Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Arcus on February 24, 2011 at 5:13pm

Exactly my point. The best thing about the scientific method is that everything can end up being falsified if a better theory emerges. It's a paradigm shift, just as religion was replaced by scientific method.

Question is, can you accept a paradigm shift in one of your non-religious beliefs? If not, aren't they very similar to religion?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on February 24, 2011 at 6:19pm

I wish I had written another OP to be perfectly honest...

I find religion to be part of a bigger problem - that many people end up leaving thinking to others and prefer being spoon fed opinions, be it from religion, party or cause. They therefore refuse to alter their opinion unless whomever is serving them does so, and play a game of blindly following the leader.

When I choose which party to vote for I do not look at which I agree with the most, but with which I disagree the least. That way I do not force myself to follow opinions of others unless I actually agree. I tend to find people who 100% support something to be no different than religious fundamentalists.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on February 24, 2011 at 6:54pm

"...that many people end up leaving thinking to others and prefer being spoon fed opinions, be it from religion, party or cause."

 

To a certain degree, this is a requirement of modern living.  I have a specialized job, and I pour much of my time into developing my knowledge in that specialty.

 

I have quite a bit of general knowledge surrounding the environment, science, politics, economy, human rights issues, etc., but I can devote neither the time nor the means that each subject demands in order to make truly informed decisions.

 

Like all people, I rely on experts to convey important information in layman's terms.  When an issue has specific relevance to my life, or really piques my interest, I delve deeper.  Problematically, we're living in an era with a low signal to noise ratio.  There is an abundance of misinformation, and it is quite difficult for the average person to sort it all out.  Marketers are the most likely party to push their message through the clamor.

 

I don't expect any individual to be perfectly informed or to make the right decision every time.  I do think we need to increase people's level of engagement and connection to the issues that impact us all, as well as increase literacy in areas such as science, politics, and marketing.  People need to be able to identify reliable sources of information.  Who is a reliable expert and who is little more than a mouthpiece?  What are the hallmarks of good research and data, and what is utter bullshit.  Even if a person can't understand all of the technicalities of a given issue, if they can at least understand it at the abstract level and determine how reliable the information source is, they're already a step ahead.  They are operation more on reason and less on bias and faith.

 

But no one is going to increase their literacy levels if they are uninvested in the cause.  This is part of why I like things like energy efficient lightbulbs.  They are accessible.  Anyone can do it.  Will they save the planet with that alone?  No, but it does give people the sense that they have done something to help the issue.  It does give them a sense of entitlement to tell corporations and politicians to do their part as well.  It connects them to a massive issue that requires collective action to solve.  Again, it isn't the solution to all our problems, but it is the doorway to getting people invested in environmental issues on a personal level.  That must count for something.

 

Anyway, I feel like I've used too many words to say far too little.  There are afterwork drinks to be had.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on February 25, 2011 at 11:13am

I'll take a sip of it too :)

But I would like to pose a hypothetical question: If one scans the brain of a religious person and finds out which parts of the brain is stimulated by religious thoughts, and find that the same areas are stimulated by a deep adherence to other beliefs, shouldn't these beliefs also carry the same categorization?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on February 25, 2011 at 3:00pm

I don't know.  I'm not a neurologist and I haven't read any studies on that level of thought categorization.

Permalink Reply by T A A on February 25, 2011 at 3:18pm

Arcus... on the same thought, I bet we'd find singulatarians are activating the religious area of their brains.

Permalink Reply by Arcus on February 26, 2011 at 10:39am

doone - A question I am left with.

If there are areas in the brain "specialized" to deal with religious thoughts, does that not lend creedence to the concept of religion? And if there isn't, then which parts of the brain deals with religion, and what other thoughts are dealt with in the same regions?

As a side note, I am really eager to check out those scans you were talking about, sounds very interesting. :)

Permalink Reply by justadude on February 24, 2011 at 10:29pm

No. Updating our beliefs on the basis of new evidence is a good thing. But being obstinate is not the same thing as being religious (which is devoting oneself to an unprovable premise).

 

an unprovable premise? An good example wood be man-made global warming.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by justadude on February 24, 2011 at 11:23pm

 

 

 

Climate change theory has proved itself valid. In the 80's it predicted the current climate. That is a way of proofing a theory, that it does predict the future accurately.

 

 

Man-made global warming is not a fact.  Climate change is a fact.  Climate change has been a fact throughout human history.  Climates have changed long before humans existed.  So how am I wrong that man-made global warming is an unprovable premise?  On another note, psychics predict the future not climate change theory.  This theory from what I understand is based on evidence collected from our natural world.  I must confess that I am skeptical that you know the difference between man-made global warming and climate change.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rodrica Davis on February 24, 2011 at 11:28pm

I wouldn't say that you are wrong but I would say that you have a made a lofty claim that needs justification. To say that man-made global warming is "unprovable" is extraordinary. You are basically saying that we can't ever prove that man is having an effect. That is what "unprovable" means. I ask you to justify the claim that we can't ever prove that man is effecting the climate.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by justadude on February 25, 2011 at 12:04am

I must accept that you are correct.  I was referring to a previous statement made by another poster.  I would rather say that man-made climate change has not been proven.  I would also say that the evidence is miniscule.  However the evidence that climates change is enormous.

Permalink Reply by justadude on February 24, 2011 at 11:56pm

It is a theory, a fact?  And who is the little boy?  Who has been watching Al Gore?  In case you needed clarification theories and facts are different things.  If climates have changed throughout history and they continue to change are we also responsible for past changes?  Not to burst your little bubble but no evidence exists that humans have any bearing on climate change.  Does this mean that we do not affect climate change? NO!  Unfortunately for some  I require actual evidence before I proclaim something is fact.  A prophet in the church of environmentalism such as James Hansen does nothing to prove anything except that people are still gullible enough to believe unscientific claims.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 7
• Next ›
• Page