The conditions essential for creating man or animal. - The way how God creates man and animal (Sep/15/2007 )
If we keep silent then we feel guilty that we’re just affirming or accepting whatever is being said…so it’s damned if we do, damned if we don’t. We’re such fair game for ridicule, condescension or even pity (us poor deluded humans).
That is why I will never reveal my true identitiy
that way they can call me a nutter or whatever they want, you will probably call me one too once you see how screwed up my theology really is! 
I don't know that I would go so far as to describe the others here as "infidels" although I understand the tounge in cheek way you are using it... I kinda find it funny to see many scientists are holding on to the ideals of atheism to the point where it is almost a faith in and of itself! Did you see that news show where they pitted Kirk Cameron against some scientists? (the scientists in question were clearly athiests) I thought it was almost hilarious the way both sides were trying to "prove" their point, in fact I think that since it is impossible to have proof there is a God then it is equally impossible to prove that there is not a God so having a strong affinity for either answer is really dependent upon "faith" in some way...
and then somehow, whenever these kinds of discussions crop up esp with unbelievers, I get this insane feeling that I have to sharpen my wooden stakes and polish my silver bullets…oh and wear an armour (a chain mail hauberk)
really over-the-top… and yet bec of all my moderate views on how I should live my faith, with all the filtering and screening that I do, I’m still classified as a cafeteria catholic. Have you ever felt such conflict?So I understand what you are saying about your faith and not needing validation, but I think of defending the choice as an integral part of learning why we have made the choice ourselves and I find it important to the learning process I refer to so often. Sure I am not likely to change other's minds, but I can change my own mind and either strengthen or bring question to certain parts of my beliefs. I find that being involved in science only strengthens my faith that there is a God, how beautiful and wonderful and complex the universe is helps me to believe. (I still agree that all things arise from random chance etc. I really don't find it necessary to have faith in supernatural occurences etc. to think that there is something greater, a greater power out there, a greater purpose for our lives than just being) - Why can't God have designed things to work out just perfectly as a result of random chance? Something like that... again, in a learning process and still working on this part...
I also think that even the people who say it is a waste of time are also searching for something, they may call it something else they may define it as a no longer necessary "God gene" or whatever they want to, but I find it truly interesting that even friends of mine who are proclaimed athiests still find themselves searching for something (I would argue that something is the same thing you would get from a relationship with God...) I also think that the most vehement athiests are probably the ones who are missing this key part the most...
Now this would bring out an important definition, what does it mean to have a "relationship with God" what benefit does that give to humans, and can it be accomplished by other means? I think that yes, the consequences of "a relationship with God" can be achieved by other means, maybe you don't even have to agree that there is a God to get to the right place, but I am pretty sure it is alot harder to find your way without a guide. I have stipulated before that I think the most important outcome of this "relationship" is the kind of life you lead, and I think that many people, alot of them proclaimed athiests can live the right kind of life without the aid of religion. Maybe religion is just one way to get there, maybe someday humans will stop relying on religion altogether, however for now, even with all the possible dangers associated with religion, I think that it is still the easiest way to learn about who we should be as human beings, how to interact with each other etc... In a way, aren't we just learning from our ancestors about the most effective ways to deal with each other? It is interesting that many of the self-help book type of solutions are just secularized versions of the same answers we can find in the Bible...
There is no need to be defensive, although it is sad to be classified with some looneys just because you choose to have faith that there is a God rather than faith that there is not one... I think that nothing can be done unless we change the trappings of religion, (ie: get rid of the looneys that run religion right now
) I kinda think that the religious people started this crap and the "unbelievers" you refer to are sorta responding in kind. I don't see anyone fighting valiantly against the idea of God unless they were attacked first by people who forced God onto them? I don't know really, just speculating....I don't know what Phillips says, but what I think is that some very rich people came up with a brilliant plan. "How can we get all the poor people in America to vote against their best interests? What can we do to convince them to give us power to stay rich and keep them poor? Obviously, the age old answer to controlling the masses, RELIGION!!!" I think that the rich fatcats who run the Republican party are laughing their assess off at all the people on welfare who vote republican based on issues like abortion, the rich people don't care if abortion is legal, let them keep all their money and they will fly their daughters to Europe to get their abortions so the laws don't impact them at all... Furthermore, they can undermine the ability of the masses to get good educations, that way they will be easier to lead around like sheep, prevent individual thought and you can control everything... I think it is pretty scary that this can happen and I am really worried about the future of our country given the Supreme Court that has been put into place over the past eight years...
Watch out, you really don't want to get me started on politics, did I tell you you would probably think I was a nutter too???
Lots of fun, I would love to hear comments, and thank you!!
Cassandra and Beccaf:
Thanks for the comments, now i don't feel so nutty in this forum because i'm a catholic/evolutionist. At least in the universities of my country there are lots of scientist-God belivers so we are not like martians, but in here...
It is perfectly fine if you keep your faith to yourself.
However, if you want to sell you stuff to the rest of the world, you have crossed the line.
If you want a debate, do it scientifically. Show your proves, dont give us selected scripts with YOUR interpretation. This works well for people who share the same view points with you, but will it work for the others?
"My religion is the correct one, yours is not." Isn't this is a unique feature of vertually all religion forms?
Call us "infidels", "non-believers" and you expect any respect from us?
We believe in our data, not some fairy tales.
"We must avoid both egoism and nosism in order to realize the glory of humanity." J. Odera Oruka
You should probably speak only for yourself
I find it a bit strange, people who believe in their data? How many times in science does data get proven wrong (in case you're thinking it is never, I'll tell you it is quite often). It's people who treat science as a religion and people who treat religion as science who are truly closed minded. Open minded seekers of truth should be able to consider all possibilities.
I do agree an open mind that can break away from dogma is good for a scientist.
I disagree on the point about data. Data is never wrong. Data is unchangeable fact. An observation of the world. Interpretation of that data however is another matter. What we think that the data says may not be what the data is actually saying. That is what theories are… frameworks to try and draw out the picture that the data is describing. The interpretation of the data can be wrong, but never the data itself.
As for
I am a bit worried about this statement. I think an open mind is a good thing but too often "all possibilities" has been abused to include ideas that goes against so many observation of world we live in.
Thus one must ask;
When considering a question should all possible answers to that question be considered equally not matter how unlikely or how many violation said answer makes too observation of that question? Which answers are better, simple answers that fit the observations or complicated answers that do the same? If one answers that can tested for fallancy while the other can not, which do you pick? Which answer is the best? How do you pick an answer that everybody can agree on is the right and proper one. 'Liking' one over another has no weight to people who probably dislike it.
This is the heart of science, the criterior, the way how we picking as answer or even several answers from a group of many many possibilites to the questions which we observe in the world around us. Think about it. How do you pick an answer? What criterior do you use?
It is due to this criterior, that not all answers are viewed equally by Science. Some answers are right, some are even more right, some are wrong and some are wronger then wrong.
Talking about being open-minded, I believe you can’t be a good scientist without being open-minded, simply because the new findings keep on coming that forces you to constantly update you mind, skills and thinking, or you will be washed out very soon. Am I open-minded? I think so, but not to the point that I am going to give up my principles.
Are religious people open-minded? Not on the top of the list. These people are very quick to point out the fault of other religions based on their understanding and believe. Ask yourself, what's is the likelihood that you be able to see religious people stand up and say this script in the Bible or Quran is wrong (when it is their own religion)? Of course not, every word in that book is the truth.
Science is very different, because we know it has its limit and our understanding have limitations. A statement can hold true only under certain conditions. Different situations may need a different set of roles. A good example is the quantum vs general physics. And, we scientists are not afraid of changes, corrections or modifications, because the entire thing is fact-based. Can you say the same to religion? Obviously not.
I tell you a real story and I ask you to comment on this: A senior researcher, whom I have a lot of respect with, once had a chat with me on this issue. We were talking about how god created woman from man and how it is impossible based on the scientific principles. This "open-minded person" said to me (paraphrase only), "you never know. Maybe god made her out of the stem cells extracted from the bone marrow of the rib that he took out of him". It makes sense on the surface, but when I asked him, what about the sex chromosome, how did god stretched the Y-chromosome into the X-chromosome? He laughed and gave me an answer no one can refute: "he is god and he can do anything".
I think my statement on trusting data, or something you can see, measure or analyse in a repeatable and reproducible fashion has nothing wrong, or why are you still doing science? You should be doing remote viewing or catching a ghost now.
I'd rather trust my observation over "some fairy tales" that can not be proven right.
Am I way off? I dont think so.
Prove me otherwise. Only that you have to use facts, not scripts.
I knew I would hear - data is never wrong. This I guess would be true of only the data you personally have observed, considering the false data that has been reported (both intentionally and unintentionally) you wouldn't be able to do very much. You, as a scientist, take giant leaps of faith believing many things. Without trusting this unseen/unvalidated data (which by the way comes from scripts-journals, research manuscripts). Granted sometimes you hear from multiple sources (not alot different than religion).
So if someone says to me - God wants us to be nice to others and it will bring us happiness and blessings. Then someone else says the same thing, and shows journals where alleged prohphets heard it straight from God, then maybe I'll listen and say - OK, I'll work under the paradigm that this is true and be nice to others. In my experience, it's turned out pretty good most of the time.
A couple people have said to me - let your membrane dry for an hour after transfering for western blotting, it works great. Haven't seen that one work to well.
As for being scared to be open minded! Being open minded doesn't mean believing everything and anything. Why be scared of considering possibilities? That's silly. If someone says - fire comes from magic deep inside our bellies. If I consider it, I certainly wouldn't believe it, but why would I not be allowed to consider it? When you don't you are substituting science for religion, and being every bit as closed minded and blind as you accuse the religious people of being.
How can you not see that if you just seperate out the semantics/words of you arguments, you are simply arguing that your religion (science) is right and the other persons religion is wrong? Your saying pretty much the same thing - I am right, prove me wrong. Just because you say your religion (science) is right, doesn't mean it is.
Just thought I'd add on the data always being right idea.
Even what we see is half made up, our blind spot is filled in by our brain. In the LGN there is more input from the brain than from the eyes. We're seeing what we want to see. Our observations aren't never changing, always right. It goes the same for many things. We look through a telescope, see a system at certain coordinates, only later to find the coordinates are different when space time is bent back to 'normal' after a black hole near the system collapses. The actual data of the system's location was wrong. I hate when people act like data is simply right.
So I am a little stumped as to what to respond to first... Lets start with:
What I was trying to say was that I don't think that the religion I grew up with is necessarily the only correct one, possibly just one of many ways to get to the same endpoint. I think that all religions have some piece of "Truth" and by looking at things in common with many religions we can help to identify things that are really important. Living a loving, self-sacrificing life is central to many different world religions from Bhuddhism to Christianity, and I think this may impart some importance to this feature of who we should be as humans...
Of course all religions are bogged down in alot of traditional crap that is actually dangerous and is detrimental to achieving this central tenent. I would NEVER claim that only one culture's version of religion is the right one, in fact, if you read my previous post I stated that it may not even be necessary to invoke "God" for a person to become a caring/loving/self-sacrificing individual. In fact, I think as scientists we are a step closer than most, we are all certainly intelligent enough to apply ourselves to more personally profitable endeavors, however our curiosity and I think in many cases our caring for humanity has lead us to go into this frustrating, low wage career where we can help make life better for all people...
However, if you want to sell you stuff to the rest of the world, you have crossed the line.
If you want a debate, do it scientifically. Show your proves, dont give us selected scripts with YOUR interpretation. This works well for people who share the same view points with you, but will it work for the others?
So I don't want to keep my ideas to myself, I am interested in this topic and especially because of recent debates with religion and science it is also important to who I am in my career... I want to discuss these issues with other scientists and get their opinions, even yours... really especially yours... and I think that it is an appropriate topic for this forum. If you do not want to read about it again then skip my posts or read another chitchat thing although as I say I am also very interested in your opinions so I would like it if you would consider continuing in our discussion...
Unfortunately this can never be a scientific debate, at least at its core... we can debate things like mechanisms for evolution etc. but, (and I think this is a point that alot of people somehow miss especially non-scientists) science will NEVER be able to prove or disprove the existence of God, therefore it literally cannot be discussed in scientific terms, as I mentioned previously, don't forget that it takes faith, NOT SCIENCE, to believe that there is not a God just as much as it takes faith, NOT SCIENCE, to believe that there is one... Science has no position either way...
It is true that throughout history different interpretations of scriptures have been used for very evil purposes, validating the existence of slavery for example, but I would say that having an open mind, reflecting and interpreting scripture is exacly the right way to handle this, it is the people who take their religions and religious documents as unerrant, literal, truth who are the most dangerous. These religous trappings are not infallible, and I think that re-interpreting them as we increase our understanding is by far the best way to handle things. I also believe that your interpretation, my interpretation and the popes interpretation are all equally valid and should be considered and weighed against your particular beliefs and then either incorporated or discarded based on logic and reason...
Umm no I didn't and I thought I clarified that even the inital person who said that meant it tounge in cheek, it was not intended as a negative comment, and if you really don't believe in anything how could you even construe it as such..??
This is an interesting comment, I agree with some of the later comments about data and interpretation of it, but I also agree that if an experiment is reproducible and therefore consistent (not some artifact of course) that data is data and our interpretation of it may change but the data will not... However, as I stated before if we are talking about fairy tales, the idea that there is not God is just as much a faith not evidence based decision as the idea that there is a God so overall i disagree with this statement, again, science has no comment on the existence of God neither positive nor negative, because the existence of God is a construct that is outside the testable boundries of science. It would be nice if this could be expressed more clearly to the masses, maybe these discussions would not be so contentious...
Thank you very sincerely for your reply and I hope that you choose to continue providing your insight into this topic.
Very well put and a comment I think I can completely agree with!