My personal experience with atheism, religion, ghosts, what have you

[The Straight Story]

A little background on me:
I grew up in a baptist home, and a good home at that. Parents weren't fundies as some may think, but they always had a strong sense of right and wrong which could be re-enforced in a biblical sense. Race, religion, etc was not something you ever judged someone by in our house, people were who they were and you treated them as family - even if you thought they were crazy.

My parents weren't big church goers as I grew older, going to church didn't make you a christian any more then going to mcdonalds made you a hamburger.

Being a nerdy teen, into math, science, and computers (this was in the 1980-84 time frame, and yes, we had computers then called trs-80's) I set about learning things on my own. I became a penpal with an inmate (found his info in a christian magazine), and starting reading all I could from theology to tibetan buddhism.

I won't bore with you more than that within that time frame.

In my early twenties I left all faith. Agnostic and then finally atheist. I worked with a guy whose dad was a baptist minister (and he is now as well) and we used to argue up a storm. In a polite way mind you. We worked in a factory and had nothing to do for eight to ten hours but talk while we worked.

My views at the time were, to be honest, a little wacky to some extent. No god, we all evolved, and only the strongest survived. So screw the indians we fucked over, they piddled around with their ghost dances and praying to trees, a lot of good it did em eh? Morality was an illusion designed by people in power to keep you from taking what they had while they plundered you. That did not mean I was not nice to my fellow man, I felt most humans were surpressed by the few and we little folks were all in this together just wanting to get by.

I did look into many new age beliefs, etc and so on. God as I knew him was a sham, I was done with it all. Morality was defined by power, there were no long term consequences to actions, once you were dead it didn't matter jack shit if you offed millions in a war or you were the nicest person on earth.

Your reward was now or never. Immorality became a joke. We owe nothing to future generations, because we, as an individual, were here but a brief time and gone forever. There was no need to talk smugishly about what we can contribute to the world, it became what can the world contribute to me?

See dead loved ones ever again? Nope. Enjoy life now, no matter who you screw, because you get one short go-around. (note: I don't think the atheists here feel that way, I am describing myself at the time, not you)

What changed with me?

It was not my wife (now X and has passed on) though she was not happy with my views. Basically, I listened to no one. But one day things did change. And then changed more as I began to delve deeper into things (and as I am still doing).

I lost faith in science.

Firstly: I went to church one night at Zion Lutheran for a christmas thingee. Wife wanted to go and the kids did too. You can play all day with the psychology of it - but something that night kicked in and I changed in a moment I can only describe as too weird to express. I had been in pentecostal churches, lutheran, baptist, church of god, and a few others. And I was a member of this church too, just not a regular there (and when I was there I argued a lot, peacefully, my views). I can't express in written word what hit me as I sat there that night. All I remember about it was - it was dark outside, I was sitting there, and suddenly I felt something I had never felt in my life. Ever. Everyone saw the change in me soon enough. And I still cannot explain it rationally.

Secondly: I have seen ghosts. People I know have seen them. I have recorded them on digital voice, and I have taken a photo of one as well. I have seen them move things. I have seen them smash things. And even then I was, and still am, skeptical about it all.

Here is why I mention this: Because, even though I am a christian, I lack faith. I like proof. I just cannot help myself. So my view has been for a long time that IF there was a satan and crew, and if they wanted to keep me away from god they would insure I could never have the proof I needed. In other words, if I searched for things like ghosts, and proved to myself they existed, then I would believe fully (like a mustard seed) that god was really there.

I remember sitting alone in a motel room (I lived there for 6 months while working at Enron in California) praying to god to show himself, to give me something, anything, to prove he was there. And this was after sitting there reading my bible aloud for an hour and praying. Faith without faith.

Then, she came along. My wife. A beautiful red headed liberal hippie chick. We moved to Ohio (so I could be closer to my kids) and started a life. She was a 'spiritual' person in some senses. Not some psychic wannabe, etc, just someone who seemed in tune with something deeper without wanting to be or trying to.

So where did this lead? A few places. I will go into one of them to save you from listening to me much longer:

A little place in Circleville, Ohio. We lived above a store in a place built in 1865. And for the first time in my life I started to believe in ghosts and spirits - I was getting my proof. I could relate many a stories, from my daughter seeing people and pointing them out, to things flying off shelves and candleabras smashing into the floor with such force they broke apart. But there is one night (not to mention the photo I took once) that stands out to me.

My wife and daughter were in California visiting family. I was home alone, and my computer room was right next to daughter's play room. We had surmised, for many reasons, that the ghost was that of a child (and note, as a christian I did not believe in ghosts, and my past as an atheist did not go well with such either, so I was always trying to debunk it all). I was surfing the web and one of my daughters toys starting spouting off it's nonsense (was a blues clues dog that talked when you squeezed it). Not just once either. Several times off and on.

My initial thought was the battery was going bad. But I was spooked home all alone. So I decided to test it all. I went into the playroom and moved the toy so high up that a kid (the one my daughter had mentioned she saw and was not much taller than she) could not reach it.

It stopped. But that is not the end of it. Again, I was home alone and feeling brave. Hours later (about 4) I went in and moved it back down. Just to test. My wife called about thirty minutes later to shoot the shit. I was telling her about the whole thing, almost jokingly, when it started again. She heard it as well. A chill went down my spine and I went in and moved it back up to the top shelf. It did not go off again.

So where am I today??

Searching for answers. It would take a thread many times this length to report all the weird things that I have seen in my life I cannot explain. And that is not even including three pre-cog dreams I have had that came true to a T and left me feeling rather odd, so much so I still get the willies if I dream of something realistic (and no, they weren't about big events and such, one was dealing with a movie, one with a card game, and one about football - which I don't really like all that much and have dreamed about only once in my forty years of life).

There is, to me, something deeper in it all. Something beyond the science we now have - but that does not make it 'spiritual' it could make it just something we have skipped over or ignored. Television today would seem spiritual to people centuries ago, air waves carrying signals, and all that. We are where we are today because some people believed there was a better method, a better way, something more than the other people of the day could see.

Inventions come not only from science, but also from imagination. We imagine that which does not exist, and work to make it exist. To me there are things which exist, which we have not investigated because we see it as hocus pocus. Science won't fully explain things which I have experienced, because they cannot yet. That to me seems more a limitation of current day science than anything else.

We believe, we test, we find a way to replicate it, and we share it. But if we don't test, if we just dismiss, then perhaps we are limiting ourselves.

I am still a Randi like skeptic (and I have read his works since the days when I worked at chemical abstracts and found copies of his articles there in the library) but to me skeptic does not mean a closed mind, it means an open one which proceeds with caution in attempts to find the truth.

A once closed mind, mine, is now open. Even though I am christian, I am skeptical - and it keeps me from being blinded by fundies. I don't accept spirit world stuff as true because ms cleo says it is so.

I think, therefore I am. I ponder, therefore I investigate.

[beam me up scottie]

1. Explain to me how someone loses "faith" in science.

Last time I checked, science doesn't require any.

No god, we all evolved, and only the strongest survived. So screw the indians we fucked over, they piddled around with their ghost dances and praying to trees, a lot of good it did em eh? Morality was an illusion designed by people in power to keep you from taking what they had while they plundered you. That did not mean I was not nice to my fellow man, I felt most humans were surpressed by the few and we little folks were all in this together just wanting to get by.

I did look into many new age beliefs, etc and so on. God as I knew him was a sham, I was done with it all. Morality was defined by power, there were no long term consequences to actions, once you were dead it didn't matter jack shit if you offed millions in a war or you were the nicest person on earth.

Your reward was now or never. Immorality became a joke. We owe nothing to future generations, because we, as an individual, were here but a brief time and gone forever. There was no need to talk smugishly about what we can contribute to the world, it became what can the world contribute to me?

See dead loved ones ever again? Nope. Enjoy life now, no matter who you screw, because you get one short go-around. (note: I don't think the atheists here feel that way, I am describing myself at the time, not you)

That's nice that you added that little waiver, but you're the only "atheist" I have ever heard of who suffered from such a serious lack of compassion and morality and who blamed his inadequacies on atheism.

[The Straight Story]

2. Ahhh, Dear old Scottie :)

Somehow I knew you would show up here, I must be psychic! ;)

Seriously though, I do enjoy your postings, even though we can butt heads at times.

Let me get to your posting:

Explain to me how someone loses "faith" in science

Think of this as me talking in a personal way first off. Science, to me, was a search for answers. When I was a teen I was inspired by a friend of my dad's, a one Bob Whitman, who worked on war simulations for the defense dept (With North American Rockwell if I remember it right). He came over to the house one night and I was asking him about his work. He said math was the key to it all.

That night changed my life forever. I became a nerd the next day. I spent summers in the library studying math and science, brought home ten books at a time on everything from differential geometry to missle systems. Science and math gave me answers, without fail (and math is still a big hobby of mine, I am working on some prime number theory currently).

Science to me was something that looked into issues and found answers. Your computer is on the fritz? Science and technology can help you fix it (and no pun intended on the fritz thing, still one of the best chess engines out there).

My 'faith' in science was that it would lead people, who were in science, to examine things and find out how and why they worked. This is why I have always loved it. But this does not seem to be the case in some instances, some of which I have covered: ghosts, etc.

Such things are brushed off as not being real and therefore not worth looking into. To me, enough people have had personal experiences with such things that it warrants some open minds and new ideas.

Hell, maybe 'ghosts' are nothing more then recordings which can be explained by the building materials used in old places. Still, it would be worth looking into imho.

Some in science see no value in pursuing things they cannot immediately explain or test. To me, the truth worth of a scientist is being able to find an ideal, seek out answers, and show how something works. Going back a few centuries radio would have sounded like a bunch of BS, but today it is nothing really. Simple stuff. Computers? Hell, that would have not flown back in the day, but here we are using them. And then there are mouse pointers that can be manipulated with brain waves.

Lack of Compassion
What is compassion? Can we measure it and test it? Or is it solely something we invented to make us 'feel' better (whatever feelings are). Why should someone have compassion, what is the need for it? Does it make one 'feel' better, and how do we measure feelings?

There is no need for compassion in a logical sense, unless it exists within constructs relating to a morality we invented. Morality does not have a measurable attribute outside of the individual perhaps. So why bother bringing it up?

[beam me up scottie]

4. Are you seriously suggesting scientists have not researched the paranormal

Egad, you have the world at your fingertips, Google it, man.

Unless, of course, you're falling back on the tried and true "Well their findings didn't support my belief in the supernatural so that means they're just biased old skeptinazis with closed minds" excuse.

And don't even start with the semantics, you can Google compassion too, if it helps, but just for the sake of this thread, think of it like pornography, you know it when you see it, and anyone who believes as you did demonstrates a serious lack of it.

[The Straight Story]

6. Therein lies the rub of it all

Science has investigated things. But tools change over time.

We make better tools, we can look into things more in depth with them. So science found nothing before, they get new tools, why not look some more?

If we accepted the world view of things (from a science point of view) from back in the first century, where would be now? Tools evolved, we kept looking, and we found more.

Science, as it is now, has not yet explained all the things I and others have experienced in life here. Is it wrong to look for answers?

[beam me up scottie]

8. Quit dodging the question, are you saying scientists haven't researched it

or not?

Because that's exactly what it looks like you're doing:

But this does not seem to be the case in some instances, some of which I have covered: ghosts, etc.

Such things are brushed off as not being real and therefore not worth looking into. To me, enough people have had personal experiences with such things that it warrants some open minds and new ideas.

[The Straight Story]

10. Have they?

Some have - but as tools progress and knowledge increases, why not use that to investigate it all further?

Their are two main choices - people are having delusions en masse the world over with regards to some things, or there is something scientifically to it all.

As we get better and better with science I see no harm in using that to investigate things, like 'the spirit world'.

[beam me up scottie]

12. Mass delusions? Too bad there's not a word for that.

:rofl:

So you are saying that science isn't investigating the paranormal because they haven't backed up your personal belief in ghosts.

[The Straight Story]

19. If science ignores tons of data

because they cannot reconcile it, then I would say that was an issue.

Either many millions of folks are delusional, or the few like you are superior and the rest of us are just crazy because what we have experienced is null and void. We cannot replicate it, therefore it does not exist?

[beam me up scottie]

21. Science "ignores" tons of data?

Because it doesn't validate your pet beliefs?

Sounds like you expect science to compete with religion.

I guess that's what happens when you replace one with the other.

Good luck with that. :hi:

[Random_Australian]

34. Well, it doesn't. That is not what I am just now getting really angry at.

"the few like you are superior and the rest of us are just crazy "

You want to tell me that someone is inferior from mental illness?

Fuck you. Arguments is one thing - slurs against people on basis of a group is another.

Take your attitude that 'everyone is perfect except the crazy people' and stick it.

If this was a slip of the tongue, OK, I'll be glad to let it go. I get real sensitive on this topic.

If you actually think that normal people see reality just fine and are therefore so very, very diferent from the crazy people, why don't you go ahead and call the fundies crazy too? Because they see reality funny. Or in other words, when someone disagrees call 'em crazy. Or in other words use mental illness as an insult. Which brings us back to point #1.

There is, of course, a chance I am missing something. Please, share if this is the case.

Edited to remove naughty words - I got a touch heated. ;)

[trotsky]

39. Data is never ignored because it can't be "reconciled."

If it is, then the person doing the ignoring isn't doing science.

If you have data that doesn't support your hypothesis, then unless you can show the data to be false, your hypothesis is.

And since we know that delusions and hallucinations can be real, and can happen to perfectly sane and intelligent people, the "data" of which you speak is much more readily explained using those well-known mechanisms than having to invent a wild explanation that has no backing to it whatsoever other than anecdotal evidence.

You say you have a picture and an audio recording. Those could be very valuable data - do you have the ability to post them?

[Random_Australian]

23. Something scientific to it all - like perception or cognition error.

I plain don't get why we are supposed to have such accurate thoughts and see so very well.


Edited to remove VERY NAUGHTY WORDS. :)

Don't use them children!

[soothsayer]

27. Once science begins to understand alternate universes (and

most scientist do believe that we live in a multi, multi dimensional realm, and that those alternate universes can intersect) they'll prolly figure out what ghosts are.

[Random_Australian]

29. It does not look like there will be ghosts.

The other dimensions are very much like the ones we have now.

(Or at least would be if certain conditions were met)

Ghosts need a much, much more complex set of information than what randomness supplies.

I don't think that the 11-D universe will give you ghosts. It models a universe without them very, very well, I am afraid.

Finally, though only fools say "It's just a theory", I would like to point out that despite it bieng a good mathematical model, it is not yet believed that we actually have 11 dimensions.

That will take some time.

Time will tell, sooner or later, time will tell.

Sorry if this rains on your parade, but I doubt it will.

[The Straight Story]

5. Oh, I forgot to add this:

That's nice that you added that little waiver, but you're the only "atheist" I have ever heard of who suffered from such a serious lack of compassion and morality and who blamed his inadequacies on atheism.

What you have 'heard' of means nothing really, no science in that is there?

And where did I use the word 'inadequacies'? Did I say it was bad in a moral way? Morals are, afterall, relative. Christians (and other faiths) can share morals with other people for different reasons, but in the end morals are indivual issues.

One atheists morals is another atheists restrictions. Same with any group really. Were my morals 'wrong' at the time? What is wrong and how do you define it, and why should I have to adopt the way you think about morals?

Morals are personal - whether they come from a religous view or atheist one. Is there a scientific way to show mine were wrong and yours are right?

[beam me up scottie]

7. I never claimed you used the word inadequacies, I did.

And the "whacky" beliefs you described certainly fit the description.

Religion has nothing to do with it, you were the one who attributed your beliefs to atheism.

[The Straight Story]

11. So my ideals were wrong to you?

I am wondering about how an atheist, other then myself at that moment in time, sees such things.

We are nothing but chemical, morality is a sham created by humans, like god, and so on. Is there something wrong with that to you - or do you feel your morality has a deeper basis?

Morality is defined by the person who utilizes it, so there really is no 'atheist' morality - each person makes their own, if I am grepping that correctly.

[beam me up scottie]

13. If you think atheists have different morals than believers, you're a bigot

And if you think we're incapable of recognizing people who lack compassion, think again:

[The Straight Story]

18. What is compassion

And who defines it, you? What makes your view more right than mine?

[beam me up scottie]

20. Study the photograph I posted carefully.

Listen to the man whose picture I posted.

If you think that he has compassion, I can't help you.

The short answer is, of course, the dictionary:

com·pas·sion (kəm-păsh'ən)
n.

Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it

If that's over your head, again, I can't help you.

[Random_Australian]

33. SURE there is no 'atheist' morality - in exactly the same way as there is

no 'theist' morality. We each choose for ourselves.

Yeah, my morality has a deeper basis anyway, but it is still just created from the reality that I see subjectively.

Do you know why it is the same in atheist and theist? Because 'chemicals imply no morals' is the same as saying 'you can be forgiven for anything implies no morals'.

Explain just how us bieng made of chemicals implies morals are a sham.

[soothsayer]

25. Most people don't understand that science consists of theories

as well as facts. So you can lose faith in the theories (and you might be proven right in a few hundred years!)

[Random_Australian]

30. And then, most people don't know what theories mean either.

[beam me up scottie]

62. He said he lost faith in science, not theories.

That's what happens when you expect science to support your beliefs the same way religion does.

[Random_Australian]

31. I would expect that to lose faith one must have faith.

Which would make the OP more internally consistent, though I shall not proceed into speculation.

[renate]

3. as a scientist, I share your views

Thank you for sharing your story. I agree with so much of what you said about dismissing things we can't currently apply the scientific method to, or things that would seem magical if we didn't know how they worked, and how can lead us to limit ourselves.

I don't understand why so many people think science is incompatible with religion. When I read books on science (and that's basically all I read, even for fun--I have a master's degree in one biological science and a doctoral degree in another, but I love physics even more), I love both the complexity, intricacy, and interrelatedness of the physical world and the beauty of it all. I think the part of me that's experiencing that beauty is intangible, and more than a collection of neurons.

I absolutely respect the views of those who see the world as only material, but their hostility toward those of us who believe in something more--and who are pretty inoffensive in stating our views (i.e., not proselytizing)--is kind of hurtful.

[The Straight Story]

9. I see it thusly:

I am not arrogant enough to believe all we know now is all there is to know.

There are things which boggle the mind that science has not touched, not that science is bad mind you - just that some today don't want to use the tools we have to look into it all.

I have recordings of voices from cemetaries I know are not mine or any else's present at the time. I looked into evp's because I wanted to see for myself what it was all about.

I have seen and heard things I cannot explain away. I know people I trust dearly who have seen and heard similar things.

My fundie sister is a good example. She has NO belief in ghosts. You die, you go to heaven or hell, and that is it. She is far more fundie than anyone else I know. But she swears grandma's ghost was out there that one night in the garage apartment, and her friend was a witness. If I mention ghosts at all to her she says they are demons, etc. But if I ask her about that one night - she swears grandma was there. They ran from the garage and did not go back for days.

There is something else out there, I have no idea what - but I am willing to listen and learn, and to investigate.

Three weeks ago I was recording at greenlawn cemetery here, near the grave of a well known kid where people leave toys and such. I was facing away and asking questions. I played back the tape and heard 'behind you' clear as day (digital tape of course). And this is one of only many tapes I have recorded.

Something is there, maybe it can be examined and understood using a clear scientific method - which is what I had hoped I could do myself. But sadly, I cannot at this time. Maybe the time of day, etc, and so on all plays a factor in it. But I have heard and seen things which I cannot explain. It does not mean they don't exist to me, just means I need to look harder for answers.

[Random_Australian]

14. Whoah whoah whoah! Ok, first, most of that was good.

Well, internally consistent. That is good enough.

Then we got to the science bit - ok, basically, I want to know, are you implying that science does not attempt to investigate the paranormal?

Then we can move from there. :)

[beam me up scottie]

15. Good luck, RA.

Not that skeptics believe in luck, but then again, last time I checked, we didn't believe in ghosts either.

I leave this in your capable hands.

[Random_Australian]

16. I have 'The Ride Of The Valkyries' ready to play if flame breaks out.

But it may well not, as I do rather try to settle things down.

:)

G'night or morning bmus!

[The Straight Story]

17. Science I have seen has been

trying to solely debunk the paranormal because they cannot replicate what people experience in a lab.

I have nothing against debunking, btw, as I have done so myself. But an open mind can lead to things yet to be discovered. People are experienceing something, in large quantities, and is it all crap?

I cannot replicate my personal experiences in a lab, does that mean they were not scientific or valid?

I just feel, perhaps, that science has not caught up to some things because we don't have the tools available yet. And what is wrong with that? We have theories of the universe, get funds to find out if we are right, and investigate our ideals using the new tools that the avg joe pays for with his/her taxes.

We might be wrong today, but we might be right tomorrow, if we can just get more funding and tools.

If we had asked scientists 700 years ago about radio waves they would have thought we were nuts. Times change, technology advances, and we get new tools to look at things.

Science HAS looked at things. But does that mean they were right? Science grows and changes, we learn today that what we held as gospel yesterday was wrong. Because we have looked outside the box and developed tools to help with that. If anything one might think that such experiences would teach us that there is far more we don't know than we do - and if look at what people are seeing things and ignore it because we looked into once and found nothing, then why should we expect them to fund us when are continually admitting we were wrong before but know so much more now?

what we know now is a tiny bit of the universe. We accept that and look for more answers, because we believe there is more to learn.

[Random_Australian]

22. Ugh! I take issue right here:

"trying to solely debunk the paranormal because they cannot replicate what people experience in a lab."

What on earth gave you that impression? There are two reasons I can think of why that is incorrect:

1) You don't debunk things that you can't deal with. You debunk when people make verifiable claims about things. Like they can see auras, or tell the future (reliably).

2) The last 50,000 times people investigated mystic effects, they were bunkum. Many scientists just plain don't care any more. The reason why no-one bothers with that is more than just that though - much more... why investigate 'strange new claims' when you are working on cancer drugs?

Now we move on:

"I cannot replicate my personal experiences in a lab, does that mean they were not scientific or valid?"

Valid? Who knows.

Scientific? Of course not! We are talking about science - what one person says will NEVER, EVER be counted as good evidence - no offence, but there is no way of telling fact from fantasy if we did that.

Most of psychology & perception is bieng looked at now, just starting. The amount of data needed to do the simplest thing with the mind is indescribeable.

Ok - let me put it like this:

science will investigate anything that happens reliably, does not have to happen all the time (like QP), but it does need to be repeatable.

After all, what information do you get from an experiment that no-one else can repeat?

I'll tell you.

Nothing.

Lastly, I will nitpick and say that there were curious people 700 years ago, but not really scientists. :)

Next question: Do we understand what each other is saying, or are have we just done 'the big miss'?

[Finder]

37. Science has explained NDEs and replicated it in the lab...

just to mention one case.

Can you give an example of a paranormal experience that science has not explained?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

40. Link please?

[Finder]

44. Here are a few...

http://leda.lycaeum.org/?ID=9260

http://www.csicop.org/sb/9506/light.html

http://skepdic.com/nde.html

[SPKrazy]

56. Just Because You Can Replicate An Experience With Ketamine

or stimulation of some kind does not equate with "debunking" NDEs

It just means that you can replicate the experience!

One can replicate the experience of psychosis with drugs

One can replicate natural sleep with drugs

It is at best inconclusive, and I think misleading to post these links as "proof" of the debunking of NDE's

[lvx35]

59. Exactly!

I always thought that...You can replicate the perception of light by sticking an electrode in a certain place...Does that negate the existence of light, and dismiss it as a mental experience? No! If somebody saw light, you need to assume they did, unless you can explain where the electrode/ketamine came from that created the illusion.

[beam me up scottie]

63. If somebody claims they saw leprechauns, I'm not going to assume they did.

The idea that we have to recognize and accept as truth the hallucinations and beliefs of others is ridiculous.

I may assume that they THINK they saw leprechauns, but that's as far as I'm willing to go without proof.

[Evoman]

72. Right....proof as in

a) a picture of the leprechaun that isn't OBVIOUSLY a smudge or reflection

b) a big pot of REAL gold

c) a little man performing magic, not just trick, on a video camera.

But not, they never have this. Its always a real bad picture. With all the video cams around, and cameras (including phone cams), would't you expect more visual proof?

[lvx35]

78. Heh! Get some visual proof of the NSA spying scandal at AT&T.

You can theoretically photograph every bit of it, people sitting there spying on phone calls...But when you try to actually get in the building and photograph it, you'll find the proof very hard to attain...And now that most of the tracks have been erased, pretty much all that is left is eyewitness testimony. Yet it probably happened.
Now I'm not saying that there is Leprachaun conspiracy, but I am pointing out that when it comes to intelligent entities, proof can be hard to come by,

[Orrex]

82. You are, in essence, claiming proof by non-proof

Stating, in other words, that the absence of evidence is evidence of existence.

Sorry, but that's a fallacy, as I'm sure you're aware.

You're also blurring the definitions of courtroom proof (i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt) and scientific proof (shown to be consistent with prediction to a high degree of accuracy and reproducibility). They aren't the same, and one shouldn't be taken as equivalent to the other.

You seem particularly fond of the unprovable NSA scandal, but consider a counter-example. You can't (generally) take a photograph of gravity, but through other means we can demonstrate that it exists. Just because a bit of proof is inaccessible to a certain kind of instrument does not mean that the proof is inaccessible to all.

So even if we can't actually photograph Dick Cheney in the process of listening to my phone call to Pizza Hut, we can seek other evidence. This, too, may be difficult to obtain, but in that case intellectual honesty requires us to suspend our conclusions until further evidence is acquired.

The same is true of supposedly supernatural phenomena as reported by alleged first-hand witnesses; their testimony is insufficient to prove that the phenomenon occurred unless the phenomenon is unremarkable and consistent with known reality.

[lvx35]

83. No, I'm denying that lack of evidence == proof of non-existence

which is something people around here get confused about a lot. You're right, the issue with Dick Cheney for instance requires us to suspend our conclusions until further evidence is required...Which is exactly the same thing people should do with these paranormal experiences people report. But instead, they are written off as hallucinatons and so forth without deeper analysis...Often this is based on logic similar to your own when you talk about "testimony being insufficient to prove that a phenomenon occured UNLESS the phenomenon is unremarkable consistent with known reality. That too is a fallacy. an observed phenomenon that is unremarkable is not PROVEN by being unremarkable, rather the PROBABILITY that it is correct is simply increased. Consider the case of somebody hallucinating a tree at a certain location in the middle of a forest. To have a tree at this location would be probable and unremarkable, but in this case it is not a proof; it was a hallucination. Proof and probability are related, but not the same.

[Orrex]

88. Not that you'd know this, but...

I've previously argued at some length that we, as finite, fallible entities, can't know anything with 100% certainty, so in fact I am in very strong agreement with your comments about probability versus proof. Unless you're a crazy Orrex-Groupie (for which I could hardly fault you, because I am fascinating, after all!) you wouldn't likely recall that view from my postings several months ago.

In any case, in casual parlance "proven" and "very highly probable" are more or less interchangeable, because the likelihood of significant error is taken to be trivial. Even in science, a "proven" phenomenon isn't Proven Unalterably For All Time With 100% Accuracy; instead, it is "proven" to be highly consistent with observation and prediction.

Also, I think you're omitting a necessary part of your argument. When you liken the suspension of conclusions re: Cheney to suspension of conclusions re: supernatural phenomena, you're leaving out the fact that no evidence outside of testimony exists to corroborate supernatural claims, whereas a whole bunch of other evidence supports a claim about Cheney. If we had only testimony about Cheney's wiretapping and supernatural phenomena, and if each were equally inconsistent with known reality, then testimony would establish each more or less equally (that is, not at all, really). But once we enter the realm of consistency-with-precedent, we automatically admit a wider body of data as evidence.

[lvx35]

92. Damn, you found me out.

I am a crazy Orrex groupie! I just wanted to hear you SAY you can't prove anythin 100%!!! sigh...pantpant :)

seriously though I agree, but this is interesting:

Even in science, a "proven" phenomenon isn't Proven Unalterably For All Time With 100% Accuracy; instead, it is "proven" to be highly consistent with observation and prediction.

My understaning of scientific proof is that its true as a theory when evidence supports and NO counterexamples can be found...When one is found, the theory has to be scrapped...So it needs to be 100%, not just highly probable But this necessarily an ideal, because of human imperfection, as you said. Not only does a counterexample have to be found, but also reproduced for others...It has to be held by consensus, so it has to be big enough often enough conterexample, which puts us back in the realm of probability...So where do you draw the line between proof and probability in praxis? Its a really interesting question.

Regarding Cheney, its the same thing. I can tell you from the evidence its very probably that this sort of thing is happening. But proving individual examples is difficult, this is the sort of thing that protects mobsters and Bush administration members in court.

Anyway, its wise to not bet on the improbable, but I think you make a mistake if you discount it. Wierd stuff just happens, it really does. And sometimes we learn a lot from it, if we pay close attention.

[Orrex]

93. If I had a nickel for every groupie...

Regarding the 100% accuracy thing, here's my take on it:

As you mentioned, 100% is an ideal, rather than a realistic goal. But you're correct that the evidence must support the theory and that there should be no evidence contradicting it. I don't think a theory needs to be scrapped, exactly, but it may require modification (or you can just hide/deny all the disproving evidence, the way Creationists do it).

I'd caution against the word "consensus" in this context, because it can imply subjective agreement, and subjectivity is what science tries very hard to eliminate. I know what you mean to say, but I think that "consensus" allows unintended wiggle room. Rather, we might use a phrase like "independent corroboration," which leaves it in the realm of objectivity as much as possible.

And as far as probability versus proof goes, well, it's kind of an ad hoc sort of thing. I don't know anyone who subjects every decision to rigorous scientific scrutiny, if only because of practical limitations. But when a mundane event matches pretty closely to precedent (like turning on a lamp or crossing a street) I feel justified in basing my expectations on prior experience.

Not much of an answer, but your question justifies a whole thread of its own!

[lvx35]

108. Yeah, this whole conversation does justify a thread of its own...

except in the science forum..now you've got me thinking about brain function, how we learn from precedent - I love that sort of thing.

And yeah, as a parting note, a theory doesn't need to be scrapped, traditionally it needs to be "modified". My bad.

[beam me up scottie]

91. Um, what? Do you have proof of leprechauns that's not visual?

Other evidence of illegal wiretapping exists.

Do you have phone records of leprechauns plotting to hijack truck shipments of breakfast cereal?

[lvx35]

101. The things is there is a big difference between "exists" and...

..."exists and you can get your hands on it". Most people who beleive in some paranormal phenomenon believe evidence exists, but for some reason its hard to get your hands on a lot of it. Same with the activities of secret groups like the NSA and CIA. They tend not to leave tracks so its hard to prove a lot of what they do, even though it happens.

And no, I do not have phone records of leprachauns plotting to hijack breakfast cereal trucks, its actually we who hijack it from them - thus the well known leprachaun quote:

“They’re always after ‘me Lucky Charms!”

[beam me up scottie]

111. Oops! Sorry Lucky!

I got him confused with that http://www.generalmills.com/corporate/brands/brand.aspx?catID=77">Silly Rabbit.

[beam me up scottie]

89. Yeah, any proof would be better than an empty box of Lucky Charms.

Poor little green men, once an extraordinary claim, always an extraordinary claim. :)

[lvx35]

109. Damn, you know what's weird?

I freaking DREAMED about lucky charms last night, after logging out and before seeing your thread today. I dramed I was eating lucky charms off the floor at the house of this mentally disabled guy I sometimes work with, and he came in and had all the sudden became intelligent, and was telling me about life, and it was very poignant and sad because he had missed so much of life and only became intelligent now.

I suppose YOU won't see that as a meaningful psychic event. :P

[beam me up scottie]

110. No, but it did make me hungry.

I actually love Lucky Charms.

My mom never let us have sweetened cereal when we were kids, so catching a sugar buzz on Saturday morning while watching cartoons at a friend's house after a sleepover was a big treat.




Off the floor?

[lvx35]

112. Yeah, for me it was fruit loops...

...same story, different cereal. I couldn't resist the Tucan.

Yeah, off the floor.. Well, they were on like a board on the floor but the feeling was they they were unclean. The dream stuck in my head, one of those ones that resonates, but I don't know why. It was just really sad watching this old man come in who had been retarded his whole life and just stare at the floor with these sad eyes, saying "All the conversaions, all the people..." shaking his head, thinking of what he had missed. :(

[beam me up scottie]

114. Like Flowers for Algernon.

Damn.

That book changed me.

I think I started to grow up when I read it.

[lvx35]

115. Oh yeah, I guess you're right.

I forgot about that book...But yeah, its strait from the plot. I wonder what dug that up out of my psyche...I've got to read it again. I kind of blew it off as a class thing but from the sounds of it you got a lot out of it. I guess it did raise some pretty deep questions, in retrospect...

[beam me up scottie]

116. I've reread it several times since I was a kid.

I got more out of it each time, but the ending was still as heartbreaking.

The feeling of sadness Charlie felt when he realized what was happening to him, you described it perfectly.

[The Straight Story]

129. Ok, have to jump in here on that story

I was in the 9th grade when I read it, and it was/is a classic.

It opened my mind (not to mention other books around then I was reading from the science fiction book club, anyone remember the Amber series/Roger Zelany?)

We might disagree on a lot of things, and maybe I am not the most well worded person here in this forum, but don't think I have not been a critical thinker over the years.

That is why all this bothers me so much. Ghosts don't jive with me on a lot of levels (as one example) but I cannot discard my personal experiences and those I have known and trusted over the years.

Something is out there beyond my full comprhension, and I can at least recognize that and seek to fins the answers. I don't see that as crazy or wrong :)

[lvx35]

77. You don't have to "accept as truth" anything, but denying it offhand is...

...silly too. Your statement implies that you have knowledge of what exactly is a hallucination and what isn't, but you don't. Take the experiences of "greys" (the big eyed grey aliens you see pictures of all the time) and look at how those experiences have appeared way more often than "Zoobie the Jimmy Hendrix Zebra" which I saw when I was tripping. This to me implies something is up, and you shouldn't just write them off. I'm not saying you need to accept that they are aliens, just that something is up. I have a lot of respect for the scientists who have been researching a certain electro-magnetic wave (?) that tends to produce visions of grey, skinny, waxy people when certain people are exposed to it, because they are really trying to provide an explanation for an obvious trend in these experiences rather than just writing them off.

[Orrex]

80. There's writing off, and then there's writing off

You're describing a kind of meta-analysis that is separate from what BMUS is talking about.

Although it may be too casually dismisive to cast aside a poorly founded supernatural claim altogether, it's not necessarily unreasonable to dismiss claims within a certain context. For example, countless "psychics" have claimed over the years to be able to speak with the dead or to divine the whereabouts of Murder Victim X. These have never been shown to be more accurate than random chance, and pretty much every case that's been examined scientifically has been shown to be fraudulent.

Once the precedent has been established, it is entirely reasonable to consider that precedent when assessing new claims. So when Sylvia Browne claims to be a brilliant prognosticator, it's up to her to prove it. Skeptics don't have to research and refute her claims, because they do not differ significantly from claims refuted a zillion times over.

Now, if one wants to investigate why sincere but incorrect (or fraudulent or delusional) so-called "psychics" continue to pop up despite mountains of evidence against them, then that's a different matter entirely.

Even the research you mention, involving EM stimulation of the brain, is very different from researching the "reality" of those same perceived Little Gray Men.

So if we want to investigate why certain people are predisposed to hallucination or delusion, I say let's do it! And let's not stop at "obvious" hallucinations such as aliens or fairies, either; let's likewise investigate people who claim to have had profound spiritual visions, too.

[lvx35]

84. I agree, if you know the difference

if you're willing to see the difference between proof and probability. If you think its improbable that someone is psychic based on some precedent, fine. If you thinks its impossible, i.e. There has never been a counter-example, you are delving into some murky waters I think a scientist should avoid.

The thing about the psychic stuff you mentioned goes to the nature of scientific knowledge, which, as you know, is based on things being reproducable. Being reproducable is based on consensus, a lot of people can see the same thing. Everybody can throw a ball and see the parabola we learned about in physics class, but not everybody sees the psychic phenomenon as being disproved at all...which is why you can watch "psychic detectives" on court TV and hear about all kinds of amazing things having occured. The failure of skeptics to build consensus on their views is very significant from a scientific perspsective, it means that people haven't found alternative explanations for the things they see that have satisfied them the same way the parabola and ball are satisfying. The problem generally comes from skeptics presupposing that a phenomenon is false, and then trying to explain why, rather than approaching phenomenon with an open mind and seeing what comes up. Ball lightning is good example, because its characteristics are so widely similar across the world that to dismiss the phenomenon as a hallucination just seems foolish.

So investigating "why certain people are predisposed to hallucination or delusion" is research based on assumption, but yes, if you want to investigate why people have these experiences with an open mind I say go ahead!

[beam me up scottie]

90. And what did I deny?

You never pay attention to what I actually post, do you?

Well, at least it's not just atheists, you apparently don't understand skeptics, either.

[Finder]

70. I said nothing about debunking...only that science has not dismissed...

but investigated. The scientists do not state that the replication proves there is no afterlife but that there may be physiological reasons for the experience.

[Vidar]

139. Well said. Unfortunately open minds aren't much appreciated here.

[Silent3]

142. Open minds are appreciated...

...but not when they're so open that one's brains tend to fall out on the floor.

What sadly too often passes as an "open mind" is a mind with little or no discriminatory power whatsoever. You can't form a great mind simply by uncritically absorbing everything around you and then treating in like it's all of equal value. (Of course, somehow skepticism never gets an even break among all the other stuff you're supposed to be "open minded" about.)

Is "open minded" believing that all the magic in the world you want to believe is true -- ghosts, ESP, crystal power, tarot cards, whatever -- but that the "evidence" simply hasn't been found yet, and that any lack of evidence is due to mean ol' nasty skeptical scientists dismissing good evidence or not working hard enough to find the evidence that just has to be there?

Does being "open minded" require one to set aside a special category of "stuff that isn't about evidence, it's about believing", where you leave it up to wishful thinking and personal emotional appeal when it comes down which stuff you're going to pull out of that enormous grab bag of unsupported and often mutual conflicting ideas?

[Vidar]

143. Being "open minded" simply requires one to entertain

competing hypotheses in areas where definitive proof doesn't exist One then has a choice of beliefs, One of those choices being absolute skepticism. I find both that position & any sort of absolute faith to be personally untenable. However, that is my choice, not something that I will try to impose on others--something I see far too much of in this particular sub-forum

[Silent3]

144. What exactly is this "absolute skepticism" you speak of?

And who is imposing anything on anyone here? Agreeing or disagreeing, being diplomatic or brusque, accomodating or gently criticizing or outright insulting, none of that imposes anything on anyone.

Please, show me where you see any imposition, the kind you "see far too much of in this particular sub-forum", going on. Is anything less than every single idea being greeted universally with flowers and candy is your idea of imposition?

[xchrom]

24. your night at the christmas service

sounds like various times the experiences i've had.

mostly when in nature -- this overwhelming sense of something wonderful moves in the universe -- but also at the eucharist.

i don't give it much in the way of definition -- i doesn't matter that much to me.
i have a very wacky personal theology -- but my that's what i think these things should be -- personal.

[cosmik debris]

26. That's amazing to me

We have a lot of evidence to indicate that hallucinations exist, but no evidence that ghosts exist. And still people believe in ghosts but not in hallucinations. This says something about the believers, but I'll let you decide what that is.

[soothsayer]

28. Who doesn't believe in hallucinations? lol

[Random_Australian]

32. One does not have to stop believing in hallucinations to make an

illogical decision.

For instance, one could say that there was both such things as delusions and 'just too much anecdotal evidence to ignore', for instance.

[Evoman]

47. I think thats a bit of a strawman

I doubt there are THAT many believers who do not believe in hallucinations. What I do think is that most people who regularly have hallucinations don't think they are hallucinations...we are so used to believing our senses, its hard to accept when things happen to us thats its "all in your head".

I have a funny story about this, but I'm at work..I'll tell it later.

[cosmik debris]

54. I'm sorry, I failed to communicate accurately.

The idea I meant to communicate is that some people are more likely to accept the explanation of "ghosts" than they are to accept the explanation of "hallucination" even though there is more evidence for one than the other.

I apologize for the confusion.

[SPKrazy]

57. His "Hallucinations"

were either fabricated, a shared phenomenon (his wife heard the doll on the phone) or truly some unexplained phenomenon.

I don't know that you can say without a doubt that he had hallucinations.

I have never seen a ghost. I am skeptical. But does that mean they don't exist? I've seen no proof, but I can't say without a doubt that they don't exist.

For all I know he had an IV bag full of Gin and it was wide open flowing Gin IV to his brain when this happened.

However, he didn't say that either.

so I'm left with his story, which he claims to believe, he claims to have his wife as at least a peripheral witness.

So, I just don't know.

[Random_Australian]

64. For me, distribution of probabilities means that there is chance that

it might be a ghost.

However, evidence tells me that there is little chance that ghosts are real.

And experience tells me that what 'delusions' (ie. perceptual or cognitive error) are common and indistinguishable from the real world... or in other words:

We need no gin, no hallucinogen, no electrode, nothing but our own minds to make an error

That is what I say. :)

Let's see how the argument develops.

[lvx35]

60. There are a remarkable lack of "pink elephant" paranormal experiences

But no lack of this sort of thing in hallucinations. On the other hand you have a great deal of similarities in paranormal experiences.

[Random_Australian]

65. Which of course has absolutely no normal explanation.

Like the lack of elephants - things that if people saw they would assume they were delusional. You are quite right - there is a lack of people saying that they are delusional and are seeing pink elephants.

Remarkable?

And of course, anyone who percieves anything not spot-on with reality must stop using the other senses and see random things - after all, it is not like the brain is A) ordered or B) imperfect.

(Edit: And of course we have dissimilar physical systems and there is no link between physiology and emotion)


What really is remarkable is how all these experiences are no different from what you would expect if nothing was going on.

[lvx35]

79. lets clear this up a little.

Let me clarify my point. I believe from experience that if you were to give a sample set of people doses of hallucinogenic drugs, and record their visions and hallucinations, they would fall along a wide gamut without too many repeated experiences, or repeated experiences that dealt with distortions of mundane things, while experiences people call paranormal would fall into much denser sets...aliens, angelic entities, el chupacabra things, sexual violation things, ghosts, the stuff you read about.

This leads me to conclude that if the paranormal experiences are hallucinations, than they are of a fundamentally different nature than the type brought on by hallucinogenic drugs, and are considerable less random and imaginative.

[Random_Australian]

85. Right - that's fine as it is what I also had concluded.

That is what I meant when I was talking about structure in the brain, selective attrition, and the physiological base for emotion. I haven't even started on social influence yet!

But of course there is a chance that it was ghosts - but I am loathe to invent new things when what we have is more than sufficient.

[lvx35]

86. Yeah, actually social influence is where I would look first

to purify things...How has hearing about "greys" affected the number of people who have seen them?

But there are some interesting borderline things. I was just reading about ball lightning, a phenomenon that some say doesn't exist, but many people have seen. Its an interesting one because you can't see it fitting into any mythology, or fulfilling any psychological need to see a ball of light outside during a thunderstorm. Yet fraudulent evidence has been found (faked photos, like with ufos) yet on the other hand, scientists have created some kind of plasma with very similar properties in their own &imgrefurl=http://jlnlabs.online.fr/plasma/4wres/index.htm&h=531&w=800&sz=46&hl=en&sig2=NVoxc5LmWm4Fthw2k1husA&start=2&tbnid=wxXiYIDzRaHnJM:&tbnh=95&tbnw=143&ei=Q8z0RO-hK6nyiQGFvM2sBA&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dball%2Blightning%2Bmicrowave%26ndsp%3D18%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN">microwave ovens

So its a pretty pure thing to look at when it comes to rare unusual phenonenon as the relate to both urban myth and actual science.

[Random_Australian]

98. Due to my interests in science, I am kind of a 'first causes' person,

so I looked to physiology first as a means of creating the experiences, then society in order to propogate.

There are some rare and cool phenomena - but unfortunately outside of psychology are rare enough not to have very much effect.

[Finder]

35. Your "atheist" phase seems right out of a Jack Chick pamphlet...

with the hedonism and all.

It sounds like you have had some tough times throughout your life(sounds like many of the events happen when you feel lonely) and could have used some therapy to come to grips with the world around you. Sometimes our psychological needs clash with our logic and there is no way to reconcile them. You seem to focus your frustration(anger)at those who do not see things the way you do.(scientists, fundies, your x, deity, etc)

I too had an encounter with a "ghost" after the death of a loved one. I know now that it was my mind's way of dealing with the loss.

Science does investigate paranormal claims and has answered most.

[YankeyMCC]

36. Your description of how you viewed the world as an atheists

is about as different from mine and many other atheists I know. Far from such a cold, meaningless devoid, amoral view it is really when I accepted my atheism that I was able to make more sense of my life, the world around me, and the value of a moral code.

But I guess that goes to show how silly it is when theists try to group all atheists into the same group. The lack of belief in something is no basis for grouping people together.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

42. Well, here's one for you..

I'm a believer and one of the things I believe in the most is evolution. And while on a compassionate level I can empathize for human beings who are lost through war, disaster, illness..on another level I am okay with it because I see it as survival of the fittest, which is actually a very beautiful thing.

When I teach my students about drug use, I remind them of survival of the fittest and encourage them to make the decisions necessary to survive. I tell them that if they make the wrong decisions they are setting themselves up for evolutionary failure. It really works rather well.

But it is harsh.

[YankeyMCC]

43. I'm not sure I follow your point

I understand the message you're trying to send to your students and to some extent it makes sense to me. However, evolution isn't about 'survival of the fitest'...it's about opportunity and adaptability and natural selection. Mammals didn't end up on top (for now) because they're 'better' but because all the good ecological niches opened up at the right time for us.

But that's getting off track I think. I don't think I implied a theist can't also accept evolution, certainly I know many do (although sometimes I can't understand how religious people reconcile their faith with scientific theories they accept, but that's my problem not theirs and certainly humans are capable, including me, of holding many seemingly contradictory views and ideas at once). I certainly didn't mean to imply it.

I was merely responding to the OP description of his worldview during the time he considered himself an atheist. It's completely different from how I view the world around me. Where he describes a stark and amoral approach, I feel exactly opposite and my atheism is very near the core of that.

[Finder]

45. I am sure you know that evolution involves a lot more than that...

but whenever I come across someone who never took a biology course they simplify the whole theory using that meme.

I personally feel it is impossible to define "the fittest" in terms of humanity especially in this day and age of technology.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

51. I teach VERY young children, not high school or college

I took biology classes but back in the dark ages, and not a lot. I teach art and technology at the moment.

Guess I'm just an ignorant old fossil teaching skewed thinking. I know it would happen one of these days...

[Finder]

53. Nah, I know you know....was just pointing out how the meme is...

used so much.

[Evoman]

48. I'm an Evolutionary scientist

and I couldn't disagree with you more. Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution, thats true, but it really doesn't apply to human beings anymore. Technology, medecine, etc, have all worked together to basically make natural selection unappliable to human beings. First of all, think about drug use....heavy drug use often leads to very promiscious sexuality. So people who do a lot of drugs often survive to duplicate...often more times than a clean person who chooses partners carefully, and keep that person exclusively. Wether or not an individual person survives or not is not important, evolutionary speaking. Whether they have CHILDREN is the key. And all kinds of people...dumb people, weak people, sick people...hell, almost sterile people, are now having kids.

I also feel very uncomfortable with the term Survival of the fittest. The people in wars are just as fit as we are...it is not personal or genetic defect that is killing them. In fact, I believe that these people are an untapped resources that could change humanity, if we could just drag them out of their pits of ignorance and danger. There could be an Einstein sitting in Ethiopia, but you would never know it because they are too hungry to develop their brains. Survival of the fittest, in human terms, was coined by Herbert Spencer (I think), not Darwin. Its not a term evolutionary scientists use, and we don't use it to describe human behaviour anymore. Scientists who did in the past used in a manner that was disgustingly racists...we DO NOT do that anymore.

Its funny that so many people who use that term have not studied Evolution or remain ignorant of all the progress that has been made.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

50. Well damn!

Maybe I don't believe in evolution quite as much as I thought I did! And it was working so well...but I bow to your professional opinion.

But I will admit, I will keep it up with regards to discussing smoking and drugs because while it might not have scientific merit, there is no doubt that if you engage in certain unwise behaviors, you must might not survive, even if you have bred. And I've had kids throughout the years come back and tell me that it spoke to them.

[Orrex]

55. With due respect, I believe you're off the mark

Human intervention in evolution doesn't countermand evolution; it just gives us additional leverage in influencing--in the short-term--what we think "the fittest" means. But in the long haul, we're subject to nature and are evolving all the same.

To grant us the ability to unseat a fundamental process of biological development is to elevate us well beyond the animals that we are. We are organisms that have seen a part of the big evolutionary picture, but so what? Litter-bearing animals routinely oust or neglect the runt for the sake of the stronger cubs--I suppose that natural selection doesn't apply to them, either? How does that differ from deliberate murder by humans? Is it because the she-wolf culls the litter out of instinct? What if our supposed intelligence is an instinctive part of humans?

We are animals, a subset of the natural world, and by definition anything and everything we do or make, including plastic, gm foods, and suntan booths are likewise products of nature. They may be artificial, in that they are human-made, but they are still natural. To say that we are outside of or separate from or above "nature" is, again, to put us on a pedestal where we don't demonstrably belong.

Technology, medecine, etc, have all worked together to basically make natural selection unappliable to human beings.

I'm afraid that this strikes me as the height of hubris. Nature (a term I use here to describe the natural-world-at-large, rather than some particular force or entity) barely has to flex its tiniest muscles to wipe us out. Suppose a series of massive volcanic eruptions darkens the global skies for a period of five years. Would all humanity survive, thanks to technology? Or would only the "fittest" (to use Spencer's term), those with access to technology and resources, make the cut? Or suppose that a massive EMP wiped out all electronics and brought "modern" civilization to a stand-still. Would everyone dependent upon electronics survive? Or would the people with the least access to modern conveniences be rendered more "fit" in the wake of such a catastrophe? And what about the power of the virus to decimate a species?

Hell, let's suppose that some global plague made every woman sterile after the birth of the first child. Assuming a constant female:male ratio of 50:50, we'd be wiped out completely in less than 33 generations. Who's the fittest, then?

Nature abounds with organisms more successfully adaptive than humans. Our petty meddling in the genetics of plants and animals is a tiny bump in the road of evolution. We've only been really screwing around with breeding for a few centuries or millennia, at most. The world has been at it much longer and much more successfully.

I also feel very uncomfortable with the term Survival of the fittest. The people in wars are just as fit as we are...it is not personal or genetic defect that is killing them.

Sadly, it's true that "survival of the fittest" is a useful summation but does little justice to the real subtlety of evolution.

But you commit an error in casting war as some sort of evolutionary deal-breaker. It could be said that war is, by all available evidence, an inherent function of human culture (even if we suppose that the tendency toward war isn't actually hard-wired into our genetics). But that doesn't take war out of the equation--it simply means that it's another environmental factor by which natural selection occurs. The early hominids that died in a forest fire a few million years ago didn't die because of a personal or genetic defect, either. Why should war be granted special status?

The people in wars are just as fit as we are...it is not personal or genetic defect that is killing them. In fact, I believe that these people are an untapped resources that could change humanity, if we could just drag them out of their pits of ignorance and danger. There could be an Einstein sitting in Ethiopia, but you would never know it because they are too hungry to develop their brains.

Careful, because here you're equivocating, insofar as you're equating "fittest to survive" with "having the right to survive." In so doing you're attempting (nobly, I think) to dispense equitable justice to all as if it were a true determining factor. But really you're just operating according aesthetic preferences, not evolutionary terms, because nature doesn't give a hoot whether Albert survived in Austria or Abebe died in Ethiopia.

It's also not really useful, except as an intellectual puzzle, to imagine what kind of geniuses might have achieved greatness if only they'd had reliable access to food. We could as readily posit a hundred genocidal maniacs coming from the same population, so nothing is gained outside of a "wouldn't it be nice" digression.


So, in essence, I would say that it is false to conclude that we humans have derailed evolution or made ourselves somehow less succeptible to natural selection. Descent with modification occurs with every successful mating, and natural selection is the sieve that favors some instead of others. Until we control the environment and our genetics with 100% accuracy, we might make a small dent in the course of human evolution, but we won't greatly influence it. After all, how the heck can we even speculate as to what will qualify as "fitness" in decades or centuries or millennia to come?

I also have to say that I'm a little uncomfortable with the capitalization of "Evolution," as if it were a rite or some sort of sacred body of wisdom. I see it only twice in your post, so maybe it was an oversight or a stylistic choice, but I wondered if it suggested something further.


And for what it's worth, I'm not an evolutionary scientist, but I associate with microbiologists, molecular chemists, and several people with advanced understanding of genetics. I am not ignorant of the concept or theory of evolution, even if the precise mechanisms elude me.

What is an "Evolutionary scientist," by the way? What's your particular field?

[beam me up scottie]

66. Wow. Lots to think about there.

The idea that plastic is a product of nature, while I understand what you're saying, is disturbing.

I'm not sure I understand the difference between survival of the fittest and natural selection and how either influence evolution.

Can you elaborate?

[Orrex]

71. Good questions--I'll see what I can do

"Survival of the fittest" strikes me as a post hoc summation, bordering on a tautology:

Why did Organism X survive? Because it was the fittest.
How do we know it's the fittest? Because it survived!

So, as a descriptor, it's not exactly a paragon of scientific precision; IMO it's on par with the famed Yogi Berra-ism it ain't over 'til it's over. But as an abstraction (that is, if we're speaking in general terms about whose genes will tend to survive, rather than making a definite prediction), it's useful shorthand, I think.

"Natural selection" is the aggregate process by which the incidence of certain traits is diminished in the genepool. It allows certain traits to propogate with greater frequency, thereby providing a relative advantage in passing on one's genetic info to a greater proportion of subsequent generations. It's a blanket term and includes such factors as the seagull that plucks a particular baby turtle from the surf, and the guy with the smoothest pickup line.

In short, natural selection is everything that affects the success rate of genetic propogation. Survival of the fittest is a quick way of summarizing the result of natural selection.

[beam me up scottie]

95. Got it, thanks!

I'm probably as guilty as T.Grannie when it comes to misusing those terms, but when trying to explain evolution to young earth creationists, the simpler, the better.

And if you think I'm kidding, think again. Two more of my coworkers told me yesterday that they believe in Noah and his ark.



All of it.



Every word.



How do you respond to someone like that?

I figured why bother?

If they believe in an omniscient, omnipotent god, how far a stretch is it to think that there were dinosaurs on the ark?

:banghead:

[Evoman]

68. Write an essay! I'll try to respond to some of your major points.

"Human intervention in evolution doesn't countermand evolution; it just gives us additional leverage in influencing--in the short-term--what we think "the fittest" means. But in the long haul, we're subject to nature and are evolving all the same."

I agree with you, to a large extent. Defining the "fittest" is the major problem in any one of these arguments, simply because we often have a preconceived notion of what the fittest is. My response to Granny was pointing out that what we normally like to think of the fittest person (i.e. intelligent, clean, free-of-drugs, etc) is not necessarily the person thats procreating the most. In essence, the people who have a careless sex and have dozens of kids WHO SURVIVE are by far the fittest, although we don't like to think so. You'd be hard-pressed to find a person in our society who can't procreate,....in nature (outside our isulated human cities), a person who had really bad eyes, or was as dumb as rocks, or was severely retarded would probably not survive long enough to procreate. NS is VERY tempered by medicine and the like.



"To grant us the ability to unseat a fundamental process of biological development is to elevate us well beyond the animals that we are. We are organisms that have seen a part of the big evolutionary picture, but so what? Litter-bearing animals routinely oust or neglect the runt for the sake of the stronger cubs--I suppose that natural selection doesn't apply to them, either? How does that differ from deliberate murder by humans? Is it because the she-wolf culls the litter out of instinct? What if our supposed intelligence is an instinctive part of humans? "

I disagree here..."killing the runt" is precisely what is NOT happening in human society. It is nothing like murder. The runt is not only surviving in human beings, but procreating because IT CAN. Now think about how people murder each other..its not like animals, where the bigger, smarter creature survives. Its people with bombs blowing up others, or people with access to guns killing others. These people don't need to know how to build bombs or build guns..they are not significantly more intelligent thant the ones they are killing.



"We are animals, a subset of the natural world, and by definition anything and everything we do or make, including plastic, gm foods, and suntan booths are likewise products of nature. They may be artificial, in that they are human-made, but they are still natural. To say that we are outside of or separate from or above "nature" is, again, to put us on a pedestal where we don't demonstrably belong"

I am not trying to put human beings on a pedestal. I am just recognizing the unprecedented ability humanity has to affect its environment. We don't have many selection pressures...not in the classical sense. To deny it is to deny reality.


"I'm afraid that this strikes me as the height of hubris. Nature (a term I use here to describe the natural-world-at-large, rather than some particular force or entity) barely has to flex its tiniest muscles to wipe us out. Suppose a series of massive volcanic eruptions darkens the global skies for a period of five years. Would all humanity survive, thanks to technology? Or would only the "fittest" (to use Spencer's term), those with access to technology and resources, make the cut? Or suppose that a massive EMP wiped out all electronics and brought "modern" civilization to a stand-still. Would everyone dependent upon electronics survive? Or would the people with the least access to modern conveniences be rendered more "fit" in the wake of such a catastrophe? And what about the power of the virus to decimate a species?"

True. I was talking specifically about natural selection of the type that Grannie was discussing. Specifically, this phrase. "I'm a believer and one of the things I believe in the most is evolution. And while on a compassionate level I can empathize for human beings who are lost through war, disaster, illness..on another level I am okay with it because I see it as survival of the fittest" I overstated my case when I said that we can't evolve and are not subjected to natural selection. Mea culpa. As a collective species, our ability to adapt has been key to our survival and we may yet thrive or become extinct with changes in our environment. I still hold, however, thats its just not useful to point to natural selection within human society to justify the way the world is ordered. Many use it as a way to convince themselves that the comfy positions they have in the world is a result of their own individual fitness, when nothing could be further from the truth.


"Nature abounds with organisms more successfully adaptive than humans. Our petty meddling in the genetics of plants and animals is a tiny bump in the road of evolution. We've only been really screwing around with breeding for a few centuries or millennia, at most. The world has been at it much longer and much more successfully."

Again, I disagree with you. Human beings are having an unprecedented affect on the planet. We are supremely adaptable...no animals, save microscopic bacteria, protists and maybe rats, have been as adaptable as we are. We are spread throughout the world, in almost every conceivable environment. From the frozen wastelands, to the subsaharan tropics. I study insects, and also they are the most specios and have a huge population, we have seen dramatic drops in the variety and populations in even the most generalist insects. Not only that, but this idea that we can have no effect on our planet, that it will eventually "boot us off" and then keep on truckin is not necessarily true. We have a very real capacity to completely extinguish life on this planet, and make it uninhabitable in the future (kinda like venus or mars). Chances are that it won't happen, and that the Earth as a life bearing world will contintue to exist, but the possibilities are there that it won't.

"But you commit an error in casting war as some sort of evolutionary deal-breaker. It could be said that war is, by all available evidence, an inherent function of human culture (even if we suppose that the tendency toward war isn't actually hard-wired into our genetics). But that doesn't take war out of the equation--it simply means that it's another environmental factor by which natural selection occurs. The early hominids that died in a forest fire a few million years ago didn't die because of a personal or genetic defect, either. Why should war be granted special status?"

You make a very good point here...the environment determines fitness. In cases of sudden environmental changes, those who survive are those who can best adapt to the circumstance. So the early hominid with the best sight (for seeing the fire) or the best sense of smell, or the fastest runner, or even the one who could hold their breath the longest, would be the one to survive. The difference between nature and war is that nature is blind, while war is directed. Bush could send 50 nukes over to Ethiopia, and wipe out every living being in that area. If they survive, send another nuke to finish em off. Is Bush the individual more fit? Are the ethiopians as individuals less fit? Your argument holds water, however, and I'll have to think about it some more (lol..its 1:07 and I'm tired).


"Careful, because here you're equivocating, insofar as you're equating "fittest to survive" with "having the right to survive." In so doing you're attempting (nobly, I think) to dispense equitable justice to all as if it were a true determining factor. But really you're just operating according aesthetic preferences, not evolutionary terms, because nature doesn't give a hoot whether Albert survived in Austria or Abebe died in Ethiopia.

It's also not really useful, except as an intellectual puzzle, to imagine what kind of geniuses might have achieved greatness if only they'd had reliable access to food. We could as readily posit a hundred genocidal maniacs coming from the same population, so nothing is gained outside of a "wouldn't it be nice" digression."

True, and its not really part of the evolution argument either, just my personal opinion.


"So, in essence, I would say that it is false to conclude that we humans have derailed evolution or made ourselves somehow less succeptible to natural selection. Descent with modification occurs with every successful mating, and natural selection is the sieve that favors some instead of others. Until we control the environment and our genetics with 100% accuracy, we might make a small dent in the course of human evolution, but we won't greatly influence it. After all, how the heck can we even speculate as to what will qualify as "fitness" in decades or centuries or millennia to come?"

I disagree...I think we have made ourselves less succeptible to natural selection. In the long run, as a species, you may be right that we are evolving. But we have to be VERY careful how we use natural selection to describe ourselves, and our positions in the world. The survival of the fittest idea has caused scientists in the past to take heinous positions (for example, placing white people at the top of some evolutionary scale, with black people closer to monkeys that humans). Thats the kind of shit Hitler pulled. All in all, however, you have made some very good points, and its been a pleasure discussing this with you.


"I also have to say that I'm a little uncomfortable with the capitalization of "Evolution," as if it were a rite or some sort of sacred body of wisdom. I see it only twice in your post, so maybe it was an oversight or a stylistic choice, but I wondered if it suggested something further."

No, no, no. Lol..I teach evolution (don't worry, I don't put any of my OPINIONS on human evolution in the class), and I often capitalize evolution on the board, because its a subject header. Its just a bad habit I've picked up....don't worry, I don't worship evolution or anything hehe.


"And for what it's worth, I'm not an evolutionary scientist, but I associate with microbiologists, molecular chemists, and several people with advanced understanding of genetics. I am not ignorant of the concept or theory of evolution, even if the precise mechanisms elude me. What is an "Evolutionary scientist," by the way? What's your particular field?"

I don't want to put to much information, as I would rather stay somewhat anonymous. I've published several papers on insect evolution and systematics, and I've taught some introductory evolution lab class for non-majors, as well as a molecular evolution and phylogenetics lab. I've got quite an extensive background in evolution (topics like natural selection, drift, etc), as well as molecular evolution (phylogenetics,cytology, etc). Now, just so I don't sound all smart n' stuff, I'll just add that quite a bit of my post is personal opinion, and not necessarily representative of the scientific community (since we tend to shy away from discussing "survival of the fittest" in humans because of the abuses that comes from that type of speculation). I stand, however, by my statements to T. grannie about using natural selection as some kind of individual, moral survival guide is misguided (although apparently useful?). I also find the idea that people are okay with disasters and war because of their beliefs about evolution disconcerting.

This post took me way to long to write out....goodnight, and please ignore the grammatical errors/typos because I'm way too tired to fix it up.

[Orrex]

73. Good discussion!

My response to Granny was pointing out that what we normally like to think of the fittest person (i.e. intelligent, clean, free-of-drugs, etc) is not necessarily the person thats procreating the most. In essence, the people who have a careless sex and have dozens of kids WHO SURVIVE are by far the fittest, although we don't like to think so.

Exactly, though I'd add that we need to remember that it's not just a matter of procreating, either. If Person X has 200 kids of which 200 die before puberty, then Person X is out of luck. If Person Y has two kids, each of whom survives to have two kids, then Person Y has been proven the more fit.

You'd be hard-pressed to find a person in our society who can't procreate,....in nature (outside our isulated human cities), a person who had really bad eyes, or was as dumb as rocks, or was severely retarded would probably not survive long enough to procreate. NS is VERY tempered by medicine and the like.

This may be the essence of our disagreement. Medicine and the like are a part of natural selection, rather than an impediment to it.

I disagree here..."killing the runt" is precisely what is NOT happening in human society. It is nothing like murder. The runt is not only surviving in human beings, but procreating because IT CAN.

I think you're only seeing half of the point, though. The wolf kills the runt and thereby participates in natural selection. Human society protects the runt and thereby likewise participates in natural selection. It doesn't matter whether the participation involves killing or protecting--natural selection occurs in either case.

Now think about how people murder each other..its not like animals, where the bigger, smarter creature survives. Its people with bombs blowing up others, or people with access to guns killing others. These people don't need to know how to build bombs or build guns..they are not significantly more intelligent than the ones they are killing.

Well, that only proves that intelligence is not paramount in determining survivability, and in fact you underscore your first point here. It may be our societal preference that the more intelligent person survives, but nature doesn't care about our preference. Nature has its own definition of "fitness," and it may or may not coincide with ours.

For that matter, intelligence is an advantage, just like having a more efficient heart is an advantage, but in itself it's no guarantee of evolutionary success.

I am not trying to put human beings on a pedestal. I am just recognizing the unprecedented ability humanity has to affect its environment. We don't have many selection pressures...not in the classical sense. To deny it is to deny reality.

Sorry, but with that last sentence you veer into the realm of pure witnessing. And by claiming that we have fewer selection pressures, you are explicitly putting us on a pedestal. And how does one quantify the "selection pressures" upon any given species? Do we have more or fewer pressures than a cockroach? On what basis do you make this determination?

I still hold, however, thats its just not useful to point to natural selection within human society to justify the way the world is ordered. Many use it as a way to convince themselves that the comfy positions they have in the world is a result of their own individual fitness, when nothing could be further from the truth.

I would say that that's about 100% correct! "Social Darwinism" and its bastard siblings have been used to justify all kinds of societal brutality, racist and otherwise. In fact, the falsehoods underlying "social Darwinism" predate Darwin by many centuries--what else is "the divine right of kings" if not a declaration that one is "fittest" to rule?

Again, I disagree with you. Human beings are having an unprecedented effect on the planet.

There have been all kinds of "unprecedented effects" upon the planet over time, of which ice ages, asteroid strikes, super-vulcanism, and mass extinctions are only the most obvious. The particular characteristics of humans' impact on the planet may be novel, but the planet has been through plenty of bad stuff before.

We are supremely adaptable...no animals, save microscopic bacteria, protists and maybe rats, have been as adaptable as we are. We are spread throughout the world, in almost every conceivable environment. From the frozen wastelands, to the subsaharan tropics.

Perhaps no single non-human species of macroscopic organism is as versatile as we are, but that's not to say that several species in the aggregate are as adaptable. And numerous species can survive without artificial aid in these various inhospitable environments, whereas we need to resort to clothing and complicated nests to enable our survival.

I'm not naive--I know what you're getting at, but I just don't see our ability to alter the environment as paramount. We can do the most damage, perhaps, but

Not only that, but this idea that we can have no effect on our planet, that it will eventually "boot us off" and then keep on truckin is not necessarily true.

I'm not sure who said "we can have no effect on our planet," but I don't think that it was me. My thesis, instead, was that we can do and make nothing that is not natural, and by extension any effect we have upon the course of evolution is likewise a part of natural selection.

We have a very real capacity to completely extinguish life on this planet, and make it uninhabitable in the future (kinda like venus or mars). Chances are that it won't happen, and that the Earth as a life bearing world will contintue to exist, but the possibilities are there that it won't.

Of course, we'd also need to wipe out the creatures on the sea floor and the chemosynthetic organisms that thrive in thermal vents and alkaline hot springs. Even if we kill all land-based creatures and every single creature larger than a raisin (which is hardly guaranteed anyway), life would continue in some capacity. It wouldn't be human, but that would just mean that nature had selected us for extinction.

I disagree...I think we have made ourselves less succeptible to natural selection.

Again, this is the crux of our disagreement. If I may be so bold, I believe that your actual stance is this:

Humans have made themselves less succeptible to non-human modes of natural selection.

To that end, you are correct, but that's what every animal tries to do. Cats and dogs have large litters in the hope that they'll have more suriviving offspring. Humans invent antibiotics and silicone breasts in the hope we'll have more surviving offspring. It's a difference of degree but not of kind.

In the long run, as a species, you may be right that we are evolving. But we have to be VERY careful how we use natural selection to describe ourselves, and our positions in the world.

Again, I agree. It's the height of presumption for any person or group to claim authority to "steer" evolution in one direction or another, except as it pertains to their own genetic propogation.

="excerpt"]The survival of the fittest idea has caused scientists in the past to take heinous positions (for example, placing white people at the top of some evolutionary scale, with black people closer to monkeys that humans). Thats the kind of shit Hitler pulled.

Well, yeah. But that's the fault of racism and not the fault of natural selection. A scientific truth is true regardless of how people pervert it. And "true" in this context means "demonstrated to have a high degree of correlation with observed reality" instead of any kind of metaphysical, transcendent "truth."

All in all, however, you have made some very good points, and its been a pleasure discussing this with you.

Thanks--I've enjoyed your posts as well! :hi:

don't worry, I don't worship evolution or anything

Honestly, I didn't think so, but I couldn't help noticing it! Thanks for clarifying!

I don't want to put to much information, as I would rather stay somewhat anonymous.

That's fine, of course--you've given more than enough clarification already. It's just that I hadn't heard the term "evolutionary scientist" before, and I wondered what it meant, specifically. I've heard "evolutionary biologist," for example, but never the generic term.

I also find the idea that people are okay with disasters and war because of their beliefs about evolution disconcerting.

It's clearly an attempt to rationalize a disaster, and if it's just used as a temporary coping mechanism, I don't think it's too harmful. But if it prevents us from assisting others of our extended tribe (all 6+ billion of us), then I agree that it's disconcerting, at the very least!

[Evoman]

75. Just one more question.

How do you get the nice boxes around the quotes. It would make my posts a lot clearer if I knew how to do that.

[Orrex]

76. See? That's further proof of my fitness to survive!

Here's how you do it. Where I put parentheses in the examples below, substitute brackets instead:

(div class="excerpt")Here's where you type the text that's supposed to wind up in the nifty, pro-evolution box, wherein you can dazzle your readers with your rhetorical prowess. (/div)

It'll come out looking like this:

Here's where you type the text that's supposed to wind up in the nifty, pro-evolution box, wherein you can dazzle your readers with your rhetorical prowess.

The first part (div class="excerpt") switches on the "excerpt" mode, The last part (/div) switches it off.

[The Straight Story]

94. Just jumping back into things here (good post btw)

Educational without being confrontational, always a pleasure to see.

Perusing what you wrote I could not but help and think about time.

We have been here but a fraction of it and we may indeed not turn out to be the most fit when it is all said and done - ie, we may well eliminate ourselves (or something else could).

As it stands today one may not even say we are superior to other organisms on the planet, except in some adaptations and such - in the end some amobea may well outlive our time here and thrive.

Our potential, to me, is greater (ie, we can build spaceships and move off this rock, and not worry about the earth going bye-bye someday, whereas other creatures would not be able to do so) and that potential I think does translate to some into something more spiritual - to wit, only one species has shown the abilities to do so many different things, and why only this one? If things/organisms are constantly changing and adapting, why have we be been leaps and bounds over all others in the area of science, writing, communication, etc and so on.

This, I feel, drives the debate on science/religion more than anything. Personally, I DO respect science as a whole, even though I am not always the best at stating so when starting threads :)

I think when science is not able to answer questions we have we look elsewhere for answers, like my mention of ghosts, etc. Science, as beautiful and wonderful as it is cannot answer some things which cannot be duplicated but people have experienced. One can ignore something that has happend, ie - reject the reality of an experience, or they can use their evolved methods to try and understand it in terms not always quantifiable.

I do, at times I suppose, get upset at a rejection of such things out of hand as mumbo-jumbo and can't possibly have occured cause we can't replicate it. On the other hand, people should be objective in viewing things and look for more 'rational' answers.

Right now, as far as we have any proof of, we are the most advanced species in the entire universe. No one else is even close. Lots of other species may be close to each other, but nothing has been shown to be as evolved as we are.

And why only this one creature, and not any other, I think is where we get so much contention from in matters relating to faith and religion. Some share similar traits, and can do some cool things, but nothing like we have been able to do.

The why is what is bothersome. Will dogs someday evolve more and talk to us in a common language? Will rabbits write? Will rats be like those of NIMH? ;)

While we are the same on many levels (birth, hair, eating meat, it could go on) we differ so greatly on one level that it does lead one to wonder....

[Orrex]

104. It's fundamentally a matter of perspective

If things/organisms are constantly changing and adapting, why have we be been leaps and bounds over all others in the area of science, writing, communication, etc and so on.

Part of the answer is that your question is based on a value judgement. Is it "better," objectively speaking, to be intelligent or to be able to photosynthesize? How can we answer with any certainty? At best, we can say that some, most, or all of our evolved abilities are more or less in line with what we have identified as important. But who's to say that we don't identify them as important specifically because we've evolved them? Indeed, they may actually be important, from a standpoint of human survivability, but that doesn't give them any objective superiority over gills or feathers or a prehensile tail. It's the basic Euthyphro chicken-or-egg question: did we decide to value them because we evolved them, or do we value them because they approach an objective idea that we value? I'd suggest that, in the absence of clear evidence, the former is more likely.

I think when science is not able to answer questions we have we look elsewhere for answers, like my mention of ghosts, etc. Science, as beautiful and wonderful as it is cannot answer some things which cannot be duplicated but people have experienced. One can ignore something that has happend, ie - reject the reality of an experience, or they can use their evolved methods to try and understand it in terms not always quantifiable.

You're alluding to the famous "God of the gaps" argument, in that you're suggesting that something yet not explained by science is a foot-in-the-door for the supernatural, and that's an unsubstantiated leap of faith. If science is unable to answer a question, then science's answer is "the question is not yet answered." People often misunderstand the phrase "I don't know" to be an admission of weakness when in fact it's a statement of commendable intellectual honesty.

Regarding ghosts, there is no good evidence that anything like a human soul or consciousness or mind survives the destruction of the brain, so there is no scientific basis for concluding that ghosts exist as commonly described. All phenomena given as evidence of ghosts can be more readily explained by precedented mundane factors than by the entirely unprecedented actions of a supernatural entity. One is still free to believe in ghosts, of course, but in doing so one must acknowledge that the belief is not supported by evidence.

I do, at times I suppose, get upset at a rejection of such things out of hand as mumbo-jumbo and can't possibly have occured cause we can't replicate it. On the other hand, people should be objective in viewing things and look for more 'rational' answers.

Replication is essential in making a determination because, without it, we have no basis for rejecting any claim whatsoever! But you're correct that objectivity is required especially when dealing with purportedly supernatural claims.

Right now, as far as we have any proof of, we are the most advanced species in the entire universe. No one else is even close. Lots of other species may be close to each other, but nothing has been shown to be as evolved as we are.

Again, though, that's a value judgment. The phrase "as evolved as we are" is an attempt to set humans as the standard against which all other creatures are judged, but that's a rigidly anthopocentric view. If, instead, we identify the ability to live in harmony with nature as the standard of evolutionary achievement, then humans rank pretty low on the list.

It's all about where you set the boundary markers. We're free to set them wherever we want, but then we have to remember that they're not objective or absolute.

[Zhade]

105. If someone experiences something, and it cannot be replicated...

...can it honestly be said that the experience happened as the experiencer believes it happened? That it means what the experiencer imparts to it?

Something may have happened. Why the rush to assume that it means what the experiencer believes it to mean, rather than simply meaning "something happened - let's try to find out what"?

Just askin'.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

69. You are my hero

[Orrex]

74. Aw, shucks!

:blush:

[Odin2005]

38. Here we go again, *sigh* aniother person bashing science.

It ain't just the Talibornagains who want to take us back to the dark ages. :eyes:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

41. Now, now

criticisms of sacred science are not appeals to go back to the dark ages. Is science above criticism? I thought science was all ABOUT critical analysis?

[trotsky]

46. Nothing wrong with trying to criticize science...

it would just be nice to see something more than "science doesn't support what I believe, so therefore science is (ignoring my data / a giant conspiracy of the pharma-military-bigbidness / just plain wrong)."

Science is not some big crazy construct made by men in white coats, it's a simple process: observe, hypothesize, test, refine. If you believe that reality exists and is consistent, then science will help you discover properties of that reality.

[Evoman]

49. Not only that, but anyone of us could be scientists..its just takes a

shift in perspective and mindset. Instead of just accepting that lifting a talking doll is moving it out of range of a baby ghost, that obviously can't get it when its out of reach, you could do experiments on the batteries, try moving it to a shelf that is accessible, but at the same elevation, etc. It may not be publishable science by any means, but its still looking at the problem through another type of filter.

Hell, the best explanation may be that the doll was jostled by a draft or something, that you don't get when you put it on a shelf. There may be a 100 different more plausible explanations....

Besides...I thought ghosts could fly. Casper does.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

52. I have nothing against science

My dad was a rather well known chemist in his day and I grew up amongst scientists. I personally have polished my intuitive skills, and I too, obverse, hypothesize, test and refine! But without a grid. All in the head. My study universe, however, is humanity and human behavior. I'm not too interested in physical properties but rather emotional and psychological.

[Zhade]

146. "Sacred science"?

Grannie, you're above that kind of remark.

[SPKrazy]

58. A Little Disjointed, But Interesting Story

I'm at a loss to say what I think

I've had strange experiences, but they were under the influence of things supposed to cause strange experiences.

I've had spiritual experiences and some real "aha" experiences that seemed very powerful to me.

For example, being someplace, feeling very anxious, wanting a drink, and someone pulling out a framed version of the serenity prayer (not at an AA meeting either, nor was I with recovering alcoholics.) It had such a profound immediate effect that I lost the wanting of a drink, and felt a calmness and peace come over me. I used to be listening to the radio and a song would come on that seemed to have some spiritual message for me. (Now those who are inclined to interpret this psychiatrically might say I was experiencing circumstantiality and was likely manic-which I don't believe to be true myself, as I've not ever had a manic episode in my life, but I can't explain the feeling and ideas that what I was experiencing was in fact giving me messages) Not messages about anything complex or telling me what to do, but things like "live for today", etc. These, once again, left me feeling calmer, and with a confidence of a "presence" of something greater than I am.

I've had many more profound, and more mature sounding experiences in my life since I began coming to believe in a higher power that I choose to call God. But I've not seen ghosts, or apparitions, or heard voices of God.

I found your story interesting and sincere, and certainly unexplainable by me (the phenomenon with the toy)

I do remember that once in the middle of the night near Christmas, we had a thunderstorm, and we had a stuffed toy dog in a Christmas type outfit that played Christmas music that started playing in the middle of the night after lightning struck nearby. The crash of thunder followed by the toy playing Christmas music was disconcerting, but not unexplainable as I think the thunder actually rattled the toy enough to start the music, or maybe the air was ionized and this set it off. Or, who knows?

[Random_Australian]

67. Oh, a quick note about the manic - I would not say that.

I would say you are human like the rest of us - everyone feels that way some time in their life.

[neebob]

96. I still like to believe something I read in The Celestine Prophecy

that everyone you meet has a message for you. I often notice and describe things as synchronicity, and I'm open to the collective consciousness - or is it the collective unconscious? I can never remember. BUT I don't think these things are anything more than an intersection of coincidence and desire. People believe what they want to. People who want to see ghosts see ghosts.

I used to work with some ladies who were so into ghosts that they started their own paranormal studies outfit. They were convinced the building my company now owns is haunted and did some studies that were, um, inconclusive. It is a noisy-ass building at night, when you're all alone in it. I totally get why people want to believe it's inhabited by ghosts.

One of the pictures I took at a baby shower for a co-worker who maintains a friendship with one of the paranormal chicks has what the paranormal chick would call an orb in it. Another one has a very strange white sort of smear. My camera's never done anything like that, before or since - do I think it's a ghost? No. The co-worker who had the baby think it's her grandma.

[beam me up scottie]

97. Yep. Spirit orbs.

There's a huge niche market that caters to orbians.

Google "orbs in pictures" and look at all the bling bling.

I had a coworker who believed in them.

The fact that she had a shitty camera and was a lousy photographer never crossed her mind.

[neebob]

99. So, ya mean, ya don't think it's Grandma

floating above the onesies on a clothesline, or whooshing in front of me? Damn.

[lvx35]

61. SCience can't prove the fucking NSA scandal...

...Because experiments regarding the existence of the room at AT&T headquarters must be reproduceable, and the NSA has erased evidence, and has the survelliance capabilities to anticipate the moves of any scientific team investigating it. This much is true, and has serious ramifications regarding the limitiations of scientific knowledge: If reproducing an experiment is dependant on some intelligence doing something for you, be it God, the CIA, a ghost or your little sister, you are generally shit out luck in the scientific realm. Its an inherit limitation of science.

[trotsky]

81. That's a pretty poor understanding of science.

If you are investigating whether an event occurred, one which might not occur again for you to observe under controlled circumstances, then all you can go on is the evidence you collect. In the case of NSA spying, the fact that numbers and calls are recorded in a database is pretty strong proof that it happened. Even if the database is erased, there will be data that came out of the database, or a record of it being ordered, or SOMETHING.

Again I think this is a case where someone wants to create some artificial wiggle room (arbitrarily saying that anything done by an intelligent entity is off limits to science) to allow for the possibility of their personal beliefs.

[lvx35]

87. there is a big difference between the theoretical something and the...

...practical something when it comes to evidence. Intelligence organisations who excel at doing things and erasing evidence of them are very hard to get scientific proof on their activities. Of course there are things, but when your scientific investigation itself is being watched, you find yourself finding evidence and then having your apartment broken into and your evidence disappearing. So yes, there IS a database with calls in it but it only matter is you can get your hands on it, which is unlikely.
This is not an arbitrary statement, its a real statement about real things that happen. Its generally pretty tricky to actually get down and prove that the CIA/KGB was involved in such and such even when lots of people have enough anecdotal evidence to make it very clear that they were. This is significant in the broader picture because if we abandon our anthro-centric worldview which states that humans are the top of the intellectual advancement latter, and imagine something higher which we crudely refer as "God" or "aliens" than it becomes very clear that the evidence we would have supporting such an advanced entity would probably be the exact evidence that that entity would WANT us to have, which may be none at all.

[trotsky]

100. You do realize, of course...

that your line of thinking was "pioneered" by the creationists, who figured it was the only way they could inoculate their beliefs from the cold hard reality of science, right?

[lvx35]

106. I just figured it out for myself.

If you suppose an all knowing or all powerful God exists, you also have to suppose this entity would not be bound to reveal itself through scientific means. Just common sense...And logic with broader implications than theology.

[trotsky]

117. Common sense?

Hardly. Afraid of the power of science/inquiry, those who harbor beliefs that science/inquiry might harm decide to build a wall to insulate their beliefs from said inquiry. That's the same shit the Republicans pull with global warming, the Iraq war, you name it. I don't think it's anything to be proud of, contributing to the silencing of debate, discussion, and analysis.

[Zhade]

138. It's not common sense to assume, without evidence, that gods exist.

It is, in fact, the opposite.

[neebob]

145. Common sense also dictates

that if such an entity exists and its purpose is anything other than observation or experiment, unless it died or forgot about us or just blew us off, it would have revealed itself by now - in a very public, unmistakable way.

Common sense pretty much rules out all the popular ideas of god except maybe the ones that don't give a crap about their creations. It dictates that the atmosphere is not full of souls, or some vast blob of consciousness that little blobs continually separate from and rejoin as they get sucked in and out of physical bodies. It dictates that there's not some invisible, intangible barrier with a bunch of stuff happening on the other side.

My common sense tells me I can't leave my body temporarily, invade someone else's dreams, affect anything or anyone else with nothing but the power of my thoughts, or do more than guess what someone else is thinking or doing or what will happen, and no one else can either. It tells me that all I'm ever going to get to do is experience this world in this body. And when I die, regardless of what happens first inside my brain, at some point everything will just seem to stop or fade out, and I won't know or care what happened because I will no longer exist in any form other than a decomposing corpse. And the same thing has happened to everyone else who ever lived and died.

But that's just the kind of common sense that I have.

[Silent3]

102. The entire world was created five minutes ago...

...designed to look like there had been a long past, and each of us was programmed with memories which make us think we've been here for a long time and have connections with the people and things in this five-minute-old world.

Prove I'm wrong.

But wait... was it five minutes, or ten? Or five weeks or ten? Or 238.2 years? How could you tell? I've established terms which eliminate any way of knowing.

You're using the kind of argument people use that can support any old idea they want to support. Any at all. And that's the problem so often glossed over. Add enough "what ifs" about missing evidence, hidden evidence, fake evidence, sensory limitations, special sensory capabilities of special individuals... and not only is any story possible, but no particular story has anything special left going for it either.

Well, except perhaps emotional appeal and/or a cultural history. So, we first totally devalue real, solid evidence, then we play up emotional appeal and cultural history, and pretend those things must then be taken as some special sign, another kind of evidence, the only kind we have left... which conveniently validates what we wanted to validate in the first place.

[lvx35]

107. There is a difference between supporting an idea and supporting a...

...possility of an idea. Was the world created 5 minutes ago and all our memories installed? Its 100% possible! That's the truth. Lets suppose it was: We could see that whoever did this did it so elaboratly to create the illusion of a past which explains the present with painstaking detail...such detail, in fact, that whether or not this event occured it would be no different, from a functional perspective, than if it did not occur. Nothing would change. Therefore, it is impossible to tell whether the event did or did not occur. period.

The root of the issue here is that there are limits on what we can know, and an event which leaves no (or too little) trace falls outside those limits. But brushing off the possibility of the world being created 5 minutes ago (for instance) as absurd relies on faith-based assumption that the world is as it appears. That's okay, because believing that it was created 5 minutes ago relies on faith based assumptions too...The point is that every system of knowledge relies on assumption or axiom at its deepest level...And we choose them as we please.

Deep existential assumptions, like whether or not the world was created 5 minutes ago (when it has no functional affect on reality) fall into the realm of metaphysics, not of science. We can each study a fossil record to explain the present state of things, and our findings would be same whether we believe we are studying an illusion constructed to explain reality, or a past reality that explains reality. Creationism is fundamentally different (not metaphysical) because it makes assertions that SHOULD have an observable effect on reality. But metaphysical truth lies beyond what can be easily proven by scientific means. And its not the only thing.

[trotsky]

118. Do you understand what you're saying?

But metaphysical truth lies beyond what can be easily proven by scientific means. And its not the only thing.

How do you know? You've insisted that there are things that hide from observation. So how do YOU know they're there? If they are detectable *at all*, then they're withing the realm of analysis by "scientific means."

Essentially what you're doing is relegating your god to the same plane as things like dreams, emotions, etc. All quite real - but only in the mind of the person experiencing them. And on that, I can completely agree.

[lvx35]

119. There are different qualities of knowing.

>But metaphysical truth lies beyond what can be easily proven by scientific means. And its not the only thing.

How do you know? You've insisted that there are things that hide from observation. So how do YOU know they're there? If they are detectable *at all*, then they're withing the realm of analysis by "scientific means."

Because there are lots of things that are detectable but not provable (because proof requires reproducability) like that, I can't prove what I dreamed last night, though I did...I can't prove that some intelligence agency did such and such, though I may have seen it with my own eyes. the agency will not reproduce what they did for a scientific observer because they don't want to.

Essentially what you're doing is relegating your god to the same plane as things like dreams, emotions, etc. All quite real - but only in the mind of the person experiencing them. And on that, I can completely agree.

No, I am relegating the entirety of human experience and knowledge to realm of thoughts dreams and emotions because it is. EVERYTHING we know (or think we know) is in this plane. Even if I assume the existence of a physical universe that is absolute, then I am still lead to the conclusion that all I ever experience is configuation of chemicals and firing neurons fed inputs by chemical reaction from eyes, ears, and other nerves which it considers "perception". Thus I never directly "know" the physical universe at all, all I have is neurochemical representations of it in my brain...And to believe that this representation is complete and accurate is foolish; I don't directly see reality, my mind builds ever changing representations, that's what I experience...So by assuming a physical universe that is absolute, I can see that I could never KNOW that assumption to be true. Which reveals that it will always be a belief, an assumption, just like religious ones.

Which doesn't mean its wrong or bad. If it works for you and explains the experiences around you in life, then use it! That's why people use religion, or other alternative worldviews, because it works for them, it explains things they couldn't explain before. But its all equally based on belief in the end.

edit: To be clear, I am saying that all rational systems rely on assumptions. Rational systems don't have internal contradictions. Creationism is irrational, because it contradicts its own axioms.

[trotsky]

120. More of the same.

Looking for wiggle room in the harsh reality of the universe. Have fun. By the way, that's a pretty weak little god who needs to hide in the shadows of ignorance...

[lvx35]

121. Give up boy, you just got schooled. nt

[trotsky]

122. LOL!

That's truly hilarious. You hide your god in ignorance, and claim to school someone?

[lvx35]

123. Yeah, its my baby God wrapped up in an ignorance burrito and tucked under-

my arm, where you cannot hurt him. That's what this is all about. You don't need to believe these things I say. Its okay. Just keep on believing that your idea of reality is absolute, and has no "wriggle room" for other possibilities...But you'd better be keeping your ideas safe too, because reality has a way of proving our absolute ideas about it wrong. :)

[trotsky]

124. All you're doing is taking the old "brain in a vat" hypothesis

and trying to justify your personal beliefs with it. If you had actually advanced some new, interesting philosophical construct that was worth considering instead of a tired old example, maybe this could have gone somewhere. By the way, I don't project my "idea of reality" as being absolute - I'm completely open to evidence suggesting otherwise. Unlike you, I don't decide that evidence doesn't count because my pet idea is threatened by it.

[lvx35]

125. I WISH you would advance evidence that would threaten my beliefs

that would make this interesting. The brain in the vat, as you call it, is being restated again and again so that you can understand that there are multiple things you can believe which will fit with the evidence at hand, all valid, and all rational thought is based on choice between possibilities or an assumption. Your thoughts are based on assumption, sancrosact as you think they are...and your perception of reality is just as much based on "personal beliefs" as mine is.

[trotsky]

130. Oh well.

Yeah, I'll never be able to give you evidence that threatens your beliefs, because you've decided a priori that your beliefs are immune from evidence that doesn't support them, and even better - you can invent evidence that DOES support them.

What you're not getting is that while any system of thought can proceed rationally from a given set of assumptions, not all assumptions are equally valid. In order to make the most sense of reality, one should proceed from the most minimal set of assumptions possible. The naturalist/rationalist does that. The person who acknowledges reality but also invents a god who transcends reality and can work within it without leaving evidence does not.

What your line of thinking does is provide cover for just about ANY set of beliefs, because by gosh, they're just as valid and rational as anyone else's! The neonazi skinhead who believes homosexuals and minorites should be killed, well, his "perception of reality is just as much based on 'personal beliefs' as yours." How dare you say he's wrong? I mean, if one proceeds from the assumption that other races are cursed by god, it's a perfectly rational conclusion, isn't it?

Or what about the guy who DOES think he's a brain in a vat, and everyone else is a chemically- or electronically-induced hallucination in his mind, so there's no harm done in killing other people? That's also a perfectly rational conclusion with his set of initial assumptions.

You do know there are over 6 billion different ways of looking at the universe, right? How do you propose, in your polyanna world of "all beliefs are rational," to provide for resolution of conflict between those views?

[lvx35]

132. oh fudge.

How do I supposedly invent or deny evidence? What have I done to that effect? This whole conversation has been about the limits of knowledge, I haven't even mentioned any spiritual or religious beliefs.

You bring up Ockham's razor... when there are numerous ways to explain the data, choose the simplest. I guess its a good rule of thumb, for keeping things simple. But being the simpler explanation does not discount the other ones.

You say I provide "cover" for any beliefs. I am willing to consider any beliefs, I take them based on their merit for a certain situation. I person who believes other people aren't real and thinks they need to be killed wouldn't last long, its a pretty disfunctional belief...But here your lecturing me on the lack of moral prescription in my thinking, but prescribing morals is something which atheism is remarkably weak at, and those who live in glass houses...

Lastly, I don't say that all beliefs are rational, I say that beliefs which contradict their assumptions are irrational..But yes, there are a world full of different ones. How do I propose we hand conflict resolution?

First, we must all be liberated from the tyranny of ideas/beliefs. This starts when we realize that none of them are absolutely true. Then we can control our ideas instead of having our ideas control us. (SOOOO many people have died stupidly for ideas, religious and otherwise) After this, we can stop killing each other for our ideological disagreements and sit down and look at what things really work for our mutual self interest. We can choose the things that are optimal for all of us. That's how I propose we resolve conflicts.

[trotsky]

135. What a non-response.

Here you sit making judgments about other beliefs ("disfunctional"), when you've already berated me for doing the same. There's a word for that, I think.

Your non-answer about conflict resolution confirms what I suspected. You have no real answers, you just think that if we all could just put aside our differences, everything would be wonderful. Well, duh! Sorry but here in the real world, people's belief systems can and will come up against each other all the time. For a society to function on a practical level, some basic set of assumptions about the world is going to HAVE to reign supreme. Instead of dealing with this issue, you're dancing around it with idealism. Is it any wonder the religious left gets its ass kicked over and over again?

[lvx35]

133. Signing out for work...thanks!

won't be back to read a reply here, gots to go for a few days. Thanks for arguing with me! I sincerely love it. I always have some new thing I have to re-analyze when I argue here, new things get built in my head. Its always so fruitful, I could argue for days, with nothing getting agreed upon.

[trotsky]

136. LOL

Can't say I didn't see that coming. Maybe next time you'll actually bring some real ideas to the discussion instead of worn-out bad analogies and meaningless pie-in-the-sky phrases.

[lvx35]

137. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.

I set my ideas aside, and thank you for your discussion. You flame me. What I was saying about attachment to ideas: perfectly illustrated. Thank you! I couldn't have done it without you! :)

[trotsky]

141. Okey dokey.

If that's how you feel you can graciously bow out of an argument you were losing terribly, be my guest. Can't wait for next time!

(BTW - If you think that's a flame, you haven't been out much, have you?)

[Random_Australian]

128. Not really.

If you are talking about absolute knowing - of course we don't, but that changes nothing. Taking successive approximations of no assumptions gives you the highest statistical co-efficient of accuracy (or preaxiomic equivalent).

**************

For example - the possibility one is just a brain in a jar (not assuming correlation between subjective and objective reality) - consider, using the information formed from your interpretation of this reality, and how much difference one ought to have in the way one acts because of this.

The amount of information known about the objective world with this zero correlation situation is zero, therefore the sum total change in behaviour must be caused by at most zero information - which is the description of zero change in behaviour.

In other words, the possibility that one might be a brain in a jar has ZERO effect on our interactions.

**************

And stat coefficient of accuracy is what the object. Absolutes don't really exist.

Next, we have this:
"Because there are lots of things that are detectable but not provable "

I think you mean detectable to humans but not science. (more literally the conjugate set of science, but I don't think you or I really care) - feel free to correct me if I am mistaken of course.

Say, for instance, you claim to dream. Science can easily find brain activity that would show activation of relevant areas of the brain. (Yes, I know that is not proof you are dreaming - so what? We don't have the spatial or temporal resolution to know what you are thinking, though it is possible)

Say, for instance, some scientists works out that we have random stuff happen to us in dreams, and predicts that people will have both random and recurring dreams.

Then say, you then claim that you have recurring dreams, which MIGHT be from angels and demons fighting, which you are detecting by unknown means.

Would you deny that there is a zero-sized difference between the prediction of science and the experience of the dreamer?

And (please be sure to answer this) if the person was to claim to have recurring dreams first, and at the time science knew that people dreamed, knew a good portion of why, but did not know the exact mechanism, would there be any significant difference in the validiity of their claims?

[Silent3]

131. Looks like trotsky has been doing an excellent job...

...in my absence countering this crapola, and really sums it up well in his reply #130.

Ideas that meet the very low criteria "can't be disproven" are a dime a dozen. It's a very, very low standard because it's so easy to claim pretty much any assumptions you want to and derive nearly anything you want to derive as a rational conclusion in the context of those assumptions.

If you want some of way ranking the quality of ideas, of deciding which ideas are worth personal commitment, which are worth further pursuit, which are worthy of perhaps a few moments of consideration during a philosophical conversation verses those idea worth pouring effort into exploring and refining, you need some criteria for ranking ideas beyond mere inner consistency and the mere ability to stand up within a customized universe of convenient assumptions.

The scientific method doesn't promise that it can uncover every single thing that might be out there to know. It can't utterly refute solipsism or "brain in a jar" or five-minute-old universes or any other shiny baubles of inventive imagination. Better than anything else humans have come up with, however, it provides a great way of testing and evaluating all sorts of idea, one that's open to new evidence, one that forces us to get beyond the thoughts and emotions in our own individual little minds so that we have to find consistent, public, and shared criteria for evaluating ideas about the nature of our world and how it works.

When you throw out the old saw about all the things "science can't prove", as if this shows some sort of fundamental flaw in the scientific approach, you completely gloss over the simply fact that there may simply be things that it will take us a long time to learn enough to understand, and that there may well be things we'll never understand or know. So what? Real mystery is just that: mystery. It's not an excuse to fill in the blanks with whatever wild assumptions you think can help you get you to the answers you think you're entitled to be able to access.

Oh, and your harping on "reproducibility" is misleading. Reproducibility is a valid and important criteria for scientific merit, but it's not the only means of scientific proof. When expert scientific evidence is given at a murder trial to help prove Bob killed Bill, do you imagine that the experts somehow have to bring Bill back to life and have Bob kill him again to prove their point? Finding explanations which best fit the available evidence (things like DNA samples, fingerprints, fiber traces, timelines of events based on witnesses or electronic surveillance, etc.), even when the central point (the supposed crime committed) can't be reproduced, is a perfectly valid application of the scientific method.

It's a favorite game of fundies to harp on complete reproducibility as if it were the sole means of true scientific proof, and then act smugly like they're the ones being oh-so-scientific for being insistent about getting that reproducibility. They can then pretend that science has nothing at all to say about anything whatsoever that has happened in the past -- evolution, biogenesis, cosmology -- until someone reproduces exactly the same universe we live in all over again in a lab somewhere.

[hunter]

103. Yep, this thread has everything. That's why I didn't click it for so long.

First of all, toys with microprocessors can't be trusted. Those sorts of machines have some interesting failure modes. But it was probably the switch. We had a "haunted" microwave oven once. It would turn itself on and off like someone was reheating a cup off coffee. The first time we heard it it woke us up, very late at night. Soon, after a few repeat performances, we got worried it would burn down our house so we got rid of it. Maybe we should have blamed a ghost.

I try to explain here sometimes why I go to Mass on Sunday. Mostly it appeals to some sense of order in me, I'm a bit OCD about some things and it calms that down a bit. It is also an exploration of spirituality that is acceptable and common within our community. Holidays are celebrated at church, births, marriages, and funerals are celebrated. But there's more to it than that, at least for me.

Mental health issues? I've had a few. When I was a young man I was especially sensitive to steroids. Unfortunately I needed to take them sometimes to get my asthma back under control. Unfortunately, after a few days of treatment I'd be stark-running-down-the-street-naked-loonie-tunes psychotic. But before the psychosis sets in, I always feel good, and I wonder if that's the way people are supposed to feel; if maybe that's the way other people normally feel.

I've also always been plagued by auditory hallucinations, especially when I'm tired. Whenever I hear the voices of my grandparents, I don't figure they are ghosts, at least not the sort of ghosts that exist outside my head. I've also had occasional visual hallucinations, often some elaborate thing or creature in the sky. If I was a UFO nut I'd figure they were aliens, if maybe I'd lived in another sort of culture I'd call them spirit birds or angels or something. But I'm the only one who sees them , so it's just a signal in my head, probably just a short circuit of some kind. If not, and if I'm somehow blessed, that would be cool, but I can't make a big deal about it.

What I do wish I had in terms of special powers is the kind of ESP that let's people know what other people are thinking. As a kid I was a master of the inappropriate comment, and I never could tell if people were enjoying my presence or hating me until they either hugged me or hit me in the face. I generally found it safest to shut up and assume the worst.

Evolution? Science? Saying I don't believe in those things would be like saying I don't believe in air. It would deflate meaning. Oh, he sees angels too... Essentially all meaning is ours to create -- that is our free will. But the universe itself operates on scales in which human meanings simply don't matter. If we didn't exist the universe would go on. I think we pay too much attention to the circuses in our heads and not enough attention to the miracles around us.

I was looking at a cloud the other day. Mostly we ignore clouds, or we look at them in very superficial ways. For some reason a little bit of my college physics popped into my head and I started staring at them in terms of temperatures and pressures and condensation and evaporation, and for just a moment there I had a very strong intuition of what was going on. It was awesome.

[beam me up scottie]

113. Your last sentence, wow.

That's exactly what it feels like whenever I look at, not just clouds, but any part of nature.

I don't worship it, I don't have to.

It totally blows me away without any added embellishments.

I'm thrilled to see so many theists here feel the same way.

If only the people I work with, and the rest of the fundies, could understand that.

Instead of fearing and hating science, they could dive into it headfirst, discover the answers to all of the questions they had as kids (before they were taught not to question), follow it to the bottom of the ocean, the driest dunes of the Sahara, catch a ride on it to explore other worlds, the wonders are infinite.


The supervisor at my work, the one who was so disturbed by the Hubble photographs on my monitor, has no idea what he's missing.

It's sad, really.

[Ready4Change]

126. I agree

Think sitting on the ground and watching clouds is great? Try flying a private plane amongst scattered clouds dropping snow flurries sometime. Clouds trailing wedding veils of glitter across the landscape. Magical.

I love learning how things work. I love witnessing the complexities of it all, the interactions, conflicts and synergies. To me, knowledge of how things work doesn't make them less wonderful. It increases the wonder of it all. Without knowledge a cloud is a beautiful thing. With knowledge, that beauty expands.

[beam me up scottie]

127. I would love to, it sounds wonderful.

"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.

~Carl Sagan



Carl Sagan agreed with both of us.

[Random_Australian]

134. Sounds wonderful - though you might have to change your sigline now :)

And away from the large scale - back when I was at high school (way out in the country with no-one to talk to, I might add), the one piece of equipment I had was a good optical microscope - and my goodness gracious, I have never looked at meat, fruit, water, insects, or even dirt the same way ever since.

I tell you, taking a small bit of ordinary mango or meat and seeing a whole new world in the simplest things was a wonder to behold. (Also taught me a lot about how light works and how the brain thinks and things, but that is another story).

And the best thing about learning? We can form new things, so many things! From the soft crystals of flavone I made just yesterday, to the double pendulum hanging in the physics hall, people can build things that otherwise would never have come in reach.

And we also found things like self-similarity in chaotic systems..... beat THAT religous* people!

* religious in this context refers strictly to the fundies bmus was talking about in the 'what would God want with a space-ship' thread. :) FYI, I have religious classmates in all my classes, even the very advanced ones, so I don't have strange ideas about whether or not religious people can be scientists. :)

('self-similarity in chaos' refers to what happens when you graph the movements of a chaotic system - it swirls about like crazy in irregular patterns, and then when you zoom in on the graph the most wonderful thing happens - the lines that made up the swirls are still swirling on an ever smaller scale! Keep zooming in, and it keeps looking the same, lines made of swirls made of lines!)

[neebob]

140. Auditory hallucinations

I sometimes "hear" little snippets of voices - not complete sentences, just a few words. Random, nonsensical, innocuous thoughts that pop into my head with more or less audibility. Sometimes male, sometimes female - they're not consistent or recognizable. It doesn't happen every day - just every so often, for as long as I can remember. And now that you mention it, it happens most often when I'm lying down to sleep, but sometimes also when I'm just sitting quietly or going about my business.

I've always been very clear on where these so-called voices come from (i.e., inside my head). It never occurred to me that they might be ghosts or angels or anything like that, because they say stupid, irrelevant things. I wouldn't even call them voices, really.

I've never mentioned this to anyone and have always wondered if other people have these occasional audible thoughts - if it's a normal thing or some kind of extremely mild schizophrenia or what. In any case I can imagine what it's like to hear voices.