Letters to the Editor
-
Evidence, please
There are no gods. There are no demons. There are no souls. When you die you cease to be.
Your evidence, please. What verifiable, scientific process led you to this conclusion? If you cannot provide a repeatable experiment that will lead me to these same conclusions, you are just spouting off personal prejudices of the same variety you accuse religionists of.
-
Religious
Not the religious scholars?
Oh, of course not. They don't know enough. Literally. I hope I'm not being insulting.
That's funny, because some Theologians who have dedicated their lives to their field of study, feel a similar way about materialist Scientists. Some Philosophers who have dedicated their lives to the intense study of philosophy consider the Scientists reductionism overly simplistic (and perhaps even antiquated). Most dedicated and widely respected Theologians and Philosophers however, respect Scientists in the scientific field. But, Scientists, of course are above this because they study reality they can see, and therefore only need pet the heads of the others (if they feel so inclined), and babble such childish non-sense that they believe to be at the level of those others.
They'll talk about the latest findings on ecosystems or the organization of California tidal pools. They go home, and watch television, and maybe go fishing. But basically, they are journeymen. There are relatively few people who are doing anything like a spiritual search.
That's funny too, because in fact in my experience the vast majority of so-called "religious folk" are just exactly like this as well. Hmmm. Talk about their jobs, then go home and watch TV. Yep, that's them. What is the difference again?
This heaven would be your hell.
Yes. If we were able to evolve into something else, then maybe not. But we are not something else.
Ah, but if there were such a place or state as "Heaven", and we could attain it, then we very likely would be something else than what some think us to be, wouldn't we?
If, if, of course, if. But he started it.
-
Embracing and Reveling!
"Embrace your ignorance. Revel in your time allowed you to seek understanding and wonder."
Funny. From an anti-religious diatribe, I get one of the best reasons to believe that I have ever seen.
I don't mind embracing my ignorance because that's the cornerstone of my faith, the hope that Something out there is smarter not only than I am but than every human being on the planet put together is. It's about letting go of the belief that we're it, that we're as good as it gets, and I'm glad for that hope because I know my limits. Faith allows me to live with and beyond them. It gives me reason to revel.
Faith is frequently self-serving, particularly when it rejects evidence that challenges doctrine. It's notoriously bad about mistaking dogma for truth, being unable to distinguish between the path and the goal. Science, however, is also self-serving when the facts are rearranged to fit the prevailing prejudices. It takes time and effort to sort the results of this habit out, and in the meantime, we go through life believing an assortment of "scientifically proven" things that are nowhere near true. Does our science improve over time? Yes. Has it been perfected? Not even close.
I am disabled, a reject in scientific terms. My malfunctioning immune system and nervous system are evolutionary mistakes. I'm not fit; I should not survive and bear offspring. Science, however, provides me with the means by which I can manage my condition and compensate, the medication and technology that allow me to live a relatively productive, if not normal, life. Faith provides the possibility of redemption, not in the next life but in this one. Faith gives me a reason to look for an opening, a way to see the curse as a gift and use it, the possibility that I am more than whatever glitch started the problem. Faith gives me hope. Science gives me the tools by which I can live that hope.
They do not contradict each other. I would not give up either one.
-
gene, gene, the hair-splitting machine
It's called the null hypothesis. You should know that already, with your degrees and university background and the one lecture you attended and now wear like a little merit badge.
I'll wait for the proponents of heaven and hell and ghosts and goblins and magical gods and goddesses to prove they exist, since they're the ones shoving their dogma down my throat. Meanwhile, it doesn't make me "just like them" to note the fact that since no evidence whatsoever exists for that silly crap, then it is not true.
Folks, if believing in magic makes anyone out there feel better, have at it. But that's no good reason to make it the law of the land...or to kill me for believing something else.
-
Gene
The evidence is that there is no evidence for those things you mentioned. I don't believe Science is in the business of having to prove what isn't there isn't there. That hardly makes me the same as the Taliban.
-
re: The Blue Witch's comments
I'd like to respond to this comment by The Blue Witch a few pages back:
"The idea that faith is just a crutch is willfully condescending and ignorant, a way for evangelical atheists to rationalize their belligerence towards anyone with faith."
Evangelical atheists? That's creative.
Belligerence? Can you please show me an instance in which an atheist killed someone in the name of their beliefs (or lack thereof, as the case may be)?
On the other hand, history is filled with the blood of those killed because they didn't believe in god, or happened to believe in the wrong god.
-
Yes, No name, and that's why science can't be spiritual
You've just explained why there can never be a spirituality of science.
Physicists who attached a sense of spiritual wonder to general relativity, for example, were at one point extraordinarily unfriendly to the idea of quantum field theory, because the profound glories of general coordinate invariance were not to be found in the lumpy morass of quantum uncertainty.
This quasi-spiritual attachment to old theories often feels like a yoke around the necks of younger scientists who enter the field not as acolytes but as iconoclasts.
It's that iconoclastic energy of science that has to be preserved, as annoying as it can feel to people exposed to its more negative side. (An example of which would be No name's deliberately hostile and almost abusive characterization of human beings who don't share his/her views.)
Scientists are in some way natural destroyers.
An attempt is now being made by some in the science community to paper over that iconoclastic energy with a "spirituality of science" based on the IMAX words "awe" and "wonder."
I don't think such an endeavor is being true either to science or to spirituality.
Awe and wonder are cheap substitutes for spiritual agape, like sex is a cheap substitute for intimate love.
And a young scientist who has too much energy invested in appreciating the awe and wonder of existing science is not going to be competitive with an unsentimental iconoclast out to make a name for him/herself by challenging the status quo.
But the people who like this idea are going to pursue it whether or not it makes sense.
And they're scientists, so go figure!
I went to a lecture recently that was organized by the Skeptics. It was held on Sunday afternoon, and before the talk, the director gave a sermon on the spirituality of science. It felt just like being in church!
Except nobody was collecting money for Katrina survivors or Pakistani earthquake refugees after the service.
Nope, they were all pretty much just about themselves.