwinian model of random genetic variation combined with natural selection provides the most adequate explanation for the development of life forms.

But my friends and colleagues are also religious, mostly Christian but with some other faiths mixed in. We think religious people can be pretty smart too. What is so important and what gets missed too often when the media covers the evolution wars is this: To be a Christian/Creationist does not require that one be anti-Darwinian.

It&#8217;s very possible that one could embrace the science of the Darwinian tradition and also embrace, say, a Christian understanding of God at work in the natural world. I believe that the Creator has used the evolution of life over deep time to serve a divine purpose for creation. This requires distinguishing between the strictly scientific Darwinian model and the atheism and related ideologies that have frequently been associated with evolution. The science is solid.

Christian faith, as I understood it,  seeks _understanding_, as St. Anselm put it. Historically, (and, yes, even if one examines the whole Galileo/Roman Catholic Church thing closely) Christians have fallen in love with science. Faith loves science. Today, the Christian faith demands that our schools teach the best science, and only the best science. To teach inferior science-which "Intelligent Design" pretty much is- is stupid and, yes, irreligious.

It has become, over time, sadly a case of the one side trying to use science to prove that their faith is not misplaced, and the other often decrying faith at all, because it can't be scientifically proven, when, after all, that's why it's called _faith_-one is a mtter of belief, and certain knowledge based only on that belief,  and the other of  knowledge based on data, facts, and proof of conjecture. It isn't the job-or at least it shouldn't be-of either one to support or be supported by the other.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 14, 2006)

Studying fruit flies? Sounds like a total waste of money. It's as bad as the millions spent a year on the mating habits of geribals. Pork Barrel spending. I bet the money spent (millions) could've fed a small, starving, nation.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2006)

I would say the crux of this debate rests on the fact that science is a superior way of knowing about the world.  Faith, that is divergent from science (knowledge), will always be emphatically wrong in its attempts to explain the universe.  This simple fact has made most religions obsolete...unless they begin to meld the teachings of science into their dogma.  Scientivism.  That is the combination of reason and faith.


----------



## Carol (Apr 14, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I would say the crux of this debate rests on the fact that science is a superior way of knowing about the world. Faith, that is divergent from science (knowledge), will always be emphatically wrong in its attempts to explain the universe. This simple fact has made most religions obsolete...unless they begin to meld the teachings of science into their dogma. Scientivism. That is the combination of reason and faith.


 
Oh wow...I'm putting down my coffee because I'm wide awake now.  

John, you are touching on something that I have never really understood.  Please indulge me if I may, I have wanted to ask this of a scientist for a long time.   

As you have a broad scientific background, with full respect, do you mind if I ask you if you really see a conflict between science and faith?   Do you find that they must be mutually exclulsive?  Please, stop me if I'm crossing a line that don't want crossed.

Looking forward to talking more with you.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2006)

Both faith and science are mutable and dependent upon one's point of view.  Yet, with science the best explanation can always be sought by looking at the evidence that justifies the theory.  With faith, this is impossible...leading to a natural state of relativism.

Science brings us closer and closer to the truth, while "pure" faith ends in relativistic dead ends.

Unless, the two marry each other.  Actually, "marriage" is a bad description because science would lead the way while faith follows.  The candle of enlightenment is an apt metaphor because the light of reason leads us out of darkness.

I believe that we are at the end of a paradigm shift that started hundreds of years ago and is not reaching climax.  Faith traditions that have not coupled themselves to the light of reason are increasingly being seen as obsolete or anachronistic.  Meanwhile, they are doing everything in their power to maintain some claim of explanatory power on the universe.  

This conflict can only have one winner, though.  Our society is already far more dependent on science then it is on faith.  It's only a matter of time.  In the future, I predict that no faith will exist without scientific underpinnings.  Those that we see without that, will go the way of the trilobite.  The conflict we see now, is nothing but the kicking and screaming that accompanies all change.

It all started because science is a superior way of knowing about the world.  Science revealed that faith could not even provide a glimpse of the objective truth.  Faith MUST couple with science in order to survive in the hearts of humans.


----------



## Carol (Apr 14, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Both faith and science are mutable and dependent upon one's point of view. Yet, with science the best explanation can always be sought by looking at the evidence that justifies the theory. With faith, this is impossible...leading to a natural state of relativism.
> 
> Science brings us closer and closer to the truth, while "pure" faith ends in relativistic dead ends.
> 
> ...


 
Very thought provoking response.


The conflict will only have one winner.   For a moment that line didn't sit well with me, until I realized that........conficts in general only have one winner.

John, what do you think will win the conflict?  Do you think it will be something extreme, such as science proving (or disproving) the existence of God?   Or do you think it will be something softer such as a change in perception...the spiritual base erodes, or, scriptures are taken more as metaphores than as literal words?


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> John, what do you think will win the conflict? Do you think it will be something extreme, such as science proving (or disproving) the existence of God? Or do you think it will be something softer such as a change in perception...the spiritual base erodes, or, scriptures are taken more as metaphores than as literal words?


 
Scriptures are already being taken as metaphors in order to align them with the findings of science.  The fit isn't exact, however, and that presents a problem to these faith traditions.  I think that we could easily see the holy books rewritten or entirely new, humanistic, religions emerge replacing the old ones.  Since, proving or disproving the existence of a deity is impossible, I can see our concept of "god" as changing to something less anthropromorphic and more phycically constant.  Perhaps as an embodiment of all the physical laws.  

Here is an interesting twist...

Check out the Kardashev Scale

*



Kardashev scale is a general method of classifying how technologically advanced a civilization is, first proposed in 1964 by the Russian astronomer Nikolai Kardashev. It has three categories, based on the amount of usable energy a civilization has at its disposal and increasing logarithmically:
		
Click to expand...

 




Type I - A civilization that is able to harness all of the power available on a single planet, approximately 1016 W. The actual figure is quite variable; Earth specifically has an available power of 1.74×1017 W. Kardashev's original definition was 4x1012 W. (It was identified as a Technological level close(st) to the level presently attained on earth, "presently" meaning 1964.)
Type II - A civilization that is able to harness all of the power available from a single star, approximately 1026 W. Again, this figure is variable; the Sun outputs approximately 3.86×1026 W. Kardashev's original definition was 4x1026 W.
Type III - A civilization that is able to harness all of the power available from a single galaxy, approximately 1036 W. This figure is extremely variable, since galaxies vary widely in size. Kardashev's original definition was 4x1037 W.
All such civilizations are purely hypothetical at this point. However, the Kardashev scale is of use to SETI researchers, science fiction authors, and futurists as a theoretical framework.
		
Click to expand...

 
We already have religions that use type III civilizations in order to explain the powers greater then us.  Scientology, for instance, is based off of this.

Check out the story of Xenu.  As incredible as it sounds, this is the basis for the religion...but when compared to other equally implausible religious explanations for the universe, it is definitely on par.




			The exponential structure of the scale allows ready extrapolation to higher types. For example:

Type IV: control of the energy output of a galactic supercluster; approximately 1046W.
Type V: energy control over the entire universe; approximately 1056W. Such a civilization approaches or surpasses the limits of speculation based on current scientific understanding, and may not be possible. Frank J. Tipler's Omega point would presumably occupy this level.


Click to expand...

Here we start to approach something that begins to resemble something approaching a deity.  All of these levels suggest religions.




			These extensions are mainly used in science fiction. They are not "official" and may differ from source to source. For example, some authors would class a "Type V" civilization as Type IV instead. Further examples of extensions of the scale follow:

Type VI: Energy control over multiple universes; a power level that is technically infinite[citation needed]
The civilization may have gained the ability to alter physical laws across multiple universes
These civilizations can escape a dying universe, and thereby become eternal; it is possible that less advanced civilizations can do so as well.

Type VII: Hypothetical status of a deity, able to create universes at will, using them as an energy source[citation needed]
An example in science fiction of beings with energy usages in the range of Type VII is in Isaac Asimov's short story The Last Question.

Type X: Hypothetical status of something above a deity, able to control and colonize Antimatter and dividing by Zero, thus creating the infinite zero drive.


Click to expand...

Finally, we come to something that plausibly could be deific in most people will accept.  I can see earthly religions changing in order to fit something like this concept.
*


----------



## Carol (Apr 14, 2006)

This is going to take some time to digest


----------



## DeLamar.J (Apr 14, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> They seem to fear that scientific inquiry holds the power to _disprove_ them.


Exactly! There is alot of money and control as long as a god fearing religions exist. When people start to become free thinkers, it will be hard to control them. Religion also allows Bush to wear that big good guy badge(cross)while he does what he wants. Being that the majority of americans are christains, he must also be one to get away with what he does. IMO he does not believe in god, he pretends to because it keeps the majority of the herd behind him. Even myself being an atheist, I still see the power of controlling the herd, and I would do the same in his position, as any strategist would.


----------



## Monadnock (Apr 14, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I would say the crux of this debate rests on the fact that science is a superior way of knowing about the world. Faith, that is divergent from science (knowledge), will always be emphatically wrong in its attempts to explain the universe. This simple fact has made most religions obsolete...unless they begin to meld the teachings of science into their dogma. Scientivism. That is the combination of reason and faith.


 
Sounds a bit like Einstein's approach, using science to learn more about our creator's design.

Some people can wake up, see the morning sun and blue sky and thank God to be here, while others with less or no faith resume studying puddles of mud for their roots.

It's all good....really.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 14, 2006)

Oh, good grief.

Now listen, I perfectly sympathize with many of the sentiments that have been expressed on this thread. I fully get concepts such as the Separation of Church and State, equal rights to all our citizenry, the political dangers of the Religious Right, and so on. Really, I do.

But, people, come on. If'n you're gonna make a thread drooling about the wonders of "science", at least get your damn facts straight. Science, if nothing else, is about the facts.

To list just a few examples:

1) The notion that something like "sexual orientation" is _solely_ a product of your genes is not only silly, but it is unsupported by existing data. I seem to recall the twin studies exploring this subject producing only a moderate correlation between homosexual orientation and genetic relatedness. 

2) Furthermore, no biologically informed scientist really takes the whole "nature vs nurture" thing seriously anymore. It's kind of, um, stupid. The vogue explanatory model in developmental psych these days, the theory of gene/environment interaction, seems to indicate that not only do genetics and environment _interact_ to produce what we are, but they do on such an intimate level that the two cannot be easily teased apart.

3) The notion that "change occurred gradually, slowly, step by step" is the _standard_ theory of evolution is not quite accurate. It was the standard theory about fifty years ago, and is the introductory explanation you get in most high school textbooks. Hell, even the ideas that evolution is entirely "random" or "non-linear" isn't really all that accepted anymore. But, today, there are two many little "wrinkles" in traditional neo-Darwinism --- self-organizing systems, niche construction, social evolution, punctuated equilibria, Baldwin effects, and so on --- that makes the aforementioned explanation somewhat untenable.

4) Just so everyone knows, "scientivism" or "scientism" is just another word for positivism, or metaphysical physicalism (redundant, huh?). It's about as "scientific" as any other type of ideological fundamentalism. Oh yeah, and that "paradigm shift" is long gone by now. It ended with the Age of Reason. Nowadays, philosophy is generally more concerned with postmodern constructivism and debunking the Myth of the Given (which is what "scientism" rests on).

5) For a real look at what an integration of "science" and "religion" might be, I would suggest Ken Wilber's _The Marriage of Sense and Soul_. Carl Sagan was a great scientist, but his philosophy is rather lacking.

Laterz.


----------



## crushing (Apr 14, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> This strikes me as quite odd, considering that the religious righties always seem to be certain that they-and they alone-know the truth about god, the universe and everything.



I can't point you to the chapter and verse, but isn't the answer 42?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 14, 2006)

crushing said:
			
		

> I can't point you to the chapter and verse, but isn't the answer 42?


 
very nice, but now look what you started.

"Forty-two!" "Is that all you've got to show for seven and a half million years' work?" 

"Six by nine. Forty-two." 
"That's it. That's all there is." 

Of course, 6 × 9 is 54, not 42. There are several possible interpretations of this. 

One would be that crushing indeed discovered the Ultimate Question, which doesn't match the Answer simply because the universe is bizarre and irrational. 

"I always said there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe."


----------



## elder999 (Apr 17, 2006)

upnorhtkyosa said:
			
		

> I would say the crux of this debate rests on the fact that science is a superior way of knowing about the world. Faith, that is divergent from science (knowledge), will always be emphatically wrong in its attempts to explain the universe. This simple fact has made most religions obsolete...unless they begin to meld the teachings of science into their dogma. Scientivism. That is the combination of reason and faith.



Okay-Booker T. Washington said that there are two ways to use strength: to push down, or to pull up. Its not my intention to do either, here, but it seems that I probably tend to push down, or at least get viewed that way,so Im really going to try avoid that .
with that said, I dont exactly disagree with you, but, as a scientist who is also religious (though not necessarily what you might call a person of faith, which Ill get to in a minute.) Im not sure that I can entirely agree with you here

First, though, and more in keeping with my original intent, Id like to point out some of the foolishness that has occurred when religion, and specifically fundamentalists, have tried to reconcile religion with science. Its worth pointing out here that while Kacey posted a webpage for the Flat Earth Society, which Im pretty certain is tongue-in-cheek, none of this stuff is meant as a joke at all..
Coming to the lab is that the school system was excellent, and I was raising two kids on my own. There was, at that time, quite the battle raging in the school system and our small community about teaching creationism, or, as its come to be known intelligent design theory. Neither or which is a legitimate theory, of course, but it is interesting that the rather heated, months-long discussion took place in the town that created the A-bomb, allegedly has the highest number of PhD.s per-capita in the country, and has a median income of $89,000.

But lets forget Los Alamos, for the moment, and take a walk through the Creationism Museum, whose website can be found here 





> _from the Creation Museum_





> Explore the wonders of creation. The imprint of the Creator is all around us. And the Bibles clearheaven and earth in six 24-hour days, earth before sun, birds before lizards.
> 
> Other surprises are just around the corner. Adam and apes share the same birthday. The first man walked with dinosaurs and named them all!
> 
> Gods Word is true, or evolution is true. No millions of years. Theres no room for compromise.



This nonsense-and nonsense is what it is-actually goes on in Los Alamos, a town of a little more than 12,000 people that has more than 24 churches! I actually have a colleague whose wife home schools their children, and whose religion teaches that the fossil record is a deception from Satan, and, except for this, his near rabid support of BuSh, his listening to Rush Limbaugh, and watching Fox News as his sole source of news, we get along fairly well.as long as the conversations are about work, sports or food..

I went to church with my Mom for Easter-while no longer considering myself a practicing Christian, my belief system also isnt threatened by attending the occasional Episcopal service, and Ive actually enjoyed some rather nostalgic moments by doing so-not to mention making my Mom happy. The Episcopal liturgy has changed somewhat since I was practicing, though, and , what with the infrequency of my attending, it was the first time Id seen a prayer that referred to the Creator of interstellar space, the planets in their orbits, the galaxies,_life in all places_ and an actual reference to Gods time and evolution being a tool of the Creator (though I dont have it in front of me, and cant quote it accurately right now, Ill get it later.) I think these are the kind of things you spoke of, and, while they may be welcome, and even necessary-and wholly at the other end of the spectrum than the Creation Museum, I dont completely agree that faith and science need to be reconciled, nor do I think that they are irreconcilable.

Where I really disagree with you, though, is not even so much that you see science as a superior way of knowing the world, but more where the crux of the debate lies-which is interesting in itself, though somewhat further afield from my original intention-while a physicist (ugh!-hate that;Ill always call myself an angineer) rather than a biologist-it was really my intention to use the example that biology offers against fundamentalist (and ther is the one difference, what you call pure faith, I think) thinking.


No matter, though- the crux of the argument to me is that faith, is almost wholly subjective, whereas science is almost wholly objective.





			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Both faith and science are mutable and dependent upon one's point of view. Yet, with science the best explanation can always be sought by looking at the evidence that justifies the theory. With faith, this is impossible...leading to a natural state of relativism.
> 
> Science brings us closer and closer to the truth, while "pure" faith ends in relativistic dead ends.
> 
> Unless, the two marry each other. Actually, "marriage" is a bad description because science would lead the way while faith follows. The candle of enlightenment is an apt metaphor because the light of reason leads us out of darkness.



Earlier I posted here in a somewhat related thread, that for me its not enough to believe in God; I need to experience God. 

My experiencing God is completely subjective-it cannot be tested, quantified, or have any measure of data taken on it. It can, especially in one notable instance, be _duplicated_ independently, which is one standard for scientific experimentation, but that duplication itself would be subjective for the duplicant, as well as the meaning of the nature of the experience itself. 

Real scientific experiments, on the other hand, most generally (though not always) are duplicable, consistent, and their data is thus, objective-while the interpretation of the data is dependent upon ones point of view, and that little bit of subjectivity can be a positive thing, the data itself should always be the same if the conditions are the same. That subjectivity, btw, can lead to something less than the best explanation.

In matters of faith, there is the Creator-or, should I say, the _postulated_ Creator, since he/she/it cant really be called theoretical, as he/she/it cant be disproven. Such a being, though, must, by the implication of what little we can grasp of _hisherits_ nature, be outside of the creation-that is to say, the known universe/space-time continuum, and, as such, in all likelihood be unquantifiable by known methods.

Some parallels have been drawn between quantum physics and the Buddhist view of reality, and I know several theoretical physicists who are finding this approach extremely helpful-if youre particularly interested in this Id suggest an investigation of Hwa-Yen Buddhism, as well as the philospophy of Alfred North Whitehead-in any case, while each of these is a view of the nature of reality, and there appears to be some agreement between them, Hwa Yen or even Zen Buddhism do not, in my opinion, constitute religions of faith or deity as much as ways of religiously attaining and maintaining a view of reality.

In my opinion, the best bet for reconciling science and religion is the scientific investigation of the most basic foundation of religion: in 1975, in my freshman religious studies class, the instructor walked in, wrote What is religion about? then wrote LIFE/DEATH:what does this mean?


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 17, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> No matter, though- the crux of the argument to me is that &#8220;faith,&#8221; is almost wholly subjective, whereas science is almost wholly objective.



Your argument sounds somewhat reminiscent of Stephen Jay Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA). Unfortunately, as I have argued in the past, the NOMA concept actually breaks down on several fronts when you critically examine it.

The subjective/objective duality is something of a cultural fantasy that we have erected, resting largely on the industrial ontology that John appealed to in his previous post. In other words, the Myth of the Given.



			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> My experiencing God is completely subjective-it cannot be tested, quantified, or have any measure of data taken on it.



Assuming you are invoking some type of mystical or transpersonal experience here, I am inclined to hold such a statement as demonstrably false.



			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> It can, especially in one notable instance, be _duplicated_ independently, which is one standard for scientific experimentation, but that duplication itself would be subjective for the duplicant, as well as the meaning of the nature of the experience itself.



Once again, appealing to the old industrial ontology.

_All_ experiences --- whether they be mediated through a microscope or contemplative prayer --- are "subjective for the duplicant". That is the very _nature_ of experience. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply appealing to the Myth of the Given.

That is why peer review is so important in science. There is peer review in mysticism, too.



			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> In matters of &#8220;faith,&#8221; there is the Creator-or, should I say, the _postulated_ Creator, since he/she/it can&#8217;t really be called theoretical, as he/she/it can&#8217;t be disproven.



Metaphysical postulations such as "the Creator" cannot be disproven, but the particular hypotheses of certain spiritual practices or "experiments" most certainly can be.



			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> [Such a being, though, must, by the implication of what little we can grasp of _hisherits_ nature, be outside of the creation-that is to say, the known universe/space-time continuum, and, as such, in all likelihood be unquantifiable by known methods.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]



Which begs the obvious question as to _why_ one should believe in such a "being" in the first place. After all, if a truth-claim cannot in any way be validated (or disconfirmed), then it remains nothing more than a dogmatic declaration.

This is one of the reasons why "mere metaphysics" (such as Hegel's _Phenomenology of Spirit_) gets absolutely shredded in modern philosophy.



			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> Some parallels have been drawn between quantum physics and the Buddhist view of reality, and I know several theoretical physicists who are finding this approach extremely helpful-if you&#8217;re particularly interested in this I&#8217;d suggest an investigation of Hwa-Yen Buddhism, as well as the philospophy of Alfred North Whitehead-in any case, while each of these is a view of the nature of reality, and there appears to be some agreement between them, Hwa Yen or even Zen Buddhism do not, in my opinion, constitute religions of faith or deity as much as ways of religiously attaining and maintaining a view of reality.



In my personal opinion, the "parallels" between Buddhism and physics are rather superficial in nature.



			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> In my opinion, the best bet for reconciling science and religion is the scientific investigation of the most basic foundation of religion: in 1975, in my freshman religious studies class, the instructor walked in, wrote &#8220;What is religion about?&#8221; then wrote &#8220;LIFE/DEATH:what does this mean?&#8221;



Agreed.

Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 17, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> The subjective/objective duality is something of a cultural fantasy that we have erected, resting largely on the industrial ontology that John appealed to in his previous post. In other words, the Myth of the Given.


 
Could you give a quick breakdown of the Myth of the Given?  I know you've explained it before, but I've been searching and cannot find a really good definition for it.  I would especially like to know so I could see how my argument fits into that concept.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 18, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Could you give a quick breakdown of the Myth of the Given? I know you've explained it before, but I've been searching and cannot find a really good definition for it. I would especially like to know so I could see how my argument fits into that concept.


 
As I understand it, the Myth of the Given (also known as the fundamental Enlightenment paradigm) was the standard way of "seeing" the world during the period we refer to as the Industrial Revolution or the Age of Reason (also called the Enlightenment).

The basic assumption of this paradigm is that there is an isolated, detached, antiseptic subject "in here" that observes the isolated, detached, antiseptic objective world "out there" and never the two shall 'twain. The idea here, which has been the basis for much of "traditional" science (but rather discredited by philosophers of science nowadays, thanks to guys like Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn) under the philosophical guises of empiricism and positivism, is that the observer can sit back and "innocently" create "maps" of the world (this is also sometimes called the Mapping Paradigm) --- whether they be empirical observations, artwork, or logical theories --- without any hint of bias or interpretation. If the "maps" match up with the "territory" then, it was assumed, that is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

In other words, the Myth of the Given is the _a priori_ assumption that the "objective world" is pregiven, just waiting for everybody and their uncle to come by and "map" away. We now know, of course, that that whole idea is a load of bunk. Thus, we enter the Postmodern Rebellion.

What has increasingly come into the minds of philosophers and scientists of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries is that reality is in many significant ways a _construction_. We don't just observe the world, we _interpret_ it. In no way is this an excuse for intellectually lazy relativism or nihilism, mind you, but it also pours cold water all over the idea of this mapping nonsense.

You can see parallels to this postmodern philosophy in many other fields, as well. Relativity theory in physics (where time and space become conditional variables rather than pregiven absolutes), Jean Piaget's developmental-structuralism in psychology (where the individual is seen as constructing his or her own hierarchic schemas throughout the course of life), systems theory in ecology, and Thomas Kuhn's writings on the emergence of "paradigm shifts" in science (i.e., science is based in socially-sanctioned practices, rather than being some a priori Absolute Truth) all immediately come to mind.

I could elaborate more, but I'll just refer you to somebody much brighter than me. Wilber's _The Marriage of Sense and Soul_ gives a really good analysis of the history of modern and postmodern philosophy, as well as his own suggestion for how the whole shebang fits together.

Laterz.

P.S. Oh, and I should point out that the entire "mind/body problem" stuff --- whether Descartes' dualism or Hume's physicalism --- is kinda derived from this Myth of the Given, too. At least on the philosophical (as opposed to phenomenological) level.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 18, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Assuming you are invoking some type of mystical or transpersonal experience here, I am inclined to hold such a statement as demonstrably false.


Demonstrably false, how, exactly?



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> _All_ experiences --- whether they be mediated through a microscope or contemplative prayer --- are "subjective for the duplicant". That is the very _nature_ of experience. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply appealing to the Myth of the Given.





			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> That is why peer review is so important in science. There is peer review in mysticism, too





			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Metaphysical postulations such as "the Creator" cannot be disproven, but the particular hypotheses of certain spiritual practices or "experiments" most certainly can be.



Nonetheless, the *data* for-or from- such experiences-and in this Im speaking of experimentation in the sense of the scientific method-are objective. What is observed is certainly subjective, but the figures gathered certainly are not.
Were somewhat in agreement in terms spiritual practices or experiments, but they most often are not verifiable or disprovable within the framework of the standard scientific method-they may be reliably duplicated, as I said, but what that means, in terms of data, is subject to debate. 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Which begs the obvious question as to _why_ one should believe in such a "being" in the first place. After all, if a truth-claim cannot in any way be validated (or disconfirmed), then it remains nothing more than a dogmatic declaration.



Well, Im not saying that you or anyone else should believe in such a being, in the first place.


As far as what the deity is doing-who says he/she/it is "busy" running the universe? (As long as I'm being "abstract" ). I do pray, and I *know* my prayers get answered. 

A story first, though:

When I was a lad, I attended a boarding school in Connecticut-the kind with tennis courts, an indoor hockey rink, a nine-hole golf course, Olympic swimming pool, and an *excellent* (for a school) dining service. In keeping with all of that, it employed-or rather, _employs_- a wide variety of service people to maintain those facilities.Some of them were rather eccentric, while more than a few were just regular folksand one or two were damned crazy. We called them all wombats-I dont know why- and, while some of them were to be kept away from, like the guy who ran the boiler in my dorm, or the cafeteria guy who carried on prolonged conversations with an invisible friend, even to the point of setting up an extra place for him when he ate his lunch, and animatedly gesticulating when he was making a point,most others were more than okay to socialize with, for a variety of reasons. 

Another of the cafeteria guys named Terry, was not too much older than we were, played really good guitar, and got what I was told was excellent pot. This last I wouldnt know because I couldnt (cant) smoke *anything*-at least, I can't _inhale_-but I was usually around to jam with any of my fellow musicians in those days.

Anyway, one day a few of us were doing just that, jamming and smoking, and one of my fellow students had the temerity to ask, Hey, Terry, whats the deal with that guy who talks to himself all the time? Terry looked kind of thoughtful for a minute and said, I dont know, but Ill tell you what. One day we were loading these trays of potatoes out of a rack and into the oven for baking-big suckers, must have weighed 200 lbs., and he slides one out of the rack, holds it by one corner, looks over and says You got that? and carries it across the kitchen by the corner, _with nobody holdin up the other friggin end!_

Now, being the geek that I was-the sort of geek who was going to wind up working as a physicist (ugh!) at Los Alamos after working in a nuke plant for years, and doing some pretty heavy engineering work just for fun, I did some quick calculations, based having seen those very trays and potatoes, estimating the size of the trays at 2.5 feet wide by 4 feet long , and the mean dimensions of the potatoes (Russets for baking) at 5 inches long, 2.5 inches wide and weighing around 13.5. ounces, there was no way those trays weighed 200 lbs.

They probably weighed about 110 pounds. 

At this point in my life, I was already becoming familiar with the idea that the human mind is capable of marvelous things, and, while the story about the fellow who talked to himself being assisted by his invisible friend may just have been something made up by a clever guy to freak out a few stoned 14 year olds, its not impossible. Much weirder things have happened, and I-who wasnt stoned, and grew up to do freaky things like bend horseshoes and smash concrete with his bare hands, and swim more than 100 yds. underwater-pretty much believe it-or at least I believe that ift _could_ have happened just that way.

So, for *me*, think of it like this:_God is helping me carry "my tray"_. Ive done some marvelous things in my time, as well as some things that most people think of as fairly mundane-like live that time-and while _you_ may not see him/her/it, *I do*, and couldnt have done any of those things, or gotten through some pretty bad times, without him/her/it. Doesn't matter if he's actually there, or if I'm simply imagining him- I *need* him/her/it, and he/she/it has always come through-though I'd be the last person to insist to anyone who apparently didn't have that same need that they were doing anything wrong. Please note that the awkward multiple pronouns are my way of showing just how silly it is to speak of the mystery-that's how I usually refer to "God" :"the mystery," or "Creator," when addressing him/her/it directly.

Or just him.anyway: these things, while their _physical_ manifestations are certainly testable (and, too look at me, you wouldnt think I twist horseshoes-and I soon wont be doing so any longer) whence they came is not-at least, not within the framework and rigor of the standard-western experimental model. I casn twist horsehsoes all I like, but I can't prove or disprove that my prayers make me strong....

A real good example of how you and I may differ over this-and Im not so sure it isnt largely semantics;were probably very much in agreement but say things differently-is the case of the shamanic experience. While shamanic practices provide a technology that reliably gives each participant a consistently verifiable and often altogether common experience, whether its just an odd-artifact of the interaction with the central nervous system with ceremony, or a genuine mystical experience is open to scientific debate within the framework of the standard western scientific method of experimentation. Yes, everyone reports the same thing, but _what it means_ is open to interpretation, just as whether there actually is such a thing as a genuine mystical experience.




			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> In my personal opinion, the "parallels" between Buddhism and physics are rather superficial in nature.


Well, Dr. N. David Mermin-retiring Horace White Professor in Physics at Cornell University,certainly sees some parallels, and in this, at least among the theoretical fellas (Im just an engineer with a doctorate in applied physics), hes not alone-a great many of them are utilizing Buddhism as a means of understanding some of the inherent oddness in quantum physics, and the numerous misunderstandings attendant to it. 
Like this one:



			
				 Dr. David Mermin said:
			
		

> Its demonstrably provable that when no one is looking at it, the moon is not there.


Seen here, in a remarkably lucid and funny paper.
And you can see Dr. Mermin on his homepage for the rest of this year, anyway http://people.ccmr.cornell.edu/~mermin/homepage/ndm.html] here[/font]


----------



## elder999 (Apr 18, 2006)

And let me say, just for claity's sake, that it's my postion that science is not meant to prove or disprove things of the spirit, and vice versa-it's the postition of most physicists, in fact, no matter how mystical an outlook their field entails or even requires. 

Take a look at Nobel prizer-winner Bill Phillips for a much more lucid viewpoint-from a Christian, no-less.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 18, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> Demonstrably false, how, exactly?




Well, when you say that transpersonal experiences "cannot be tested, quantified, or have any measure of data taken on [them]", this is something of a fallacious argument. Just off the top of my head, I can think of four ways of "testing" or "quantifying" such phenomena:

1) Phenomenology: Study the reports as first-hand subjective accounts in their own rights; this is largely the domain of humanistic psychology and philosophy.

2) Structuralism: Compare the reports with one another, both in terms of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, making note of any emergent patterns or "structures". Piaget did something similar to this with cognitive development.

3) Neurology: Take neurological data of the participant while he or she is having one of these "experiences", including EEG patterns, the localization of the brain's electrical excitation, as well as the long-term neural density (or lack thereof) of certain regions of the brain.

4) Physiology: Make note of the physiological differences (both short-term and long-term) of individuals that have these experiences (or do practices that disclose such experiences), including blood pressure, stress level, and so on.

And that's just off the top of my head.




			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> Nonetheless, the *data* for-or from- such experiences-and in this Im speaking of experimentation in the sense of the scientific method-are objective. What is observed is certainly subjective, but the figures gathered certainly are not.


 
I'm inclined to agree, but have some reservations about your use of terminology.




			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> Were somewhat in agreement in terms spiritual practices or experiments, but they most often are not verifiable or disprovable within the framework of the standard scientific method-they may be reliably duplicated, as I said, but what that means, in terms of data, is subject to debate.


 
This is largely due to attempts to co-opt the theories of one "science" with the practices of another "science", another characteristic feature of positivism. In essence, the game being played here is that the theories of the spiritual "science" are supposed to be demonstrated with the experiments of the physical/natural "science". That just ain't gonna happen.

This would be like expecting me to "prove" the Pythagorean Theorem by doing something _other than_ geometry. It's a ridiculous demand that would get scoffed at in any other science.

The only people who can reliably interpret the spiritual data --- the "peers" in this case --- are those that have done these experiments (or something like them) for themselves. That is how it is in any other "science" and that is how it is in this one, too.

Wilber writes extensively about this subject in his _Marriage of Sense and Soul_. 






			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> A real good example of how you and I may differ over this-and Im not so sure it isnt largely semantics;were probably very much in agreement but say things differently-is the case of the shamanic experience. While shamanic practices provide a technology that reliably gives each participant a consistently verifiable and often altogether common experience, whether its just an odd-artifact of the interaction with the central nervous system with ceremony, or a genuine mystical experience is open to scientific debate within the framework of the standard western scientific method of experimentation. Yes, everyone reports the same thing, but _what it means_ is open to interpretation, just as whether there actually is such a thing as a genuine mystical experience.


 
No, this is like saying that a biological experiment is "open to interpretation" because a linguist has a different perspective than the biologist. The problem is, the biologist is the only one of them that has done the experiment.

Most of the skepticism concerning scientific mysticism really stems from philosophical and cultural bias, not scientific inquiry. We don't doubt the "meaning" of the experience of, say, petting a dog or eating an apple. Yet, those are also cases where neurons are firing in one's brain, as all experiences are. It is reductionistic Special Pleading to apply this skepticism to one form of experience, but not to another.

The "meaning" of meditation is known to those that have spent years mastering meditation. Nobody else can know the meaning because, to use the analogy of Galileo, they haven't bothered to look through the telescope to check it out for themselves.





			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> Well, Dr. N. David Mermin-retiring Horace White Professor in Physics at Cornell University,certainly sees some parallels, and in this, at least among the theoretical fellas (Im just an engineer with a doctorate in applied physics), hes not alone-a great many of them are utilizing Buddhism as a means of understanding some of the inherent oddness in quantum physics, and the numerous misunderstandings attendant to it.


 
Surface similarities to be sure, but only surface similarities.

I'm also curious as to what sense these individuals are "utilizing Buddhism". Are they engaging in deep contemplative meditation aimed toward transcending the illusory self in an effort to realize the nature of Reality?? Or, are they doing math?? Big difference.

Laterz.


----------



## elder999 (May 1, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Surface similarities to be sure, but only surface similarities.
> 
> I'm also curious as to what sense these individuals are "utilizing Buddhism". Are they engaging in deep contemplative meditation aimed toward transcending the illusory self in an effort to realize the nature of Reality?? Or, are they doing math?? Big difference.


 
Sorry its taken me so long to reply-while Ive had time for off the cuff postings, I havent at all had time to make abn orderly reply to yours. I thought Id handle this last first, though, as its easiest-most of them dont think of them as surface similarities, just similarities. As for what theyre doing, while not a theoreticlal guy myself-as I understand it, theyre doing both: engaging in deep contemplative meditiation in an effort to realize the nature of Reality (when they're meditating), and doing math, of course though I think they sometimes find meditating useful while they're doing math, so,_ sometimes at the same time._



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Well, when you say that transpersonal experiences "cannot be tested, quantified, or have any measure of data taken on [them]", this is something of a fallacious argument. Just off the top of my head, I can think of four ways of "testing" or "quantifying" such phenomena:
> 
> 1) Phenomenology: Study the reports as first-hand subjective accounts in their own rights; this is largely the domain of humanistic psychology and philosophy.
> 
> ...


 
First off, I didnt say that transpersonal experiences , etc., etc, etc. I said that MY, oh, heck!_ Here:_



			
				el Brujo de la Cueva said:
			
		

> *My* experiencing God is completely subjective-it cannot be tested, quantified, or have any measure of data taken on it. It can, especially in one notable instance, be _duplicated_ independently, which is one standard for scientific experimentation, but that duplication itself would be subjective for the duplicant, as well as the meaning of the nature of the experience itself.





All of that aside, though, while I think were somewhat in agreement, I think youre missing an essential point. Well take a look at your four ways:

1) Phenomenology-Its not only the domain of humanistic psychology and philosophy, but exactly the approach that anthropology tends to take when examining these things-but what does it mean? How exactly does this quantify measure or test the individuals experience of God? Id make the very strong case that it doesnt.

2) Structuralism-Interesting, as this also runs parallel to your peer review of mystical experience, a concept that Im in agreement with you about, and completely familiar with. Which makes for an interesting story. If one is were to undertake a shamanic journey to the underworld, by any of several means, one might encounter during this experience great reptilian beings who described themselves as Original Lords of All Creation, or in similar terms. Later, when the rest of the experience was complete, and one was making the requisite description to the shaman/facilitator, he or she might respond to the story of the reptilian beings by saying something like, _Oh, they always say that._ Again, though,. What does it mean, in terms of *science*.? The experience *is* easily and consistently duplicated , and that is significant, but significant of what? Are these beings part of racial memory, an artifact of the limbic system expressing itself through the subconscious/supraconscious, a hallucination or _really reptilian beings who can only communicate with us when were in a shamanic state?_ I dont believe the last, by the way, but what I _believe_ isnt at all important-*science* cannot tell me or anyone else what this experience means-cant quantify or measure it.

3) Im going to do 3&4 together, because they belong together, and, in many ways, theyre the most interesting, since they are what we could call *hard* sciences. Using the examples of say, a Buddhist Monk, and a Benedictine nun, we can examine the monk in meditation, and the nun at prayer, neurologically and physically, and verify that there are some surface similarities (maybe theyre deeper than surface similarities,) such as respiration, brain activity, pulse, etc., but, while the monk is meditating, the nun is fervently praying to Jesus, and claims that Jesus answers her. While we can measure each experience, and, physically and neurologically they appear to be in the same state, we cannot say that they are having the same experience, and, more to the point, cannot scientifically prove or disprove that the nun is talking to Jesus, or that he has or has not answered here. 

I'm not even going to get into the very real (for some of us) and measurable phenomena that take place outside of the space between a person's ears in this realm, and leave it at that.


The rest of what youve posted is interesting, and, again, I think were probably largely in agreement, though our language tends to differ. As a scientist (and a mystic, I suppose, whatever *that* means) I dont think one thing has anything to do with the other, though science will continue to examine such things, and reach more and more understanding-and questions


----------



## Loki (May 6, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> Researchers, working at the Austrian Institute for Molecular Biology, havc found that they can change the sexual orientation of fruit flies by manipulating *one* gene. They can, in effect, make fruit flies even fruitier.



HAHAHAHA!!! You get a rep point for that!

I'll try to stay away from US politics, but I personally am of the view that science and faith are mutually exclusive. If it's been proved, why would you need to believe in it? It's a fact. You don't believe in Honey Nut Cheerios, do you?


----------

