List of scientists who became creationists after studying the evidence

Edan wrote: That's not true, we dress up to look good for the earth when she sucks all of our nutrients back for herself

No we dont, I am going to be cremated.

I would like to know what truths...plz

carlos - i dont understand exactly what youre asking

could you please make your question more precise?

Khaos wrote:

Edan wrote: That's not true, we dress up to look good for the earth when she sucks all of our nutrients back for herself

No we dont, I am going to be cremated.

Me too, but I rather hope my family won't keep me in a metal pot for the rest of eternity :dry:

My wife intends to keep me until she goes, or vice versa, and then have our ashes mixed and put somewhere.

Its about as sentimental and symbolic that I get.

:evil:

OB1Shinobi wrote: imo science is merely the religion of FACTS

but science is the most misguided knowledge of all as a religion because it focuses on "what things are" rather than "what things MEAN"

and on what we CAN do, rather than what we SHOULD do

*Sigh*...
No... science is not a religion. If it were, it would have local boundaries, a tendency to isolationism and some severe dogmatism problems. It happens to have the exact opposite of those which explains why people had been seeing science and religion as antithetical to each other for centuries now, whether they actually are or not.
Neither is science devoted to facts. Facts are points of data that are not in dispute either because they are independantly verifiable through observation or inescapable conclusions of valid logical analysis, the latter of which would not strictly need be facts about actual reality and I can give examples of how that can be, if required. Science is the process of proposition generation with the goal of constructing a model to explain the given facts and no less importantly predict facts to be identified in the future. One could sloppily say that science is in the business of interpreting facts, rather than producing or worshipping them. What things "MEAN", as you put it, is quite exactly what science is all about.
Now, at no least, after all of that was dead wrong, you said that science is not concerned with what we should do. This is a very common criticism that really never doesn't come up which would make one expect that it be of more merit. While science is strictly not a morality generator, nonetheless it has some of the most solid ethical standards among other disciplines. Not only does one not get away being a sloppy or dishonest scientist, being anything less than reasonably kind in all things would also sooner rather than later prove a severe obstacle. And as if that wasn't enough, science also improves our understanding of things in and outside of itself such that we can make better decisions. One could say it also informs the wicked on how to decide for their cause, but it doesn't quite help them justify it and in the end they end up weakened through the progress of the rest of us, time and time again.

ideology is dangerous, not religion

Religion is a strict subset of the ideologies set. If you have a religion, you have an ideology. Doesn't necessarily work the other way though.

the ideology of nihilism for instance is dangerous - in the extreme

Which nihilism? I can think of about five relevant and different types off the top of my head none of which are necessarily either ideologies or dangerous.

without god, why NOT send our neighbors into the ovens?

Good question! One moral philosophers have been trying to find answers to for the past millennia and to which several answers with limited applicability already exist. There is another question like it: "With god, why not send our neighbors into the ovens?" Except this question wasn't answered. The best people came up with for this one is hijack the answers to your question.

if you think that god is not necessary to instill a sense that life is sacred - and the sense that life, at least human life is sacred as being necessary to prevent the ovens - then i think you are wrong

what is not necessary is any particular interpretation of god

this one, that one, whatever

Now that I finally agree with. The notion of sacredness either goes with no justification or with something like "coz god" which IMHO is equally vapid as sticking without justification. My only question is "So what?". To me, life isn't sacred. Nothing is. I value many things, and there are things I would do my utmost to protect at just about any cost. I am perfectly fine conceding that they are important to me or to others or that I feel like it is the right thing to do, but I see nothing sacred about them. In that sense i could either say that I don't know what sacred means, which makes the word useless to me, but the only thing that makes me different from someone who insists that the things he favours are sacred is just that. They think that what is important to them has a sort of divine spark behind it and that everybody else should kneel before those things as they do. They also often think of themselves as morally superior just because their version of the cause is 'sacred'. I am quite enough of a douchebag already and don't need to grow any more self-righteous. Nor am I so insecure about either my positions or their occasional intellectual shortcomings that I'd slap a god-sticker on them for compensation.

what we need to discard is the pervasive sense that "I" and MY IDEAS and MY RELIGION are so good that i can ridicule YOU, and YOUR IDEAS and YOUR RELIGION

be me or you a scientist or creationist

Putting ideas to the test and subsequently exposing their failures is not ridicule. What this is is what happens to ideas if you put them out in an open marketplace of ideas and especially if you try to say they should be considered science as creationists keep insisting their ideas are. Perhaps one could argue that not all ideas need be a matter of science and thus subjects to scientific standards. Well, again, if you want to play with the science kids, you gotta play by science rules, but aside from that I agree. If you are willing to risk ideas like these to prevail and flourish, as they do in places where it is thought that peer review is counter to the spirit of science, there are places like that and I concede that there are people who like and need that. I'm just not one of them.

there is something intrinsic to the human psyche wherein we demand something to hold in awe

and we need some standard by which to measure ourselves and by which to judge our own actions

"the idea of the Holy" is as undeniable and inescapable to our essential nature as fear or sex or laughter or rage - it is a part of us

Erm, I would like some evidence of that intrinsic something, please...

without some intelligently designed interpretation of precisely what that HOLY means, at least insofar as that we have a precise sense of the principles by which it implies we must abide, we will MAKE holy that which is profane - plunder and loot and the power to submit each other into obedience

the classic argument is "we dont need god to know that we should treat each other with respect"

i say: WRONG

we dont need any specific and dominant-above-all-others god to do that

but the idea that there is an intrinsic holiness to life and that life has worth BECAUSE OF THIS HOLINESS, with no other requirement, is EXACTLY what we need in order to value each other with respect and tolerance

Same point. Evidence, please. So far it has always seemed like the opposite were true, if we judge ideas by their fruits. In fact, just right now you are basically telling both your own and my peers, that people over on my side of the fence do not have what it takes to value their neighbors. I shan't take offense over this, but I shall indeed point to how this sort of contradicts what you just said, if I assume that you acknowledge said holiness.

without that idea, not only is there no real NEED to value one another, but in fact it becomes a BURDEN

False. It is occasionally a burden and we often do it more than is strictly necessary. But we do need it and we succeed individually and collectively when we do and we fail when we don't. That is also true of all the other social animals most of which I think we agree do not do it out of acknowledgement of the holy. Heck, even among humans, doing it for that reason kind of cheapens it, if you think about it.

WHY should i be bothered to acknowledge you in any more meaningful way than that you prevent me from getting what i want or can help me get what i want?

i shouldnt

the only value i place on respecting you is in relation to the direct material consequences and rewards of either choice

Sorry to hear you feel that way, brother... I suppose my reason is that no man is an island, basically. What I do to you may not come back to me in a direct and exact way, but overall the world is a better place if people treat each other with kindness and I happen to want to live in good world. I admit that my wanting so is all the reason I have and need and any claim to this being a matter of holiness would in my opinion only sound both insecure and arrogant. Not to mention that the question would remain the same with and without acceptance of the holy. With and without god, the moral problems we are faced with are exactly the same and we solve them in mostly the same ways, except some of us admit that their ways are potentially flawed and in need of improvement while others violently reject that possibility.

i am not at all promoting creationism

Now why would you need to stress it if it nowhere seemed that you did?

i think the big bang is better proof of god than anything any creationist could cook up anyway

"let there be light"

BANG!

lol

to get SOMETHING when there was NOTHING is an act of god, whatever terminology you wish to use

An act of god is something a god does. Terminology matters. If you are saying this was an act of god, you have to make sure we all agree that a god exists, that it could have done something of the sort and then show several independant lines of evidence positively indicating that it did in fact do it. Alternatively, you can try and prove that it could not have come about an alternative way, though I think that's more effort.
Also, all of this works pending a working definition of "something", "when there was" and "nothing", respectively.

its stupid to try and keep the collective of human knowledge centered on the ideas of the past, be they god OR science

I agree. That's why science keeps moving on, all on its own, while religion needs to be dragged kicking and screaming.

religion:
1 blah blah blah
2) blah blah blah
3) a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
"consumerism is the new religion"


ideology:
1) a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
2) archaic; the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature.

dictionaries change over time
a word means a particular thing ONLY BECAUSE SOMEONE SAYS it means that thing

i say the best definition of religion is this "what you belive to be true about life, existence, and your place within it"

ideology i would define as religion no longer open to review and with the demand of external conformity (i.e. the rest of the world must fall in line)

i understand that people who dont like "religion" and dont want to be considered "religious" dont want to see it that way

those feelings considered i STILL think these are the best i.e. most functional as well as most intuitive definitions, and when i say the words "religion" or "ideology" it is usually these ideas which i am expressing


you cannot make the case that religion has local boundaries or isolationism

NATIONALISM sometimes does, but also sometimes doesnt; japan being a nation which offers examples of both

but what are the local boundaries of christianity? buddhism? judaism?

even if that assertion could be justified by history, with the internet right in front of us, those words
in a discussion of ideas (religion and ideology) and the impact of ideas, is not sociologically feasible at this time

as far as dogma - this is no more a required element of religion than of science - dogmatism is an issue of human psychology
science has mechanisms for overcoming dogma, but dogmatism is a human tendency to which scientists as individuals are as prone as anyone else

it could equally be said that religions have mechanisms against dogma, and they do, but again, DOGMA itself may be a canonical issue, but DOGMATISM is a reflex of some aspect of the human mind under certain conditions, and this is an important distinction

the scientific method is proof against dogma in the strictest sense, but DOGMATISM surely afflicts individual scientists else there would not be so many examples of resistance within science to new ideas and the individuals which promote them

the scientific method offers venue for all ideas to prove themselves by reproduction of results under laboratory conditions and this is a great strength of science and one that i endorse

but life is not a laboratory, unless we are speaking metaphorically

and when you enter the realm of metaphor, thats where you enter the realm of religion

imo, there is a movement to make a science of religion, and it is to be found in psychology and its related fields - loosely speaking - the collaboration of all fields of study which have to do with human thought and human behavior are, imo, the scientific approach to religion

not to following religion, precisely, but to understanding religion, what it actually does and what it

i dont know if ive worded that well

but thats a great question there; is psychology a science?

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2013/08/19/is-psychology-science-is-the-wrong-question/#.VU5LkflVikp


http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/psysociety/2013/08/13/psychology-is-a-science/


the fist part of the IP here is focused on myth and i want to touch on the importance of that

as far as i can tell, myths are the very substance of religion

myths are powerful because, though they are not FACTUAL, nevertheless, they are TRUE

they are true because they express truths about our natures and our lives
they cannot generally be carbon dated or scientifically verified within a test tube or a particle collider
but when we talk about the garden of eden or the heroes adventure or the buffalo princess, there is something important there, something real - no less real than a particle or a frequency


when i say that science is a religion of facts

---

posted by Gisteron: "Science is the process of proposition generation with the goal of constructing a model to explain the given facts and no less importantly predict facts to be identified in the future.
One could sloppily say that science is in the business of interpreting facts, ... "

---

yes, exactly what i said, just - not exactly

science is about facts and what we can do with those facts

but not all truths are factual, clinical truths, in the way of say, the boiling point of water, or the degree of an angle in a geometric shape

the heroes journey is not a factual, clinical journey

but it is our journey none the less
it is a myth which is THE myth of our lives, and it is as real as the angle of a shape or the boiling point of water but it is not something controlled and produced cleanly in a lab under a microscope
most importantly, the heroes journey is, among other things, the process of coming to grips with what we should DO with our facts

what is the scientific reason that a person with the power to kill of 95% of the population and enslave the rest, SHOULD NOT do that?
why, scientifically speaking, shouldnt i kill EVERYONE except for (relative to the entire human race) a very small cadre of slaves and concubines and enjoy owning the paradise of the new garden of eden?

im taking applications for concubines btw; but you have to act fast, theres a lot of positions but only a few openings available



if scientists are moral it is because they have been exposed to the ideas of the religious belife in the value of life and individual worth

i dont see that there is any scientific validation to these ideas at all

science could even be said to refute that there is ANY value to ANY individual or even any species - or even life itself

beyond of course the fact that we happen to be alive, and that some of it is interesting, or merely useful to the one doing the science

it could be said that science not only gives us the power to destroy everyone and everything, but it also FAILS to give us a reason NOT TO

the idea that scientists are "ethical" is imo simply not true

the scientists of phillip morris or at least some of the scientists at bp or exxon spring to mind

the scientific methods of reproducible results do nothing to prevent the scientist from feeding his children to his experiments - they only ensure that his scientific assertions have merit, which incidentally is a pretty good defense mechanism for his own reputation and career - a scientist who is shown not to be honest about her work is a scientist whose word will not be trusted and who will probably have to get a job with phillip morris or exxon

imo
what i consider the scientific impulse and the religious impulse are at heart the same thing

a desire for understanding and a sense of wonder at the awesomeness which we are a part of

the problem as i see it is that people tend to confuse things within their disciplines

religion should not be viewed as a collection of literal facts in the way that world history is considered to be a collection of literal facts

we are all beowulf - we all have to face a goliath, and reconcile ourselves to the appearance of oya, and we will all bow to shiva in our time

these things are TRUE

but they are not FACTS

and science does not sufficiently deal with them, as far as i can tell, exceot in the earlier mentioned realms of say psychology, within which fields characters such as the hydra and medusa are VERY real

more real, some would say, than the boiling pint of water, which needs, in a manner of speaking, only alternate measuring standards to change

---

creationism is a word which to my knowledge specifically endorses the christian interpretation of god as having created the world in seven literal days

which is absurd, obviously

intelligent design is a little more open ended, but the christians are doing their best from what i could tell when i cared, to hijack it into creationism - except for the smarter ones who see it is the only chance they have left of preserving "god did it" as their explanation for existence

my personal belife is that the URGE TO LIVE reaches back to a single source, which breaks itself into as many pieces as it can and expresses itself in as many ways as it can, because it DEMANDS TO BE

it says; I AM THAT WHICH I AM

but this is not intelligent design per se

i also belive in SPIRIT

the universe interacts with us
i have seen this in my own life to the extent that i am convinced that there will be no evidence presented to me which is stronger in the negative than what i have already witnessed to the positive

i do not need any particular ideology to support this

now, if you want me to prove it to you, all i can say is look around

you can accept or deny whatever you wish
and certainly the laboratory stands as a refuge of the safe and the orderly and the measurable

but shiva still watches and oya still laughs, refuge or no

---

Locksley wrote:

lol - this was the first star trek i got into - then DS 9 i thought was awesome, especially at the end with the Emissary arc

should i believe the movement of his hands, or the look on his face?

also, im guessing that this conversation was not what you had in mind when you started the topic, i can only hope youre not too unhappy at the turn its taken, it IS (imo) a good conversation

---

this was intelligent and really funny and also relevant to the topic

its about an hr 1/2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BHQIasisqY

---

lastly, and just as an aside, its a strange feeling to realize how many of the things each of us knows are really not our own knowledge

from the time we were children we were capable of learning about certain ideas and accepting them, but they werent really OUR ideas or OUR experiences, yet we claim them as our truths

this goes on all of our lives

in many ways, all most of us have really done was to be born
from there we just accepted what we were told and believed in the most convincing (to us) arguments for whatever topics presented themselves

at what point does any particular knowledge really belong to the individual?

I read all of that....and have no idea what your trying to get across.

*dogmatism is more of a problem than dogma and it is not restricted to religion

*science is not inherently superior to religion - rather they are different sides of the same innate desire

*religion is not a factual accounting of the events and materials of the universe, but rather a synopsis of the psyches and developmental process of the individual and the roles we play and issues we face in our lives

*science, as a discipline, does not provide the solutions or guides to these issues

*science offers the power to destroy the human species but not really any good reason NOT TO DO IT

*religion - more specifically, religious thought, does both

*im always looking for new concubines

*sorry for hijacking the thread

*the ST image is deceptive; he is applauding but the look on his face says "this is really stupid"

*stephen colbert is my hero