Beliefs Conform To Cultural Identities

DallasMay writes "This article describes an experiment that demonstrates that people don't put as much weight on facts as they do their own belief about how the world is supposed to work. From the article: 'In one experiment, Braman queried subjects about something unfamiliar to them: nanotechnology — new research into tiny, molecule-sized objects that could lead to novel products. "These two groups start to polarize as soon as you start to describe some of the potential benefits and harms," Braman says. The individualists tended to like nanotechnology. The communitarians generally viewed it as dangerous. Both groups made their decisions based on the same information. "It doesn't matter whether you show them negative or positive information, they reject the information that is contrary to what they would like to believe, and they glom onto the positive information," Braman says.'"

Comments

A partial solution:

[Ethanol-fueled]

The summary:

"This article describes an experiment that demonstrates that people don't put as much weight on facts as they do their own belief about how the world is supposed to work.

Which is why religion and all other straight-faced magical thinking should be abolished. That would reveal a big chunk of the world's assholes who can no longer point to the cross or to the Qur'an as justification for their actions.

The articles wisely cite valid questions concerning real-life phenominae. That's healthy debate, and it's a sign that hummanity is capable of "moving on". But there still a large number of "my god is better than your god" nyah-nyahs whose idea of healthy debate is killing others who don't agree with them rather than thinking.

Abolishment of religion won't solve all problems, but it has the highest ratio of simplicty-of-suggestion to worldwide-problems-solved.

Re:A partial solution:

[RightwingNutjob]

Worked out great for the Soviets.

Re:A partial solution:

[bmo]

>Which is why religion and all other straight-faced magical thinking should be abolished

As if religion is the only place this occurs or the only reason why people think what they think.

I put it to you that some fringes of environmentalism are *exactly* like religions.

--
BMO

Re:A partial solution:

[corbettw]

You're right, we must crush the intolerant! If people aren't willing to open their minds to new ideas, we'll open their skulls for them, instead!

</sarcasm>

Re:A partial solution:

[TapeCutter]

The fringes of any *ism are dogmatic, that's why they're on the fringes.

Re:A partial solution:

[quarterbuck]

Which is why religion and all other straight-faced magical thinking should be abolished.
My counter-proposition is that if religion is abolished, large tracts of population would disappear. Religion/dogma seems to be the only thing that keeps some people going.
Faced with an alternative of continuing living and committing suicide, what are the options ?
1) Realize that life is as likely to be good as bad, decide to die
2) Hope that life is on average good and continue living.
3) Believe that "god" or "gods" or whatever made will give you good times in future/heaven in return for bad things you suffer and then continue living.
*Buddhism might be an oddity- It seems to believe that life is on average sad, but a "middle path" can lead to happiness
Some preliminary evidence http://www.gallup.com/poll/108625/more-religious-countries-lower-suicide-rates.aspx http://www.springerlink.com/content/rg63kp2jfw8k7e5d/

Re:A partial solution:

[poopdeville]

Buddhism isn't about the middle path. That's a different religion.

Buddhism is a simple "religion" that postulates simple metaphysics wherein you are a monkey that has to eat, sleep, have sex, and so on. Denial of these needs causes suffering. Suffering is inescapable as long as people have these desires. That does not mean people need to try to abandon them, so much as transcend them by living virtuously. Think Greek, and you would be much closer than your crap Taoist comparison.

Re:A partial solution:

[The Famous Brett Wat]

As if religion is the only place this occurs or the only reason why people think what they think.

You start well, but you don't go far enough. It's not just "fringe environmentalism" and other fringes where this is a problem. It's a pervasive problem throughout human thinking generally, and it is just as likely to impact mainstream science as it is the fringes. To compound the problem, humans are notoriously blind to their own biases, tending to think that their evaluation of matters is rather objective and well-founded, and that any reasonable person should come to the same conclusions. This is why people are inclined to label those with radically different views as either mentally incompetent or maliciously deceptive. These two factors intertwine: most people want to believe they are right, and so selectively see the evidence supporting the hypothesis that they are.

The grandparent post used the term "magical thinking" -- a term that I associate with Dr Wallace Breen from Half Life 2. I submit that "magical thinking" is just a rationalist pejorative applied to the thought processes of those with whom they disagree. In other words, "magical thinking" is what those people do: the people who hold fast to some ridiculous theory. After all, thinks the rationalist, I used evidence and reasoning and came to a totally different conclusion, so their methods must consist of woolly thinking at best.

So long as everyone is just arrogant enough to assume that their own reasoning is pretty darn reliable, this problem will persist. Maybe we should all practice a little more recreational sophistry in the hope that it will teach us to take our own straight-faced in-earnest theories a little less seriously.

Re:A partial solution:

[c6gunner]

Worked out great for the Soviets.

Wow, you're the first right-wing-nutjob I've met who can openly admit that. I'm impressed! You're SO going on my friends list!

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_way I can read Pali, so I don't think I am wrong here. There is more than one variant of Buddhism. On the other hand what you said is actually closer to Hinduism -specifically Bhagvat Gita's description of "duty". Do your duty with devotion and you'll attain god/Nirvana.

Re:A partial solution:

[Foobar of Borg]

To compound the problem, humans are notoriously blind to their own biases, tending to think that their evaluation of matters is rather objective and well-founded, and that any reasonable person should come to the same conclusions.

Or, to put it more briefly, most people have the problem of thinking that "I came to my world view logically and it makes perfect, logical sense to me. Therefore, it must be true and anyone who disagrees is illogical." It's very frustrating to deal with people like that.

Re:A partial solution:

[Artifakt]

Abolishment of religion won't solve all problems, but it has the highest ratio of simplicty-of-suggestion to worldwide-problems-solved.

Because, as we all know, the simplest solution is to be preferred, even when it is way to simple to account for the facts. Obvious Troll is Obvious.

Re:A partial solution:

[Ethanol-fueled]

So long as everyone is just arrogant enough to assume that their own reasoning is pretty darn reliable, this problem will persist...

I just added rightwingnutjob as a friend because the rest of his comments made sense to me, even if I don't always agree with him. Same with Moryath and a few others.

Maybe we should all practice a little more recreational sophistry in the hope that it will teach us to take our own straight-faced in-earnest theories a little less seriously.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-- Aristotle

It's all cute when we're on slashdot and we can mentally masturbate all night long. But while there are people knocking on my door tryng to get me to turn to Jesus, people in congress voting for stem-cell research bans, legislators in my country asking to give creationism and "intelligent" design* as much face-time as evolution in science as opposed to philosophy classes, then I can say with a straight face that religion is a problem more than it is a romantic set of ideas; even if its idealogues aren't bombing my busses.

* My nipples, for example.

Re:A partial solution:

[Shadow of Eternity]

Which can be more accurately summed up as "Obey the people who claim to be superior to you, don't try to improve your situation, don't disagree with anyone who has more money/power than you, and maybe after you die you'll come back as one of them".

Re:A partial solution:

[c6gunner]

My counter-proposition is that if religion is abolished, large tracts of population would disappear. Religion/dogma seems to be the only thing that keeps some people going.

You know, I keep hearing that argument, and it's just mind-boggling to me that any intelligent individual could say something so stupid. It's like claiming that abolishing cocaine would cause large tracts of the population to disappear, since cocaine is the the only thing that keeps them going.

Yeah, if you depend on a substance or an ideology, breaking with it is going to be hard. That doesn't mean that you need it to live, or to be happy. It just means you're an addict. If you ditch your addiction, things can only get better.

Re:A partial solution:

[pengin9]

But while there are people knocking on my door tryng to get me to turn to Jesus, people in congress voting for stem-cell research bans, legislators in my country asking to give creationism and "intelligent" design* as much face-time as evolution in science as opposed to philosophy classes, then I can say with a straight face that religion is a problem more than it is a romantic set of ideas; even if its idealogues aren't bombing my busses.

I'd say you've proven the point of this article, your religious beliefs prevent you from accepting alternate arguments based more on your beliefs than actual facts. remember the great song lyrics, if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. really I believe there is no way to be completely impartial towards an idea, but if we at least try to view both sides of the argument as fairly as we can, we can at least come to a better and firmer grasp of why we have beliefs in the first place, or hopefully admit our failures and change our beliefs.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

</sarcasm>

We already know where it ends.

Re:A partial solution:

[pengin9]

I choose to be intolerant of people who are intolerant of my intolerance. I feel this is the best way to live.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

but if we at least try to view both sides of the argument as fairly as we can

Good, I'll behead your entire family, then I'll convince your kids that I shat the whole world out of my ass so they will grow up to behead somebody else's family. But you can understand, right? Just put yourself in my shoes, hombre. Physics is a tool of the devil. Rush sings the Satanic Verses. Rush, Rushdie, who cares. All tools of the devil.

Re:A partial solution:

[mjwx]

Which is why religion and all other straight-faced magical thinking should be abolished.

Because every religion points to a mythical man in the sky and under no circumstances promotes self improvement and consequences for your actions.

If we put a ban on magical thinking, we put a ban on imagination. This is why broad blanket bans are not a good thing, unless of course you are suggesting we become humourless, unimaginative robots (which from my perspective, is a very bad thing).

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux users are too.

Re:A partial solution:

[Conchobair]

X. No man ought to be molested on account of his opinions, not even on account of his religious opinions, provided his avowal of them does not disturb the public order established by the law.

Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man

Re:A partial solution:

[Monty_Lovering]

I suggest you look up the term before discussing it. Magical thinking is "causal reasoning that applies unwarranted weight to coincidence and often includes such ideas as the ability of the mind to affect the physical world (see the philosophical problem of mental causation), and correlation mistaken for causation".

It has nothing to do with imagination in the sense of creativity or the ability to fantasize or appreciate humour.

Magical thinking is when someone insists their grandpa got well because they had a dream wherin he got well. It is not Neil Gaiman, J.R.R. Tolkein, Monty Python or Stevie Hawkins.

Re:A partial solution:

[TapeCutter]

I'm dating your mum.

Re:A partial solution:

[Monty_Lovering]

Poppycock.

There is no recorded instance of anyone "disappearing" when they became an atheist. Most of Europe is effectively atheist and has been for a couple of decades. When I look out my window, I see people - quite what they are doing in my backgarden I don't know :-P

Some unbalanced individuals may commit suicide if they believe their life has no meaning, but the change in paradigm between theism and atheism is such that people realise the meaning given by religion is illusory and that a good life has plenty of meaning even if there is no sky man wizard thing.

Re:A partial solution:

[Torodung]

Logic and reason isn't enough. You have to be a dick to everyone who doesn't think like you. Prepare all the troops! We will level the United Atheist Alliance to the ground!

--
Toro

United Atheist League

Re:A partial solution:

[Monty_Lovering]

Have you even heard of Google? Magical thinking is "causal reasoning that applies unwarranted weight to coincidence and often includes such ideas as the ability of the mind to affect the physical world (see the philosophical problem of mental causation), and correlation mistaken for causation".

First time I've ever seen someone cite a videogame to define a word; or was it the cultural and intellectual heights of a movie based on a video game. Maybe I should Google it, LOL.

Whilst the term can be used as an insult (like idiot) it also has a function definiton (idiot used to be the term for someone with an IQ below 30).

Reasoning may be fallible; the term you take issue with is actually an example of fallible reasoning. It is not about differing opinions on a situation whre there is clear evidence and someone's opinion is wiorthy of respect even if you disagree with it.

Re:A partial solution:

[sonicmerlin]

Good false compromise there buddy:

An individual demonstrating the false compromise fallacy implies that the positions being considered represent extremes of a continuum of opinions, and that such extremes are always wrong, and the middle ground is always correct [1] . This is not always the case. Sometimes only X or Y is acceptable, with no middle ground possible. Additionally, the middle ground fallacy allows any position to be invalidated, even those that have been reached by previous applications of the same method; all one must do is present yet another, radically opposed position, and the middle-ground compromise will be forced closer to that position. In politics, this is part of the basis behind Overton Window Theory.

I suppose you believe we should "consider" the anti-AGW nutjobs` ranting as legitimate, regardless of how unfounded and stupid it is?

Re:A partial solution:

[LingNoi]

But there still a large number of "my god is better than your god" nyah-nyahs whose idea of healthy debate is killing others who don't agree with them rather than thinking.

I doubt religion is the cause for this though. People kill each other over football matches as well as many other things. Getting rid of religion wouldn't solve this problem.

Re:A partial solution:

[Monty_Lovering]

"Abolishment of religion won't solve all problems, but it has the highest ratio of simplicty-of-suggestion to worldwide-problems-solved"

Will this be at gun point oh master? And wither human rights great overlord?

When you vacate your ivory tower can I use it for weddings?

I think religion is really quite harmful, but I live in the real world. Religion will wither, very slowly. It cannot be abolihed without the abolishers becoming as bad as the worst of religionists.

Re:A partial solution:

[LingNoi]

Buddhism is no different from any other religion.

Budda is right about everything, say bad things about budda then you get bad things happen to you / be reincarnated as a worm / or the worse; you go to hell.

Sure, there is a lot of differences with the rest of it however the basics are exactly the same as everything else.

Re:A partial solution:

[Bjecas]

So long as everyone is just arrogant enough to assume that their own reasoning is pretty darn reliable, this problem will persist.

I enjoyed reading you post, and agree with what you say but for one aspect. One is not arrogant for believing one's reasoning is reliable, that is a necessity and a consequence of reasoning itself.

The problem (if there is one...) lies in other areas, mostly in how much one weights each fact involved. That is where culture and beliefs come into play, and it's this differential value that allows for disparate, but valid, reasoning.

Re:A partial solution:

[williamhb]

Which is why religion and all other straight-faced magical thinking should be abolished. That would reveal a big chunk of the world's assholes who can no longer point to the cross or to the Qur'an as justification for their actions.

The articles wisely cite valid questions concerning real-life phenominae. That's healthy debate, and it's a sign that hummanity is capable of "moving on". But there still a large number of "my god is better than your god" nyah-nyahs whose idea of healthy debate is killing others who don't agree with them rather than thinking.

Abolishment of religion won't solve all problems, but it has the highest ratio of simplicty-of-suggestion to worldwide-problems-solved.

So are you going to present your rigorous peer-reviewed empirical study of "simplicity-of-suggestion" against "worldwide-problems-solved" for different life-decision strategies? Or is that just a bit of evidence-free fanciful (magical?) thinking of your own? It'd be very interesting to see your rigorous peer-reviewed and widely accepted definition of "problems-solved" for starters...
 

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

And I can read English. Call me a fundamentalist Buddhist if you want. Siddhartha said very many specific things. Thousands of years of reinterpretation don't add much in my eyes. Especially since his meaning was so simple and original, and can be lost so easily.

Then again, I can appreciate concepts such as life as the samsara. It is a nice abstraction. Reflecting on it can take you places.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, you say we all must follow your religion (what you obviously consider the one true religion), atheism. You say we have to "Abolish" all other religions, i.e., those that do not agree with your belief system. What makes you any different than "those who point to the cross or to the Qur'an as justification for their actions?"

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

> it is just as likely to impact mainstream science as it is the fringe.

Hardly. That's precisely what experimentation is for. You just keep thinking that those approaches are as valid as any other, just because they're also beliefs, and we'll see how well your programs work and your bridges stand up.

Re:A partial solution:

[ffflala]

Htf do you propose to abolish thinking, even if it is of the magical sort?

Oh, you want to abolish religion? Great! Well just jot that down as a new law in every country, and I'm sure everyone will obey.

Re:A partial solution:

[bit9]

You start well, but go too far.

With regard to biased thinking being a pervasive problem, you are spot on. However, you throw the baby out with the bath water when you assert that all human thought is hopelessly biased, and that rationalism (and presumably, all other epistemological frameworks as well) is nothing more than a convenient way to disguise one's biases. If that's true, then science, philosophy, and all other human endeavors which involve the pursuit of truth and knowledge are merely various forms of bias masquerading as rational thought. I don't deny that we humans are all, by our very nature, incapable of 100% pure rational thought. However, most of us are, at least, capable of short spurts of mostly rational thought. Unless you believe that all of mankind's progress over the last few thousand years can be attributed to the "monkeys with typewriters" effect, I don't see how you can conclude that rationalism and biased thinking are merely two sides of the same coin.

Furthermore, both you and the grandparent completely misused the term "magical thinking". Magical thinking is not merely a synonym for bias, it is (in the words of the Wiki article) "causal reasoning that applies unwarranted weight to coincidence and often includes such ideas as the ability of the mind to affect the physical world (see the philosophical problem of mental causation), and correlation mistaken for causation."

Re:A partial solution:

[GNT]

Uh no -- The First Commandment - Thou Shalt Check the Contents of Thy Mind and Thy Reasoning Against Reality. It is precisely those who don't use evidence and reasoning that are the problem. If you use both you realize quite quickly that quantum mechanics, aeronautical engineering and medicine are sciences, whereas astrology, environmentalism and voodoo aren't. The same thing goes for Austrian Economics vs Socialism. Etc Etc Etc ad nauseam ad infinitum.

Re:A partial solution:

[slimjim8094]

This is why logic should be a required part of high school. Perhaps not coincidentally, your sig fits what I'm about to say perfectly.

Humans can, and do, come to conclusions without bias. We see this a lot in science (by no means always), and we see it in mathematics etc. In other words, there are some things to be 'right' about - but more importantly, our obviously flawed thought processes can come to them.

A mathematical proof that sqrt(2) is not rational, or the infinitude of primes, is simply true - assuming you take as a given the rules of mathematics (a reasonable assumption). Our brains are therefore capable of devising such incontrovertible statements and reasons - but how?

I submit that we can only improve our reasoning abilities by learning our mental weaknesses - that is, being able to go over a mental argument and methodically examine all sources of bias. This would be required by a logic class.

Logic teaches you how to think. If everybody knew how to think, we wouldn't have any of the associated junk like PETA, fear of "death panels", or any of this Creationism crap.

But so few people actually know how to think. It's really the only way we can rise above our capricious biology.

Re:A partial solution:

[slimjim8094]

I'm not so sure I care. I'm an atheist, but was raised Catholic. I didn't disappear - I just realized that we turn to dust when we die, there's no reason behind anything, and we should make the most of our lives. It might be depressing if I wasn't happy with my life and how I'm leading it.

Going off heroin can kill you too. And I even concede that in a hypothetical world where religion disappeared one night, people might kill themselves. But the next generation would be raised with no ingrained religious misconceptions about the world, so the benefit would come fairly quickly.

In any case, how many religious people kill themselves because their life sucks, and it occurs to them that their lifelong friend God couldn't possibly be on their side?

Re:A partial solution:

[robably]

You can't just remove religion and cocaine and then expect irrational beliefs and addictive behaviour to go away. You are taking away the symptoms and expecting the causes to disappear.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

isms are dogmatic.. they all gloss over their inconsistencies to pretend they are 'the truth'.

Re:A partial solution:

[1s44c]

You're right, we must crush the intolerant! If people aren't willing to open their minds to new ideas, we'll open their skulls for them, instead!

</sarcasm>

Curshing ignorance isn't the same as crushing ignorant people.

Re:A partial solution:

[KDR_11k]

Worked decently, ex-soviet areas indeed have a lower rate of believers than the west. I suppose if they had existed for a few hundred years religion would indeed have vanished in those areas. Well, unless you count extreme political views as a religion.

Re:A partial solution:

[1s44c]

Abolishment of religion won't solve all problems, but it has the highest ratio of simplicty-of-suggestion to worldwide-problems-solved.

Because, as we all know, the simplest solution is to be preferred, even when it is way to simple to account for the facts. Obvious Troll is Obvious.

Removing the biggest tool for public manipulation from those who would use it sounds good to me.

If you have a better solution to the countless world problems please let us know.

Re:A partial solution:

[1s44c]

But there still a large number of "my god is better than your god" nyah-nyahs whose idea of healthy debate is killing others who don't agree with them rather than thinking.

I doubt religion is the cause for this though. People kill each other over football matches as well as many other things. Getting rid of religion wouldn't solve this problem.

Of course it won't solve the problem. It will reduce it by a considerable amount though.

Most wars in history have been motivated at least in part by 'my god is better than your god'.

Re:A partial solution:

[KDR_11k]

We saw "intelligent" design, we decided it's fucking stupid because its claims are a mixture of baseless and useless. That's a fair assessment.

Re:A partial solution:

[Nathrael]

I guess that'd make us even.

Re:A partial solution:

[Tomfrh]

Well, yeah, when you systematically slaughter millions of priests, nuns and clergy and burn down all the churches, you tend to "solve" the problem of religion to some degree...

Re:A partial solution:

[KDR_11k]

Generally if an argument includes a "global conspiracy" (like a "global conspiracy to destroy the American economy" or a "global conspiracy to destroy technological advance") we can safely dismiss it. Conspiracies are harder and harder to maintain the bigger the number of involved people becomes and involving 90% of the globe would be impossible. Besides, if the rest of the world wanted to destroy the American economy wouldn't a trade war work better than appealing to the ethics of politicians?

Re:A partial solution:

[dangitman]

Which is why religion and all other straight-faced magical thinking should be abolished.

I'm as big an atheist as anyone, but the way you phrased this sent shivers down my spine. I'd love it if religion and magical thinking went by the wayside because people decided of their own free will that it was bunk, but saying it "should be abolished" implies an active destruction that doesn't bode so well if you think about history.

It's also scary because so many religious fundamentalists (who outnumber the atheists) believe in abolishing the atheists. And they don't intend to do it peacefully.

Re:A partial solution:

[KDR_11k]

Very few people are exposed to actual facts, all they get is hearsay. Makes it easy to create an impression that the facts show something that's not the case. Obviously wrong facts lead to wrong conclusions.

Re:A partial solution:

[h4rm0ny]

Don't you love it when you get modded Flamebait by people who can't even notice obvious details... like usernames.

Re:A partial solution:

[KDR_11k]

I think he takes issue with "simple". We're talking about a meme, if you don't eradicate it completely it will regrow. Religious people believe their religion to be good and will try to convert more people to it (especially their children), as long as a few of them remain the religion can regrow. Since religion can be seated pretty deeply in one's worldview it's going to be pretty hard to remove religion from the population without applying brain surgery.

Re:A partial solution:

[KDR_11k]

Religion is a vector for manipulation, whether atheism is right or not doesn't matter, it matters that atheism does not postulate that certain people should have power over you.

Re:A partial solution:

[bit9]

I'd say you've proven the point of this article, your religious beliefs prevent you from accepting alternate arguments ...

I'd say you missed the point of the article, which was not that all viewpoints are equally valid, and that therefore, the only mechanism by which Person A could possibly dismiss Person B's viewpoint is by being blinded by his own biases. The point of the article was that people will ignore facts that don't jive with their own biases. In the case of the grandparent dismissing Christianity, exactly what facts has he ignored? There are no facts that support religion. Religion is based purely on faith, and survives only through indoctrination, not by any preponderance of facts or evidence.

Yet, you've managed to interpret TFA as meaning that anybody who dismisses another's ideas and/or beliefs, regardless of their rationale for doing so, is guilty of succumbing to their own biases. This implies that there is no such thing as a logical basis for dismissing an idea, which necessarily means that all ideas are equally valid. And since there are many conflicting ideas, this also implies, somewhat paradoxically, that all ideas are equally invalid. In other words, it's all relative, there is no such thing as truth, and basically, anything goes (except for dismissing someone else's idea, that is).

I'm sure that this is not, in fact, the meaning you intended, but it is the logical conclusion of what you said. Yes, "try[ing] to view both sides of the argument as fairly as we can" is a good thing, indeed. But at some point, you have to allow for there to be disagreement, or else it just devolves into the morass of relativism I described above, which means, for instance, that ancient beliefs about volcanoes and earthquakes being caused by angry gods are just as "correct" as the modern science of plate-tectonics. That's a bunch of crap, if you ask me. But then, I suppose you could just conveniently counter that I'm only dismissing the "angry gods" theory because I'm blinded by my own biases regarding plate-tectonics.

Further, you assert that the grandparent's views on religion are "based more on [his] beliefs than actual facts", which blindly assumes that you know what his line of reasoning was, even though he did not address that in his post. Calling someone out on their poor reasoning skills and their closed-mindedness, when you have in fact assumed (i.e., completely fabricated) what his line of reasoning was, and are apparently no more open to his religious beliefs than he is to yours? Really??? That just reeks of hypocrisy!

Re:A partial solution:

[Jedi Alec]

Most wars in history have been motivated at least in part by 'my god is better than your god'.

Motivated or excused?

Re:A partial solution:

[KDR_11k]

He points at reality as a justification for his opinion. Religion is an easy vector for manipulation (crusades for example have no direct foundation in the Bible but the clergy was able to use their higher status that the religion gave them to make people do their bidding). To close this vector of manipulation people must not believe that any higher being has direct or indirect authority over them because otherwise manipulators can disguise their orders as being authorized by that higher being. Posing as an official of the law gets you arrested, posing as an official of the faith gets you a free pass on "freedom of religion". If that higher being struck down anybody who misrepresented his own claims as those of the higher being we wouldn't need measures like that.

Re:A partial solution:

[hairyfeet]

Abolishing religion wouldn't do squat, as like Scientology you would just have folks making up something else to believe in. This is nothing but herd mentality, and as in any herd there are a lot more sheep than their are wolves to lead. Obligatory MiB quote "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

While there are those that could accept that life has a beginning and an end, that there is no "sky bully" that gives them a condo in the clouds, there are plenty of others that would go completely batshit if forced to accept such a premise. The only reason you don't have more nuts ramming themselves into buildings or climbing on bell towers is they fear the sky bully and the undiscovered country that is the afterlife. Take away that fear? Well I'm reminded of an old saying "If God did not exist we would be forced to create him" and sadly that is true.

Re:A partial solution:

[GrubLord]

Well, yeah, when you systematically slaughter millions of priests, nuns and clergy and burn down all the churches, you tend to "solve" the problem of religion to some degree...

You'd think an all-powerful God might have something to say about all that priest-killing...

What's the church's stance on God's inaction there, anyway? They had it coming?

Re:A partial solution:

[sictransitgloriacfa]

Really? Didn't work out that way in England.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anachragnome]

"There is no recorded instance of anyone "disappearing" when they became an atheist."

Whew. Thank God. I was starting to get a little worried.

Re:A partial solution:

[erroneus]

I think some religious people who are not members of that "specific" religious lineage and evolution would say "god punished them for being wrong" or something to that effect. Those who are members of that specific branch would say "god is testing us."

It's all scripted and covers all contingencies except for extra-terrestrial alien invasion.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anci3nt of Days]

Teaching logic is vital to any form of critical reasoning or argument construction. It would have been an excellent idea except that it doesn't fit with the current 'teach you what we want you to believe' curriculum. Be it the current 'science is everything' position, or pastafarianism, the approach fails when it attempts to dictate what to think.

Logic itself is insufficient as it can only confirm the logical validity of an opinion, never its accuracy. I'll illustrate by following your reasoning: you hypothesise that we can improve reasoning by examining bias; you assert that humans can come to conclusions without bias; you assume the rules of mathematics apply (reasonable I agree); you apply those rules to a mathematical problem to propose that a statement is 'simply true'; you extrapolate that we therefore can devise statements that are incontrovertible (that is, 'not false'); thus you prove your assertion; then extrapolate to prove your hypothesis for all statements made without bias.

Logic demonstrates the validity of your reasoning, showing each progression. It does not demonstrate that the final position itself is correct, only that it is not incorrect. Logic may demonstrate that I am not incorrect in believing evolution, pastafarianism, or love, but not that the statement 'all should worship his noodleage' is correct.

I think that if people knew how to think, you would have more of the PETA etc groups as everyone would have their own, logically valid positions on every issue. The issue isn't the logical process (although that weeds out some pseudo-scientific positions), but that logic requires a final position that is either true or false, and we have chosen to reject the idea that any source may dictate or define absolute truth. This requires us to 'prove' the absolute truth on any issue, which is only possible by testing every hypothesis - which is impossible.

Improving logic skills would be excellent, but until there is proven absolute truth (currently only possible in maths), all logic can show is that you are validly uncertain.

Re:A partial solution:

[CordableTuna]

I only read the last line of your comment and let me tell you, I have *never* looked so hard for an asterisk before.

Re:A partial solution:

[erroneus]

While I have decided there are no god(s) or other magical beings in control of our lives or otherwise in existence, I have not yet given up on the notion of moving things with the power of my mind. That television remote or the drinks in my fridge are simply too far from where I am at any given moment to allow me to give up on the idea. God won't bring me a beer because he doesn't exist. I'm okay with that. But I have not fully exhausted my attempts at using my own mental powers to move desired objects closer to me.

Re:A partial solution:

[bit9]

You know, I keep hearing that argument, and it's just mind-boggling to me that any intelligent individual could say something so stupid. It's like claiming that abolishing cocaine would cause large tracts of the population to disappear, since cocaine is the the only thing that keeps them going.

I'm not saying I buy the GP's argument (at least not completely), but I think you vastly underestimate how important religion is to some people. The cocaine=religion analogy doesn't really stand up very well under scrutiny. And I'm not merely making the obvious observation that all analogies are flawed and fall apart if you examine them closely enough - I'm saying this one is worse than most.

Yes, many people who are addicted to cocaine may actually feel that they cannot live without the drug. But religion is not merely a drug - it is intertwined with all of the most important unanswerable questions in life. Does life have purpose? Is there such a thing as The Truth? Is there life after death? Will I see my lost loved ones again someday? Is there justice in this world? Will good ultimately prevail over evil? Why must there be so much suffering?

As an agnostic, I am used to having my religious friends and family members say that I'm just taking the easy way out. To them, no God means no responsibility, no sense of duty, no moral quandaries, no church on Sunday, etc, etc. However, as I'm sure many agnostics can tell you, being an agnostic is anything but easy. All of those Big Unanswerable Questions weigh heavily on you - much more so than for religious people who've found all of those questions conveniently answered by their religion of choice. Meanwhile, I've spent nearly my entire life being constantly tormented by those questions. Some mornings, I find it excruciatingly difficult to drag myself out of bed, because I'm desperately trying to figure out "What the fuck is the point of all this?" Don't confuse this with depression. I am not merely depressed. In fact, most days, I don't feel depressed at all. I enjoy life. But those questions are always there, always eating away at me, making it difficult to function at times.

I'm not trying to sound "deep" or compare myself to philosophers like Tolstoy who were nearly driven mad by those questions. I'm merely observing that life is difficult enough already without the struggle to find meaning. With that struggle, life can be unbearable at times. And for a lot of people, religion is the only thing that can fill that void and make life worth living, or at least seem to be so. I get the whole "religion is just a crutch for weak minds" thing. I really do. I felt that way in my early 20's. But I'm in my late 30's now, and all those questions have been a heavy burden on me in the intervening years. So although I'm still as much of an agnostic as I ever was, much of my arrogance has been replaced with understanding. My agnosticism is no longer something that makes me feel superior. In many ways, I actually envy my religious friends, and if I could force myself to believe in God, I probably would. Don't think I haven't tried - numerous times. I'm just not wired for faith, it seems.

Anyway, the point is, given how deeply intertwined religion is with those things which weigh most heavily on the human mind (or "soul", if you believe there is one), I don't think the cocaine analogy, nor the implied addiction model of religious belief, even come close to explaining why people adhere so steadfastly to religion. It's a LOT deeper and a LOT more complicated than you give it credit for.

Re:A partial solution:

[shutdown -p now]

Well, I see BadAnalogyGuy getting modded down for bad analogies all the time...

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

As if religion is the only place this occurs or the only reason why people think what they think.

I put it to you that some fringes of environmentalism are *exactly* like religions.

BFD. Religion and environmnentalism are just two of many influences which heavil;y weigh upon people's attitudes about new "facts".

First off, whose "facts"? You don't have to engage in ad homimem or ad auctoritatem thinking to evaluate new information differently from someone else. Your individual experiences are just as important as any other factors.

Just lok at the issues around health care, credit card regulation or insurance regulation. People form opinions almost exclusively on the basis of their own experience or their own self-interest. There are damned few "facts" presented by either side that aren't subject to interpretation.

Look at the recent JCoS opinions on "don't ask; don't tell". All but the head guy want it kept as is. They use the same tired, old arguments, appealing to "unit cohesion", which is just a euphemism for, "If they aren't just like me, I won't trust them." The solution comes down to, "Let's study this for another year", which is exactly the same as the salesman's basic principle -- "As long as you can kieep the other guy talking, you haven't lost the sale."

We all know that every time law enforcement refers to something as "this valuable tool", they're just trying to extend their ability to gather information with diminished judicial oversight. And the other side knows their privacy concerns are just being blown off "for the children".

CALEA requires that any new communications technology can be impolemented only with LE-accessible backdoors. In a rational society, the emphasis would be just the opposite -- citizens should be able to acquire new technology to enhance their privacy. Instead, it's like gun laws which allow you to have a gun only if it can't be used for self defense within less than two minutes for re-assembly and access to ammunition kept separately.

I know of a situation where a visiting nurses association had two things going at the same time -- trying desperately to get through re-certification at a time when they were in deep shit due to sloppy record-keeping and a simultaneous attempt by employees at unionization.

Management pleaded that they needed to concentrtate on certification issues "without other distractions", implying that after certification, they'd pay attention to employee concerns. Employees backed off, certification was accomplished and manageement then had time to blow off the unionization effort by laying off the chief organizers.

Any wonder the sides have little regard for the "facts" presented by the other side? Management knew damned well the dissention in the ranks would impede certification, so they conned employees into cooling it just long enough to get what they wanted. Since the emp;oyees were subsequently cut back on hours and hourly rates (those who weren't fired), they'd have been about as well off to torpedo certification and bring management down with themselves.

Hah! captcha = fingered

Re:A partial solution:

[PakProtector]

As a member of an obscure sect of the Rinzai School of Zen, I would smack you upside the head if I were in your presence.

The Buddha was a man. You must judge his ideas and opinions yourself to determine their validity to your particular situation, experience, and temperament.

If we're going with things that Siddhartha Gautama is said to have said, look at the last three things he said before he died:

• That was the most delicious meal I have ever eaten.
• Do not pray to me when I am gone, for when I am gone, I truly shall be gone.
• Be lamps unto yourselves; work out your own salvation with diligence.

The Buddha was right about everything, and he was right about absolutely nothing. His words are perfect, and they are absolute shit. They cannot exist in a vacuum, and must be realised for what lies beyond their meaning in a human mind to have any value.

Re:A partial solution:

[Evtim]

As a former citizen of a totalitarian state, let me be the first to ask:

Citation needed!

And even if you dig up some I still won't buy it because I was there, my parents and grandparents were there too. I know, you just talk....
Sure, there was a killing of intellectuals and some of them were priests, but most were not. Teachers, scholars, generals, aristocracy - they all suffered. BTW, in 10 years the allegedly killed people by Stalin rose from a few million to (don't laugh) 100 million! I have seen such ridiculous numbers from "respectable" sources and most people in the west are conditioned to believe any bullshit about the communist you care to concoct.

Killing and burning churches never works in the long run. If it did, Christianity would have never survived (remember, 2000 years ago the Christians were minority!). You might want to dig up my post about the Ottoman empire and see to what lenghts they went to extinguish christianity in our land. They had 482 years to do so and failed! Because action cause reaction. People started to identify their nationality via their faith. The church was poor and harassed and guess what - they produced great people and did a lot of good in those dark ages. After they got their power back all went to HELL.You can never keep people slaves forever - you always fail.

The trick that the communist applied was more clever than just killing - they simply discouraged people to go to church. You could go to church (yes, you really could - I have been to a church every Easter and every Christmas, mostly because my grandma was a bit religious. No one ever stopped us, no one came knocking on the door. In school people wore crosses below their shirts and no one said anything). 3 generations aftfer communism was established in my country almost everyone was an atheist. Which is exactly what this article is all about. Repeat after me - if I am not reminded DAILY even hourly that I am a believer I will cease to be one - this counts for the vast majority of people. Religion is a meme and you can diminish its influence in the same way you would do it with genes - you prevent the spreading.

I am forever grateful to the communist for one thing only (in general I despise them) - they showed empirically that a particular religion is NOT something natural, something that is inheritable human. Spirituality - yes! It comes from the realization of one's own mortality - nothing new, just read a bit of philosophy. Particular religion however - NO! Nobody is born christian , muslim or jew - you are MADE one and you have no choice. Which is abuse of human nature and damages your free will to an extent that is unrepairable. The communist tried to replace religion with faith in the Party and the system but that ideology had such a vast gap between intentions and reality that it was self defeating. It never did catch up with people. Everyone who tells you that the common people believed in the system is fucking liar!

So at the end, a generation emerged which had limited if none exposure to the most popular belief systems and the "substitute" did not work so we got the perfect secular, scientific, civil generation. I am one of those people - everyone (+/- 5 years my age) around me during all my life is being one - at school, at university, at work. The very new generations are already lost - 2 fucking days after the wall collapsed I saw Mormons on the streets! TWO fucking days, people! Then followed all the sects - there was an explosion of kids running from home, drug abuse, suicide...parents went crazy! One of our prime ministers (democrat and very strong anti-communist) refused permission to enter the country to a sect leader who was legally recognized and pampered in the whole western world and he wanted to sue us in den Hague! Man, if I could just have 5 minutes with this arrogant asshole alone!!!

So, I am sorry my friend but you are not in possessions of the facts, neither (I suspect) you want to be. Millions of nuns my ass - check how much the population of the country was at the time, if you claim to be intelligent (posting on \. is a statement after all), estimate how many priest there were and then talk crap! You just might end up with minus 1 000 000 figure there.....

Re:A partial solution:

[Monty_Lovering]

Yah, well good luck with that.

Never observed under controlled circumstances, no known mechanism for it to happen.

Doesn't mean it is impossible, but the possibility has yet to be satisfacorily demonstrated.

That is, outside of getting your brain to fire the required muscles to shift your lazy ass to the fridge, open the door, and return to couch with beer.

Ah, the power of the mind!

Re:A partial solution:

[Hognoxious]

Some might argue that the cult of the totalitarian state is a religion in all but name. It has a lot of the trappings - veneration of the leader, symbology & vocabulary, demanding unquestioning obedience.

Re:A partial solution:

[ThaReetLad]

This is not constrained to formal organised religion, but is instead universal to anyone who has any worldview, and that includes atheists. What makes you think that somehow atheists hold an privileged position where they alone have access to the truth, and how is that unjustifiable belief any different to any other form of belief, or that somehow they have direct access to reality with it being altered by their beliefs?
In other words, those who self identify as members of religious organisations are no different than anyone else when it comes to interpreting facts through the filter of their worldview, and yet you appear to be asserting the supremacy of yours which is ironic, given that when a religious person does that you would call it bigotry.

Can I recommend "The Reason For God", by Tim Keller, as it delves more deeply into the inconsistencies of such a belief.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, even if it was true I'm not convinced that a large portion of the population- the portion incapable of independent and rational thought, it actually a bad thing.

Humanity has overpopulation problems in most the world anyway.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank goodness I don't have mod points!

Re:A partial solution:

[Sique]

It's not that easy. East Germany didn't slaughter many priests and nuns (just made their lives really hard), and now it's the most atheist region of the world, with more than 60% of the population not reporting any religion at all (next in line is Israel with 25% atheists).

Re:A partial solution:

[Sique]

I heard they even have an application^W religion for that.

Re:A partial solution:

[imakemusic]

Improving logic skills would be excellent, but until there is proven absolute truth (currently only possible in maths), all logic can show is that you are validly uncertain.

Well that'd be a start...

Re:A partial solution:

[imakemusic]

Have you ever been addicted to cocaine?

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I know that religion is all the keeps me going. If I were to stop believing in a great cause for the universe, I would end my life. Not really into the whole one god thing ether though. I don't see why you would bother to be honest or not just became a drug addict. The way I see it is if we are all just randomly created gloried computers why not? Does anyone get upset about turning off a computer no, do people worry about what computers think no. So why not have slavery if people are just random computers their feels are irrelevant anyway. Protect the environment, why bother just don't mess it up too much before I die. Rape women and children why not? if a computer tells you not to delete the files but you feel like deleting the files you just force the computer to do it anyway. Next your going to say how where all human and we won't want to be treated like slaves but computers sympathizing with other computers that's just stupid. And once there dead there not going to know the difference between if they were slaves or master anyway. But the best reason to believe in something beyond what is easily provable is that science it self tells you that it is wrong. No thing can come from nothing yet that it basically what science tries to tell us with the big bang and the moments just before. My favorite is those who tell there kids not to ask what was before the big bang, it's just as crazy as any other religious belief to think there was nothing and then everything.

Re:A partial solution:

[Tomfrh]

That's a little unfair. Many religious people I've spoken to grapple with the so-called "problem of pain". It actually ranks rather highly amongst the reasons people become atheists.

To say that "it's all scripted" really isn't true...

Re:A partial solution:

[ultranova]

The summary:

"This article describes an experiment that demonstrates that people don't put as much weight on facts as they do their own belief about how the world is supposed to work.

Which is why religion and all other straight-faced magical thinking should be abolished. That would reveal a big chunk of the world's assholes who can no longer point to the cross or to the Qur'an as justification for their actions.

The summary says that people believe what they want to believe and don't believe what they don't want to believe. You draw from this the conclusion that religion is evil and should be abolished (

Someone who wants to be an asshole will always find a justification, even if he has to twist the facts to do so. That's what the summary was all about. You, on the other hand, twisted this to support your believe that religion should be abolished. I suppose that's irony...

But there still a large number of "my god is better than your god" nyah-nyahs whose idea of healthy debate is killing others who don't agree with them rather than thinking.

And you're either one of them, or unbelievably naive about human nature. Or do you honestly think that anyone is going to stop believing anything just because you declare religion abolished?

Abolishment of religion won't solve all problems, but it has the highest ratio of simplicty-of-suggestion to worldwide-problems-solved.

Yes, in exactly the same way as abolishing the First Law of Thermodynamics is the simplest way of solving the problems with our energy supply.

Seriously, were you living up to your name when you wrote that?

Re:A partial solution:

[digitig]

Which is why religion and all other straight-faced magical thinking should be abolished.

A foolish and naive idea. You will never be able to abolish Mac v. PC arguments!

Re:A partial solution:

[digitig]

Sure it worked decently: the intellectual standards, the freedom and the overall quality of life are so much better in Russia than the USA, aren't they? Er...

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, a great way to marginalize people is to declare them a member of some *ism, so that their stance can be easily dismissed.

Re:A partial solution:

[Ginger Unicorn]

Education is far more effective than prohibition. It always far more practical and effective to convince, rather than coerce - otherwise you are herding cats. Forcing people to behave a certain way against their will is unsustainable and expensive and creates way more problems than it solves. Look at alcohol prohibition or the "war" on drugs. It costs a fortune, criminalises harmless people and creates a criminal underworld, and exacerbates the problems that it purports to combat.

Religion is a symptom of irrational thinking, not a cause. Trying to deconvert people is treating the symptom - giving the general population a solid education in logical and rational thinking would empower them to be less easily mislead by rhetorical manipulation. This would improve society across the board.

Of course this likely won't eliminate religion, but that is not necessary and anyone that is calling for it is, frankly, thinking like a totalitarian control freak. People need to be empowered with more decision making tools and left to make their own choices. I would bet that religious extremism and religious interference in politics would be reduced to inconsequential levels if this was the case.

Re:A partial solution:

[MrHanky]

Certainly. And the same goes for mainstream economics.

Re:A partial solution:

[ChienAndalu]

Rationalism and and anti-dogmatism?

Re:A partial solution:

[jedrek]

Yeah, that's just wrong... check the Eurostat report on religion (page 11). At a quick glance there's 6-7 countries with non-religious rates > 25% just in the EU. 33% of the french say they flat out don't believe in a god or higher life force. Only 16% of estonians believe in a god.

Re:A partial solution:

[Wain13001]

did you just miss the 2 whole paragraphs where he talks about 'faith in the Party?'

Re:A partial solution:

[digitig]

I submit that we can only improve our reasoning abilities by learning our mental weaknesses - that is, being able to go over a mental argument and methodically examine all sources of bias. This would be required by a logic class.

Logic teaches you how to think. If everybody knew how to think, we wouldn't have any of the associated junk like PETA, fear of "death panels", or any of this Creationism crap.

But so few people actually know how to think. It's really the only way we can rise above our capricious biology.

I'm in favour of teaching logic (I would extend it to critical thinking) in schools, but I see two problems with your view of the effect it will have.

Firstly, just because somebody is taught something doesn't mean that they will end up any good at it. My daughter was taught German in school, but still can't buy a postage stamp using German. Teach all the logic you like, many -- I suspect most -- still won't be much good at it.

Secondly, you're wrongly assuming that things like ID are the result of logic failures. They're not. Some proponents of ID are highly competent logicians. Logic takes you from premises to a conclusion, and if you start from different premises then you can legitimately arrive at different conclusions.

The main people who would suffer as a result of an improvement in the population's critical thinking are politicians and advertisers (so don't expect it to happen any time soon). PETA (different values to the mainstream) and Creationism (different assumptions to the mainstream -- the /. mainstream at least) would be pretty much unaffected.

Re:A partial solution:

[Rich0]

If you use both you realize quite quickly that quantum mechanics, aeronautical engineering and medicine are sciences,

Uh, have you actually looked at the methods used in medicine? Medical research done on mice is science. Medicine as practiced on humans is well-informed artistry with lots of tradition acting as governance. That isn't meant as a condemnation - the ethical constraints practitioners operate under greatly inhibits their ability to do real science.

Even the best clinical trials tend to show what would in most other fields be considered tenuous results. Based on their confidence limits we can already assume that 5% of the BEST trials reach completely incorrect conclusions. All doctors can do is make the most of the information that reaches them - science-based medicine is better than the alternative, but it is still limited which is why medicine progresses slower than say, electrical engineering.

The problem with medicine is the same problem we have with environmentalism. In both cases we can't perform well-controlled experiments. In the former it is due to ethical issues, and in the latter it is due to having only a single test subject.

Re:A partial solution:

[Wain13001]

agreed...Religion is much more like Heroin

Re:A partial solution:

[Sique]

I wonder how East Germany continues to exist, given that 60% of the populace there is not affiliated with any religion at all.

Re:A partial solution:

[Sique]

Then my stats are somewhat outdated (at least 10 years old). So I'll put East Germany then at 80% and Israel at 40% (numbers pulled out of my ass).

Re:A partial solution:

[digitig]

Removing the biggest tool for public manipulation from those who would use it sounds good to me.

That would be either sex or national identity, then. Good luck with your attempts to remove them.

Re:A partial solution:

[digitig]

He points at his understanding of reality as a justification for his opinion.

Fixed that for ya.

Re:A partial solution:

[dov_0]

The summary:

"This article describes an experiment that demonstrates that people don't put as much weight on facts as they do their own belief about how the world is supposed to work.

Which is why religion and all other straight-faced magical thinking should be abolished. That would reveal a big chunk of the world's assholes who can no longer point to the cross or to the Qur'an as justification for their actions. The articles wisely cite valid questions concerning real-life phenominae. That's healthy debate, and it's a sign that hummanity is capable of "moving on". But there still a large number of "my god is better than your god" nyah-nyahs whose idea of healthy debate is killing others who don't agree with them rather than thinking. Abolishment of religion won't solve all problems, but it has the highest ratio of simplicty-of-suggestion to worldwide-problems-solved.

Actually it's got a lot less to do with religion or airy-fairyness and more to do with the way we identify ourselves and integrate into the universe around us. In Anthropology it is called Worldview. The mass of assumptions, allegiances etc that guide how we interact with the world and who we identify ourselves to be and with whom we allign ourselves. This study is really nothing new at all and only proves work done in the 1980's.

Re:A partial solution:

[ultranova]

With regard to biased thinking being a pervasive problem, you are spot on. However, you throw the baby out with the bath water when you assert that all human thought is hopelessly biased, and that rationalism (and presumably, all other epistemological frameworks as well) is nothing more than a convenient way to disguise one's biases.

No system of beliefs is just a convenient way of disguising one's biases, but all of them can be. It's entirely possible to use, say, science to excuse being an asshole; eugenics is a perfect example of that.

The problem is that people who don't share a particular system of beliefs tend to not understand how anyone could believe it, and jump to the conclusion that they don't really do, but are merely pretending to in order to excuse their inexcusable behavior. This isn't helped at all that all such systems have people who believe them but don't understand them, yet feel the need to defend them; rationalism and science are perhaps the worst off here, due to their complexity.

The end result is people dismissing all arguments against their beliefs because they are usually made by people who 1) think the people they talk to are evil demagogues to be defeat or gullible sheep to be rescued and nobody wants to be treated that way and 2) don't understand why anyone would believe the system and thus usually end up arguing against strawmen of their own making, which is amuzing to watch but won't convince anyone.

All this means that it's very difficult to discuss any given belief system rationally; either your audience agrees with you, in which case it becomes an intellectual circlejerk, or they don't, in which case it ends up with you talking down to them or outright attacking them for being idiots, or there are both amongst them, in which case it becomes a free-for-all strawmen vs. insults brawl. Just look at the post that began this thread: it calmly suggests "abolishing" religion, in other words, forcing everyone to conform to the poster's beliefs. Is it any wonder that his would-be victims look at him and all that share his views with suspicion, just like he looks at them?

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

And who decides what thinking gets abolished? You? Score 5- Insightful? Really? I guess the article is right. This coming from the group that is always claiming "Information wants to be free". It wants to be free as long as you want to hear it. Who will police information to make sure it isn't propaganda? Will we have an agency that goes after just Fox News or will it also include MSNBC and CNN? Will it only go after Christianity and leave the Jews and Muslims alone like the modern day media does?

It's funny how we all crave freedom but are so quick to take it away from others. What does around comes around.

Re:A partial solution:

[The Famous Brett Wat]

...you throw the baby out with the bath water when you assert that ... rationalism (and presumably, all other epistemological frameworks as well) is nothing more than a convenient way to disguise one's biases.

I didn't assert that, and it wasn't the message I was trying to convey. The message I was trying to convey was primarily, "we take ourselves too seriously, and think too highly of our own intellectual prowess."

Having said that, I'd like to add that you still come pretty close to the mark. I don't think that epistemological frameworks of whatever stripe are chosen to deliberately conceal bias. I don't need to be anywhere that conspiratorial about things. I would merely point out that those who have chosen to side with a particular school of epistemology have done so primarily as a matter of cultural bias or taste. People have epistemic frameworks -- albeit fuzzy ones, perhaps -- before they encounter the concept of epistemology. If and when they learn a little about the subject, they will tend to find that some school of thought or other is a good match for their way of thinking, and adopt it. The action isn't intended to conceal bias, but it does tend to have that effect, because it's now an external set of principles to which the person subscribes, rather than an internal set of biases.

Following on from this, those with an above-average awareness of epistemology (the average is approximately "total ignorance") may find themselves drawn further into the arrogance trap -- that trap being the main problem to which I want to draw attention. Why would this be the case, you ask? It's like the old adage about tasks taking twice as long as you expect them to take unless you plan carefully -- in which case things take three times as long, because you overestimate how much your careful planning will help things. A person who has considered various epistemic frameworks and chosen a particular one may consider their own thought processes to have been greatly improved by this care and attention -- further inflating an already inflated view of their own epistemic reliability.

I don't deny that we humans are all, by our very nature, incapable of 100% pure rational thought. However, most of us are, at least, capable of short spurts of mostly rational thought. Unless you believe that all of mankind's progress over the last few thousand years can be attributed to the "monkeys with typewriters" effect, I don't see how you can conclude that rationalism and biased thinking are merely two sides of the same coin.

Most of us are capable of sustained application of modestly rational thought, though I sometimes think we succeed to the extent that we do despite our incompetence rather than because of our brilliance -- perhaps exposing me as a "glass half empty" kind of person. The problem arises when we cling to the idea that those who disagree with us (whether on climate change, evolution, political leanings, or whatever) do so because their application of reason (or whatever other term one gives to "Right Thinking") is either simply inferior to ours, or wilfully violated because of some sinister agenda. Applying a term like "magical thinking" is often just a way to make that diagnosis of "inferior reasoning" sound irrefutable.

Re:A partial solution:

[Hognoxious]

which means you would have to abolish the majority beliefs of the people in the USA and in most other countries.

They all believe different - and in many cases contradictory - things, so they can't all be correct. So why assume any of them are?

One thing I find odd is when I see leaders of different faiths (who ought, by the tenets they proclaim, to be competitors if not outright enemies) all charmingly hob-nobbing together. It's like there's a conspiracy against the public. It always reminds me of mob factions agreeing how to carve up their territory.

Re:A partial solution:

[Totenglocke]

Which is why religion and all other straight-faced magical thinking should be abolished.

Would you include socialism / communism in there? It's no secret that the creators of collectivism ideology completely ignored human behavior and expected people to work hard to support others due to a mythical desire to see everyone happy at their own expense.

Re:A partial solution:

[greyblack]

Without cocaine, what should we eat for breakfast?

Re:A partial solution:

[1s44c]

Removing the biggest tool for public manipulation from those who would use it sounds good to me.

That would be either sex or national identity, then. Good luck with your attempts to remove them.

We can't do anything about gender so we are going to have to live with that one.

I do agree we need to get rid of national identity as well. Or at least get rid of the politicians who use it to manipulate others.

Re:A partial solution:

[Aceticon]

Everybody sees the world through the colored glasses of their own beliefs and prejudices: when it comes to human observation and judgement, perceptions taint everything we watch and conclude, it even taints our reactions.

Which is why care must be taken when setting up scientific tests and experiment: Why do you think clinical tests require control groups and are designed so that those in contact with the test subjects are not aware of certain factors in the experiment?

A sign of Wisdom and Enleightening is to be aware of one's own prejudices and how they affect the way one sees and interprets things.

Think about it: could it be that you quickly grabbed the conclusions of the article and interpret them as and endorsement of your own intense dislike of religions?
[Here's another view: if religions are a manifestation of some emotional characteristics in human beings, not the other way around, then one could conclude that they are not the problem, just a symptom: maybe the real problem is most people's unawareness of their inner selfs. If that is so, then those that hate religions suffer just as much from it as those that are religious]

Re:A partial solution:

[ThaReetLad]

Hey, an atheist utopia! Except that it's closer to hell IMHO. East germany is dead and lifeless, grey and miserable. I do not want to go back there any time soon.

Re:A partial solution:

[martyros]

Which is why religion and all other straight-faced magical thinking should be abolished.

Statements like this are exactly the point of this experiment. You obviously have some beliefs about religion, and if I gave you a set of new facts, you would interpret them in light of your beliefs, and resist changing them.

The point of these experiments isn't to look at everyone else and say, "Yeah, they're all screwed up." The point is to look at yourself and say, "Do I have beliefs for which I am discarding / reshaping evidence to fit them?" Every human on the face of this planet has the same exact tendency. And that means every atheist, every Liberal, every Republican, every religious person, every man, every woman. And most importantly, that means YOU.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no facts that support religion. Religion is based purely on faith, and survives only through indoctrination, not by any preponderance of facts or evidence.

Now keep a straight face and tell me that the above statement is a true representation of reality, untainted by your general disposition toward religion.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

Science be praised!

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/230805

Re:A partial solution:

[ThaReetLad]

Religion will wither, very slowly. It cannot be abolihed without the abolishers becoming as bad as the worst of religionists.

No evidence that this is the case. It is often stated but the reality is that today both hardline disbelief and orthodox faith are growing rapidly world wide. The truth is that apathy is withering and faith (both in it positive and negative forms) is growing.

Re:A partial solution:

[c6gunner]

Anyway, the point is, given how deeply intertwined religion is with those things which weigh most heavily on the human mind (or "soul", if you believe there is one), I don't think the cocaine analogy, nor the implied addiction model of religious belief, even come close to explaining why people adhere so steadfastly to religion.

You're going to have to do a better job of explaining why. I get your "unanswerable questions" argument, but - no offence - it's shit. Theism doesn't answer any of those questions. It barely even tries. It simply asserts commandments based on an Ultimate Authority - an immortal Mafia Don who promises to break our legs if we don't don't pay homage and follow his orders.

The actual meaning of life, the question of morality ... those questions remain unanswered on any broad level. That's because we as individual human beings get to define what those things are, and no external orders can ever solve those dilemmas for us. Nobody can tell you what the purpose of your life is, and nobody can dictate a moral code to you. I find religion particularly offensive because it pretends to do both. I get one life to live to the best of my ability - a mere 80-ish years on this Earth, if I'm lucky - and some jackass in a funny hat thinks he has the right to dictate how I live it based on orders from his magical sky daddy. Well fuck that. Even if there were a "god" to tell me how to live my life, I'd tell him to get fucked too - I don't give a damn how he intended me to live it because it's purpose is mine to determine. He could have some input on it (if he'd speak the fuck up) but the final decisions would still be mine to make. As long as you allow for free will, no religion can ever give you an answer to what the purpose of life is.

Religion answers the question "What is the meaning of life" to the same extent that cocaine does - it's all about the next fix. We can come up with much better answers than that. Even Douglas Adams' tongue-in-cheek answer was more meaningful and less harmful than the ones provided by most religions.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

It's jibe not jive.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with your though process is that it all hinges upon the contemporary views of facts and and evidence.

Once upon a time people believed that we couldn't know everything, that emotions mattered and that ideas, like "truth", were actual things, not just words to describe a factual situation. Stories that were made up could be "true", in a definition that is meaningless today. Bravery wasn't just running into a fire to save people, and virtue wasn't something that was relative to the speaker.

The relativistic mindset of today forces a very different type of argument that religion cannot stand against, but this is because the framework does not allow it. Change the framework and you change the validity of religion.

This is the same reason that philosophy went out of style. "Why bother arguing problems you can never solve? Intellectual masturbation, and no doubt!"

I fully agree that when parroting the current philosophical state that religion makes no sense. When you try to take in all philosophical viewpoints, arguments and theories, there is nothing wrong with religion.

How people use it, of course, is another matter entirely.

PS: I'm sure this post won't see the light of day as AC, just as sure as I am that /.ers are going to come out to tell me that "facts are facts" and "science has taught us..." and etc. All well and good, just please read some books that aren't about science sometime-- try philosophy or just some decent literature. You may find yourself becoming smarter.

Re:A partial solution:

[Aceticon]

Yes, "try[ing] to view both sides of the argument as fairly as we can"

Actually as an interesting side note, looking at an argument as having two sides is a self-imposed mental restriction of cultural origin (I bet you're from the US :))

In fact, in most arguments neither side is fully right: if you notice, discussions where two people are discussing something with the intent of reaching a destination instead of winning points will often end with a conclusion which does not exact match the inital argument of any of them.

Not a criticism, just pointing out that even the most enlightened people will unknowingly be biased by the environment they live in (and other factors, many other factors).

Re:A partial solution:

[TheRaven64]

You'd think an all-powerful God might have something to say about all that priest-killing...

Let's see what he said about killing priests:

1 Kings 18:40: And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape . And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.

Seems he's fine with it, as long as they believe the all-powerful God has a different name.

Re:A partial solution:

[Thiez]

> Firstly, just because somebody is taught something doesn't mean that they will end up any good at it. My daughter was taught German in school, but still can't buy a postage stamp using German. Teach all the logic you like, many -- I suspect most -- still won't be much good at it.

That doesn't really matter. While in an ideal world, everybody would be able to come up with logical arguments of arbitrary complexity, it would be 'good enough' if the majority of people were able to recognize and understand other peoples logic (like your daughter might be able to understand some german when others speak it, even though she can't come up with a sentence of her own). Kinda like mathematical proofs (I'm awful at those, but at least I can usually tell when they're wrong).

Re:A partial solution:

[c6gunner]

You can't just remove religion and cocaine and then expect irrational beliefs and addictive behaviour to go away. You are taking away the symptoms and expecting the causes to disappear.

Yes, that's a debate that I've been going over in my head for quite a while. The thing is, I think it's a feedback loop. The symptoms become the causes, which become the symptoms, and so on. Taking away the symptoms might not necessarily remove all the causes, but at least it can break the loop and give people a chance to try and help themselves.

Re:A partial solution:

[Hognoxious]

If your stats mention East Germany then they are indeed outdated.

Re:A partial solution:

[Thiez]

But it is at least as satisfying!

Now, to find my mace...

Re:A partial solution:

[zach_the_lizard]

Which is why religion and all other straight-faced magical thinking should be abolished.

It depends on the method by which religion is ended. If it is by private individuals convincing the world to go atheist, then I would be all for that. However, if it is enforced by government fiat, you have merely replaced one evil with another. I would not want to live under any state that tells me, or anyone else, what beliefs are tolerated.

Re:A partial solution:

[Hognoxious]

In fact, in most arguments neither side is fully right: if you notice, discussions where two people are discussing something with the intent of reaching a destination instead of winning points will often end with a conclusion which does not exact match the inital argument of any of them.

Initial POV 1: God exists.
Initial POV 2: God does not exist.
[discussion]
Conclusion: God exists on Mondays, Fridays and alternate Sundays.

Re:A partial solution:

[Eli Gottlieb]

Knocking on your door? GASP, THE HORROR!

Re:A partial solution:

[CrimsonAvenger]

Oddly enough, the standards for "communitarian" and "individualistic" that they used to sort the people would put the majority of the "right-wing nutjobs" into the "individualistic" group, and the majority of the rest of /. into the "communitarian" group.

Note, specifically, that religion, or lack of same, wasn't even a factor in deciding which group you're in.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

Religion is a social activity. The true goal is for people inside of a community to meet each other. Since it's one of the few activity that doesn't discriminate (as much as other social activities) on social status and profession, people that would not meet otherwise meet.

Depending on tastes, you might find esthetical values in some religious ceremonies.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes... because a cocaine ban has been so effective. You can't effectively outlaw religion.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

> Will I see my lost loved ones again someday?

I sure hope not! If I have an eternal afterlife with them, how is any of the time I spend with them while I'm still alive meaningful?

Re:A partial solution:

[stdarg]

You're not using the same definition of priest as the other poster.

Re:A partial solution:

[stdarg]

But openly practicing religion meant you were excluded from professional careers, politics, even education (at least high school iirc). Not just the priests and nuns but the congregation too.

Re:A partial solution:

[Mikkeles]

Well, unless you count extreme political views as a religion.

Not a religion, another ideology of which the proponents are just as unthinking.

Re:A partial solution:

[sackvillian]

My counter-proposition is that if religion is abolished, large tracts of population would disappear. Religion/dogma seems to be the only thing that keeps some people going.

I've heard that argument before and it seems to be totally inverted. If someone finds out that life is finite rather than infinite, which certainly suggests that this life is more valuable than they'd thought, they'll respond by destroying themselves?

In my limited experience, most people that commit suicide (and I don't mean being euthanized) do so with talk about "seeing others on the other side".

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get it, the commies DID have their own religion: the PARTY, Why would they put Lenin (their leader) in a tomb?

Re:A partial solution:

[Attila Dimedici]

Except you miss the part where it doesn't matter what the belief is. Everybody has beliefs, whatever those beliefs are, people put more weight on them than on the facts. Of course, with a study like this, one has to ask, what facts are the conducters of the study ignoring because oftheir belief system?
Of course there is an interesting disconnect in the labeling as described in the article

Some embrace new technology, authority and free enterprise. They are labeled the "individualistic" group. Others are suspicious of authority or of commerce and industry. Braman calls them "communitarians."

So people who embrace authority are "individualistic"? And people wh are suspicious of authority are "communitarians"?

Re:A partial solution:

[TheRaven64]

The grandparent posted numbers, but you didn't reply to those numbers, you just confirmed the premise of TFA by rejecting his facts with your own prejudices. Let's actually look at the numbers.

First, let's look at the extremes of suicide numbers. The lowest is Haiti, with 0. The highest is Russia with 36.15 per 100,000. Most of the 'low suicide, high religiosity' countries have suicide rates around 0-10, while the opposite extreme is closer to 10-30 (there isn't a direct correlation, so there's a lot more overlap in the source data). So we're talking about a difference between around 0.01% and 0.03% of the population committing suicide. Hardly a massive difference.

It's also worth noting that Christianity frowns upon suicide (for example, suicides can't be buried on consecrated ground and will go to hell), so there is a strong incentive to report suicides as accidental deaths. This lowers the rate of reported suicides, but doesn't actually stop people from killing themselves. This point is not addressed in the linked article at all, but there is a lot of documented evidence of this occurring in the UK when suicide was illegal (and it was sufficiently common that it was a common point in fiction of the era).

The data isn't particularly well presented for displaying a correlation. You can easily cherry-pick counter-examples, such as India with Religiosity 70 and suicide rates of 10.65 and the UK with religiosity of 33 but only 7.05 suicides per 100,000. Single-factor correlations like this are always dangerous. For example, did you know that there is a very strong correlation between shoe size and reading age for children? Without looking at the other factors (in this case, that both reading age and shoe size correlate with age), you shouldn't make strong claims about a causal relationship.

The country that they pick to highlight the high suicide rates in non-religious countries is Japan. This is a mistake, because the high suicide rate in Japan has been studied by psychologists for a long time, and is thought to be due to a number of contributory factors, including the high social pressure to conform (which also applies in South Korea, which has a similar suicide rate).

If you actually plotted this on a scatter graph, you'd see a vague correlation, but with so much margin for error that no statistician would take it seriously. I presume that the original author didn't because they want to push an agenda and having a pictorial representation where anyone could see at a glance that their premise is flawed would detract from that.

Re:A partial solution:

[TheRaven64]

All people in this world are some kind of atheist. Some disbelieve all religions, some disbelieve all except one religion. I'm not sure why you think there is such a large difference between the two forms of atheism.

Re:A partial solution:

[stdarg]

If you have a better solution to the countless world problems please let us know.

Another solution is to join the club and encourage your club to have enough military power to win (and actually use that military power). It's at least as likely to work as wishing away all religion.

Re:A partial solution:

[TheRaven64]

Yes I am. Or do you think it was only Christian clergy that suffered under the Soviets?

Re:A partial solution:

[TheKidWho]

How do you know that God doesn't not exist?

Re:A partial solution:

[AndersOSU]

Gee, I wonder what what would happen if researchers presented the same factual information to individualists and communitarians about religion, especially regarding charity/bigotry.

cf. irony.

Re:A partial solution:

[madcow_bg]

Yes, he's 99% right.

Quit trolling.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no facts that support religion.

The universal existence of (man made) laws designed largely to protect people from each other supports the teaching of universal sinfulness.

Re:A partial solution:

[robably]

I'd like to be able to be as optimistic as you, but everything I've seen points to the opposite. Take away religion (let's just assume it's possible) and people will continue to kill and persecute each other, but in the name of something else. Maybe they'd have to be less hypocritical about their true reasons for doing so, but they'd still do it. Take away cocaine, take away all drugs until the only one left is coffee, and people will abuse coffee and kill over it in the same way they do over cocaine.

The only way to get rid of the cause of the problem (us) would be to kill every person in every generation who shows any signs of religious or addictive behaviour. Apart from the problem of killing almost everyone on the planet, you would also be killing some of our most creative and useful members of society. Some of my favourite music and literature would not exist without drugs. And there is the strong possibility that without religion, people throughout the ages would have been MORE violent and oppressive to one other than they are with it. It's not going to be possible to rid everyone in the world of their relgious and addictive urges - you are assuming (hoping) that without those outlets the urges will disappear or maybe be re-routed through something you think would be beneficial to society. I really doubt that.

Re:A partial solution:

[madcow_bg]

Yes, it's quite a miracle that USA is still free despite that religion thing. I wouldn't expect that to last, though.

Re:A partial solution:

[btcoal]

Well said. It always amazes me that even among /.ers, a non-representative selection of the population in terms of intelligence, there is a lack of sound reasoning. That is, outside of the domain-specific knowlwedge of most /.ers. Take, for example, the immediate debunking of some sharlatan's claim that Windows 7 uses up all your available memory. That argument was torn apart with the first few posts. Take, as a counter-example, the discussion on Google's unwillingness to disclose the race, gender or nationality stats of its workforce. It seemed as if most posters came to the discussion with their own view of how the world works and their own biases about diversity. Not much useful insight was gained from this latter discussion. The difference: domain-specific knowledge. (I am making the assumption that most /.ers are experts in technology and not sociology, race/gender studies, or politics). That is upsetting. Logical thinking is one of the most highly transferable skills a human being can have.

Re:A partial solution:

[Bakkster]

You'd think an all-powerful God might have something to say about all that priest-killing...

What's the church's stance on God's inaction there, anyway? They had it coming?

What inaction? The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, does it? ;-)

And yes, this is compatible with Christian teaching. 2 Timothy 3:12 says:

In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted

In Matthew 24:9 Jesus says:

"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me."

Hmm, sounds like what happened in the Soviet Union. Again in John 15:20 He says:

Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.

I'd call crucifixion from the court of public opinion persecution. So why would they want to be persecuted? Matthew 5:12 says:

Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Obviously you don't agree with that line of thought, but there it is. It wasn't hand-waved away in recent times after Christians started getting killed, it has been part of the deal from the beginning. If Christians weren't supposed to ever suffer, why would God's plan be for Jesus to be crucified? It's the Jewish view that the Messiah will be a conquering king and restore Israel and the temple, but it's not the view of the Christian religion.

Re:A partial solution:

[kirbatious]

Why bother with anal-extraction when you've got google? Here are some much more recent stats: http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html It even includes your 1991 study - why did Slovenia and Russia escape your attention?

Re:A partial solution:

[ENIGMAwastaken]

I don't that's really true, at least any more true than the fact that almost anything can kill you.

The only withdrawals that are often fatal are alcohol withdrawal, benzodiazapine withdrawal, and barbituate withdrawal.

Heroin withdrawal might be the most unpleasant of all, but it isn't all that likely to be fatal as far as I know. I'm sure some people have died due to heroin withdrawal, but it's not a significant risk.

Re:A partial solution:

[e2d2]

Enlighten me sir. How does one abolish religion? I'm one of those said assholes and I'm truly interested. Also,
why exactly that is "better" than religion doing it again? .. Fucking hypocrite.

Re:A partial solution:

[mcgrew]

You'd think an all-powerful God might have something to say about all that priest-killing...

Do you really think you could understand the motives of a being who can create a universe? Churches (whether Wiccan, Hindu, or whatever) don't question their gods or the motives of their gods, nor should they. A being powerful enough to create a universe would be far beyond our puny comprehension, and to think any human could comprehend is pure hubris of the worst sort.

You sound like the Jewish priest who said to Jesus as he hung bleeding on the cross "you said you could destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, but you can't even get down from that cross".

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yeah, when you systematically slaughter millions of priests, nuns and clergy and burn down all the churches, you tend to "solve" the problem of religion to some degree...

You'd think an all-powerful God might have something to say about all that priest-killing...

What's the church's stance on God's inaction there, anyway? They had it coming?

Well, probably that Clergy are not loved any more than anybody else (We're all gods children, blah blah blah), they've just dedicated their life to serving him. So, the same justification for any war or mass killing: god doesn't interfere with man because he gave mankind free will, for better or for worse.

Jeebus, man, I'm not even religious, and that was an easy one to answer.

Re:A partial solution:

[digitig]

Yes, it's quite a miracle that USA is still free despite that religion thing.

Glory be! It's a miracle! Praise the Lord!

Re:A partial solution:

[e2d2]

even if its idealogues aren't bombing my busses

Not yet. But keep attacking them and you will be attacked in return. Me thinks they'll go much further than you'd ever consider.

Re:A partial solution:

[mcgrew]

That would reveal a big chunk of the world's assholes who can no longer point to the cross or to the Qur'an as justification for their actions.

I haven't read the Koran, but it's pretty obvious you haven't read the Christian bible (New Testament). Of course, many "Christians" obviously haven't read it, either, and I suspect that Muhammed had very similar views to Jesus'. Killing is not allowed. You're not even allowed to retaliate if someone hits you; you're supposed to turn the other cheek and let them hit you again. Christians are supposed to love their enemies, and do good to those who harm them.

Don't judge a religion by the actions of those who merely claim to belong to it; judge a religion by its teachings. Actions speak louder than words, and someone who kills in the name of Christ is most definitely NOT a Christian.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

There is only one asterisk I saw.

I didn't know there were ethanol-fueled nipples in existence.

Re:A partial solution:

[orasio]

Possible conclusions:

  - Gods existence is not deniable, so its existence is irrelevant.

  - God, as an angry cloud, who is also a bearded guy and a bird, and some other stuff also, does definitely not exist, but there is probably some consciousness that ties together the whole universe.

None of them are mine, but they seem plausible for the initial POVs you provide.
I am an atheist, it doesn't mean I believe there is no god, it's just that I place it in the same existential class as Papá Noel, Santa, the Coca Cola guy or whatever you want to call him.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

If religion is outlawed, only outlaws will have religion.

Re:A partial solution:

[Mr. Slippery]

Do you really think you could understand the motives of a being who can create a universe?

According to some religions, I am "made" in that being's image, so, yeah, why not?

Churches (whether Wiccan, Hindu, or whatever) don't question their gods or the motives of their gods, nor should they.

Odd you should choose those two religions as an example. Not only do a lot of Wiccans and Hindus ask such deep questions, many (though by no means all) could be identified as pantheists, who do not believe in a creator god who pre-exists and stands outside the universe.

Re:A partial solution:

[Wandering Wombat]

He was in Poland! Punch was served!

Re:A partial solution:

[KDR_11k]

The Soviet Union encompassed more than just Russia. How about East Germany?

Re:A partial solution:

[Mr. Slippery]

Logic teaches you how to think. If everybody knew how to think, we wouldn't have any of the associated junk like PETA, fear of "death panels", or any of this Creationism crap.

Logical thinking goes against anthrocentrism in ethics just as much as is does in cosmology -- to believe that Homo sapiens have some magical quality such that they are the only beings whose interests matter, is not logical. Indeed ethical anthrocentrism is nothing but an echo of the illogical religious belief that only human beings have "souls". While PETA's tactics are sometimes counter-productive, associating the philosophy of animal rights with counter-factual belief in "death panels" or Creationism is ridiculous.

Re:A partial solution:

[Sique]

Why? East Germany is still a clearly defined region, consisting of the five German bundesländer Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Saxony-Anhalt, Brandenburg, Thuringia and Saxony and the eastern districts of Berlin. Just because they aren't a souvereign state (they never were in fact ;) ) doesn't mean you can't poll the population living there.

Re:A partial solution:

[Sique]

Slovenia only became independent in 1991, so I don't think they had solid statistics in 1991. The same goes for the former Soviet Union, which dissolved in 1992. I remember when the first political preference polls for East Germany were published in 1990, which were completely off and predicted anything but the results of the elections in March 1990. It seems as if the polls were mainly done in East Berlin and the surroundings, where the polls indeed reflected the outcome of the elections.

It takes some time until the polling companies have a good idea how to select a representative number of people to poll in a region.

Re:A partial solution:

[Nadaka]

Point to one religion that has ever not had those trappings. Even Buddhism falls short.

Re:A partial solution:

[icannotthinkofaname]

That can't be right. That'd be like going into a pizza shop, but the mechanic says that your oil...wait, shoot, I'm clearly no good at this. I better leave the analogies to the Analogy Guys.

Re:A partial solution:

[PitaBred]

The point is what you make of it. There is no bigger entity that cares about you, that has a point FOR you. You make your own reasons. Find what makes you happy, and chase it. Family? Making things? Pontificating on slashdot? ;) If there's no bigger meaning, you are free to be your own pilot.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife always complains that I won't back down in an argument when I think I'm right. My response is always the same.

"Why the HELL would I back down if I'm right? Why the HELL would I argue a point that I believe to be wrong?!"

Look, I've spent over 40 years building a world view. I didn't go to the library and pick a world view from a menu. My views come from being knocked down and having to pick myself up with a corrected view. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you offer up a claim that invalidates 40yrs of hard learning, you damn well better have some good evidence to cause me to modify my world view.

The way I understand it, the study could be re-titled "People are unwilling to throw out everything they've learned over a lifetime at the drop of a hat."

Re:A partial solution:

[jayme0227]

Citation needed! And even if you dig up some I still won't buy it

I understand your intent, but you have to see the irony.

Re:A partial solution:

[PPalmgren]

Good post. I also think it has a lot to do with nurture vs. nature. Yes, this in anecdotal, but I see a common trend in the extremely devout who aren't gifted with strong intellect. They were raised in religious families, and indoctrinated into the religion from the time of cognitive thought. Its not "Don't steal that gum, its wrong", its "Don't steal that gum because God said you should'nt." People raised like this base their actions on what God says they should do, not what they feel is right. Yes, many overcome this as life goes on, but many do not. This type of thinking is the root of fanaticism, and also the root of some of the greatest humanitarian efforts on the planet.

Any sort of rapid destruction of religion would result in chaos due to what I described above. The only way to change this way of thinking is over time through generational gaps.

Re:A partial solution:

[mcgrew]

One reason I love slashdot is I often learn things from people here, and very often find that what I knew has been superceded; facts change. I have had opinions changed by others' well thought out arguments.

However, no argumant you can make, no facts you can trot out, will get me to believe that cats don't exist, because there are three of them in my house. You won;t get me to believe that there are no such things as elephants, because I've been to the zoo.

I can say with a straight face that religion is a problem more than it is a romantic set of ideas

It isn't the rligion that is the problem, but the people who violate your rights in its name ("knocking on my door tryng to get me to turn to Jesus") that are the problem. People who misunderstand their own religion are the problem, not the religion itself.

Re:A partial solution:

[yourlord]

Which is why religion and all other straight-faced magical thinking should be abolished.

I share your opinion that religion is the most ridiculous and tragic delusion humanity has ever imposed upon itself. And, while I do agree that we would be MUCH better off without it, I differ from you in one big area.

I am sure in my own convictions about the nature of existence, but I also value freedom above any other principle. Freedom means people are free to believe as I do, or to delude themselves however they wish in order to cope with the realities of life. It's not my place, nor yours, to impose our own views upon the rest of humanity. To do so would make us no better than the christians, muslims, or any other group who has sought to use the threat of violence to impose their own ideology on the rest of human kind, presently as well as in the past.

I support the principle of your argument, but I strongly disagree with the imposition of just about any point of view through force. If soemone wants to worship rocks in their basement and doesn't harm others, we have no right to interfere.

Re:A partial solution:

[joeyspqr]

a 'conspiracy' that 90% of the group being discussed participate in would be 'the majority culture'
60% is 'a mandate' 30% is 'a political party'

Re:A partial solution:

[stdarg]

Yes I am.

Okay fair enough, though it seems like you took a very wide view of priest meaning pretty much any religious leader/functionary/authority, Christian or not, whereas the other comment was talking about, you know, priests (as the word is commonly used today, like the first definition that comes up when you google define:priest). I assumed you did that just to point out something else negative about religion/Christianity, not to provide a legitimate answer to what was an obvious and rhetorical point that the poster made (which was also negative).

Or do you think it was only Christian clergy that suffered under the Soviets?

Predominantly, yes. Certainly more than priests of Baal, priestesses of Dionysus, etc.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we swap the alternating day so that Sunday is always a God day, but Fridays are only god days every other week?

And I would like to negotiate the use of Saturday as a day with God to appease certain sects. Would you be willing to negotiate Saturday and Sunday 2am-2pm as being times when God exists and 2pm-2am there is no such being? I believe this compromise would still allow for pagan behavior on weekend nights without impinging on the moral high ground of the religious types.

Re:A partial solution:

[gweihir]

The soviets did not abolish religion, they founded their own and it was so much better that the others that they did not even call it a religion anymore!

Talking to some people that were brought up in this system is realy enlightening.

On the subjetct matter, most people like to copy what others do, think, believe instead of coming up with their own understanding and optinion. It is perfectly understandable if you look at what frequently happens to those that actually understand what is going on and find themselves alone with their standpoint. The human race even had to invent a special, protected caste for these people, called "scientists".

Unfortunately most people do not understand that scientists are people that do not place their opinion first, but what they actually see. If you look at mentally degraded people like the creationists, for example, they still belive science deals with opinions. You find that in a lot of places and especially in politics and religion. Don't like a scientifit result? Ignore it! Unfortunately the chances are pretty good that you are ignoring the truth.

Re:A partial solution:

[d34dluk3]

Talking like this eliminates any possibility that I can pay attention to what you are saying.

Re:A partial solution:

[Monty_Lovering]

Rubbish.

Attendance at church in Europe is the lowest ever, historically speaking, a mere fraction of what it was even twenty years ago.

The US, being founded by religious nut-jobs, is still more religious, and the extremely religious are very vocal. But still the attendance at church is at a all-time low. To quote from the links below;

"From 1992 to 2003, average attendance at a typical church service has dropped by 13% whereas the population of America has increased by 9%!"

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tren.htm

And at current trends the majority of people in the US will not be religious in 2035;

Amusingly, a lot of religious people lie when asked about church attendence;

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm

For well over half of the world, religion is less relevent and belief vauger and more general than evet before. In the remainder (for example, India) it is the same as it ever was, outside of small pockets.

And globally the 150 million extremely religious people in the US are a pocket, albeit one with deep pockets and nuclear weapons.

You are mistaking the volume of panicked squeaks from reactionary religionists fighting a rear-guard action for a real volume of belief that could over-turn secularism.

And don't forget that popular religions in developing countries (Islam, Hinduism) will hit the self-sanme wall as religons did in the West as those countries reach similar levels of development.

You want evidence? Open your eyes;

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/17164.htm

The National Church Life Survey showed that in 1960 41% of the Australian population attended church at least monthly, but by 1980 this figure had declined to 25% and was heading down to 20% by 2000. (Kaldor, Peter et. al. Build My Church: Trends and Possibilities for Australian Churches. Sydney: Openbook, 1999, p.22)

http://www.whychurch.org.uk/trends.php

The decline for attendance forecasts a 55% fall from the 1980 level by 2020. From 1990 the decline in Church attendance is significantly higher than membership, and that for ministers is about the same that for Churches. This tells us that even amongst the membership the Church in general struggles to attract people to services. The rate of decline in buildings is significantly less than that for membership, suggesting that congregations are on average getting much smaller with many more nearing the point when they will cease to be financially viable.

Re:A partial solution:

[mcgrew]

You (as well as many religious people) misunderstand "faith" when it applies to religion. Many people have experienced the hand of God in one way or another, and do not have to take his existance on faith any more than I have to take the existance of an elephant on faith.

"Faith" is faith in the sense of being faithful to your wife. Faith means being true to your god and rejecting all other gods.

If you have to take God on faith, your religious beliefs are weak indeed, as weak as someone who takes science on faith without understanding how science works.

Re:A partial solution:

[d34dluk3]

hummanity

– noun, plural -ties.

1. the portion of the human race that enjoys a homogeneous mixture of garlic and chickpeas

Re:A partial solution:

[spun]

You say:

Point to one religion that has ever not had those trappings. Even Buddhism falls short.

Referring to these trappings:

veneration of the leader, symbology & vocabulary, demanding unquestioning obedience.

While you may find some offshoots of Buddhism that have these trappings, mainstream Buddhism does not, in any way shape or form. In fact, Buddha specifically said not to venerate him. I can't even think of a single offshoot of Buddhism that demands unquestioning obedience. Just the opposite, Buddhism demands you think for yourself. I'm not sure what 'symbology and vocabulary' refer to in the case of Buddhism.

But then, Buddhism isn't a religion, as it doesn't speak about anything intangible or metaphysical like God, a soul, or an afterlife. Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

If by 'god' you mean 'Man', then yes, yes they were punished for being wrong.

Get with the program, Human race, and take your rightful place in the universe. There is no God but Man.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking for myself, belief |= knowing. I believe in God, but I am fully cognizant that I don't know.

The pain you describe is there for me too. It is there for many religious people. It doesn't go away with belief in God. For me, and for many others, belief in God is the belief in the search for an ultimate order to things. Because I am conscious and aware, and because I need that consciousness to percieve order, I believe that higher order consciousness is 50/50 (and probably more likely in higher dimensionality than the one we operate at)and, in an infinite system, it has happened and once it has happened, it will do everything in its power to self perpetuate and reach the highest order possible.

It is therefor infinitely likely that there is an intelligent consciousness that is existing at the highest order possible and it is infinitely possible that it is aware of everything to the smallest order possible. It is also infinitely likely that it knows the value of perception very deeply and will not want to ever let it be extinguished or it would have extinguished itself and been replaced by one that does, which will subsequently achieve a higher order and absorb all other instances no matter where in the temporal position. It is also (infinitely I believe) likely that it values self determination enough to be minimally invasive in people's lives.

But this does not change the fact that there is a possibility none of that is true. All I know is that the world would behave exactly the same whether there was a God or not, but since I am conscious and I want to live I choose to believe this is the nature of the universe. I also believe this is our purpouse in life. This is why we must learn and grow and reject falsehoods and fantasy. This is why my belief in God makes me a scientist.

Re:A partial solution:

[VirginMary]

I think you need to read a book on sociobiology. What you take to be evidence of "universal sinfulness" is really just evidence of us having evolved from social animals.

Re:A partial solution:

[Monty_Lovering]

Oooo, get you.

Maybe I did not deal with the grandparents stats as I was replying you the parent?

Or is there a new rule you have to deal with ALL arguments above you in the thread?

Nuur...

"First, let's look at the extremes of suicide numbers. The lowest is Haiti, with 0. The highest is Russia with 36.15 per 100,000. Most of the 'low suicide, high religiosity' countries have suicide rates around 0-10, while the opposite extreme is closer to 10-30 (there isn't a direct correlation, so there's a lot more overlap in the source data). So we're talking about a difference between around 0.01% and 0.03% of the population committing suicide. Hardly a massive difference."

Well, as you are assuming I am talking about something in the grandparent rather than the parent... eh? But for the sake of it; correlation is not equal to causation. Can we compare standards of living, education, employment prospects and develop a balanced view rather than a shallow assinine assumption suicide MUST be the only factor effecting suicide figures?

Can you also please show trends from the Communist years and compare them to now, so further demonstrate you have a point? IF you have one?

"The country that they pick to highlight the high suicide rates in non-religious countries is Japan. This is a mistake, because the high suicide rate in Japan has been studied by psychologists for a long time, and is thought to be due to a number of contributory factors, including the high social pressure to conform (which also applies in South Korea, which has a similar suicide rate)."

Hahahaha. You think Japan isn't religious. Tell them, they'll be surprised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Japan

Re:A partial solution:

[digitig]

Well, sure, if you can get a bail-out from one of the world's leading economies. It tends to suggest that it's not religion that's the deciding, or even a significant, factor.

Re:A partial solution:

[theelectron]

So to you, death and the void is your god.

Wait, how did you arrive at that? I'm having trouble finding a line of rational reasoning that results in your conclusion.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the Buddhists listened to Buddha so well they didn't name their religion after him. Nobody buys your "it's a philosophy" bullshit any more than anyone buys fundie xtianity's "it's not a religion, it's a relationship with Jebus" bullshit.

Re:A partial solution:

[jahudabudy]

AS Jedi Alec implies, most wars in history have been motivated by the desire of those in power to increase their power or secure their power (feel free to substitute wealth for power, just like in the real world). Religion is a great tool for manipulating others, and as such has been used to convince the masses to participate or excuse the war effort. I assure you, if religion were abolished tomorrow, a different manipulation tool of choice would rise up to take its place.

Re:A partial solution:

[mcgrew]

Magical thinking ... often includes such ideas as the ability of the mind to affect the physical world

But I certainly can affect the physical world with my mind, even though it's indirect. My mind can cause an object to move across the room by exerting its force on my hands and feet to physically move the object. Yes, the hands and feet are necessary, but it is the mind that controls the object's movement.

My body is a physical object itself and is directly controlled by my mind (well, my brain at least).

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that's great. Now we can kill all the christians and we'll be doing them a favor. Great will be their reward on heaven (from their perspective) and great will ours be on earth (from our perspective), and all will be happy.

Re:A partial solution:

[canadian_right]

"Magical thinking" is believing in things with zero evidence, continuing to believe things in the face of overwhelming evidence, and a general lack of any sort of critical or logical thought process.

Magical Thinking values authority over evidence.

Yes, Magical Thinking is an insult. If I say you are engaging in magical thinking I am saying you are being willfully blind to the way the world IS, in favour of seeing the world as you want it.

Re:A partial solution:

[Cruxus]

Magical thinking is a term from psychology to refer to a kind of illogical but symbolic thinking where interaction with symbols is taken to be equivalent to the real thing.

Re:A partial solution:

[Cajun Hell]

What's the church's stance on God's inaction there, anyway? They had it coming?

In all seriousness, Judeo-Christianity's answer to that is: "shut up and stop asking."

The "problem" of evil existing in the face of a supposedly omnipotent and benevolent god, was recognized long, long ago as a threat to faith.

The attempted solution was the book of Job. Read it some time, because it has a comical end. Basically, the devil totally fucks with Job as some sort of a wager with God. Job holds out and stays loyal to God. But at the end, Job gets impatient and says, "Yo God, this is totally unfair. C'mon, why are you allowing this?"

God's answer: "Who the fuck are you to question anything, pea-brain?!" I'm serious. That's God's answer. So if you want to know why there's evil and how it could possibly be compatible with God's plan, the answer is shut the fuck up with your arrogantly presumptuous questions.

And that's the best Judeo-Christianity could do. Pretty impressive, huh?

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

You (as well as many religious people) misunderstand "faith" when it applies to religion. Many people have experienced the hand of God in one way or another, and do not have to take his existance on faith any more than I have to take the existance of an elephant on faith.

Lol. If you've "experienced" an elephant, you can show it to other people. None of those people who have "experienced the hand of God" can show the hand, or any other part of God to other people. You might as well be arguing that dreaming about an elephant is the same thing as touching it.

"Faith" is faith in the sense of being faithful to your wife. Faith means being true to your god and rejecting all other gods.

Funny how that's a definition that only works for monotheists.

Re:A partial solution:

[canadian_right]

I'm quite certain many religious fanatics are entirely sincere. I do not think that sincerity makes their beliefs any more compelling.

It isn't a lack of sincerity that is troubling, it is the willingness to ignore all facts that contradict their beliefs. An worse yet, the belief that it is ok to use force and violence against those who do not share their beliefs.

Re:A partial solution:

[Thiez]

> Do you really think you could understand the motives of a being who can create a universe? Churches (whether Wiccan, Hindu, or whatever) don't question their gods or the motives of their gods, nor should they. A being powerful enough to create a universe would be far beyond our puny comprehension, and to think any human could comprehend is pure hubris of the worst sort.

Then why worship them? Maybe they invented religion to deceive us and like to see us suffer. Maybe they punish the devout for all eternity in hell, and reward atheism. Maybe it's all a joke and they created the universe just to see how long it would take for us to invent peanut butter, and now that we have, they went to the pub and will be back in 3 billion years. Maybe people are miraculously healed so that they may suffer another day.

If we can't know the motives of gods, then there is no reason at all to trust any religion. Whatever gods do might as well be completely random since it is impossible for us to know why they act the way they do, and since we can never understand their motives, we can't trust any pattern in their actions. Worshipping them is useless because they are as likely to be insulted by it as they are to appreciate it.

Surely the behavior of a rational person who believes that the motives of gods are unknoweable will act as if gods do not exist?

Re:A partial solution:

[Monty_Lovering]

Does not not exist?

Wow, elegant English.

Obvious answer; you cannot disprove something that doesn't exist.

What ya gonna do, hold up a Unicorn and say "See, it doesn't exist!"?

All you can do is point out the lack of evidence of it's existance. Like there is no evidence for Unicorns.

Re:A partial solution:

[canadian_right]

Many, many religious teachings boil down to: this life sucks, but the next is great. That is, this life is barely worth living and only death leads to paradise. That isn't a death cult?

Atheists believe there is no afterlife and make the best of the only life they know for sure they will get to enjoy. Atheists celebrate this life, not a very unlikely afterlife.

Re:A partial solution:

[canadian_right]

You can't ban magical thinking. Trying to ban it would be just as bad as any other dogma being forced down peoples throats. Education and persuasion is the only answer. Only when violence is used against you is it moral to use violence to defend yourself. Trying to ban magical thinking would be a gross infringement of human rights.

I'm against magical thinking, but much more against taking someones right to free speech and free thought.

Re:A partial solution:

[Monty_Lovering]

Yes, this wonderful insight/statement of the bleeding obvious was actually made a few comments above.

Ha ha, Ho ho. Hee hee.

How I laugh...

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

So to paraphrase the above quotations, the answer is, "It will happen," with an implicit, "don't worry about it, because once you're dead you won't be worrying about then, so it must not be very important now."

Re:A partial solution:

[The Famous Brett Wat]

Humans can, and do, come to conclusions without bias.

But not without premises and axioms. In mathematics and formal logic, premises (or "givens") and axioms are clearly stated (or understood by convention). Those who accept the axioms will grant the conclusions which follow from the premises or givens, assuming the intermediate steps are all valid. If someone does not accept the axioms, then they reject the proof. There is no such thing as an unconditionally incontrovertible statement.

We see this a lot in science (by no means always)...

Actually, we never see it in science. Once you depart from the abstract realm of logic and mathematics, you start piling up assumptions which can't be dealt with formally. Introducing "observation" into the mix opens up a mighty big can of worms. Conclusions are reached, to be sure, but these are quite a different beast from the "conclusion" found at the end of a mathematical or logical proof.

If everybody knew how to think, we wouldn't have any of the associated junk like PETA...

And there you've moved further afield, because the subject is now ethics -- a subject which seems to be innately intuitive or subjectively experienced. Even there the problem is not logic, but one of disagreement over premises and valid applications. It's trivial to construct a logical argument in favour of PETA-style extremism, given the right premises. One of those premises might be something along the lines of "the genetic difference between humans and animals is not ethically significant". This, being a statement about ethics, is not something which can be subjected to test in the usual manner of science or mathematics.

I agree with you that people need to learn enough logic to engage in some decent critical thinking. I am also of the opinion that some people who are decently acquainted with logic need to be educated in the limits of its application to real-world problems like ethics, politics, and girlfriends.

Re:A partial solution:

[Quirkz]

That's not unlike my own experience. The main difference being that while all the big questions really weighed on me for a decade or two--from early teens to late 20s--at some point I stopped asking myself the questions so much, and with that a lot of the burden seemed to lift. When I was younger I really hammered on them, and I'm talking daily. Sometimes hours a day. I'd ask complete strangers what they thought the meaning of life was, and I would refuse to respect anyone who said they'd never thought about it.

I'm not sure what the tipping point was for me in my late 20s. A lot of things sort of happened all at about the same time. Might just be age and maturity. Might have been that around that time I decided to follow a dream even though it meant tearing up a bunch of my life. Might have been finding the first really good job of my life and extending from that experiencing a sort of financial peace for the first time. That's also about the time I discovered a great passion for beer, which maybe shouldn't be overlooked. Mostly, I think I have to credit meeting my wife -- even after 7 years I can tell I'm a little nutty when she's not around, and I tend to feel pretty solid when she is. Couldn't tell you how that works, though. Maybe it's all of those things, put together, too.

The questions are still there, if I open them up. And I do let them out into the air every now and then just to see how things are looking. Mostly I shrug after a bit and put them back, still no wiser than I was as a teenager. But I don't find them pressing the the same way. They're curious, and occasionally I have a twinge of "what if I'm doing it all wrong and wasting everything?" Mostly though my mild "life is what you make of it" philosophy seems to carry the day. True to that word, I spend an awful lot of time trying to make things out of life, and generally find some deep satisfaction from the process.

Re:A partial solution:

[DocHoncho]

The universal existence of (man made) laws designed largely to protect people from each other supports the teaching of universal sinfulness.

Or the conception of universal sinfulness is a by-product of the fact that humans -- being animals -- frequently treat each other in a way which is perfectly acceptable in animals but is unacceptable in civilized societies. In point of fact your argument demonstrates the findings of the study! By ignoring the some facts (such as humans-as-animals) which don't happen to fit with your cultural identity (Christian) you are happy to attribute a concept such as Universal Sinfulness to an otherwise naturalistic behavior.

Re:A partial solution:

[RadioElectric]

Scientists are people too, with their own beliefs and prejudices. If you read Kuhn (which you absolutely should do if you like science) you'll see how this is important to scientific process.

There is nothing "magical" about scientists that makes them better than normal people. Indeed, there is no transcendental property to the scientific method that makes it some kind of unique window to "truth". It's just a tool that we use to try to get consistent and objective answers to questions about the universe.

Re:A partial solution:

[IICV]

I'm not the grandparent, but I share his views. That statement is a a representation of what I've found to be the case in our reality. I have never been shown any factual support for the mythologies any religion, and believe me I've sought such out (after all, wouldn't the world be that much better with a little bit of magic in it?). I've heard every common argument for the existence of some sort of God, and honestly they haven't changed much since Aquinas.

You would think that if some religion somewhere had actual factual support, its followers would be trumpeting those facts to the heavens, wouldn't they? And yet all you get is incoherent babble.

Re:A partial solution:

[spun]

Go peddle your uninformed opinions to a less discerning and intelligent audience, AC. Nobody here cares.

Re:A partial solution:

[TheKidWho]

Double negative aside, there are philosophical arguments for and against the idea of a God.

However, can you really say with certainty that God does not exist? Can you say that Unicorns do not exist? Maybe they don't exist now, but do you know if in 200 years they won't be created by man?

What does God even mean? Whose version of God? Are you referring to the prime mover who created our Universe? Or the God who seeded our planet with life and created humanity? Or was there a "God" who created the existence of our Planets around our Sun? I don't know and we do not have sufficient knowledge in my opinion.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

Logical thinking goes against anthrocentrism in ethics just as much as is does in cosmology -- to believe that Homo sapiens have some magical quality such that they are the only beings whose interests matter, is not logical.

Citation needed.

No, really. Why is that illogical? Humans are the only ones that can consciously make that decision as a society, so wouldn't that constitute a "magical quality" that makes their interests the only ones that matter? When the dogs can ban together and vote to eliminate the humans, then their opinion will matter.

Re:A partial solution:

[TheRaven64]

Maybe I did not deal with the grandparents stats as I was replying you the parent?

Uh, no. Your post was the parent post from my post. You were replying to the grandparent post from my post. You (the parent) did not address the statistics referenced by the post that you replied to (the grandparent).

Most of the rest of your post indicates that not reading the posts that you are replying to is a habit, rather than an isolated case.

Re:A partial solution:

[Sally Forth]

Yup, because when all viewpoints but one are abolished, that viewpoint will no longer be in dispute. The fighting ends.

How do you intend to punish those who persist in believing differently than you?

Re:A partial solution:

[The Famous Brett Wat]

You are quite right to point out the role of "weighting". One does not simply take all the observations, place them in a machine, and let the conclusion fall out. We make personal choices about what to observe and what to ignore, which things are important and which aren't, and so on. The article does not demonstrate faulty reasoning on anyone's part when it says, "they reject the information that is contrary to what they would like to believe, and they glom onto the positive information." This merely demonstrates subjective values-based weighting of incoming data -- an unavoidable necessity in many cases.

That's not to say that people are always consistent in their application of weighting. There are examples aplenty of people misunderstanding measurement data (particularly statistical data) such that they reach exactly the wrong conclusion given their stated intentions. You're probably familiar with the examples, like the problem of dealing with false positives when testing for a rare condition, or whatever. In these cases, mathematics has something to say about how you apply your weights -- maybe you need to use Bayes' theorem -- and people are notoriously bad at reaching the right conclusion intuitively. This brings me to...

One is not arrogant for believing one's reasoning is reliable, that is a necessity and a consequence of reasoning itself.

It would be a necessary consequence for an agent capable of perfect reasoning. We humans, on the other hand, tend to make incomplete arguments, admit unnoticed errors, and generally overlook faults so long as the conclusions came out the way we wanted or were expecting. One should therefore append the caveat, "but it's likely I've screwed up somewhere AGAIN, so please check my reasoning" to all one's conclusions.

Re:A partial solution:

[Asklepius M.D.]

Yours is a very interesting post, and while I completely agree with the sentiment (and your logic), this being slashdot I've decided to throw in my own two cents.

If I summarize your chain of reasoning correctly, you argue that IF ("anybody who dismisses another's ideas and/or beliefs, regardless of their rationale for doing so, is guilty of succumbing to their own biases" is PRESUMED TRUE), THEN ("it's all relative, there is no such thing as truth").

However, you neglected to define "truth". Both you, and the OP can be "correct" if "TRUTH" is a variable indicating the frame of reference of the person. You obviously intend this reference point to be the physical, quantifiable system with which we interact via the senses of sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch. It is possible, however, for the contrary position to define "TRUTH" to be an arbitrary (even imaginary) spriritual reference, in which case your chain of logic does not necessarily refute the OP. I believe this is the core argument of many theologists (the "temporal" world is temporary and dependent upon the theologically-accepted definition of "TRUTH". In this case, all viewpoints are both equally valid and invalid as all viewpoints are completely arbitrary (defining Validity as a function of "TRUTH").

The underlying premise of your refutation, is therefore NOT that the OP defined relative bias incorrectly, but rather that he used a reference point that you did not recognize. Instead, you should argue that the only value of "TRUTH" that is universally understood (i.e. "proven" - a value exists for:)d is that of the physical senses in the temporal world. Other values of "TRUTH" may or may not exist, and as such cannot be used to derive Validity without first having 'proven' their existence.

Re:A partial solution:

[bit9]

You miss my point entirely.

Obviously, as an agnostic, I don't believe that religion answers those questions sufficiently. But it's not relevant whether *I* think it does. We're discussing why so many other people cling so tightly to religion, and my assertion is simply that religion does sufficiently answer those questions, in the minds of billions of its followers.

You're just tilting at windmills, trying to frame the discussion of other peoples' religious beliefs within the confines of your own beliefs. Religious people don't give a rat's ass if c6gunner on Slashdot thinks that their religion adequately addresses those questions. It all makes sense to them, and to them, that's good enough.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

"slaughter millions of priests, nuns and clergy"

What MILLIONS? Are you nuts? :)

Re:A partial solution:

[c6gunner]

I'd like to be able to be as optimistic as you, but everything I've seen points to the opposite. Take away religion (let's just assume it's possible) and people will continue to kill and persecute each other, but in the name of something else.

Sure, that's possible, but:

1. At the very least you'll see a drop in such incidents. Look at Scandinavian countries if you need evidence of that.
2. You'll have one less thing to worry about.

Take away cocaine, take away all drugs until the only one left is coffee, and people will abuse coffee and kill over it in the same way they do over cocaine.

I dunno, I've yet to see any mass-killings at a Starbucks :)

The only way to get rid of the cause of the problem (us) would be to kill every person in every generation who shows any signs of religious or addictive behaviour.

Easy there, Stalin. My approach would be education. It's slow, but it works.

Apart from the problem of killing almost everyone on the planet, you would also be killing some of our most creative and useful members of society. Some of my favourite music and literature would not exist without drugs.

There's a difference between addiction and use. Even if we accept the idea that drug use is necessary for the production of creative works (something I would dispute) it's still quite possible for artists to engage in drug use without becoming addicted. That's dependent on the type of drug we're talking about, of course, as well as the personality and predisposition to addiction of the individual.

By the way, I'm actually in favor of legalizing all drugs. I have no interest in them myself, but I don't see any reason why the government should be regulating what people do to their own bodies. Likewise, though I'm an atheist, I abhor the idea of criminalizing religion. You can't force people to be rational - if you take away their irrational behavior by force, they'll only find another outlet.

And there is the strong possibility that without religion, people throughout the ages would have been MORE violent and oppressive to one other than they are with it.

How in the world did you come to that conclusion?

It's not going to be possible to rid everyone in the world of their relgious and addictive urges

Of course not. We can't rid the world of murderers or rapists, either. We can certainly work on reducing their numbers, though.

you are assuming (hoping) that without those outlets the urges will disappear or maybe be re-routed through something you think would be beneficial to society. I really doubt that.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm quite aware that people adopt all sorts of irrational beliefs, regardless of whether they're religious or not. That's one of the reasons why I'd never argue for the forced abolition of religion - it wouldn't do any good. What I am advocating is that we make an effort to educate people on topics like logic, reason, and science-based skepticism. You don't cure an addict by taking away his cocaine and putting him in a room full of heroin - you do it by educating him and giving him the information and support that he needs in order to help himself. After that, all you can do is stand by and hope for the best.

Re:A partial solution:

[tburkhol]

This article describes an experiment that demonstrates that people don't put as much weight on facts as they do their own belief about how the world is supposed to work.

Which is why religion and all other straight-faced magical thinking should be abolished.

You miss the point: no magical dogma is required. When presented with facts counter to their existing worldview (religious, philosophical, political, or scientific), people ignore those facts in favor of any that support their worldview. If anything, this says that religious nutjobs are doing exactly the same thing as every other nominally rational human.

Re:A partial solution:

[Creepy]

for example, suicides can't be buried on consecrated ground and will go to hell

You mean Catholicism, as few Christian religions outside of Catholicism abide by that, and not even all Catholics do - an Irish Catholic high school friend of mine was buried on consecrated ground (at his family's burial plot) after his suicide.

As for statistics, I always question them - 71.314159 of them are made up and we all know the real reason people commit suicide is D&D - Jack Chick says it's true, so it must be. In fact, the person I mentioned above played D&D and is the only person I know that committed suicide, so statistically speaking, 100% of suicide deaths that I know of are by D&D players.

Of course, what I failed to mention is that group was made up of essentially 12 people and the other 11 are still living, all but two currently married, many have kids, and only one has ever been divorced and he didn't want the divorce, his ex-wife did.. The other one that is not married is more-or-less a male slut, though he won't admit it (but c'mon - the guy has FOUR girlfriends right now - is it a wonder why his facebook status is always "its complicated"?).

    Of course the sample rates you state probably don't have a 99% margin of error like mine do (that group would skew a lot of statistics if used as the sample - low divorce rate, low obesity rate, high IQ, etc), but I think there are a large number of contributing factors to suicide, so trying to categorize it is difficult. The guy I mentioned above was smart, probably ADHD, and had an abusive father and if I had to describe someone just like him, it'd be Kurt Kobain - in fact, I predicted Kurt would kill himself 5 years before he did (the scattershot thought process, the attitude, and the manic-ness were very similar - even their methods - I believe both used a 38 to the head - quick and final).

Re:A partial solution:

[bit9]

Yes, I realized all those implications when I wrote the post, but I didn't think it would be particularly useful or productive to dive into a full blown discussion of epistemology. Especially since I don't think that the OP himself (as I alluded to at the beginning of the 3rd paragraph) really believes that all truth is relative.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

Rationalism and and anti-dogmatism?

Given the philosophical definition of Rationalism, it is quite possible to see how it could get out of hand. In the strongest sense of Rationalism reason is considered the unique correct path to knowledge, and that not only means disregarding divine revelation but also intuition, empirical observation, and all forms of inspiration as well. That's probably why Mohandas Gandhi had the following criticism of extreme Rationalism:

Rationalists are admirable beings, but rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of a stick and stone believing it to be God.

As for anti-dogmatism, like other ideology it can become the source dogmatic belief, often without the notice of the person who develo4ped the belief. One indication of this would be the denigration of a person's dogma merely because it is dogmatic and not because of some harmful or other specific effect to that person or others.

Re:A partial solution:

[Asklepius M.D.]

I thought you might...but this being slashdot, it never hurts to go a little overboard in an arguement. Besides, we might get a nibble from someone who thinks they can prove a religious "TRUTH" logically exists (good luck, I can't think of any way to do it without defining the religious truth in relation to physical/temporal truth) which may make for an entertaining read!

Re:A partial solution:

[bit9]

I apologize if I misunderstood your point. It seemed that you were making a statement about rationalism itself, rather than simply pointing out that most of us tend to mis-apply it.

It seems we're actually not very far apart in our assessments. The only part of your original post that I objected to was, again, that you seemed to be suggesting that rationalism itself was merely a cover. As for the rest, I agree completely.

Re:A partial solution:

[c6gunner]

Oh, I got your point. I just think you've got it completely backwards. Ask a bunch of random Christians about the meaning of life or morality and you'll get wildly differing answers. Why are they so inconsistent if they're getting answers from the same source?

Their religion doesn't answer those questions for them - they answer them on their own, and then slap the "because god told me so" label on them. Do you honestly believe that people would be completely unable to answer those questions without religion? Where do you think religion came from in the first place? If there's one thing that the existence of religion can show us, it's that people are very good at making shit up. If some guys in the middle of a desert 2,000 years ago could invent a reason to keep living, don't you think people today can do the same damn thing - but better?

Moreover, how does this relate to the rest of the discussion? Yeah, people who are brainwashed to believe X have a strong conviction that X is right. So what?

You're essentially arguing that religion makes people feel good, and we're mostly in agreement on that. So what? How is that a dismissal of the cocaine analogy?

Re:A partial solution:

[Bakkster]

The attempted solution was the book of Job. Read it some time, because it has a comical end. Basically, the devil totally fucks with Job as some sort of a wager with God. Job holds out and stays loyal to God. But at the end, Job gets impatient and says, "Yo God, this is totally unfair. C'mon, why are you allowing this?"

God's answer: "Who the fuck are you to question anything, pea-brain?!" I'm serious. That's God's answer. So if you want to know why there's evil and how it could possibly be compatible with God's plan, the answer is shut the fuck up with your arrogantly presumptuous questions.

Read Job again. God's rebuke to Job was for presuming God's will, rather than simply for asking it. Job didn't say 'why am I being punished?', he said 'I didn't sin, your punishment is unjust'. It's that act of telling God He was wrong that was found unacceptable.

Regardless, Job is still found to be faithful at the end and is rewarded. God's real answer would then be 'I am the Lord, you can not know my will. However, you are rewarded as a faithful servant'.

And that's the best Judeo-Christianity could do. Pretty impressive, huh?

The explanations in Judaism and Christianity are linked, but altogether different. See above for my post with references where Jesus acknowledged that their faith would cause bad things for them (on earth), rather than fixing everything. The biggest difference is a shift in focus. In Judaism works earned an earthly reward, in Christianity spiritual works earn an eternal reward.

And if you want a better explanation for why bad things happen to 'good' people? Easy, everyone has sinned and deserves death. We deserve nothing, but do receive grace.

Re:A partial solution:

[mdielmann]

Which is also the case for religion. After all, if every Christian (Catholic or Protestant), Muslim, and Jew were actively engaged in physical violence or financial support for said violence against those who disagree with them, we'd have the largest, most well-funded war in the history of humankind. Even without the help of Hindus, Buddhists, and the many other denominationally smaller religions out there.
Fortunately, most people with a religious background have better things to with their time (just like everybody else!). Unfortunately, there are far too many people out there, religious or otherwise, who think they have a right to tell other people how to live, such as the poster of the original comment.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely. Nothing prevents the dogmatic fringe from being hypocritical. In fact, my general observation is that this is a very common case. American Christian fundamentalists, for example, are very quick to accuse Islam of being dogmatic. Anti-dogmatic groups have fringes who have, in their mind, singled out particular dogmatisms they dislike (e.g. religion, communism, statism) and have an unbending approach to these groups. I've never been one to buy the "answer is in the middle" approach to politics or much else, but fringe groups are frequently such because they have blinded themselves to all but one solution to problems.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

we wouldn't have any of the associated junk like PETA, fear of "death panels", or any of this Creationism crap
From that I can see you are a moderate liberal with a twist of atheism.

You are right about using logic. I let the 'death panels' thing slide by as people would make this argument even though I knew it was bunk. Why? It got what needed to happen done. That crazy mess stopped dead in its tracks. I would even tell my fellow republicans that they are arguing the wrong arguments. The best one I heard was to properly think about how the government works. In almost ALL cases it is a 'I scratch your back I scratch yours'. A good example was a borderline Democrat in the senate who did not want to vote for it. How did the 'party' get him in line? They bribed him and got a special rider in the bill for his state. THAT is how the new health-care system was going to work. To think otherwise would be to ignore every other government agency in existence, ignore every other bill, ignore every other budget fiasco in the past 200 years. The favor system is quite healthy in the corridor of power. There would be over-funding for pet projects and underfunding in projects that need it. Just like most government run programs. I did not see it as really fixing the problem. Just shifting the money around and tossing more money at the problem. Not a proper fix (which btw is a proper review of pricing practices by both doctors, insurance companies, and drug/medical equip companies).

I only sided with my fellow republicans in this case. Because while they were making stupid arguments. These arguments were working (as most people like you say do not think things thru). The real thing was the whole mess needed to be stopped and not rushed thru. A proper review of what was going on. THEN a proper set of fixs put in place. To think throwing money at the problem and rushing as fast as you can will fix it 'this time'. Is to ignore what has happened before. We also have a full medical coverage system in place here in the united states. Bet you did not know that. It is for veterans of any military service. It is either low cost or free in most cases. Now ask any vet if he would voluntarily go to one of these hospitals. Many only go because it is all they can afford. The rest pay for it using much better hospitals. That system is woefully underfunded and understaffed. When first put in place it was a top notch group. Now not so much. A good experiment and a good faith effort would be to clean up THAT mess first and SHOW that they can do it proper.

You are also doing exactly they same thing the article was talking about. You sided with your fellow democrats because of your beliefs. But what if the democratic party had come down on the side of 'this is a bad idea'? How would you use your logic?

Re:A partial solution:

[Monty_Lovering]

Philosophers can lick my balls, well, provided they are pretty red-heads, but you know what I mean.

There are factual arguments for and against the idea of a God. Philosophy be damned.

Factual arguements for god; none.

Factusl arguments against god; there is no evidence for it.

"However, can you really say with certainty that God does not exist? Can you say that Unicorns do not exist?"

I can say with certainty you did not read the comment you replied to. I covered that.

"Maybe they don't exist now, but do you know if in 200 years they won't be created by man?"

Which means they don't exist now, which is what I meant.

"What does God even mean?"

Try a dictionary.

"Whose version of God? Are you referring to the prime mover who created our Universe? Or the God who seeded our planet with life and created humanity? Or was there a "God" who created the existence of our Planets around our Sun? I don't know and we do not have sufficient knowledge in my opinion."

Unless the meaning of god is changed beyond all normal range of definitions, no version of god has been shown to exist, so, whatever.

Carry on clinging to your presupposition. Enjoy! Your uncertainty is a canard.

Re:A partial solution:

[mcgrew]

Cursh those spell checkers! (Curshes, foiled again)

Re:A partial solution:

[robably]

The only way to get rid of the cause of the problem (us) would be to kill every person in every generation who shows any signs of religious or addictive behaviour.

Easy there, Stalin. My approach would be education. It's slow, but it works.

You misunderstood. I wasn't advocating it, I was saying that would be the only way eradicate it, because I don't believe it would be possible or right to try to educate away somebody's religion.

And there is the strong possibility that without religion, people throughout the ages would have been MORE violent and oppressive to one other than they are with it.

How in the world did you come to that conclusion?

It's not a conclusion, it's a possibility. A lot of what religions teach is good, and societies are often built on a religious foundation - so without religion maybe societies would have lacked some of that social cohesion and been more fragmented. From your response I take it you don't see any good in religion, but do you have any evidence that a world without it would be a better place? Even if you are saying that it was useful in the past but has now had its day, I'd still doubt it. Most of the people in the world are religious - you and I are in the minority - and most of the world most of the time functions fairly well.

Re:A partial solution:

[mcgrew]

Yes, many people who are addicted to cocaine may actually feel that they cannot live without the drug

Cocaine doesn't fall into the category, but there are addictive substances whose withdrawal can actually be fatal. Alcohol is one.

To them, no God means no responsibility, no sense of duty, no moral quandaries, no church on Sunday

Well, you have to admit they're right about the "no church on Sunday" part.

All of those Big Unanswerable Questions weigh heavily on you - much more so than for religious people who've found all of those questions conveniently answered by their religion of choice.

To the religious, the questions aren't the problem, the answers are. If someone punches you, turn the other cheek? Love your enemies and do good to those who harm you? Those are pretty damned hard tasks for a fallible human.

I'm desperately trying to figure out "What the fuck is the point of all this?"

Not going hungry is a very good reason to get out of bed. As to the point, have you ever considered that right after you die you take the thing off your head (or what passes for one in the real reality) and say "WOW! That was the most awesome fucking movie I've ever seen!"

many ways, I actually envy my religious friends, and if I could force myself to believe in God, I probably would.

If God wants you to find him, you will. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be what he wants for you. It's too bad that the Jehova's Witlesses and others who try to convert you can't seem to realise that. Trying to convert someone is like (in John lennon's words) "shoveling smoke with a pitchfork in the wind."

I'm just not wired for faith, it seems.

Once you find God, you don't need to take him on faith; then, "faith" is being faithful, like your're faithful (or unfaithful) to your wife.

There's an apt quote at the bottom of the page right now (how do they come up with those? Yesterday I saw a quote straight from one of my old journals, "Wow! Look at the moon!"); Superstition, idolatry, and hypocrisy have ample wages, but truth goes a-begging. -- Martin Luther

Re:A partial solution:

[IICV]

That God's such a great guy! It only took him what, fifty-ish years to demolish the Soviet Union? And it looked more like their economic system failed than any sort of divine intervention. And Stalin, the person who was basically responsible for ordering those deaths, died of a stroke at the ripe old age of 74 - after having what was certainly a delicious all-night dinner. And those holy people are still dead.

Oh yeah and did you know that Stalin was declared to be the divinely anointed leader of the Russian armed forces by the Russian Orthodox church? That God - what a sense of humor!

Re:A partial solution:

[mcgrew]

According to some religions, I am "made" in that being's image, so, yeah, why not?

Van Gogh's self-portrait was made in Van Gogh's image, but don't expect that painting of Van Gogh's image to paint. You are to God what that painting is to Van Gogh.

Odd you should choose those two religions as an example.

I chose them randomly, and it was pure ignorance on my part, I assure you. I am far from omniscent; my ignorance is boundless.

Re:A partial solution:

[IICV]

Does life have purpose? Is there such a thing as The Truth? Is there life after death? Will I see my lost loved ones again someday? Is there justice in this world? Will good ultimately prevail over evil? Why must there be so much suffering?

That's easy enough:

Only the purpose you make of it. Yes, but only in mathematics; everything else is statistics. No. Yes, if you have pictures of them. Only that which we make. Yes, for all good where good is equal to entropy (or no, for all evil where evil is equal to entropy). Because humans are bastards and nature doesn't give a shit.

All of those Big Unanswerable Questions weigh heavily on you - much more so than for religious people who've found all of those questions conveniently answered by their religion of choice.

The only reason why these questions weigh on you is because you don't want the answers. You just have to accept that some things are fantasy, some things are wishful thinking, and some things are real.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

Improving logic skills would be excellent, but until there is proven absolute truth (currently only possible in maths), all logic can show is that you are validly uncertain.

I agree with your main argument, but I would like to point out even in mathematics supposedly proven truths can be invalidated merely by changing the axioms used in the logical analysis. For example, while the axioms of Boolean and standard real number algebra are largely analogous they lead to entirely different answers when one adds a value of "1" to another value of "1". This by no means refutes your main point, on the contrary it supports your arguement by showing that even in mathematics logic has its limits and it can only consistently validate something within a specific predetermined axiom system.

Re:A partial solution:

[Kryptal]

As an agnostic, I am used to having my religious friends and family members say that I'm just taking the easy way out. To them, no God means no responsibility, no sense of duty, no moral quandaries, no church on Sunday, etc, etc. However, as I'm sure many agnostics can tell you, being an agnostic is anything but easy. All of those Big Unanswerable Questions weigh heavily on you - much more so than for religious people who've found all of those questions conveniently answered by their religion of choice. Meanwhile, I've spent nearly my entire life being constantly tormented by those questions. Some mornings, I find it excruciatingly difficult to drag myself out of bed, because I'm desperately trying to figure out "What the fuck is the point of all this?" Don't confuse this with depression. I am not merely depressed. In fact, most days, I don't feel depressed at all. I enjoy life. But those questions are always there, always eating away at me, making it difficult to function at times.

Thank you for this paragraph.

Re:A partial solution:

[Monty_Lovering]

OK, first my bad. I got my parents and grandparents mixed up; I assumed you meant gp of what _I_ replied to, and at that point I was reading your reply on a ickle widy smart phone screen and didn't refer back to the post I replied to, I just relied on memory. I flipped you of to some extent, and got to look silly from it.

Now, are you seriously taking a report (Gallup) that lists ANY country as having 0% sucicide rate as a reliable report, or a sure indiator of a true causative link between religiosity and suicide? Or one where similary irreligious countries have rates of suicide that differ by a multiple of three? (Belgium and the UK, mark you, if I lived in Belgium I might top myself, and I can WALK to Belgium from my house).

And don't you even notice that the left hand column (religiosity 50+) are mostly unidustrialised and the right-hand colum (religiosity 50) are mostly industrialised. Pressures of modern day life as opposed to agarian/traditional? Extended family and support groups vs. nuclear families?

So many variables, playing the god card is just weak.

And a report on Ireland that concludes there WAS an inverse correlation also states "External, social dimensions of religiosity differed more than core beliefs.", which is to say the "actual you-will-burn-in-hell bit" was LESS important than "what will the O'Hara's think".

When you stop ROLFing at my error, can we compare standards of living, education, employment prospects, and the host of other pressures that could influence suidicide, rates rather than assume religion MUST be the only factor influencing suicide figures?

Re:A partial solution:

[FiloEleven]

Yeah, if you depend on a substance or an ideology, breaking with it is going to be hard. That doesn't mean that you need it to live, or to be happy. It just means you're an addict. If you ditch your addiction, things can only get better.

Can't the same thing be said about science and technology?

Re:A partial solution:

[slimjim8094]

I may have mistyped - I think I meant greenpeace, who does things like blow up a factory without realizing that rebuilding it will be worse for the environment.

Re:A partial solution:

[Omestes]

And if you want a better explanation for why bad things happen to 'good' people? Easy, everyone has sinned and deserves death. We deserve nothing, but do receive grace.

Which just moves the question out a couple steps, but does nothing to actually answer it. Why create a world where everyone sins, and why doom them for things that you can already see. God is omnipotent (okay, prescient), thus he knows if your going to be damned, so why create you to be damned? Yes, you can say "free will", but free will is incompatible with omnipotence. You can know the future perfectly, and still allow room for people to choose their own futures. Thus you are predestined to be damned, or saved at birth (actually from the creation of the universe). So god made people to suffer damnation. Thus suffering is still a huge problem.

And, to go more cliche, what about dying and suffering babies, who could not have possibly have sinned? The only answer to this is to invoke "original sin", which is a pretty silly concept when looked at objectively. So, your great great great (ad naseum) grandmother told your great great great (ad naseum) grandfather to eat some fruit, therefore you, and the rest of the species, are doomed to suffer unless you accept some guy who came a couple hundred millenia AFTER the fact as being special.

Either that or you can only be saved if your a Jew, and after some point they all get to go to hell, and only people who like some slob named John's marketing of some Jew named Jesus get to go to heaven. And then at some point they all get to go to hell, and only people who like Billy Graham and vote Republican get to go to heaven.

Heaven is a very lonely place.

Re:A partial solution:

[Bakkster]

That God's such a great guy! It only took him what, fifty-ish years to demolish the Soviet Union? And it looked more like their economic system failed than any sort of divine intervention. And Stalin, the person who was basically responsible for ordering those deaths, died of a stroke at the ripe old age of 74 - after having what was certainly a delicious all-night dinner.

Notice the ';-)' I put? I didn't mean to imply that the Soviet Union collapsed purely (or even at all) because of this.

And those holy people are still dead.

But the reward from God according to Jesus isn't 'not being dead'. Please reread all above verses that say "you will be persecuted", and remember that Jesus also was killed for the same reason.

Oh yeah and did you know that Stalin was declared to be the divinely anointed leader of the Russian armed forces by the Russian Orthodox church? That God - what a sense of humor!

Since when did a bunch of people doing something (even in God's name) mean that God condoned, agreed-with, or willed it? See also: the Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, Westboro Baptist Church, Pat Robertson, et al.

Re:A partial solution:

[mcgrew]

Surely the behavior of a rational person who believes that the motives of gods are unknoweable will act as if gods do not exist?

Unless you have been shown their existance. Once you have seen an elephant it is quite impossible to believe that elephants don't exist.

Re:A partial solution:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Heck, I even count a lack of religion, as being a religion (in that it's often a closely held belief with no proof whatsoever).

Re:A partial solution:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

You'd think an all-powerful God might have something to say about all that priest-killing...
 
Why? Just a bunch of little ants getting stepped on by other, meaner ants.
 
 
What's the church's stance on God's inaction there, anyway? They had it coming?
 
Too small to notice.

Re:A partial solution:

[c6gunner]

You misunderstood. I wasn't advocating it, I was saying that would be the only way eradicate it, because I don't believe it would be possible or right to try to educate away somebody's religion.

Gotcha. I thought that might be the case, but figured I'd better clarify.

It's not a conclusion, it's a possibility. A lot of what religions teach is good, and societies are often built on a religious foundation - so without religion maybe societies would have lacked some of that social cohesion and been more fragmented.

If by "a lot" you mean < 1% of their teachings, then yeah, ok, there's "a lot" of good stuff there. On the other hand, the bad stuff far outweighs the good stuff. The very premise of Christianity (for example) is simply horrid. It's based on the idea that you are a horrible, slimy, shit-covered worm of a man, who deserves to be killed and to suffer forever just for the crime of being alive. It then goes on to teach that the only way for you to be forgiven for this crime ... is for an innocent man to be executed in your place.
...

I couldn't invent a more horrible system of justice if I tried!

The way I see it, saying that religion has "good stuff" is rather like saying that the husband who beats his wife also "buys her nice things". Yipee. You're missing the forest for the trees.

As for societal cohesion, yes, religion is very good at binding people together and encouraging xenophobia. I'm not sure why you'd want that. The ONLY reason to encourage such cohesion is to survive in the competition against other groups which are organized in a similar fashion. In that sense, yes, religion probably was a survival strategy - groups which didn't bind together were much more likely to be conquered by those which did. That doesn't make it desirable, though. It also doesn't make it the only effective survival strategy. The Soviets did a pretty good job of holding their society together through political ideology instead of religion. Feudal Japan did it through a system of "honour" and "duty". North Korea does it through tyranny. There are plenty of ways to bind people together; the problem is that most of them suck. I'd much rather have a society that's a loose arrangement of individuals than a society that's composed of mindless automatons.

From your response I take it you don't see any good in religion, but do you have any evidence that a world without it would be a better place?

There are studies showing that, on average, religiosity amongst the citizens of a nation tends to be directly related to crime and inversely related to quality of life. However, so many factors play into those stats that I'd be hesitant to pin it solely on religion. On an individual level, the stats show similar trends. For instance, the most fundamentalist Christians have the highest divorce rates in America, while Atheists are amongst the lowest. You could also look at prison populations, which seem to have a significant dearth of atheists. Moreover, we can look at the policies which various religions encourage. It's no accident that the rise in Teen Pregnancy in America is directly correlated with "abstinence only" programs in schools. It's no accident that the HIV rate in Africa continues to rise, while missionaries make aid contingent on the rejection of condoms. It's no surprise that suicide bombers continue to kill for the glory of Allah, and it's no surprise that the question of the ownership of Jerusalem continues to ferment hate and animosity between the Abrahamic faiths.

Of course, there's no way to "prove" that a world which never had any religion in the first place would have been better. In the same vein, there's also no way to prove that a world without recreational drugs would have been any better. What we can do is show evidence that both religion and drugs are harmful and provide few if any benefits t

Re:A partial solution:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Basically the same answer Jacob (the Christ figure) in Lost gave to Ben Linus (the Job figure) right before Ben killed Jacob at the behest of the smoke monster (the devil).

Religion is like Obi-Wan Kenobi- strike him down he'll come back larger, weirder, and more powerful than ever.

Re:A partial solution:

[TheKidWho]

Factual arguements for god; none.

Not necessarily true, the main factual argument for God is that we are here therefore something must have created us. Be it evolution or a God, we simply do not have enough information to deduce how we were created, any belief we have is purely faith in Science or Religion.

Unless the meaning of god is changed beyond all normal range of definitions, no version of god has been shown to exist, so, whatever.

So are you saying that those feats are impossible? That a sufficiently advanced civilization could not have seeded the Earth with life, or created our solar system, heck possibly even our own Universe? Maybe they even implanted the idea of a deity into our genes.

Carry on clinging to your presupposition. Enjoy! Your uncertainty is a canard.

Uncertainty is the reality of the situation because we simply do not know.

Just an FYI, I am not a religious person.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately, most people with a religious background have better things to with their time (just like everybody else!). Unfortunately, there are far too many people out there, religious or otherwise, who think they have a right to tell other people how to live, such as the poster of the original comment.

I would also like to point out that some of us with religious backgrounds and beliefs would be against the scenario you describe because it would be highly immoral, not just because we have better things to do with our time. It is also the case for some, like myself, it would be immoral because of my religious beliefs, not despite them!

Re:A partial solution:

[c6gunner]

Can't the same thing be said about science and technology?

In the same sense that the same thing can be said about food.

Science and technology improve our lives and allow us to better understand the universe in which we reside. Religion does none of the above.

Re:A partial solution:

[Omestes]

Yeah, the Buddhists listened to Buddha so well they didn't name their religion after him. Nobody buys your "it's a philosophy" bullshit any more than anyone buys fundie xtianity's "it's not a religion, it's a relationship with Jebus" bullshit.

Name a single core metaphysical tenet of Buddhism? You'll have a very hard time doing this outside of the relatively banal "suffering is.". The rest of Buddhism is relatively personal advice on how to live a better life. No where contained in Buddhism is anything attached to the creation of the universe, what happens when you die, or the dire consequences of eternal torment if you don't follow the Buddha's advice.

A lot of the rubbish people associate with Buddhism has nothing to do with Buddhism itself, but rather with various religions that adopted Buddhist philosophies. People mainly confuse the relgious aspects of Tibetan Buddhism with actual core Buddhism. Buddhism isn't really a religion, since it has nothing to say about religion. You can be a Buddhist Christian, even, since Buddha didn't touch on any metaphysical topics. He didn't endorse ANY religion.

Calling Buddhism a religion is like calling confusism a religion, or calling the various "self-motivational" programs religions. If I write a book of advice on how to live a better life, and you follow some of my advice, am I a prophet, or founding my own religion? If people, at some later date incorporate my friendly advice into their religion, do I suddenly become a religious figure?

I really like Kant's Categorical Imperative, and I try my best to live by it. Therefore Kant is a religious figure. Being that I call myself Kantian, therefore it is further proof that Kant was trying to form a religious group.

Just ask Mr. Jew, or Mr. Musli, or John H. Hindu.

Re:A partial solution:

[Omestes]

Agreed. Down with Organisms!

Re:A partial solution:

[Omestes]

Write now I am typing this using only my mind (with only a wee bit of assistance from my fingers).

If recommend trying a bit harder.

Re:A partial solution:

[IICV]

But the reward from God according to Jesus isn't 'not being dead'.

And the reward my dog got for running out into the street in front of a car was to go live on the farm, except I don't know where that farm is and I've never seen it and as far as I know it doesn't even exist. And the only dog who ever came back from the farm came back for about five minutes two thousand years ago, and nobody's seen or heard from him since - but lots of people will tell you all about it, even though they didn't see it. In fact, the one guy who talked the most about seeing this dog come back to life never met the dog while he was really alive, he just fell off his horse, bumped his head, and had a vision (though he tells the story in a different order).

Is it that kind of reward?

Since when did a bunch of people doing something (even in God's name) mean that God condoned, agreed-with, or willed it? See also: the Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, Westboro Baptist Church, Pat Robertson, et al.

Since God is omnipotent, duh. If an omnipotent being exists, that being necessarily condones any action you perform; if the being does not condone the action, you would not be able to perform it*. See the speed of light, the Heisenburg uncertainty principle, logical impossibilities, the fact that I can't ignore gravity at will, et al.

*More detailed explanation: posit an omnipotent being that can do anything. I choose to take an action in the presence of the omnipotent being. The being must choose to prevent or allow my action. Either option is a choice, made willingly by the being. Therefore, if I choose to kick a puppy and the omnipotent being chooses to refrain from stopping me, the omnipotent being has made a choice that condones puppy-kicking. If I choose to ignore gravity and the omnipotent being chooses to prevent my doing so, the omnipotent being has made a choice that condemns anti-gravity. The only way around this is to posit a being that is potent but not omnipotent, and as such does not have this refuse or allow choice.

Re:A partial solution:

[Omestes]

Unless the meaning of god is changed beyond all normal range of definitions, no version of god has been shown to exist, so, whatever.

I define "God" to be the orange coffee cup sitting around 6" to my left. This coffee cup obviously exists. Therefore God exists.

But this becomes tricky when I move, or the said "god" moves. A whole field of "philosophy" will be born, millions will be made for publishers.

Therefore all shall bow before the almighty semantic post hoc hedge!

Philosophers can lick my balls, well, provided they are pretty red-heads, but you know what I mean.\

"A very little knowledge can be a very dangerous thing" is as true for philosophy as for any other discipline. I went to school for it, and noticed some phases. When you start, you are full of questions. A bit later you are full of answers. Later still you realize that you know absolutely nothing, and the chances for you knowing anything is pretty slim. After that point you change majors, drop out, or become an alcoholic and eventually end up teaching philosophy.

Re:A partial solution:

[BJ_Covert_Action]

In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted

This was always something that bugged me about my faith back when I was a practicing Christian (don't ask me what I am now, I couldn't tell you if I tried). There was always a self-righteous pleasure that Christians seemed to take in being persecuted. If someone called them stupid or illogical, there would be this knowing little smirk that dawned on their face, like they had just caught a glimpse up a girl's skirt. This mindset always seemed decidedly masochistic, in some ways. "Oh, so you want to hurt me? Go ahead, I will revel in it." That attitude always walked hand in hand with the turn-the-other-cheek and love-your-enemies mentalities. Occasionally, it results in a smugness,a sort of, "Why, yes, I AM stupid aren't I? You are so wise to notice!" It might even be called sanctimonious.

When I pieced that together with the ideal that pride is a sin, things kind of made more sense. It's as if the Christian faith feeds off of its own members' self-destruction. The saddest part of it all is that, in the end, I watched that mindset destroy the self-respect and dignity many of my Christian friends. They roam the Earth as hollow shells of their former selves, discussing how content they are to be living a life for God, with almost no head paid towards the very temple that He gave them (see the discussion in the Bible regarding the body as a temple).

That's one of the many reasons I had to walk away from that religion. Watching it destroy the hearts and minds of those I loved, watching those I loved destroy their own hearts and minds in piousness to God, it became nauseating.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

From an atheistic viewpoint, all your "hard questions" have "easy" answers, they just might now be the answers you want to hear.

Does life have purpose? Life has whatever purpose you define. If you wish to turn this definition over to other people (aka to religions), have at it.

Is there such a thing as The Truth? If you mean, is there such a thing as reality, then yes, it does appear that our real world does exist, that it will continue to exist when each of us dies. If you mean is there some cosmic entity that exists that we would call "Truth", well, there is no evidence of this, thus a rational viewpoint would conclude that no, "The Truth" does not exist.

Is there life after death? There is no credible, tangible, repeatable, verifiable evidence that an afterlife exists. If you wish to use logic, then the rational viewpoint would be "no afterlife exists". But, if you'd prefer, you could use faith to just believe it (though, this would be far from rational).

Will I see my lost loved ones again someday? See the former question - it's basically the same question, with the same answers.

Is there justice in this world? There is justice in this world from humanity's standpoint, basically whatever laws we wish to pass, and whatever punishments we wish to hand out. Now, if you mean some supernatural cosmic justice, well, again, there is no evidence of this existing, hence a rational viewpoint would state that, no, a cosmic supernatural justice does not exist.

Will good ultimately prevail over evil? This question, as have many of your questions, basically smacks of a presupposition that there are a couple of cosmic supernatural forces called "good" and "evil". Again, there is no tangible evidence that a cosmic "good" or "evil" exists, hence rationally speaking, the answer is "good will not ultimately prevail over evil, because there is no good or evil outside of our minds - these are mere reified concepts"

Why must there be so much suffering? This question is very general - what suffering are you specifically referring too? Do you mean "why do we feel pain?" Well, we evolved to survive our environment, and one thing that ensures our survival is how well we deal with pain. If your question refers to "why are some people suffering on this planet?", well this can be answered by local social and political issues around the suffering people. If your question refers to "why does our world have suffereing?", well, your question asserts that our universe has an external purpose not governed by us, so then my question is, can you provide evidence that shows that our universe has this external purpose?

From an atheistic perspective, your questions all seem to presuppose that our universe has a "greater" purpose. If that's your belief, that's fine - just show some evidence that this external greater purpose actually exists. If you cannot, but you wish to continue to believe that this universe must have some outside "purpose", fine - just acknowledge that you are entering into the realm of irrational thinking, and once you do this, you can invent whatever purpose you want, because who amongst us can verify your claims?

Re:A partial solution:

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, by Robert Pirsig, has some interesting (and very rational) discussions about the trappings of rationalism. He asserts (to a great depth of which I cannot appropriately emulate in a single slashdot comment) that rationalism is an incomplete, though not wrong, mindset with which to view the entirety of reality (or existence or whatever). Viewed from that statement, rationality could be seen as one, 'fringe,' subset to the generalized set (which Pirsig asserts is Quality). Granted, it would be a rather large fringe element, as it is directly subservient to Quality, and thus a very broad subset, but it is still a subset and still, therefore, only part of a larger picture.

As for anti-dogmatism, I think that particular ism is an existing hypocrisy. I have met anti-dogmatists who, by all consistent interpretations of what they preach, should kill themselves and their followers. The attitude in general makes for a remarkably amusing self-satire. Nonetheless, I would assert that, yes, anti-dogmatism is, in and of itself, dogmatic and fringey.

Re:A partial solution:

[FiloEleven]

We don't need science and technology to live or be happy, yet we do need food, so that comparison doesn't hold water.

Many people's lives have been significantly improved by religion by giving them hope and comfort in troubled times and a strong network of support. Many people's lives have been ruined by science and technology--any victim of a bullet or bomb, chemical waste, car accident, and any number of other things made possible by the growth of technology. It is a poor comparison that looks only at the negatives of one thing and the positives of another.

I actually agree with you in that the argument to which you responded is a stupid one, and I am not defending it as a reason for keeping religion around though I certainly don't agree with abolishing it. I asked my question in earnest, not as a debate maneuver. I don't advocate ceasing scientific activity because it certainly has brought an increase to physical well-being, yet how is that different from religious practitioners who get spiritual (or mental, if you will) well-being?

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought you might...but this being slashdot, it never hurts to go a little overboard in an arguement. Besides, we might get a nibble from someone who thinks they can prove a religious "TRUTH" logically exists (good luck, I can't think of any way to do it without defining the religious truth in relation to physical/temporal truth) which may make for an entertaining read!

Actually, it is trivial to create a formal logical system that given the right axiomatic premise(s) will logically prove various things a given regards as truth. There is usually a strong tradition of this in some sects of almost every major religion. I'm only significantly familiar with Christian, and to a much lesser extent Jewish, theology so I'll only deal with those two groups of religions. In either case, you really only need one axiomatic premise alone the lines "An omnipotent, omniscient God can exist regardless of the ability of humans to empirically prove it," to logically derive many (though probably not all) of the religious truths that are upheld by the believers of that specific religion.

I'm not sure if any of that fits what you meant by "defining the religious truth in relation to physical/temporal truth, but most religious truth is only completely illogical (in the formal sense) if you have an axiomatic premise similar to "All things that exist must be empirically provable". This is because any being fitting the conventional definition of a deity would have a will of its own and be able to supernaturally violate any experimental controls on a whim.

Re:A partial solution:

[Bakkster]

Is it that kind of reward?

Yes, and that's where faith comes in. Whether you believe it or like it, that's the belief. I just wanted to clear up the misconception that them being dead somehow invalidated or punished them.

Since God is omnipotent, duh. If an omnipotent being exists, that being necessarily condones any action you perform; if the being does not condone the action, you would not be able to perform it*.

Alternately, God could simply be condoning free-will. For example, I condone people voting, even if they want to vote for things I find to be terrible.

Also, not acting to stop an action is not the same as wanting it to happen, so it depends on the use of the word 'condone' as to if it fits. Perhaps 'willed' is a better word in this case than 'condone', which I think is a loaded word in this case (implying approval, rather than simply acceptance).

For example, when dealing with children, sometimes the parent allows them to hurt themselves (or others) if it is not life threatening. They don't want the child to bump their head, the parent simply values the child's ability to make decisions whether they are right or wrong.

Re:A partial solution:

[Bakkster]

In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted

This was always something that bugged me about my faith back when I was a practicing Christian (don't ask me what I am now, I couldn't tell you if I tried). There was always a self-righteous pleasure that Christians seemed to take in being persecuted. If someone called them stupid or illogical, there would be this knowing little smirk that dawned on their face, like they had just caught a glimpse up a girl's skirt. This mindset always seemed decidedly masochistic, in some ways. "Oh, so you want to hurt me? Go ahead, I will revel in it." That attitude always walked hand in hand with the turn-the-other-cheek and love-your-enemies mentalities. Occasionally, it results in a smugness,a sort of, "Why, yes, I AM stupid aren't I? You are so wise to notice!" It might even be called sanctimonious.

That seems to me a gross distortion of the Biblical principle. The simplest evidence is that the Bible refers to "enduring" hardship, rather than revelry in it. While Paul seemed to show similar signs of asceticism (boasting of imprisonments, etc), I feel he taught that these hardships were a means to an end for him. He did not become imprisoned for the sake of being imprisoned, but he disregarded the threat of imprisonment and persecution in his devotion to preeching for his sake and the sake of others.

I assume I'm interpreting what you mean correctly. It's always saddening to me to hear these kinds of stories. Sometimes it's hard to understand where things went so wrong.

Re:A partial solution:

[meringuoid]

But religion is not merely a drug - it is intertwined with all of the most important unanswerable questions in life. Does life have purpose? Is there such a thing as The Truth? Is there life after death? Will I see my lost loved ones again someday? Is there justice in this world? Will good ultimately prevail over evil? Why must there be so much suffering?

As an agnostic, I am used to having my religious friends and family members say that I'm just taking the easy way out. To them, no God means no responsibility, no sense of duty, no moral quandaries, no church on Sunday, etc, etc. However, as I'm sure many agnostics can tell you, being an agnostic is anything but easy. All of those Big Unanswerable Questions weigh heavily on you - much more so than for religious people who've found all of those questions conveniently answered by their religion of choice. Meanwhile, I've spent nearly my entire life being constantly tormented by those questions.

Let me help you, then.

Yes: to make more life. Sometimes, in answer to an unambiguous well-posed question. Yes, unless you are the last living thing in the universe, in which case no, but either way it's someone else's life not yours. No, assuming 'lost' means they're dead; otherwise maybe. Sometimes, depending on how things turn out in each particular case. Entropy will ultimately triumph over energy; that may not be the same thing. There doesn't have to be so much suffering, there just is.

Does that help? Or is the real problem that you already know or suspect the answers to those big questions, and don't like what that implies?

Re:A partial solution:

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

How do you tell the difference between condoning free will 100% of the time and complete indifference?

If there was a law against murder, but it was never procecuted, that would make the law useless, no?

Re:A partial solution:

[Ihmhi]

Get rid of the tax breaks that many countries afford religious organizations and they'll abolish themselves in due time, or at least become weakened enough that they'll no longer be a major problem.

Re:A partial solution:

[bit9]

Thanks for the dazzling display of pedantry, but I wasn't looking for some Slashdot know-it-all to answer those questions for me. Although, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that someone on Slashdot completely missed my point. Those questions, and many others like them, are all but impossible to answer with any credible degree of certainty, your own genius answers notwithstanding. Moreover, those are the kinds of questions that we each must ultimately answer for ourselves, no matter how many times, or by whom they have been answered before. I assure you I don't need the help of some wise-cracking pedant on Slashdot to answer them for me. Besides which, you've completely ignored the context in which they were posed, and all the other questions that discussion brings up, namely, "How does an individual's struggle to answer those questions relate to his/her affinity (or lack thereof) for religion?"

Re:A partial solution:

[bit9]

Thanks for the brilliant analysis. Sheesh, where have you been all my life? All this time, I was thinking those were actually difficult questions, but little did I know some super-genius who goes by "IICV" on Slashdot had them all figured out. Who knew?

/sarcasm

If you really feel the answers are that easy, then hey I'm glad for you. But don't confuse your own certitude with actual certainty, unless you're prepared to show me rigorous proofs of all of those answers.

Re:A partial solution:

[IICV]

I'll give you rigorous proofs as soon as you give me rigorous definitions of "justice", "good", "evil", "purpose", "life", "truth" and "suffering".

I forgot to mention that part of the reason why you have such trouble with those questions is because they are ill-defined. Find some definitions that work for you, and answers will be much easier.

Re:A partial solution:

[Hognoxious]

Bollocks.

Sorry about the delay in replying, but I'm the Mercian ambassador to Yugoslavia and I needed to catch the last autogyro to Siam.

Re:A partial solution:

[IICV]

Yes, and that's where faith comes in. Whether you believe it or like it, that's the belief. I just wanted to clear up the misconception that them being dead somehow invalidated or punished them.

According to you, God has the capability to bring them back to life. Why would He not do so? According to you, God has the capability to prevent their deaths in the first place. Why would He not do so?

Their deaths do not invalidate or punish them; they just refute the theory that God cares about them.

Also, not acting to stop an action is not the same as wanting it to happen, so it depends on the use of the word 'condone' as to if it fits. Perhaps 'willed' is a better word in this case than 'condone', which I think is a loaded word in this case (implying approval, rather than simply acceptance).

Even for we limited mortals, not acting to stop something is the same as wanting it to happen. If I see a man kicking a puppy and I do not stop him despite being capable of such, I am implicitly I condoning his action; I am saying that the cost required to stop the puppy-kicker is less than the benefit generated by that action.

We normally view inaction as being different from action because we are grounded in metabolism; taking any action, no matter how small, costs us something. Thus, taking no action, no matter how small the action we are avoiding is, carries a small benefit. Inaction is slightly safer for us, because it always results in at least a little good; thus, we categorize inaction differently from actions.

This logic does not work for an omnipotent being: because it is omnipotent, every action or inaction costs it nothing. Therefore, by allowing an action to occur, the being is saying that the action will have a net benefit. By disallowing an action, the being is saying that the action will have a net detriment. Hence, everything we can do, God approves of - He believes it will have a net benefit. Everything we cannot do, God disapproves of - He believes it will have a net detriment. There is no way around this, unless you say that God is not omnipotent.

So yes, sometimes parents let children hurt themselves. However, no parent we would call good will kill their children with starvation, plague, earthquakes or hurricanes.

Re:A partial solution:

[Hognoxious]

Can we swap the alternating day so that Sunday is always a God day, but Fridays are only god days every other week?

Absolutely bloody well not.

We're talking about the truth here - and not any ordinary truth, but the truth as arrived at by Aceticon's infallible method what was wrote on an internet.

So let me tell you now that such an incredibly true truth is neither a matter for negotiation nor a popularity contest. Shame on you!

Re:A partial solution:

[ffreeloader]

I'm posting and blowing up all my mod points because I have modded here, but thought your question was worth answering.

The answer is that God is on trial before the universe. The devil, once the #3 man in God's government and the greatest creature of His creation, has accused Him of being unfair, of not having His creation's best interest at heart, and that He rules arbitrarily for only His own benefit. Underlying those charges is the idea that the devil can rule the universe in a much more beneficial way.

So, what's the long-term solution that God chose to answer the charges that Satan leveled at Him? He has chosen to let the Devil reveal his own nature through allowing him to rule this planet. The killing, the suffering, the incredible cruelty that you see in day-to-day life here on earth is the outcome of God allowing the devil to expose his own character and allowing him freedom of action and the freedom to rule here, up to certain limits, by the principles he espouses.

That is the only way to rid the universe of sin once and for all. Only if everyone understands why the devil's way isn't good can God then put an end to sin and the devil without creating doubt in the minds of His creation that the devil actually had a point.

Looking around at this world and what goes on here I see that God is correct. Once people understand that selfishness, deception, and rule through force rather than through love and freedom of choice is a bad thing can God destroy sin and the devil and not cause His loyal subjects to doubt his goodness.

Re:A partial solution:

[bit9]

Why is the burden on me to provide rigorous definitions, when you're the one claiming to have all the answers? You show me the proofs, and I'll be happy to go along with your definitions, assuming you haven't merely selectively chosen your definitions to make the questions easy to answer, thus diluting your answers down to meaningless tautologies.

But let's not get bogged down in your imaginary proofs, because that misses the point of me asking for proofs in the first place, which is that your answers are completely speculative. Maybe you're convinced of them, and maybe they help you sleep better at night, but you can't possibly be so arrogant as to think that you've somehow solved all of life's eternal mysteries, and that you can explain them all in two lines of text. Then again, maybe you are that arrogant.

Either way, your answers don't amount to a pile of monkey dung, and your cocky assertion that "The only reason why these questions weigh on [me] is because [I] don't want the answers" is nothing more than moronic trolling.

Re:A partial solution:

[Bakkster]

According to you, God has the capability to bring them back to life. Why would He not do so? According to you, God has the capability to prevent their deaths in the first place. Why would He not do so?

Their deaths do not invalidate or punish them; they just refute the theory that God cares about them.

From a secular and wordly viewpoint only. From the Christian viewpoint, eternal life is a reward, so why send them away from God's presence to return them to a mortal body? The death is only saddening for those who are still on this earth.

This logic does not work for an omnipotent being: because it is omnipotent, every action or inaction costs it nothing. Therefore, by allowing an action to occur, the being is saying that the action will have a net benefit. By disallowing an action, the being is saying that the action will have a net detriment. Hence, everything we can do, God approves of - He believes it will have a net benefit. Everything we cannot do, God disapproves of - He believes it will have a net detriment. There is no way around this, unless you say that God is not omnipotent.

Again, I would say that an omnipotent being can allow a different outcome than he would desire. The cost, in this case, would be that of free will. One of the most common interpretations among Christian theologians is that children who love Him freely is more pleasing to God than those who are forced to worship him.

So on the one hand, God would desire us all to be happy. On the other hand, he desires more for us to have the freedom to choose, leading to wicked people. So yes, God chooses to let people act in wicked ways, but He does so because the alternative would be worse, reducing us to mere puppets on strings.

Re:A partial solution:

[bit9]

No, but I think it's a safe assumption that cocaine addiction is light years away from religion in terms of depth and complexity, as well as its overall effect on mankind and the course of history.

So if your point is merely that I'm not qualified to talk about the psychological effects of cocaine addiction, then okay, I'll grant you that. However, I stand by my assertion that something as deep and complex as religion cannot be adequately modeled by analogy to something as relatively mundane as drug addiction.

Re:A partial solution:

[Omestes]

Very novel answer to the problem, I don't think I've come across anything like it in my on-and-off readings along these lines.

It does serve to resolve some of the difficulties around the "evil" problem, but the whole presentience, and pre-destination thing still rears its ugly head. God must have known that Satan would present this challenge, and must know the results of it. He also would know where each of us mortals would fall within it.

This brings up one of the variations on the "evil problem" that I forgot; God made Satan, therefore God is responsible for the acts of Satan.

Though, now I'm moving on and just pondering things for the sake of pondering things, an interesting question is whether, or whether not, God can decide to STOP being prescient, and thus omnipotent, even temporarily. Wouldn't this undo the whole ontological argument? God wouldn't be, then, perfect, and thus would be free of one of the largest proofs of His existence.

I fear I moved into the whole "can God make a rock so big he can't move it" nonsense territory. I apologize.

Re:A partial solution:

[Wyatt Earp]

Why not? It's come in waves and left in waves over the last 200+ years.

Evangelicalism is just another wave washing up on shore.

Re:A partial solution:

[TheRaven64]

In summary, you agree with me, but feel the need to phrase it in an insulting way. Have you still not actually read my post?

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

Dammit, I am sick of this meme that male nipples are superfluous. They are not. They are there for sexual selection. They are indicators of the type of nipples your offspring will have.

Re:A partial solution:

[c6gunner]

We don't need science and technology to live or be happy, yet we do need food, so that comparison doesn't hold water.

And science and technology aren't addictive, so neither does yours :) I figured if you wanted to make silly comparisons, I may as well play along.

Anyway, to answer the rest of your claims - you're comparing apples and oranges.

Religion is a generic term which encompasses thousands of different beliefs, and is interchangeable with non-religious beliefs. People can find comfort and support in numerous ways, some of which are religious, some of which are spiritual, and some of which are secular.

Science, on the other hand, doesn't have beliefs or dogmas; it's merely a methodological approach to data analysis, and is the only one of it's kind. We have no other reliable way of analyzing the world around us. What we do with the knowledge we gain has nothing to do with science. When a suicide bomber blows up a bunch of people, he's not doing it for science.

That's why I think your comparison is a bit silly. Science doesn't tell us what to do or what to believe, it's merely the process we use to gain knowledge. Religion, on the other hand, DOES tell us what to do and believe, including what to do with the knowledge that science has given us.

Finally, in true slashdot fashion, I'll close off with a car analogy:

You're effectively asking me what the difference is between a company that makes cars, and the lunatics next door who think that the All Mighty Engine sacrificed his spark-plugs so that those who believe in him can go to the Big Garage in the Sky. Even if we ignore their willingness to run-over anyone who disagrees with them, the difference is still pretty damn obvious.

Re:A partial solution:

[BJ_Covert_Action]

That seems to me a gross distortion of the Biblical principle.

I'd agree with you on that point. I'd go farther to assert that gross distortions in general are a significant factor in driving Christianity towards the zealotry and social irrelevance that I think we are seeing today. However, that's just an opinion on my part.

Re:A partial solution:

[c6gunner]

Unless you have been shown their existance. Once you have seen an elephant it is quite impossible to believe that elephants don't exist.

I hear it's much the same with bigfoot.

Re:A partial solution:

[Eli Gottlieb]

Well Buddhism has already had it demonstrated, but let's try something a bit closer to your home: Judaism and Islam.

A) Veneration of the leader... What leader? These religions as wholes don't have single leaders, or even leading committees.

B) Symbology and vocabulary... Huh? Brand names have their own symbology and vocabulary too. This is completely irrelevant.

C) Demanding unquestioning obedience... Once again, unquestioning obedience to what? They idealize the notion of religious law as something that can be followed to the absolute, but in scholarship and practice no such thing ever exists.

You burn the strawman, I demolish it.

Re:A partial solution:

[QuietObserver]

So yes, God chooses to let people act in wicked ways, but He does so because the alternative would be worse, reducing us to mere puppets on strings.

That is the most sensible manner of viewing god's intentions, in my opinion, and the best response I've read on this thread so far. Thank you.

Re:A partial solution:

[QuietObserver]

Ooh, I so wish I had mod points, not that a few of your other posts on this thread haven't already earned you some well deserved positive karma.

Re:A partial solution:

[alexo]

Hmm, sounds like what happened in the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union was, like all countries, an artificial construct. It split into several smaller constructs and most of the people who had it good in the SU, still have it good in Russia, etc.

It is similar to corporations that merge, split and re-form with the same people in charge.

Re:A partial solution:

[alexo]

Seems he's fine with it, as long as they believe the all-powerful God has a different name.

A bit of a nit pick, but "the all-powerful God" is a monotheistic tenet. Baal belonged to a pantheon and therefore could not be "the all-powerful God". Moreover, biblical mentions of Baal usually refer to any number of local spirit-deities worshiped as cult images, a.k.a false gods.

Re:A partial solution:

[jesset77]

Baal belonged to a pantheon and therefore could not be "the all-powerful God".

Sure, but it turned out he was secretly working for Anubis all along.</spoilers>

Re:A partial solution:

[ffreeloader]

In a universe in which God has always given the rational creatures He created the right to make their own choices evil was a possibility. It had to come since there is free will. God knew it as well as we do.

So, why did He allow it? Because if God didn't allow free will what kind of relationship could He have with His creation? Without free will He would have had nothing but the worship of robots. How meaningful is that to anyone? If you had the ability to create worlds would you want to spend an eternity being "adored" by robots, or would you want to have a real relationship with the beings you created? Would you want them to love you for who you are, or because you gave them no choice in the matter? If the latter can that really be called love?

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's also scary because so many religious fundamentalists (who outnumber the atheists) believe in abolishing the atheists. And they don't intend to do it peacefully."

This is exactly the reason I hope that soon the gloves are taken off completely when it comes to public discussions about religions and their destructive effects on societies and personal freedoms.

Re:A partial solution:

[IICV]

From a secular and wordly viewpoint only. From the Christian viewpoint, eternal life is a reward, so why send them away from God's presence to return them to a mortal body? The death is only saddening for those who are still on this earth.

If you truly believe that, then the logical next step would be to go forth and kill innocents who are currently guaranteed God's presence. After all, if you kill them now, they are guaranteed to be brought into God's presence - but if you let them live, they may sin and be denied that glory. Of course, killing newly baptized infants (depending on your personal beliefs, of course) will guarantee you a place in Hell; just console yourself with the thought of all those souls for whom you have guaranteed heaven. Surely you don't value your soul over the souls of all those babes you could save from a lifetime of sin, do you?

You'll be like Jesus, except with more baby killing.

Again, I would say that an omnipotent being can allow a different outcome than he would desire. The cost, in this case, would be that of free will. One of the most common interpretations among Christian theologians is that children who love Him freely is more pleasing to God than those who are forced to worship him.

I never said anything about desire; I said that because God is omnipotent, He has the capacity to stop people from kicking puppies. If he does not stop the puppy kicking, then on the balance he approves of puppy kicking. You are saying that the benefit afforded to puppy kickers by allowing them to believe that they have free will is greater than the cost incurred by puppy kicking, which is why God desires that puppy kicking happen - the alternative is to remove the free will of puppy kickers. So God, in your opinion, says "allright guys, go ahead and kick all the puppies you want. It's bad, but it's more important that you think you have free will".

However, that is not the case. God, being omnipotent, can easily create a universe in which people both have free will and cannot kick puppies. (and if He can't do that, then He is not omnipotent.)

As a somewhat more concrete example: you would presumably argue that I have free will. If I have free will, then why can't I take off and fly right now? Why can't I turn purple? Why can't I flargle?

I have free will, but my free will is necessarily constrained by the reality in which I am embedded. Why, then, am I embedded in a reality in which I can't fly, but can kick puppies? Why is one of those things an infringement of my free will, and the other not?

So yes, God chooses to let people act in wicked ways, but He does so because the alternative would be worse, reducing us to mere puppets on strings.

I find this kind of hilarious, because you're about the tenth person to use this argument with me, and the thousandth I've seen use this same argument. It's a pretty common string of Catholic thought, apparently.

Re:A partial solution:

[Monty_Lovering]

"the main factual argument for God is that we are here therefore something must have created us"

That we are here is a supportable observation. Bolting god onto this is unsupported assertion. As it is unsupported, it is not a factual argumnt, QED.

Unless the meaning of god is changed beyond all normal range of definitions, no version of god has been shown to exist, so, whatever.

"So are you saying that those feats are impossible? That a sufficiently advanced civilization could not have seeded the Earth with life, or created our solar system, heck possibly even our own Universe? Maybe they even implanted the idea of a deity into our genes."

I made no assertion of impossibility, so don't even try to put words in my mouth. And as god is, in normal ranges of definitions NOT a part of the material Universe but of a different order of nature altogether, aliens are aliens, god is god.

"Uncertainty is the reality of the situation because we simply do not know."

False uncertainty; we do know there is no evidence for god. This definately is not the same as proving there is no od, which is impossible, QED. But balance of probabilties?

"Just an FYI, I am not a religious person."

No? You seem determined to cling on to the same wooliness of thought that characterises many.

Re:A partial solution:

[IICV]

Well, here's as rigorous an explanation as I can give without your definitions:

1. Life only has the purpose you make of it because, fundamentally, you are the only person responsible for how you live your life. External factors influence you, but at the very base of things you and you alone are the only person responsible for your actions - and thus, you are the only person responsible for what your actions achieve.

2. You can only prove things to be true in mathematics, because your axioms are well-defined; by operating on them, you can reach conclusions that are absolutely true within the universe of your mathematics. We unfortunately do not have anything of the sort for reality, so you can't prove anything to be absolutely true. All you can do is gather evidence and form a statistical case one way or the other.

3. No, there's no life after death - besides wishful thinking, there's no reason to believe that your "you"-ness carries on in any way after your brain ceases to function.

4. Your lost loved ones are gone. They will not be back. Once you die, you will also be gone (see above). Fortunately, at that point you won't worry about seeing them any more.

5. Clearly there is the concept of justice in this world, because you use that word and know that it means something. However, justice is a thing humans do (and apparently some monkeys), so the only justice that exists is that which we make for ourselves as a society. It's not like justice is some actual tangible thing you can mine from a rock or distill from aether; if there is to be justice, it must come from us.

6. Good and evil are incredibly nebulous terms, especially since you're talking about "ultimately". Ultimately, the energy density everywhere in the universe will end up at a uniform random state; whether that's good or bad depends on your definition.

7. Human suffering is caused either by humans being bastards to each other, or nature being a bastard to humans. I'm not sure what other answer you would like for this.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

All fine arguments, I'm sure, but yet again it's totally beside the point of my original post (the one before we got into this silly back and forth argument about proofs, etc).

Let me reiterate my original point: Your own (purely speculative) answers to these questions notwithstanding, for the vast majority of humanity, these are really tough, virtually unanswerable questions, that in many cases weigh quite heavily on one's psyche. So heavily, in fact, that if an individual cannot find any satisfactory answers to these questions, they can (depending on the individual, of course) overwhelm someone to the point of not being able to function, being depressed, engaging in self-destructive behavior such as drinking, etc, or even committing suicide.

Granted, some people are less affected by these questions than others. It spans the range from completely oblivious and happy-go-lucky to tormented and suicidal. Most people (I would assume) are somewhere in the middle, which means that while they may not be overly concerned with those questions, they are far from oblivious to them, and would, in the absence of any suitable answers to these questions, probably tend toward feeling depressed and/or out of place in the world.

What do I mean by "suitable"? Well, that's something that each individual has to answer for themselves (which is exactly why your answers to these questions aren't relevant to this discussion), but it would seem that for most people, a suitable answer is one that is comforting in some way (e.g., there is life after death), yet convincing enough (to them) that they won't begin to doubt it.

That's where religion comes in, and this gets back to my original point about why people are so drawn to religion, and why they cling so tightly to it. Religion provides plausible answers to nearly all of the hardest questions. Granted, those answers may not be plausible to you or I, but that's not what matters. What matters is that they are plausible enough to the religion's followers, at least after the initial leap of faith (which in most cases usually consists of convincing yourself that God exists).

As far as my own search for answers, I have spent a couple decades (and then some) trying to find a set of answers that I can believe. For me, the answers don't have to be comforting. If we just turn to dust when we die, and consciousness is merely an illusion created by chemical processes in the brain, I'd be okay with that. You assert that my long quest for answers is due not to a lack of answers, but rather that I don't like the answers I find. To the contrary, I don't require the answers to be comforting, I merely require them to be convincing, which, to me, means that the answers need to be provable, which, to me, means that they can be arrived at via a rational argument based on empirical evidence. In other words, I'll believe it when I see it.

Which is why, even though I tend to agree with your answers much more so than with those that the various religions tend to give, I still see your answers as being merely speculative. You haven't arrived at those answers via reason and empiricism. If anything, you have (as I have) rejected all of religion's answers because they are based on irrational arguments and non-empirical "evidence" (e.g., "I felt the presence of God"). However, I find it a bit ironic (read: hypocritical) that many people who reject religious arguments on the grounds that such arguments are based on irrational thinking, then turn around and substitute their own, equally irrational arguments.

For example, you state (apparently with absolute certainty) that "No, there's no life after death...", an argument you support by saying "...there's no reason to believe that your you-ness carries on in any way after your brain ceases to function." So, in other words, because there is no empirical evidence to suggest that there is life after death, you assert that there definitely is not life after dea

Re:A partial solution:

[bit9]

No idea how that got posted as AC. I was logged in when I started. I guess I must have accidentally checked the "Post Anonymously" box. Either that, or it took me so long to write that long-winded monologue that my session expired.

Re:A partial solution:

[Aceticon]

Initial POV 1: God exists.
Initial POV 2: God does not exist.
[discussion]
Conclusion: God exists on Mondays, Fridays and alternate Sundays.

What makes God?

Say, if an entity created mankind but could not perform any further actions that could be classified as miracles, would it be God?

How about Pantheons? Is not each and every Roman God a God?

Challenge the assumptions (i.e. the common usage of "God" to referer to the Christian God - which by the way, is the same as Allah) and there's plenty of room for discussion.

Every problem can be framed as a question having a yes/no answer:
- No satisfatory answer will ever be found if you stay in the confines of such a question instead of arguing in the confines of the actual problem.

By the way, you just proved my point - plenty of people unknowingly mentally limit themselfs to two-sided approaches to questioning and thinking.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

I love this comment.

Re:A partial solution:

[meringuoid]

Why is the burden on me to provide rigorous definitions, when you're the one claiming to have all the answers?

Because you're the one asking the questions. We can give you answers, but they'll necessarily be based on what we think are reasonable assumptions of what your terms mean. Quite a few of us have given broadly similar answers already, but you seem to have a problem with them; perhaps your definitions of terms are different?

Oh, wait...

You show me the proofs, and I'll be happy to go along with your definitions, assuming you haven't merely selectively chosen your definitions to make the questions easy to answer, thus diluting your answers down to meaningless tautologies.

Ah. Then you do have a problem with definitions. For instance, define 'life'... well, life is a process which absorbs energy and materials from its environment, and uses them to make more life. To exclude things like fire, which we do not consider life, we also require that the new life thus made be more like the parent life than like the average, randomly chosen bit of life out of the general population. There are special cases like worker bees, or creatures rendered sterile by disease or accident or age yet still alive, but in general reproduction with heredity is central to the concept of life as distinct from other forms of chemistry. That's why I gave the answer 'to make more life'. If you have different definitions of what you mean by 'life' you may, of course, reach different conclusions about its purpose. But if you're finding it hard to reach a conclusion, and the process is tormenting you, then maybe you should closely examine your definition of 'life'? Perhaps the problem's there?

Mind you, even the biologists' definition of 'life' is troublesome. Are viruses alive? Prions? It's a topic of quite some debate.

Similarly with your other questions. Will good ultimately triumph over evil? Well, best current understanding of the Universe is that its ultimate fate is a heat death; if you define 'good' to mean entropy and 'evil' to mean potential energy, then the answer's yes; otherwise, it depends what you mean by 'good' and 'evil' in a universe where even the stars will soon die and grow cold and we face a future of uncounted trillions of years dominated by neutrino radiation, dark matter and black holes (the possibility of a Big Rip permitting.) I'm not sure 'good' and 'evil' as conventionally defined really apply to a dead Universe. Perhaps you're asking if good will triumph in the meantime? I'm sure it will, sometimes. And I expect evil will have victories of its own. That will depend on individual circumstances; and which side in any given conflict you call 'good' or 'evil' will depend on your own political views.

Or, is there life after death? Well, again, depends what you mean. Myself, I would say 'the permanent end of life' is a good definition of 'death'. My death of course means a bonanza of life for putrefying bacteria, and for the worms, so yes, there is life after death, but not for me. You may disagree; but if you think that your life may continue after your death, then I would say you have a very, very strange definition of either 'life', 'death', or both.

Or, why must there be so much suffering? That question assumes that as a matter of fact, there must be so much suffering. There doesn't have to be. Exterminate all life on earth and afterwards there will be no suffering. I'm sure there are ways of eliminating suffering while also keeping everyone alive, though they'd be more difficult to achieve. If you ask 'why IS THERE so much suffering', then we could discuss many different causes, poverty, disease, violence, all manner of different things; but I'm sure you're already quite familiar with those. You seem to be coming to this question with the expectation that for some reason there should be no suffering; I don't see why you would think that.

I think you're probably making these questions unnecessarily difficult. And if as

Re:A partial solution:

[Bakkster]

That seems to me a gross distortion of the Biblical principle.

I'd agree with you on that point. I'd go farther to assert that gross distortions in general are a significant factor in driving Christianity towards the zealotry and social irrelevance that I think we are seeing today. However, that's just an opinion on my part.

And, of course, the ones who are doing the distorting are the ones who are most vocal/visible, such as the Westboro Baptist Church, Pat Robertson, et al. I'd say those who actually try their best to be Biblical are the majority, but it's hard to compete with a vocal minority that makes for easy headlines.

Re:A partial solution:

[Bakkster]

If you truly believe that, then the logical next step would be to go forth and kill innocents who are currently guaranteed God's presence. After all, if you kill them now, they are guaranteed to be brought into God's presence - but if you let them live, they may sin and be denied that glory. Of course, killing newly baptized infants (depending on your personal beliefs, of course) will guarantee you a place in Hell; just console yourself with the thought of all those souls for whom you have guaranteed heaven. Surely you don't value your soul over the souls of all those babes you could save from a lifetime of sin, do you?

That assumes two things: that we are inherently sinless, and that sin is justified if it increases God's grace. I present Psalm 51:5 and Romans 6:1-2 to show that this is not the Christian teaching:

Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?

As for young children, the most common concept is that of the age of accountability. I'm not aware of any scripture passage that deals with this directly, it is simply a theological best-guess based on the nature of God throughout the rest of the Bible. In short, since children have not had the chance to renounce sin, many believe God will be gracious to their souls, others do not.

However, that is not the case. God, being omnipotent, can easily create a universe in which people both have free will and cannot kick puppies. (and if He can't do that, then He is not omnipotent.)

As a somewhat more concrete example: you would presumably argue that I have free will. If I have free will, then why can't I take off and fly right now? Why can't I turn purple? Why can't I flargle?

I have free will, but my free will is necessarily constrained by the reality in which I am embedded. Why, then, am I embedded in a reality in which I can't fly, but can kick puppies? Why is one of those things an infringement of my free will, and the other not?

I would argue that free will in a world where sin is not possible is not free will at all. A world where humans can not choose to ignore God is no different from a world where all are forced to worship Him. As I said before, it is more rewarding for parents when children do good of their own volition, rather than be required to do so, and it is the same with God. Again, God could create a world such as this (and did, if you consider the angels), but it would be shallow and not worth creating.

Your puppy/flying argument is a good strawman, but still pointless. You can still want to fly or not, and free will is about intentions more than actions. More importantly, your inability to fly is consistent, regardless of your good/wicked intentions. By the same token you are able to kick things, be they soccer balls or puppies, regardless of your intentions. It would be an impinging on your free will if you were able to kick soccer balls, but not puppies. By what mechanism do you propose free will is not impinged by selectively preventing things based on intentions?

So yes, God chooses to let people act in wicked ways, but He does so because the alternative would be worse, reducing us to mere puppets on strings.

I find this kind of hilarious, because you're about the tenth person to use this argument with me, and the thousandth I've seen use this same argument. It's a pretty common string of Catholic thought, apparently.

I'm not Catholic (OK, so I'm Lutheran, which is like Catholic-lite). If it's so unreasonable, I'd like to see an alternative explanation of the God of the Bible. We could sit here all day and brainstorm alternative methods for an arbitrary omnipotent entity to design a world, but it wouldn't have any relation to the Biblical God (which is all I was talking about). Do you have an alternate scheme to allow free-will and prevent sin simultaneously?

Re:A partial solution:

[mcgrew]

I would assume so. I have no idea whether or not bigfoot is real.

Re:A partial solution:

[Hognoxious]

All you've dome there is attempt to redefine one of the terms, in effect changing it to a different question.

Try your pointless liberal-arts sophistry with:

    Sodium is a metal / Sodium is a noble gas.

    Pi is irrational / Pi is an integer.

    Salmon are fish / Salmon are marsupials.

Re:A partial solution:

[IICV]

That assumes two things: that we are inherently sinless, and that sin is justified if it increases God's grace. I present Psalm 51:5 and Romans 6:1-2 to show that this is not the Christian teaching:

I did not in fact assume either of those things. When I said "innocents", I was using that as shorthand for "those who currently have a good chance of going to heaven". That does not necessarily mean children (though as I said, if you believe that baptism washes away inherent sins, it might). You could just as easily be going around killing saintly old priests as newborn infants; I just decided to use newborns as an example, since they are generally believed to be guaranteed a place in heaven if they die before they can do anything sinful (as you admitted).

Further, I did not say that killing them would increase God's grace; I was merely pointing out that if you believe Heaven is a better place than Earth, you should kill anyone who will most likely get into Heaven for their own benefit. After all, like I said, they may sin in the future and thus deny themselves entry into Heaven; however, if you kill them now, they will be guaranteed entry to Heaven. Isn't it worthwhile to force someone to go slightly more quickly to their eternal reward, than to stay here on Earth and still have a chance of messing things up?

I would argue that free will in a world where sin is not possible is not free will at all. A world where humans can not choose to ignore God is no different from a world where all are forced to worship Him. As I said before, it is more rewarding for parents when children do good of their own volition, rather than be required to do so, and it is the same with God. Again, God could create a world such as this (and did, if you consider the angels), but it would be shallow and not worth creating.

I think you do not understand the full extent of what "omnipotent" means. If you say "God cannot create a world in which sinning is impossible, but where free will exists and is deep and worth creating", you have just posited something that God cannot do. If there exists a thing that God cannot do, then God is not omnipotent. That is the point of my puppy-kicking example. God can create a world in which I can't kick puppies but still have free will, because that is the definition of omnipotence. The answer for all questions of the form "can God..." is yes for an omnipotent God.

Which means that despite being capable of creating a world without sin and horror and death and with free will, God for some reason chose to create this world. Which sort of brings His judgment into question.

Do you have an alternate scheme to allow free-will and prevent sin simultaneously?

No, but then I'm not omnipotent. However, because I can ask the question "can God create a world in which there is simultaneously free will and no sin", the answer is "yes" as long as God is omnipotent.

Re:A partial solution:

[ResidentSourcerer]

Unfortunately you would start revolutions. Historically empires that have lasted have allowed the local people to keep all/most of their religion. (The Brits were successful in squashing the Indian practice of Suttee.)

Look at all the situations where one religion has tried to stamp out another.

A better solution is to change our education system. We need to teach kids from the moment they can reason to distinguish between logic, values and wishful thinking.

Methods that can help:

1. Teach formal logic and rhetoric in school. Teach all the standard fallacies in logic.

2. Teach history. Teach it in part as the collision of ideas and world views.

3. Teach kids to question values, to question authority.

4. Teach them tricks to isolate their feelings from the situation. The Kantian ethic, the golden rule, role reversal.

5. Teach them debate -- to be able to argue both sides of a case.

6. Teach science by building and destroying world views. On the first day, teach that everything is composed of Earth, air, fire, and water, but teach it as a factual theory, not as 'what fuddy-duddies believed way back wehn' Then bring in the things that can't be explained. Let them hang.

Teach Ptolomeic astronomy.

Teach them that the world is flat. And then go to a large lake and measure the curvature of the earth.

Get them used to the idea that your world view isn't you. That an attack on how you believe the world works is not a personal attack. You want them to hold a hundred views, and lose them over the course of their education.

Re:A partial solution:

[Bakkster]

I just decided to use newborns as an example, since they are generally believed to be guaranteed a place in heaven if they die before they can do anything sinful (as you admitted).

Quick clarification, I explicitly said that even newborns are sinful. The general theological concensus is that despite being sinful, God is merciful to children who do not have the opportunity to renounce their sin. However, I understand your usage of the word 'innocent' to refer to those who would reach heaven if they died this instant.

I was merely pointing out that if you believe Heaven is a better place than Earth, you should kill anyone who will most likely get into Heaven for their own benefit. After all, like I said, they may sin in the future and thus deny themselves entry into Heaven; however, if you kill them now, they will be guaranteed entry to Heaven. Isn't it worthwhile to force someone to go slightly more quickly to their eternal reward, than to stay here on Earth and still have a chance of messing things up?

Yes, it would be to their own benefit to die soon. However, this kind of selfish thought is not deemed acceptable in the Bible. Firstly, a righteous life is considered pleasing to God, meaning that anyone ending a righteous life early would displease God. Secondly, Christians are charged with "making disciples of all nations", and working for the betterment of others. Taking the easy way out to heaven would be selfish, also not the intended action.

As well, the only sin I am aware of which the New Testament explicitly claims will bar a person from heaven is that against the Holy Spirit. Not exactly something that you stumble into. No need to guard against it by performing actions the Bible instructs not to take.

God can create a world in which I can't kick puppies but still have free will, because that is the definition of omnipotence. The answer for all questions of the form "can God..." is yes for an omnipotent God.

Ah, the old 'boulder so big God can't move it' paradox. We'll leave that one for the philosiphers, I'd rather have a meaningful discussion than a 'what is omnipotent' which has been going on for ages.

Which means that despite being capable of creating a world without sin and horror and death and with free will, God for some reason chose to create this world. Which sort of brings His judgment into question.

My point is exactly that: God created our world in such this manner for some reason. I would claim it requires omniscience to understand exactly why, the best we can do is make informed guesses.

Again, my belief is that suffering entered the world as a result of our free will choosing sin. While this would lead to temporary suffering for all (and permanent suffering for some), the choice of righteous men to be righteous in the face of all of this suffering, was decided to be a reward worth the cost.

In addition (at the risk of sounding irreverent), it also makes for a damn good story. The entire Old Testament setting up rules and regulations, patterns, and forms that come to a head with Jesus. For example, forgiveness for sins would not be as powerful if it had not been 'bought' through the death of God Himself, nor would it have had as much meaning without the connections to the Old Testament sin offering (which the priests ate -> new testament teaches all are priests -> communion is eating of the sin offering of Jesus) or the passover. Whether this story would be the primary or secondary goal of God, I don't know, but it certainly ataches greater meaning to everything taught.

Re:A partial solution:

[Nadaka]

You don't need one leader, there can be many. Almost everyone who follows a religion follows a specific leader, be it a local preacher, the ruling clerics in iran or the pope. People who have power and influence because they are "special". They speak to god and receive wealth, reverence and obedience.

For catholics: the pope, the bishops, the priests.
For islam: the clerics and imam.
For protestants of various flavors: any preacher, the Southern Baptist Convention, Billy Graham and the televangelist of the week, etc.
For judaism: there were the priest kings of Israel and in modern times the rabbi particularly of the orthodox branch.

Unquestioning obedience...
Yup, all right there. The pope gets to say what is and is not a sin for Catholics. And if you do not obey will be "damned" and possibly excommunicated or even killed (less of this recently, thankfully). To varying degrees, the same applies to the others as well. The same goes for the other religious authorities.

There are individual exceptions, and some religions may try to start out better. But from what I have seen, the ones that last are going to have a core of authoritarian corruption because they compete more effectively.

I agree that "symbology" and vocabulary are pretty meaningless in this context, unless you consider it as a form of subverting the meaning of language with double speak.

I was almost tempted to prove your signature correct. ;)

Re:A partial solution:

[gweihir]

If you acknowledge the equivalence between "consistent and objective answers" and "truth", you see that this is just what I was saying. The "magic" in "truth" was supplied by you, not by me and I frankly do not see any. However your answer also shows that "consistent and objective answers" are something that eludes the common person, and for them "truth" does indeed take a mythical quality as they do not understand what it is.

The difference in a scientist is not that they do not have opinions as well, but that they do have a process to arrive at the same answers given the same data regardless of opinion and that they do understand this process and can use it at will. Well, in practice it doe not work quite that well and there are a number of corrupt scientists, that will, e.g. lie in order to get funding or attention. But the important distinction is that the common person cannot use the scientific method and has no clue why or how it works. That is the main reason people have the gall to ignore well established scientific results. They do not know what they are ignoring and mistake it for opinions that are driven by an agenda.

Re:A partial solution:

[Eli Gottlieb]

The pope gets to say what is and is not a sin for Catholics.

And who actually obeys the Pope?

Almost everyone who follows a religion follows a specific leader, be it a local preacher, the ruling clerics in iran or the pope. People who have power and influence because they are "special". They speak to god and receive wealth, reverence and obedience.

The Pope claims to actually speak to God. Islamic clerics do not, period, and the common Muslim of the world, especially Sunni, can change their imam as often as they change their shirt if they please. Hell, they can not have an imam at all if they want to.

Re:A partial solution:

[bit9]

Because you're the one asking the questions.

This makes no sense whatsoever. The whole point of me asking for proofs was to challenge your assertion that you have the answers. Presumably, if you have all the answers, then you ought to be able to prove them, and if you are claiming to have solved these problems, then you must already have all the definitions you required. Remember, we are discussing *your* alleged proofs, not mine. If and when I claim to have answers, then we can discuss my definitions. Trying to turn the question back around on me is a total cop out.

Ah. Then you do have a problem with definitions.

Only if you've chosen deliberately loose definitions in order to make the problems trivially easy to solve. For instance, if I say I can prove that meteors are made of cheese, and I define the word meteor to mean "a big ball of space cheese", then I can claim to have proven something, but all I've really done is construct a tautology. That's an absurdly simple example, but in the realm of public debate, it is quite common for people to come up with much more clever/sinister ways of manipulating definitions (or, more generally, ways of framing the problem) so as to appear to have answered a question without having actually said anything of substance. That was my only point of possible contentions about your definitions. If your definitions are more or less the commonly accepted ones, then I have no problem with your definitions.

As for the rest of your comment, it's all just a bunch of playing tricks with semantics to avoid having to answer my question. You keep going off on irrelevant tangents such as what does 'life' mean, is good/evil the same thing as entropy, or why did I ask why must there be so much suffering, etc? Who cares about the word 'must'? It's clear what I meant. So fine, let's change it to "Why is there so much suffering?" and move on. Instead of addressing the essence of my questions, you're just trying to trip me up in a bunch of mental masturbation about semantics.

All of which completely and utterly evades the main thrust of my argument, which is that you have absolutely no credible claim to having answered all those questions. You've simply made up answers that fit your worldview, and when asked to defend your position, instead of giving me any sort of rational argument or empirical evidence to support your claims, you merely attempt to bog the discussion down with petty semantics.

You scoff at the questions, as if they are trivially easy to answer, but from any sort of rational perspective, your answers are no more valid than those provided by religion. Both are based on nothing more than speculation. For example, is there life after death? It's absolutely clear what I mean by that, without getting all tangled up in definitions and talking about prions and chemical processes in our cells, etc. If some guy walks up to you on the street and asks you that question, you know immediately what he means, and if you start getting all anal about definitions instead of just answering the question, you're just dodging it. But just to humor your obviously feigned confusion about what the question means, first of all the question is almost invariably phrased in a human context, and secondly, it virtually always means, "After I die, will my consciousness continue in some way?"

At least IICV seems to have understood the question when he rephrased it as "does your 'you'-ness continue after your brain ceases to function?" But, having managed to get past the silly hair-slitting on that question, we haven't progressed from my original point of contention, which is "how do you know?" Both you and IICV state without any doubt that there is no life after death. You turn to dust, and that's that. But, once again, your own certitude on that is not based on reason. It's based on your own personal religion (which I'm guessing is atheism). Like I said to IICV, atheism is a religion of sor

Re:A partial solution:

[Nadaka]

"And who actually obeys the Pope?": Catholics, or they face purgatory/damnation, social ostracism by their church, excommunication, or even torture and murder (it still happens, though not as common as in the dark ages).

"Islamic clerics do not, period": You are taking that out of context, or perhaps I am using examples instead of fully explaining every bit. It does not matter if they claim to actually speak to god, its the effect I am referring to. By "interpreting" the often confusing and contradictory scripture, or claiming to do so without providing any reference to the scripture they are supposedly referencing they can justify just about anything, effectively wielding power over the people who have faith in them. They receive wealth, veneration, authority and power due to their position as holy men.

"change their imam...": What does that matter at all to what I am saying? An individual changing their leader of focus does not matter. I am not talking about individuals, I am talking about religious organizations and the people who control and benefit from them.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

One of my friends (I will be anonymous because this is a very personal issue) was raised in pretty much an average Christian family. He has had lifelong anxiety/depression and physical issues. I know he was suicidal because I was the one talking to him on the phone one night, encouraging him to just hold on long enough to get someone to help him.

One of the things he ended up saying: God hates him.

Now, damn, I'm agnostic, but it's that much -worse- when you're religious and you are convinced that the ultimate omnipotent being has a grudge against you.

Re:A partial solution:

[meringuoid]

The whole point of me asking for proofs was to challenge your assertion that you have the answers. Presumably, if you have all the answers, then you ought to be able to prove them, and if you are claiming to have solved these problems, then you must already have all the definitions you required. Remember, we are discussing *your* alleged proofs, not mine.

Well, the answers I gave were based on fairly conservative definitions of terms; I tried to make as few extra assumptions as I could beyond the most basic interpretation. So, 'life' is a chemical process we observe in certain structures on Earth. 'Death' is the end of that process. 'Good' and 'evil' I didn't explore, but since the question was about 'ultimately' I just explained the best estimate available for the ultimate fate of the Universe, and left the decision about whether entropy was 'good' or 'evil' to you. That sort of thing. Of course if you want to go into greater detail then we'll really need to establish just what our definitions are; otherwise my results may be valid, but would be describing completely different concepts to the ones you are asking about!

They're your questions, not mine. I could come up with answers based on my own interpretation of your terms, but then they might not be answers to your questions any more. That's why I need your definitions.

it's all just a bunch of playing tricks with semantics to avoid having to answer my question. You keep going off on irrelevant tangents such as what does 'life' mean, is good/evil the same thing as entropy, or why did I ask why must there be so much suffering, etc? Who cares about the word 'must'? It's clear what I meant. So fine, let's change it to "Why is there so much suffering?" and move on.

And in that case, you get an answer that discusses how diseases work and spread and cause trouble, and that examines the various causes of natural disasters, and that delves into sociology and history to consider the causes of violent conflicts, and psychology to describe the origins of personal upsets, and so on, and so on. This is an important question, but I don't see how it's a Great Unanswerable. It's obvious why there's so much suffering; the real question you ought to be asking is 'what can we do to reduce it?'

For example, is there life after death? It's absolutely clear what I mean by that, without getting all tangled up in definitions and talking about prions and chemical processes in our cells, etc. If some guy walks up to you on the street and asks you that question, you know immediately what he means, and if you start getting all anal about definitions instead of just answering the question, you're just dodging it. But just to humor your obviously feigned confusion about what the question means, first of all the question is almost invariably phrased in a human context, and secondly, it virtually always means, "After I die, will my consciousness continue in some way?"

No constraints about the manner in which it could happen? Well, there's cryogenics if you're optimistic about the future. Or I suppose there's the possibility of brain uploading, though that raises thorny problems about identity. Or some fantastically advanced aliens might swoop down and seize your brain and reimplement its neural network in a robot body. You might even spontaneously come back into existence as a quantum-mechanical Boltzmann brain at some point in the unimaginably distant future.

But I think your question might more fully be stated as 'Is there a wholly undetectable parallel universe to which my entire mental state will somehow be copied at the moment my brain function ceases, preserving unique identity, and in which that mental state will continue to operate indefinitely thereafter, not subject to any form of degeneration or decay?' Is that a fair statement of your question? If so... this is a question that torments you? Seriously? If someone were to come up to you today and ask you that question, quite separately from the cultur

Re:A partial solution:

[bit9]

Wow. Big surprise. Just more gibberish from you, and still dodging the fact that ALL of your so called answers are nothing but a massive circle-jerk of endless speculation. I'm guessing by your argument style (or lack thereof) that you're about 19 years old. Anyway, you've wasted enough of my time already pretending that all of humanity's greatest mysteries are merely child's play, yet quizzically offering up no coherent arguments and instead merely rattling off dozens of possible answers. It would seem that, in your mind, plausibility is equal to provable certainty. If that floats your boat, so be it, but I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying (in vain) to convince you that they are two completely different things. Have a good day.

Re:A partial solution:

[toadlife]

That'd be like going into a pizza shop...

This guy might be able to help you with that one.

Re:A partial solution:

[meringuoid]

Anyway, you've wasted enough of my time already pretending that all of humanity's greatest mysteries are merely child's play, yet quizzically offering up no coherent arguments and instead merely rattling off dozens of possible answers.

That's just it, you see. The basic answer to 'is there life after death' is 'no, except for the bacteria and the worms'. That answer comes from the most conservative definitions of 'life' and 'death'.

The other possible answers - yes, by means of cryogenics, or brain uploading, or alien intervention, or instantaneous transfer to parallel universe - follow from different assumptions; either that some incredible technology will some day be invented that can save you from the failure of your body, or that fantastic benevolent super-entities exist which will do that favour for you.

So the question becomes two: 'Will scientists ever develop a way to copy brains into new cloned or robot bodies?' and 'Does there exist some hyper-advanced entity which is in the habit of copying human brains into some secure location at the point of death?' To which my answers would be 'maybe, I certainly hope so but it will be difficult to do', and 'what, seriously?' I don't know, maybe you have some reason to think that second one is likely? I mean, you say these questions torment you, so you must think there's some substantial probability of it... I can't prove it doesn't happen, but I can't prove that grave robbers from outer space didn't reanimate the corpse of someone who didn't look much like Bela Lugosi and use it to menace a small town back in the fifties either. Doesn't mean I lose much sleep over the matter.

It would seem that, in your mind, plausibility is equal to provable certainty.

Ah, is that what you're after? Provable certainty? This isn't mathematics, I'm afraid. Science doesn't get you provable certainty; only plausibility and high degrees of probability. It's possible that we're totally wrong about the chemical processes we call 'life', that 'life' is something different and the cessation of those chemical processes we call 'death' doesn't actually destroy that 'life'. It's also possible that we're totally wrong about magnetism; perhaps compasses point north because invisible leprechauns pull on them. It's even possible that the entire Universe came into existence fully formed just yesterday, with falsified 13.7 billion year history, complete with false memories in all of our brains. Or that the whole damn thing's a computer simulation.

Totally undetectable hyper-advanced superbeings copying brains at the point of death into a parallel universe, well, I can't prove they don't exist. But I don't take the notion particularly seriously, and my uncertainty doesn't exactly torment me. Anybody can construct a question so as to be unanswerable; you just define your terms so that no evidence will ever be available, and you have an unfalsifiable claim. That doesn't make the question important, though. Certainly doesn't make it worth losing sleep over.

You asked other questions, though, which _are_ subject to observations. Is there justice in the world? I said yes, sometimes. It's a rather woolly concept, but have you never observed something you would call 'justice' to be done? I've read of many cases in which great injustice has been done, but also many in which justice was indeed done. Here's another reason why I ask for your definitions; is your concept of justice so incredibly stringent that you have never observed it to be done? Now that's something I can agree would torment me too. But if you have ever, even once, seen justice done, then there's your answer: yes, rare though it might be, there is justice in the world.

Or, as you later redefined the question: 'why IS THERE suffering?' - well, go out and find an example of suffering, and study it. Everybody who is suffering is suffering for their own particular reasons, and there are many reasons. That you expect a single answer to a question like that is just

Re:A partial solution:

[Eli Gottlieb]

"And who actually obeys the Pope?": Catholics, or they face purgatory/damnation, social ostracism by their church, excommunication, or even torture and murder (it still happens, though not as common as in the dark ages).

You've got to be kidding me. The Church wishes they had that much obedience!

"change their imam...": What does that matter at all to what I am saying? An individual changing their leader of focus does not matter. I am not talking about individuals, I am talking about religious organizations and the people who control and benefit from them.

Religious organizations are made up of individuals, they and their behavior matter profoundly.

Re:A partial solution:

[Sique]

As someone actually born there I tell you: East Germany is still a term often used, and polls in Germany also often make a difference between answers in West Germany and East Germany. Take it or leave it. But don't try to tell me about East Germany. :)

Re:A partial solution:

[Hognoxious]

So how are East Germany doing in the Winter Olympics?

P.S. Don't give me orders. You lost, twice.

Re:A partial solution:

[c6gunner]

As has been said often, it's good to be open-minded, but you have to be careful not to let your brains fall out.

This "we can't be certain of anything so we don't know anything" mindset is completely fucking ridiculous. I really feel sorry for those who view the world that way. You must get scammed all the time.

Re:A partial solution:

[MrResistor]

No where contained in Buddhism is anything attached to the creation of the universe, what happens when you die, or the dire consequences of eternal torment if you don't follow the Buddha's advice.

Buddha was a Hindu, so there was no need to deal with those topics as they were already amply dealt with, and Buddha himself was only concerned with the parts that were directly applicable to everyday life. His big idea was that it was possible to achieve Nirvana in a single lifetime, and there is most definitely a dire consequence of eternal torment if you don't follow his advice: you keep getting reincarnated into this world of suffering.

Re:A partial solution:

[Sique]

Pretty well, they are currently holding at 14 medals. It's not easy to count the medals in the team competitions though, because some of the teams consist of east and west germans.

But you will run into similar difficulties if you try to determine the sportive achievements of Scotland or Belarus. While Scotland has their own governing body for instance in Soccer, Golf or motor sports (no, there is no "UK national soccer team"), to other events the UK sends a common team, e.g. to the Olympics.

And Belarus, despite being part of the Soviet Union until 1992, always had their own national soccer team (if you don't believe me, look it up!).

I never claimed a state "East Germany" would still exists, even if you try to misunderstand me the whole time. Missing reading lessons? I just said that "East Germany" is still a well defined and often used term for different purposes. The official German term for East Germany is "the New Federal States" btw..

So you lose because of having no clue and limited reading capabilities.

Re:A partial solution:

[Sique]

An additional remark:

There never was a country with the name "East Germany". This was and still is a merely colloquial used term. The official name was, despite its inherent sarcasm, "German Democratic Republic (G.D.R.)", and within East Germany this was the only officiall used term. The officially used term in the western part of Germany for East Germany was first "Soviet Zone", then "so called G.D.R.", and later, after the Grundlagenvertrag (Basic Treaty), it was just "G.D.R.".

Differently than the examples you mentioned (Siam et. al.) the term "East Germany" thus was never used in any documents or contracts.

So to suggest that there once was a time, when "East Germany" was correctly used, and now there is a time, where it is not, is simply wrong.

Re:A partial solution:

[mcgrew]

Don't get me wrong; I think the liklihood of bigfoot's existance is minimal, but I won't discount it completely.

Re:A partial solution:

[Mr. Slippery]

I think I meant greenpeace, who does things like blow up a factory without realizing that rebuilding it will be worse for the environment.

When has Greenpeace ever blown up a factory??? Citation seriously, seriously needed.

Re:A partial solution:

[RadioElectric]

If you acknowledge the equivalence between "consistent and objective answers" and "truth"...

I don't. I'm talking about consistent and objective answers in terms of "What happens to the boiling point when we do this? Oh, it goes down.", that's different from truth in terms of giving us an account of how our universe works.

The difference in a scientist is not that they do not have opinions as well, but that they do have a process to arrive at the same answers given the same data regardless of opinion and that they do understand this process and can use it at will. Well, in practice it doe not work quite that well and there are a number of corrupt scientists, that will, e.g. lie in order to get funding or attention.

It's not just a matter of "corruption". It's frequently the case that any set of results will have multiple possible interperetations. Which of those you then use to explain the data will depend on your background and your worldview.

Re:A partial solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

No idea how that got posted as AC. I was logged in when I started. I guess I must have accidentally checked the "Post Anonymously" box. Either that, or it took me so long to write that long-winded monologue that my session expired.

Or maybe someone is trying to send you a message...;)

Re:A partial solution:

[Hognoxious]

There's a huge difference between using an unoficcial (but common and widely understood) term for a country that exists and referring to a country that doesn't exist as if it does.

Re:A partial solution:

[FiloEleven]

Religion is a generic term which encompasses thousands of different beliefs, and is interchangeable with non-religious beliefs. People can find comfort and support in numerous ways, some of which are religious, some of which are spiritual, and some of which are secular.

Agreed.

Science, on the other hand, doesn't have beliefs or dogmas; it's merely a methodological approach to data analysis, and is the only one of it's kind. We have no other reliable way of analyzing the world around us. What we do with the knowledge we gain has nothing to do with science. When a suicide bomber blows up a bunch of people, he's not doing it for science.

Here is where I must disagree. "Science is not an isolated hobby, but an overarching ideal; and like every other ideal it cannot realize itself in a vacuum. Supposing the method and principles of science were set down in a book and never tried out, its greatness and beauty would be, not increased, but diminished. The purpose must be acted out, and thereby distorted, before it can claim our full devotion. In this regard science resembles all great and good things: the only kind of science we know or shall know is one that has to work in the midst of a credulous mankind, poorly taught, ruled by mixed moralities, and bent upon many other things than the search for truth."* It is as significant that science gives the means to a suicide bomber to blow himself up as it is that religion gives him the will.

That's why I think your comparison is a bit silly. Science doesn't tell us what to do or what to believe, it's merely the process we use to gain knowledge. Religion, on the other hand, DOES tell us what to do and believe, including what to do with the knowledge that science has given us.

Finally, in true slashdot fashion, I'll close off with a car analogy:

You're effectively asking me what the difference is between a company that makes cars, and the lunatics next door who think that the All Mighty Engine sacrificed his spark-plugs so that those who believe in him can go to the Big Garage in the Sky. Even if we ignore their willingness to run-over anyone who disagrees with them, the difference is still pretty damn obvious.

I do not equate science and religion except that neither is required to live or be happy, as you originally wrote, yet both help (and hinder) and talk of abolishing one or the other is misguided. I do not view either of them as an addiction and the whole point of my inquiry was to see how you differentiate the two in that respect. The answer appears to be "I respect the effects of science but not religion," which is fine but a poor litmus test for labeling something as addictive and calling for its abolition.

* Jacques Barzun, Science: The Glorious Entertainment

Hurr.

[bmo]

>Both groups made their decisions based on the same information.

No they didn't.

They based their decisions on information gathered from outside the experiment - their own life experiences, and applied those experiences to their arguments.

This is surprising?

--
BMO

Re:Hurr.

[Romancer]

Here here.

Scientists see results in their studies that they are looking for. Not accounting for, sometimes painfully obvious, faults in their conclusions, or reasoning.

Like the studies that link accidents and cellphones. Not accounting for the possibility that neglectful and distracted drivers that will get into accidents will probably now use cellphones as well as drink, eat, and read a book or put on makeup. It's outside their scope of the experiment so it isn't a possible contributing factor.

This study is pretty bad though. They don't even try and take into account the reason that people would describe themselves as one group or another. Seems to me that they would have had some exposure to different ideas and evidence growing up to convince them that that way of thinking is correct. All cultures justify their own beliefs. These scientists ignore this part and just think of them as having brown or green eyes as they go into the tests.

Re:Hurr.

[KenMcM]

Here here.

Where!?

Re:Hurr.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Scientists see results in their studies that they are looking for. Not accounting for, sometimes painfully obvious, faults in their conclusions, or reasoning.

Like the studies that link accidents and cellphones. Not accounting for the possibility that neglectful and distracted drivers that will get into accidents will probably now use cellphones as well as drink, eat, and read a book or put on makeup. It's outside their scope of the experiment so it isn't a possible contributing factor.

If you think scientists don't know what "confounding factors" are, or don't try to account for them in their analyses, then you don't know enough about how science is done to have an informed opinion on the subject.

Re:Hurr.

[einhverfr]

Nobody reads Heisenberg anymore, I see....

One of the best books I have ever read on scientific epistemology was by him ("Physics and Philosophy" Great book.)

Over and over in that book he writes about how people tend to think that data implies theory, as if there is only one true interpretation of the information before a scientist, but how that is a false assumption. As he puts it (several times), "Data does not imply theory." Instead he suggests that theories can only emerge when scientists put the pieces together based on pre-existing philosophical assumptions.

"Physics and Philosophy" is really one of those books that anyone interested in the sciences really should read. It would help avoid the reactions to studies like this.

Re:Hurr.

[jedidiah]

The "don't try to account for them" bit is purely a matter of being cynical and not having a lot of faith in someone they don't really know anything about.

Sure. I could just have "faith" that the cardinal with the white coat did everything right. Although that would probably be a mistake.

Re:Hurr.

[rxan]

*sigh* All of philosophy revolves around questioning empirical data. Asking not "what is known?" but "how do we know that we know what is known?" Therefore, any philosopher's arguments for, or even against, science is simply based on semantics. It doesn't make a difference because science doesn't ask "why do we know this?" but "what can we infer from what we observe?" Data DOES imply theory, but not if you decide to question the data based on no evidence at all.

Re:Hurr.

[einhverfr]

So are you saying that Werner Heisenberg was a poor scientist and a great philosopher?

Are you at all uncertain about the value of his uncertainty principle?

Re:Hurr.

[martin-boundary]

You should read Jaynes (if you haven't done so before). There's a free draft of his last book floating around the web.

The interaction between prior information and data interpretation is very well understood within the Bayesian framework. In particular, the divergence of beliefs upon learning the exact same data can be demonstrated mathematically, Jaynes does it in one of the examples in the aforementioned book.

Re:Hurr.

[sjames]

Scientists see results in their studies that they are looking for. Not accounting for, sometimes painfully obvious, faults in their conclusions, or reasoning.

Their beliefs conform to their cultural identities?

Re:Hurr.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Also, responding differently to the same facts can indicate plenty of things besides rejection of those facts. For example, optimists will respond differently than pessimists. And to use a modern example, libertarians don't think that drugs are entirely safe, or are good ideas, or are not addictive, in contradiction to the facts. On the contrary, all the ones I know believe that drugs are dangerous, addictive, terrible ideas. But they still differ from neoconservatives in the policy that they recommend.

Re:Hurr.

[TapeCutter]

"Sure. I could just have "faith" that the cardinal with the white coat did everything right. Although that would probably be a mistake."

Yes it would be a mistake because it's arguing from authority, ie: not science.

Science does not ask for trust, nor does it ask for BLIND faith, it asks YOU to use critical thinking.

Re:Hurr.

[einhverfr]

Definitely going on my (long) list of books to read. (Sorry, at this rate it will be 2-3 years)

Re:Hurr.

[ChromeAeonium]

It is obvious that people let biases influence them. I think a better question to answer is how many people will still hold on to their belief in the face of information. There are a lot of weird beliefs out there that are simply untrue, yet have very devoted followings (anti-vaxxers, 9/11 truthers, the moon landing conspiracy crowd, the anti-GMO guys, homeopaths, astrologers, fluoride is a communist plot, ect. ad nauseum). How many people will still believe in falsehoods when presented with all the correct information they care to look at? Something like this would require a good bit of time as rejection of incorrect yet dearly held ideas is not fun and will not happen overnight. As an ex-young earther, I'd know; you can check out my early /. comments to see it in action (please don't). Heck, I still have a hard time listing creationism in the list of wrong ideas, and I know the facts. Reevaluating and adjusting yourself to fit how things really are instead of how you think they are is difficult. It would be telling to see what percent of people will put a belief over evidence. I'd bet that a lot more would rather hang on to their belief and think themselves some sort of intellectual martyr that go through the effort of empirically evaluating their beliefs.

Re:Hurr.

[Romancer]

If you think scientists don't know what "confounding factors" are, or don't try to account for them in their analyses, then you don't know enough about how science is done to have an informed opinion on the subject.

That's probably the most ignorant statement I've heard all week.

Try this on for size:
"If you think a person in a any position doesn't do their job perfectly in all cases you don't know enough about their job to have an informed opinion on the subject."

Sound a bit crazy to you now?

I'll restate it so you can get the idea you missed in the first place:

I think that in the varied fields of study and research into the reasoning behind human decision making some scientists don't account for a wide enough field of contributing factors to possibly attribute to their conclusions of causality. Sometimes after arriving at their conclusions they may find that they have not been as thorough as another study in their methodology and have arrived at an erroneous deduction through faulty assumptions. This is the driving force behind the peer review process as a single study has very little weight unless it can be replicated in an opposing scientists control with the same, or with statistically insignificant variance from the original, outcome. How many studies have been refuted after publication due to improper methodology in the testing or because of a flaw in their sampling process that introduced a bias that wasn't accounted for. As a growing exploration of the unknown there must be some unexpected influences that cannot be foreseen, hence the need for the experiment in the first place. If all experiments were always done without error then there would not be the halting controversy and mistrust that exists in most every specialized field in human studies. And that's not even getting into the process of publishing the findings in a matter that factually states the reasoning behind the conclusions and the logic that necessitates the link between the supposed corollary. Which was the original issue I was taking with the article and the And the base implication that they weren't addressed by the audaciously false statement that "Both groups made their decisions based on the same information."

Re:Hurr.

[poopdeville]

Yes, these are important ideas. Mathematicians and philosophers have abstracted them out into "logic". I don't mean to sound condescending. A "theory" (in the sense of logic) is a set of mutually consistent sentences, closed under logical implication. A "model" for the theory is a set of objects which "satisfy" the theory. This is straightforward to explain, but there are some fiddly details that I won't go into. Consider the theory generated by:

Every Blue thing is Strong.
Every Strong thing is Blue.

Models define truth. We can construct a simple model for this theory: The singleton set that contains that blue guy from the Watchmen. We can construct another one: the set that contains the Watchmen guy, and a nicely painted blue steel bar. And so on and so forth. The thing to note is that every object in the model needs to "satisfy" both the sentences. This can happen "vacuously". If we create a "subtheory" by adding a sentence to the theory, say, "Doctor Octagon is a rapper", a model for the new theory would contain Doctor Octagon, in addition to the strong blue stuff. At least, under the assumption that Doctor Octagon is neither blue nor strong. If the "real" Doctor Octagon is either, he must be both, in a model of the theory.

Data doesn't define models. Data defines theories. An observation that some blue things are strong gets generalized, via the scientific method, to the claim that every blue thing is strong. Indeed, the point of the scientific method is that every observation has the "same" status -- assumed to be true, as long as it was recorded properly. In this sense, the "record" is a sort of "unanalyzed" theory. Human brains can (maybe, sometimes) work out generalizations from that data. But, and here's the important part, the model is the real world. But we don't have access to "the model". We're a part of it. All we can do is try to grope for "axioms" from which we can generate a "copy" of the real world, using the "model theoretic" construction I discussed. But we run into undecidability very quickly. If there is ANY models that satisfy an undecidable theory, there are infinitely many (extremely different) models that satisfy that theory. And we can't even distinguish between them using scientific language. (This is a consequence of Godel's theorem, in very vague terms, and using a slight conceptual shift in logic of the last few decades. In particular, if you can prove a sentence in a theory, the sentence is "true" in every model for the theory. If you can't prove a sentence, then it can be true OR false, depending on which model you decide to use to evaluate its truth.)

Superstring theory is an interesting case, given this discussion. Physicists essentially took the "entire record" of physical theory, picked a few important equations, and turned them into logical axioms. This was done without apology. The superstring theorists are doing what I described above, explicitly. It is "unscientific" because it doesn't predict anything new. But, of course, that is because physics before superstring theory was already closed under logical implication (at least in broad strokes). A nice formalization of a theory isn't going to add new proof (or falsifiable experiments) to a poor or disorganized formalization. On the other hand, superstring theory is just as scientific as 100 year old science is now. If an experiment proves Maxwell's equations wrong, it will disprove superstring theory too. If an experiment proves superstring theory wrong, it will be proving some old physical theory wrong.

Re:Hurr.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who needs faith? Read the paper. They usually have a section called "methods," where they explain how the results were obtained.

Surely you're not purposely confusing the organization that coined "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" (and enforced it with capital punishment) with people who submit their work to peer-reviewed journals, and don't burn you on the stake when you disagree with it?

Sure. I could just have "faith" that the cardinal with the white coat did everything right.

Yeah, there it is.

(Science is a short way of saying, "put up or shut up." We all have ideas. But can you show evidence for them? How much? And how did you gather it? I suppose it'd be too much to ask that people can agree that those basic things are necessary for learning objective things about the world around us. Or that we don't oh-so-cleverly call methods founded in skepticism, "faith.")

Re:Hurr.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

What you say in your reply post is entirely reasonable. But casting it as a "restatement" is disingenuous at best. Your original post was a broadside against scientific practice; now that you've been called on it, you're retreating and saying "well, what I really meant was ..." when you're actually saying something quite different and much more limited.

Re:Hurr.

[pengin9]

off topic, but

or put on makeup.

'or farding'. would be an acceptable and more fluid entry. Just some fun little vocab, and it sounds like fart :-)

Re:Hurr.

[blahplusplus]

"This is surprising?"

I think the really important thing glossed over is that MOST people can't really fully grasp the reality of complex topics for which they have no direct background in the field. Even educated people that like technology often time's have naive and magical views because they have no firsthand experience with the complexities, costs and downsides. Especially with regards to the limits of technology and the complexity involved.

With all due respect to Ray kurzweil... most people underestimate how difficult many problems in science and technology are. Like Kurzweil's forcast of life extension tech/immortality and things like artificial intelligence are likely at least 80-100 years away at best, since no one ever really talks about the _COST_. Think of how long it takes to make certain software projects _today_ in say like the game/software industry (4-6 years for some game designs like Total war)

For example - we've had the ability to go into space for a long time but the COSTS associated with such are prohibitive.

Re:Hurr.

[Benaiah]

If you think scientists don't know what "confounding factors" are, or don't try to account for them in their analyses, then you don't know enough about how science is done to have an informed opinion on the subject.

Or perhaps you don't know what government sponsored reports are. They pay you to find the results they want. Thats how it works and its what started the whole climategate affair in the first place.

Re:Hurr.

[SpaceLifeForm]

You just made their point.

Re:Hurr.

[Anonymous Coward]

Their own life experiences about nanotechnology? Exactly in what way do average people interact with nano tech these days?
Nanotechnology was obviously chosen because it was something these people did NOT have previous experience with, and their "own life experiences" have no actual bearing on whether nano tech will be dangerous or safe. I'm sure he screened out everyone who already knew anything factual about it, so what is left is a bunch of people making decisions about a subject based on totally irrelevant, preconceived notions about how the world works. The fact that they, and you apparently, felt that this irrelevant experience was applicable was the point of the entire study.

Re:Hurr.

[Jane Q. Public]

That is all very well and good, but your example is probably better described as two theories, since each "half" is individually testable and neither is dependent on the other. It is quite possible for one to be true and the other false. Even, perhaps, more likely.

Re:Hurr.

[timmarhy]

social experienments aren't what you could call an exact science. the reason is people aren't a variable they can control exactly no matter how much it might suit their experient.

Re:Hurr.

[Jane Q. Public]

Your "examples" should not all be grouped together, since some of them are at vastly different levels of "known", compared to the others.

For example, some (but by no means all) of the "9/11 truthers" (a very derogatory phrase) have some good evidence to cite. This is hardly something an area that is "unequivocally known". As for "anti-GMO guys", a recent peer-revieed study showed that 3 different varieties of Monsanto GMO corn caused liver and kidney damage in rats. Again, something that probably does not belong in your list. To compare these people with the moon-landing-deniers and astrologers is a mistake, since they are on a much more solid stance, evidence-wise. Further, while flouride may not be a communist plot, there are some very serious ethical issues involved with putting it in drinking water.

Which is precisely the point, and even the point you make: people let biases influence them. Including you. (I say that based on the evidence that you lumped a whole bunch of things into your list of "bullshit", even though from the scientific evidence, some of them probably do not belong in the list.)

Re:Hurr.

[bertoelcon]

Seems to me that they would have had some exposure to different ideas and evidence growing up to convince them that that way of thinking is correct. All cultures justify their own beliefs. These scientists ignore this part and just think of them as having brown or green eyes as they go into the tests.

Science is one of those cultures too.

Re:Hurr.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your "examples" should not all be grouped together, since some of them are at vastly different levels of "known", compared to the others.

For example, some (but by no means all) of the "young earthers" (a very derogatory phrase) have some good evidence to cite. This is hardly something an area that is "unequivocally known". As for "homeopaths", a recent peer-reviewed study showed that "the science behind homeopathy is piling up." Again, something that probably does not belong in your list. To compare these people with the moon-landing-deniers and astrologers is a mistake, since they are on a much more solid stance, evidence-wise. Further, while vaccinations may not cause autism, there are some very serious ethical issues involved with giving them to children.

Which is precisely the point, and even the point you make: people let biases influence them. Including you. (I say that based on the evidence that you lumped a whole bunch of things into your list of "bullshit", even though from the scientific evidence, some of them probably do not belong in the list.)

Re:Hurr.

[ChromeAeonium]

First, an AC nailed you spot on while I was typing, but since I've already typed it up...

For example, some (but by no means all) of the "9/11 truthers" (a very derogatory phrase) have some good evidence to cite.

That's news to me. From the 'steel doesn't melt' to the 'No, thousands of tonnes of falling debris couldn't have made the WTC7 collapse' to the 'Aluminum powder can only be produced in labs, not by the destruction of thousands of electronics,' I've never seen anything from the truthers that didn't amount to baloney, or as the case may be, bias over evidence. Truther should be a derogatory label.

As for "anti-GMO guys", a recent peer-revieed study showed that 3 different varieties of Monsanto GMO corn caused liver and kidney damage in rats.

That wasn't peer-reviewed, and I doubt it ever will be, because it was garbage. It was playing with statistics. They cherry picked a few studies out of hundreds to get variations in organ size. It would be a miracle if they couldn't have gotten those results. Yet, I see it being drug all over the internet as the elusive 'proof' that genetic engineering is dangerous (nevermind that even the authors of that study themselves admitted that they were unable to pin down a causative agent for the alleged damage). Another case of bias over evidence.

Again, something that probably does not belong in your list. To compare these people with the moon-landing-deniers and astrologers is a mistake, since they are on a much more solid stance, evidence-wise.

They're able to make themselves sound more evidence based, but they're really not. Go look at a moon landing conspiracy site; I'll bet they've got plenty of half-truths and misinterpretations supporting their claim, much of which might even sound good, but just like everything else, it's bunk when you really examine it. You see this everywhere. Go look at Age of Autism or Vaclib and tell me they don't have loads of evidence backing their claims that vaccines cause autism, or go look at the Mercola site or whatever and see the evidence they've got proving homeopathy is an effective form of treating everything. They all have evidence, but when you really look at it, it's all either nonsense or a real stretch of the truth. Same with the truthers and anti-GMO guys. It's like Bigfoot vs Santa Claus.

Further, while flouride may not be a communist plot, there are some very serious ethical issues involved with putting it in drinking water.

Since the positives are stronger teeth, and the negatives are nil, I hardly see how is an ethical issue if a few people complain about imagined fears.

Which is precisely the point, and even the point you make: people let biases influence them. Including you. (I say that based on the evidence that you lumped a whole bunch of things into your list of "bullshit", even though from the scientific evidence, some of them probably do not belong in the list.)

Certainty I have biases, but what I like about being an ex-young earth creationist is that I'm fairly confident that I can change my mind if I have good reason to. I'll do a 180, because I can tell you I don't like any of those ideas as much as I did creationism. But first I must be shown the evidence, and that's why I hold those opinions. I didn't pick them based on the notion that the government is out to get me or that deviating from what is deemed natural is harmful. I base them on evidence, not anecdotes, not logical fallacies, not what-ifs, not possible conspiracies. You think the 9/11 truth movement and the anti-GMO movement aren't based on bias? I know those issues very well, and until they show, say, real proof of GMO harm from a reputable health organization, and a causative agent, and a genetic reaso

Re:Hurr.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny because it's supposed to be, "hear hear."

Re:Hurr.

[Jane Q. Public]

That's news to me

I did say "not all". Obviously there are some crazies. That doesn't mean everybody is.

That wasn't peer-reviewed, and I doubt it ever will be, because it was garbage. It was playing with statistics. They cherry picked a few studies out of hundreds to get variations in organ size. It would be a miracle if they couldn't have gotten those results. Yet, I see it being drug all over the internet as the elusive 'proof' that genetic engineering is dangerous (nevermind that even the authors of that study themselves admitted that they were unable to pin down a causative agent for the alleged damage). Another case of bias over evidence.

On what basis do you say it wasn't peer reviewed? It was published in a prestigious journal (in the area of Agricultural and Biological Sciences, International Journal of Biological Sciences is ranked among the top 2.1% of journals ([29/1380] according to SCImago in year 2007), and involved 3 different universities. If you want to claim it "wasn't peer reviewed", please provide some evidence.

And your statement that "They cherry picked a few studies out of hundreds" is ridiculous, since the data they used was from Monsanto's own feeding trials they performed in order to get approval of their products. So there were not "hundreds of studies", and they could not have been "cherry picked". It's Monsanto's own data, dude. This paper merely illustrates that the approval process is not sufficient to weed out potentially very harmful effects (and does it well).

And as far as "unable to pin down a causative agent"... your remarks are exactly like those of the tobacco industry when presented with the correlation between tobacco use and health problems: "correlation does not imply causation". That that is true, as far as it goes. BUT... while they did not accuse any of the particular agents of being the culprit, by the trials' own methodology, those were the only plausible causative agents present. So... your point is? Ah... I see:

"... until they show, say, real proof of GMO harm from a reputable health organization, and a causative agent, and a genetic reasoning for the creation of the chemical pathway for said agent in all man made GMOs..."

Hm. Not just for those in question here? You want ALL that information, not just whether it is harmful? (After all, it is often much easier to prove that something is harmful, than to puzzle out why!) Would it be okay for me to feed you chemicals, maybe for years, that were correlated with extremely serious health problems, until somebody not only proved the causative connection, but also understood WHY it could make you sick? Somehow I doubt it, even though that would make you a hypocrite.

I might be persuaded -- just barely -- to accept the "correlation is not causation" argument, but that's really pressing it in this case, since no other plausible causative agents were present. As for your other arguments, they are simply in error.

"Since the positives are stronger teeth, and the negatives are nil, I hardly see how is an ethical issue..."

And there, again, your biases are showing. There is plenty of objective evidence that fluoride can have harmful physical effects, in sufficient quantity. Even natural groundwater sometimes has enough fluoride to cause fluorosis. I saw the telltale stained teeth myself in West Texas. But more to the point, the quantities necessary for harmful effects in children simply are not known. The ethical issues arise because your second claim, that the negatives are nil, is simply false. We know that there are negatives, but we don't know what the levels are. That is where your bias -- or "faith" if you will -- comes into play. You are ignoring the evidence you don't like.

If there are any significant unknowns (and there are), then there is no ethical justification for medicati

Re:Hurr.

[chrb]

Scientists see results in their studies that they are looking for.... This study is pretty bad

Interesting. You came to this article with a preconceived belief that scientists are idiots and/or self-deceiving, and then you applied that belief to the scientists in question without properly evaluating their research - I assume you haven't bothered to read any of the peer-reviewed journal published papers from this research group, and are just relying on a few quotes from the media and a Slashdot summary to confirm your predetermined bias?

Re:Hurr.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think scientists don't know what "confounding factors" are, or don't try to account for them in their analyses,....

Let's not go confusing knowledge of these factors with always making use of that kmowledge.

Especially if they get in the way of a grant.

Re:Hurr.

[MadKeithV]

Here here.

Where!?

Their!

Re:Hurr.

[centauratlas]

Wear?

Re:Hurr.

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. People who are critics of nanotechnology may simply remember Asbestos. The physical structure of materials matters.

Re:Hurr.

[Ed Avis]

You can't assume it was their life experiences; many personality traits are likely to be genetic. In which case, they made their decisions based on genetic information...

Re:Hurr.

[brxndxn]

I agree this study is bad.. or at least the summaries are badly worded. This study uses the false premise that people fit into one category or another when the two categories are not diametrically opposed. It is like saying, "If you are not a Republican, then you are a Democrat." One group tends to view nanotech as dangerous and another tends to view it as having positive possibilities. I would argue that the vast majority of people, after reading the smallest amount of factual representation about nanotechnology, would view nanotech as having positive possibilities while acknowledging the danger. But even if my opinion t is wrong, you cannot attempt to lump the populus into two distinct categories and declare meaningful measurement if both categories mostly overlap.

I mean.. it seems laughable that 'scientists' conducted this. It reads like:

"Recently, scientists have been measuring the effects of political viewpoints on people by categorizing them as either 'healthy' or 'happy' depending on their answers to arbitrary, but completely unbiased, questions after being presented with related, and equally unbiased factual information that only scientists understand. Scientists were able to deduce that Republicans tend to be healthy people while Democrats tend to be happy people. After being presented with information that the subjects may or may not have some experience or preconceived opinion about, it was assumed that the subjects had no prior knowledge of the subject. Also, scientists compared subject reponses to a list of the correct scientific opinions in order to determine the amount of incorrectness in subject opinions. After the proper precautions were calculated in order to ignore all reasoning behind subjects' reasons for declaring themselves Democrat or Republican, meaningful scientific findings were created. Therefore, Democrats are unhealhty."

Re:Hurr.

[brxndxn]

They're!

Re:Hurr.

[LSD-OBS]

Here here.

Where!?

Their!

Wear wear!

Re:Hurr.

[stdarg]

He said "Scientists see results in their studies that they are looking for." What does the words scientists mean? All scientists (which you seem to have assumed) or some scientists (which it turns out is what the poster meant)? It's an ambiguity of language. Sometimes an unqualified noun means some, most, or all. If I say "I hate doctors" I probably mean that I hate all or most doctors. If I say "I have horses on my farm" I certainly don't mean that I have all the horses in existence on my farm, I mean some.

Your interpreting his post as a broadside against scientific practice in general is assuming the worst for the sake of rhetoric. Though I have to note the same ambiguity here -- did you mean "scientific practice" in general or "scientific practice" as in some limited practices? By the tone of your post I assumed the former.

Re:Hurr.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's "hear, hear" as in "what he said."

Re:Hurr.

[ShakaUVM]

Interesting. You came to this article with a preconceived belief that scientists are idiots and/or self-deceiving, and then you applied that belief to the scientists in question without properly evaluating their research - I assume you haven't bothered to read any of the peer-reviewed journal published papers from this research group, and are just relying on a few quotes from the media and a Slashdot summary to confirm your predetermined bias?

I think the article/summary itself is misleading. The groups were presented a series of facts and possible outcomes, and people decided between the results of those fact based on their personal values.

And this is seen as a bad thing?

Are we so brainwashed as a society that we're no longer allowed to make value judgments as to the use of science? We've been told for so long that values and ethics don't belong in science ("a nuclear bomb will work if we want it to or not") - are we now entering an era where we can't even make a value judgment about the usage of science?

Re:Hurr.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's news to me. From the 'steel doesn't melt' to the 'No, thousands of tonnes of falling debris couldn't have made the WTC7 collapse' to the 'Aluminum powder can only be produced in labs, not by the destruction of thousands of electronics,' I've never seen anything from the truthers that didn't amount to baloney, or as the case may be, bias over evidence. Truther should be a derogatory label.

I did say "not all". Obviously there are some crazies. That doesn't mean everybody is. I won't bother mentioning the "good evidence" because you should be able to look it up for yourself.

Re:Hurr.

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, some (but by no means all) of the "9/11 truthers" (a very derogatory phrase) have some good evidence to cite. This is hardly something an area that is "unequivocally known".

Evidence? 9/11 truthers? All I'm aware they have are pieces of non-evidence used as claims of evidence. The best they can try to accomplish is to set up a false dichotomy argument (it's either a conspiracy or a terrorist attack) and then try to attack the official story. It's exactly the same tactic young Earth creationists use.

Oh, and by the way, did you know that some people think the Earth spins at an incredible rate? If that were true, there'd be winds at the equator of about 1,000 miles per hour! Any child can stand outside and gather evidence that the theory is false. So obviously the Earth is stationary, and it's the sun that moves.

I'm a stationarist, and you should be too.

Re:Hurr.

[DriedClexler]

As for "anti-GMO guys", a recent peer-revieed study showed that 3 different varieties of Monsanto GMO corn caused liver and kidney damage in rats.

And so the downside would be ______?

Fuckers shouldn't eat my crops to begin with.

Got any GMO crops that damage the kidneys of cowtippers? >:-[

Re:Hurr.

[ChromeAeonium]

I did say "not all". Obviously there are some crazies. That doesn't mean everybody is.

Not crazy necessarily, just wrong. There is no evidence to indicate any conspiracy. None. Zip. They're not half right because there's a lot of them and they try to seem factual. They have no facts.

On what basis do you say it wasn't peer reviewed? It was published in a prestigious journal (in the area of Agricultural and Biological Sciences, International Journal of Biological Sciences is ranked among the top 2.1% of journals ([29/1380] according to SCImago in year 2007), and involved 3 different universities. If you want to claim it "wasn't peer reviewed", please provide some evidence.

I don't think you know what peer-review means. It doesn't mean it was worked on by people from different universities. It means other scientists have looked at and evaluated your work.

And your statement that "They cherry picked a few studies out of hundreds" is ridiculous, since the data they used was from Monsanto's own feeding trials they performed in order to get approval of their products. So there were not "hundreds of studies", and they could not have been "cherry picked". It's Monsanto's own data, dude. This paper merely illustrates that the approval process is not sufficient to weed out potentially very harmful effects (and does it well).

It pleases me to see this comment. When you do hundreds of trials, some will be outliers. When you pick the outliers and present them as a representative sample, you can make it look like, say, GMO corn causes organ damage. There were hundreds of trials, most of which were conveniently ignored of which they conducted their study, in fact, there were conventional corn trials that showed the same thing. Call me back when it's in Nature and the WHO is talking about it.

And as far as "unable to pin down a causative agent"... your remarks are exactly like those of the tobacco industry when presented with the correlation between tobacco use and health problems: "correlation does not imply causation".

No even close. Tobacco was a unique input to the human body, with plenty of various additives. If a GE crop is found different than a regular one in one unintended way, than you have an agent. That would be easy enough to find, but no one has ever found it.

Hm. Not just for those in question here? You want ALL that information, not just whether it is harmful? (After all, it is often much easier to prove that something is harmful, than to puzzle out why!) Would it be okay for me to feed you chemicals, maybe for years, that were correlated with extremely serious health problems, until somebody not only proved the causative connection, but also understood WHY it could make you sick? Somehow I doubt it, even though that would make you a hypocrite.

That makes about as much sense as stopping vaccines after the Wakefield study. No, I'm not going to alter anything because some crank pushed out some baloney. Were it a good study (or were I not a plant person and did not understand this issue), I might feel different.

And there, again, your biases are showing. There is plenty of objective evidence that fluoride can have harmful physical effects, in sufficient quantity.

So can water. The key here is 'in sufficient quantity.'

Even natural groundwater sometimes has enough fluoride to cause fluorosis. I saw the telltale stained teeth myself in West Texas. But more to the point, the quantities necessary for harmful effects in children simply are not known. The ethical issues arise because your second claim, that the negatives are nil, is simply false. We know that there are negatives, but we don't know what the levels are.

We don't know what levels of fluoride cause harm? Try telling that to the ADA. Color me skeptical on that one.

Re:Hurr.

[RadioElectric]

(nevermind that even the authors of that study themselves admitted that they were unable to pin down a causative agent for the alleged damage)

Determining the aetiology of diseases can be very difficult. We still don't know how many common diseases are caused. This does not mean that they don't exist.

Re:Hurr.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh. Hmm. Maybe you can't look it up for yourself because you're having some problems recognizing which is misinformation and which is not. I suggest that your background as a young-earth creationist might be an indication that you are prone to such problems.

Ordinarily, anyone who was brainwashed into young-earth creationism but managed to see through that nonsense would deserve some respect for their intellectual independence, courage, and rationality. Instead, I'll use your self-confessed background as a cheap shot. Easier that way.

And then I'll use a study where rats eat 3 varieties of GMO corn to support a movement that makes radical claims about all GMO foods. That's because, as we all know, similar problems never occur with non-GMO foods during testing. Any problems are signs that the entire GMO industry should drop the idea entirely; they certainly shouldn't perform these tests with the intention of making their product better by identifying and fixing problems.

Re:Hurr.

[ChromeAeonium]

Got any GMO crops that damage the kidneys of cowtippers? >:-[

Want a toxic crop? Try cultivating mayapple. It's not GMO (like that matters), it tastes fantastic, smells wonderful, was once considered a delicacy by Native Americans, and a pure milligram of the toxin found in everything except the ripe fruit, including the seeds, is enough to kill you, but I love it anyway (got seeds going through cold stratification right now). It's like the fugu of the plant world. Also used in chemotherapy drugs.

Re:Hurr.

[ChromeAeonium]

Certainty, but genetic engineering isn't like other things, say drugs for instance, where you much go through research to see how this particular chemical affects this that and the other thing. With GMOs, the issue actually much simpler: does the crop have anything different than it ordinarily would? If they can find it, that's enough cause for concern. Actually, it did happen once. I recall once an Australian fodder bean was found to do just that, but they isolated the agent that caused the harm, and they found the pathway that caused it to be produced. They corrected the problem and moved on. What about the soybeans with Brazil nut genes in them that became allergenic? Problem discovered, reason found. I hear a lot about how GMOs supposedly have potential harm, and certainty there's no harm in testing them before moving them to market, but if they do cause harm, finding the problem shouldn't be that hard, yet, aside from that one minor experimental case, no one has ever found one. One can make an argument that, say, the Bt toxin produced by many GMOs has whatever side effects whenever it is found in crops yet somehow not applied as part of an organic agriculture regimen (although I've never heard compelling evidence for this) However, that's not what's being claimed. What is being claimed is that, based on some scant information, the food that has been in trillions of meals is highly dangerous, and no one cares to specify why, even though it shouldn't be that difficult of a matter.

You're right, determining what causes a problem out of a list of possible suspects is hard, but when you can't actually provide exceptionally good evidence that there is a problem, nor can you provide any suspects to examine, well, then the position starts to look awfully darned weak.

Re:Hurr.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you know what peer-review means. It doesn't mean it was worked on by people from different universities. It means other scientists have looked at and evaluated your work.

Be cautious. The number of universities is obviously irrelevant, but the journal itself seemed fairly legit when I glanced at it with my non-biologist eyes. Her "top 2.1%" quote was from their website, so it's not unbiased but their submissions page explicitly mentions reviewers. The mechanism proposed in the abstract even seemed reasonable- the plants have been engineered to be resistant to chemicals like Roundup, so those chemicals are sprayed on the crops, which means they're present in the food in higher quantities. (I think that's what they're saying.)

Again, maybe you have evidence that this journal has lax peer review standards, or you understand these issues in much more depth than me. And as I've mentioned, evidence needs to be proportional to the claim in question. The anti-GMO people seem to be making a much more universal case, so it's not really appropriate to take a single study and extrapolate it to all GMO foods. Especially when not all natural foods are perfectly safe, and as you say many studies have shown no ill effects from GMO crops.

Re:Hurr.

[BJ_Covert_Action]

We're going to start stumbling into an infinite mirror problem and I, for one, don't want my brain to implode from reading slashdot today.

On the other hand, I have a preconceived notion that brain implosion is a bad thing. I might need to come back to this thread after I've figured out how to insert a matter sink into the center of my head....

Re:Hurr.

[ChromeAeonium]

I've never heard of it before, but I don't doubt that the journal is legit, just that I don't recall seeing any meaningful peer review process for that particular piece (although I could be wrong here). However, the only things I've read about if from others (such as the French High Council of Biotechnology, European Food Safety Authority, and the Food Standards Australia New Zealand, among some moderately well known individuals) had nothing good to say. Bad stuff does wind up in good journals (as I said, the Wakefield study is a prime example). What they propose is plausible, that the chemicals used cause damage, however, the study still wasn't too hot. I can accept Round-Up causing the problems, I can even accept certain GMOs causing problems (here's two that did), but it won't be this study that convinces me of either. Comparing the Monsanto corn with regular corn, not much of a difference. It reminds me of the Failure to Yield report, which based it's premise (that GMOs have lower yield than non-GMO counterparts) on data showing an increase in yield!

To be fair, apparently the guys who did the study had to fight and claw to get the data they used for it from Monsanto, and that does highlight a lack of transparency which is not very desirable at all, but nonetheless, that doesn't mean that there is enough information to support their premise, and as you say, there certainty isn't justification to have this applied to all the other genetically engineered rice, cassava, potatoes, tomatoes, alfalfa, soybeans, papayas, ect. out there, which it undoubtedly will be.

This is a highly politicized issue (alas), and these things seem to come and go. I know I've seen the 'proof' that GMOs are dangerous before that study, and I don't doubt I'll see it again. When one of them sticks, when the WHO takes notice, when there is some really good strong evidence, when my horticulture professors are running around going "Holy moly look at this!" I'll give it more heed. In the mean time, I remain unimpressed.

Re:Hurr.

[Anonymous Coward]

When you can easily got check and see the facts, then not believing things were accounted for is faith. Bad faith, but faith.

Re:Hurr.

[Jane Q. Public]

I know full well what peer review is. I asked you to provide some evidence for your fairly wild claim that "it was not peer reviewed". And you have not done so... I suspect because you can't.

It pleases me to see this comment. When you do hundreds of trials, some will be outliers.

And it pleases me to see this comment. Obviously you either did not read what I told you about this, or you just chose to ignore it. There were not "hundreds of studies" in this case. This was data from Monsanto's OWN study, which was done in the process of applying for approval of their product in the U.S. If there was any "cherry picking" done, it was by Monsanto. And Monsanto would not choose a study that maximized the dangers of their product. So if there was any "cherry picking" as you claim, the data should show the least harm of any of them. Nevertheless, this study showed liver and kidney damage in rats, using that same data.

So that comment of yours fell under the category of "shooting yourself in the foot".

If a GE crop is found different than a regular one in one unintended way, than you have an agent.

Why do you claim it has to be "unintended"? Though it probably was, why do you include this artificial and irrelevant requirement? Anyway, that wasn't the situation that I was commenting on, rather it was your own claim about the situation. And while the authors did not go so far as to point fingers at any particular agent, they did indicate the presence of some potential agents that do not occur in non-GMO crops. Why do you ignore that?

No, I'm not going to alter anything because some crank pushed out some baloney. Were it a good study (or were I not a plant person and did not understand this issue), I might feel different.

"Plant person", whatever that means, or not (I don't care if you're a Pod Person), obviously you do not understand the issue.

So can water. The key here is 'in sufficient quantity.'

Of course, but that is beside the point. Nobody is trying to force children to drink water until they might become ill. And another difference is that safe amounts of water are generally known. But safe amounts of fluoride, for children at any rate, are not known.

We don't know what levels of fluoride cause harm?

Correct. For children. If you don't believe me, look it up.

I'm ignoring evidence that doesn't exist. ...

And this is exactly where you are wrong, and where your bias is showing through. Right here, you have shown yourself unwilling to accept evidence you did not like. In the case of the GMO study, you even made up "facts" to defend your position! (Like "not peer reviewed", and "cherry picked a few studies out of hundreds".)

I am done here. My point was sufficiently demonstrated.

Re:Hurr.

[jadin]

The scientists did the study on themselves? Okay, now I'm impressed! ;)

Re:Hurr.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here here.

Scientists see results in their studies that they are looking for. Not accounting for, sometimes painfully obvious, faults in their conclusions, or reasoning.

Um - you do realize that science operates in the open - that results of studies are available for all to see. So, if your hypothetical scientist attempted to inflect their own biases in their conclusions, and published their works in scientific journals, it would eventually be found out once another scientist attempted to recreate their evidence. So yeah - I'm gonna have to call you on this one.

Re:Hurr.

[mcgrew]

Indeed. Someone once said (sorry, I don't know who) "Most scientific breakthroughs don't come with 'Eureka!' but with 'that's odd...'"

I've seen studies where the researchers not only expected the opposite of what they found, but WANTED the opposite of what they found, yet still published honestly.

One such last year (year before?) looked for a link between long term marijuana use and lung cancer, hypothesizing that there would be a correlation, since marijuana smoke does indeed contain carcinogens (as nearly all smoke does). They did a study of people over sixty divided into four groups: those who smoked only cigarettes, those who smoked only pot, those sho smoked neither and those who smoked both.

The results surprised them. The cigarette smokers had a far higher incidence of cancer than any of the other groups, the group who smoked both had a far lower incidence than those who only smoked cigarettes, and the group who only smoked marijuana actually had a smaller (but statistically insignifigant) incidence of cancer than non-smokers.

This led them to a new hypothesis, that marijuana smoke must contain some anticancerous substance.

Nevertheless, the partnership for a drug free america still claims that marijuana causes cancer. Perhaps this kind of baldface lying is why the GP has his ignorant notions about science.

Re:Hurr.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know full well what peer review is. I asked you to provide some evidence for your fairly wild claim that "it was not peer reviewed". And you have not done so (except to provide 3.5 links showing serious flaws in the paper's peer review process)... I suspect because you can't.

Obviously you either did not read what I told you about this, or you just chose to ignore it. Kind of like how I'm studiously ignoring your previous comment. So that comment of yours fell under the category of "shooting yourself in the foot".

No, I'm not going to alter anything because some crank pushed out some baloney. Were it a good study (or were I not a plant person and did not understand this issue), I might feel different.

"Plant person", whatever that means, or not (I don't care if you're a Pod Person), obviously you do not understand the issue. Only conservative True Americans without natural science degrees or professional experience understand these issues. Scientists are just bumbling fools in lab coats who make up numbers to get grants.

If you don't believe me, look it up. I'm right. If you can't find good evidence, it's because you're an idiot who's unwilling to accept evidence you did not like.

I am done here. My point was sufficiently demonstrated..

Re:Hurr.

[Anonymous Coward]

And before you say I'm a coward for dropping the 9/11 truther argument altogether, that's just because Jesus says not to cast pearls before swine.

Re:Hurr.

[Hognoxious]

Your "examples" should not all be grouped together, since some of them are at vastly different levels of "known", compared to the others.

Translation: a nutter that I happen to agree with isn't a nutter.

Re:Hurr.

[Anonymous Coward]

HA!

He slapped you back with your own broadside statement!

You didn't like it and now you whine about his explanation. You're the one who is taking everything as an absolute. Just to cause trouble.

You got served.

One needs to look no further than religion

[fpp]

to know that most people don't base their beliefs on facts. Like there is no evidience for Jesus outside of the Bible.

Re:One needs to look no further than religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Evidence for Jesus outside the Bible:

From the Annals of Tacitus, 15.44:
sed non ope humana, non largitionibus principis aut deum placamentis decedebat infamia quin iussum incendium crederetur. ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque. igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt. et pereuntibus addita ludibria, ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu canum interirent, aut crucibus adfixi aut flammandi, atque ubi defecisset dies in usum nocturni luminis urerentur.

Now, I know it is a mistake to feed the trolls, but I will chance it. If anyone would like, I'd be happy to cite further sources (this is the first that came to mind) and I would also be happy to provide translations for those trolls really intent on making a pretense to knowledge of the early Roman Empire.

That people will jump to conclusions who actually knowledge of the evidence on which such claims may rightfully be based, that is at least as significant as this article.

Re:One needs to look no further than religion

[Anonymous Coward]

In point of fact, I have very rarely met a Bible thumper who could read Latin. It was my hope that the original troll would admit to pretending to have expertise in a field in which he did not. I did, however, provide a citation for the layman and it is not at all difficult to look up. Nevertheless, here is a link: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0077:book=15:chapter=44 (from the Perseus website, you'll notice the "show" button on the side for English).

Now, as for who can read Latin, people who sit quietly for hours in libraries. For my part, I study the Roman Empire and would be condemned for my views by any Bible thumper worth his salt. I say this knowing full well that "ur a moron" is intended to be nothing more than a provocation but, well, so far I am amused enough to reply. I am sure my amusement can be exhausted, however. At any rate, all the best to you to sir.

Re:One needs to look no further than religion

[poopdeville]

It's spelled "douche bag". And the answer to your question is any student of the Classics. Learn something.

Re:One needs to look no further than religion

[einhverfr]

That passage is of dubious authenticity and may be mistransliterated. It also includes other historical mistakes.

Personally, I think the arguments over transliterations (Chrestianos vs Christianos) are misguided since some of the PGM use "Chrestos" in clear place of "Christos" ("Christos" is Hebrew "Messiah" translated into Greek while "Chrestos" is Greek for "The Useful One" though Hans Dieter Betz translates as "The Most Excellent" in context).

However, the historical errors by Tacitus suggest he was not working from actual records, but perhaps simply entering a sidebar as to what the Christians said about the founding of their sect. Consequently I am not prepared to use it as evidence of Jesus's existance.

My own view is that Christianity began as a synthetic religion between somewhat Hellenized Jewish sects and Hellenistic mystery cults. I think the Gospels bear the same relationship to Christianity as the Asinus Aureus (as Augustine called it) bore to the Cult of Isis. That doesn't devalue the work as a mythological basis for religion and in fact may strengthen its pedigree. Such an interpretation however flies in the face of literalism.

Re:One needs to look no further than religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Tacitus was writing that some 60-80 years after the death of Jesus. Obviously there are lots of written sources on Jesus out there, the issue that the GP poster made (which I don't think is a particularly compelling or relevant issue) is that there are no known contemporary sources written at the time that Jesus was apparently alive or shortly after his crucifixion that mention him. Anyway, it's sort of an irrelevant point - obviously there was some guy who attracted the initial followers, we might as well call him Jesus since that's what Christians call him. Whether he worked miracles and was the son of God is another question.

Re:One needs to look no further than religion

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I certainly agree that the passage is problematic. But the categorical statement, "there is no evidience for Jesus outside of the Bible" is simply false. This is why I offered to provide other citations. I simply cited this text because it was the first one that came to mind, the famous passage from Josephus is even more problematic, and the various gnostic gospels are quite late.

The truth is, though, that the notion that Jesus did not exist has been rejected by scholars since for quite some time, though some tried to establish this through quellenkritik. What Jesus actually said, however, is still certainly debated but this is another issue entirely and does not fall under the statement to which I have objected.

Signed,

Anonymous Coward from above.

Re:One needs to look no further than religion

[Foobar of Borg]

who tha fuck can read latin in this day and age besides fucking bible thumpers.

"Bible thumpers" generally only care about early 17th century English. You would be hard pressed to find a bible thumper that knows Latin.

Re:One needs to look no further than religion

[einhverfr]

I am aware that the majority of scholars think Jesus existed. However, this strikes me as evidence of what this thread is about rather than a matter of solid evidence. I think this is for a couple of reasons:

1) Christians of course want to think that Jesus existed.
2) Atheistic approaches tend to assume that it is simpler to assume that Jesus was a great teacher than that everything written about him was pseudopigraphic or mythological in origins.

My reason for saying there is no real reliable evidence however comes from concluding (by studying Hellenistic religions) that basic outline of the story of Christ is probably mythological instead of factual, and that it combines pre-existing threads from a number of other Hellenistic religions. Secondly, there seems to have been a very lively tradition of writing what were essentially novels about religious subjects as a means of religious teaching (Apuleius's Metamorphosis/Asinus Aureus is a good example of that). This sort of thing has been called "pseudopigrapha" when the authorship is falsely attributed.

Furthermore, when you actually look at Paul's epistles, they are all over the place in which Hellenistic religions they incorporate pieces of. His general approach seems to be to incorporate the basic religious terminology and cosmology of whoever he is writing to.

So when we strip all of these things which seem to come from other sources away (the Trinity from Plato, the Archons of the Ages from various Hellenistic Gnostic cults, the Last Supper as possibly having Dionysian origins, the death and resurrection on Easter as the pagan sacrifice of world renewal), we are really left with nothing new under the sun.

I am not dismissing the possibility of Jesus's existence entirely. However, I am saying that it is more fruitful to look at Christianity as an outgrowth of the Hellenistic world in general than the outgrowth of one man's teachings, and that I have no immediate understanding of the exact circumstance of the formation of Christianity in the first place (our records until really near the end of the Hellenistic era are remarkably sparse).

BTW, I would also go further. I think that some of this Roman literature about other Hellenistic religions was formative on Christianity as well. The development of the Blood Libel really seems to have its origins in Roman literature such as that of Lucan, Apuleis, Horace, etc. If Christianity is seen as having its origins in a syncretic, Hellenistic branch of Judaism, then I think more problems are solved than created. The only problem created is a doubt as to whether Christ actually existed.

Re:One needs to look no further than religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, forgot to mention that I like to fondle goats.

Signed,

Anonymous Coward from above

Re:One needs to look no further than religion

[Anonymous Coward]

My objection was to the simple claim that "there is no evidience for Jesus outside of the Bible", not that the evidence cannot be interpreted variously. I will readily say that just as you are ready to agree that the majority of scholars think that Jesus existed.

My point was that the ready willingness of an individual to accept such a falsehood illustrates the point of the post better even than TFA.

As far as Roman and Hellenistic literature having influence on Christianity, I would readily admit this as well. This is not the issue (nor, for that matter, does it speak to the truth or falsehood of the claims of Christianity). One need but look to Philo to see the degree to which Judaism could be affected by its Hellenistic environment. I do not, however, see how this admission would speak in any way to the claim, "The only problem created is a doubt as to whether Christ actually existed". It does effect how he was, or is to be for that matter, interpreted, not whether he existed. I hope that clarifies matters, however.

A couple asides though. As far as Paul's epistles incorporating Hellenistic elements, I would respond to this, perhaps, by saying that his epistles 'conform' to his 'cultural identity'. As so many who have respond to TFA have noted, this is no great surprise. I would definitely look to Philo, sooner than Plato, if I wanted a source for later Christian understandings of the Trinity. Trinitarian-like conceptions do not really become clear until middle-Platonism. As for the Last Supper, I would say it is no more Dionysiac than any Hellenstic symposium. The oddity here, of course, is the fact that the Passover retains elements of the symposium even unto today.

Signed,

Anonymous Coward from above.

Re:One needs to look no further than religion

[xonar]

Who in their right mind would read a Latin bible? If you wanted to get down to the root language, The Old Testament was written in ancient Hebrew, and the new testament was written in Greek. Which went on to be translated into the various languages and versions you see today. KJV is just one of many English translations available today, having both Formal and Dynamic equivalence.

The authenticity is also not at question of the various copies of the original scrolls, and by various I mean over 5600 original copies have been found, at 99.5% accuracy between them. There was also less than 100 years of time between the original and the earliest copy we have, however. For reference, Homer (The Iliad), only had 643 original copies, and at 95% accuracy! The time span between writing date and the earliest copy we have is 500 years. The works of Plato, a measly 7 copies found, at a non-measured accuracy. The time span between the copy and the original was over 1200 years. Many were willingly martyred within the first few hundred years, especially in the case of the eye witnesses at the time.

The theory of Jesus never existing is not a view widely held by historians either. r1 - r2

Re:One needs to look no further than religion

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't even get into your false claims about the authenticity of the original scrolls, because I'll get right to the point: nothing written about Jesus, authentic or not, proves he had all the magical powers the Bible claims he did. Your argument is moot.

Re:One needs to look no further than religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, I know it is a mistake to feed the trolls, but I will chance it. If anyone would like, I'd be happy to cite further sources (this is the first that came to mind) and I would also be happy to provide translations for those trolls really intent on making a pretense to knowledge of the early Roman Empire.

That people will jump to conclusions who actually knowledge of the evidence on which such claims may rightfully be based, that is at least as significant as this article.

This is why religious debates on the internet are mind-bogglingly obtuse. Writing forty years or so after the death of Jesus, Tacitus reports that people believed in and followed Jesus. This is not "contemporary" sources, and it's certainly not independent--he's repeating stories Christians tell. And yet it gets predictably trotted out as some sort of trump card any time someone mentions the dearth of sources. Plus always the "other sources" comment. This unimpressive Tacitus quote is famous because it's the best and earliest--despite being late and not very good.

Although this is not quite as silly as the people who seem to assume that the dearth of sources is somehow meaningful. You've got three of the four Gospels, plus letters of Paul, composed by AD 50 or before, by people who would have had access to eyewitnesses, earlier (non-surviving accounts), and/or a devoted cult of followers (the word cult is used nonjudgmentally here). This is more than sufficient evidence to establish the existence of just about any other historical figure, but people think they are being somehow "hardheaded" in applying some unique set of rules. There were kings with lives more poorly documented.

Re:One needs to look no further than religion

[bersl2]

My own view is that Christianity began as a synthetic religion between somewhat Hellenized Jewish sects and Hellenistic mystery cults. I think the Gospels bear the same relationship to Christianity as the Asinus Aureus (as Augustine called it) bore to the Cult of Isis.

That's a very interesting analogy.

Re:One needs to look no further than religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but neither do we have convincing evidence that Plato ever existed. Or Lucan, Apuleis, or Horace. Or any other ancient or classical man.

Re:One needs to look no further than religion

[roman_mir]

I am an atheist and I never saw any actual evidence that Christ was real, as in he actually physically existed ever at all. The ideas that are assigned to him are obviously much older than he himself, Plato and Diogenes come to mind (note how both of those are tied to Socrates.)

No, I never saw evidence that Jesus existed, so I take it with a huge grain of salt, his actual physical existence, forget about him being a god.

Re:One needs to look no further than religion

[ThaReetLad]

Thus proving the premise of TFA

Re:One needs to look no further than religion

[xonar]

I was not arguing the deity of Christ, only that he indeed existed (as well as clarifying the question of Latin translations). I'm not sure where you picked that out of my post.

Also, if you're going to refute someone's statement, at least provide some references and an actual argument other than "I don't have time to prove your obviously wrong evidence (because I said so; everyone knows this stuff, right?), but I will take everything you just said out of context and attempt to invalidate your argument via ad hominem".

I suppose it's also common knowledge that A.C. has a Ph.D. in history and archeology of course.

Re:One needs to look no further than religion

[Anonymous Coward]

The historical accounts of the existence of a person and a populist Jewish reformist named Jesus are one thing. The claims based on Christian theology are something else altogether. Surely even the god emperor of that time where seen resurrecting dead. It is funny how adamant some people are at claiming the non-existence of the historical person as if it would somehow state an opposition of the Christian claims of Jesus. A rational atheist would attack the theology of the Christians, not the existence of something physical.
By the way, the influence of John the Baptist to the development of the ideas of Jesus should really be researched more if possible. It might well be that the "genesis" of some original parts of the ideas of this Jewish movement where from somebody who might as well considered to be the guru of Jesus.

Re:One needs to look no further than religion

[roman_mir]

Really? If there was factual evidence of existence of Jesus years back, I would be able to accept that, not really a big deal. I am saying there is no evidence, there are scriptures written hundreds of years after the purported events supposedly took place. I also said that is very likely there was no such person as Christ at all, but it's not impossible that there was.

However, on the issue of that possible person being a god, well, that's a different story altogether.

Re:One needs to look no further than religion

[einhverfr]

One need but look to Philo to see the degree to which Judaism could be affected by its Hellenistic environment. I do not, however, see how this admission would speak in any way to the claim, "The only problem created is a doubt as to whether Christ actually existed". It does effect how he was, or is to be for that matter, interpreted, not whether he existed. I hope that clarifies matters, however.

Well, I have concluded that we mostly know of "Christ, the mythological figure." What this means is that any historical figure may have had absolutely nothing in common with the stories. Philo's an interesting writer too.

A couple asides though. As far as Paul's epistles incorporating Hellenistic elements, I would respond to this, perhaps, by saying that his epistles 'conform' to his 'cultural identity'.

I think Paul made his epistles conform to the cultural identities of the targets of the epistles. The frameworks he uses in different epistles draw from different Hellenistic traditions. It's as if he is trying to say "Christianity can incorporate your beliefs too."

Re:One needs to look no further than religion

[einhverfr]

Ah, but neither do we have convincing evidence that Plato ever existed. Or Lucan, Apuleis, or Horace. Or any other ancient or classical man.

Well, we have a lot more evidence for Plato's life than we do for Jesus's. Not only do we have works purporting to be by his authorship and institutions created by him (the Academy), but we have histories of philosophy written by individuals such as Aristotle. Now, Socrates seems to be more than just a literary device of Plato's because we have other references to him as well. However, we really can't be as sure there. If the only two major accounts of Socrates come from Plato and Aristophanes..... So we can't say for certain the character of Socrates could be more than a cultural construct or shared literary figure. This is different as it regards Plato or even Anaximander.

What makes Jesus different in this case is that most of the works written about him are inseparable from the mythologies that came before, and Tacitus's passage in particular contains other errors suggesting that he is repeating hearsay rather than writing from records. This poses specific problems. This makes it easier to compare the questions surrounding Jesus's alleged life with the questions surrounding Socrates (I love it when philosophers attempt to differentiate the philosophy of Socrates vs Plato. I maintain that this is entirely impossible).

Re:One needs to look no further than religion

[Foobar of Borg]

Who in their right mind would read a Latin bible? If you wanted to get down to the root language, The Old Testament was written in ancient Hebrew, and the new testament was written in Greek.

Certainly. I was not at all arguing that the Bible should be read in Latin. Merely that "bible thumpers" have this rather peculiar notion that a particular English translation produced in the early 17th century is perfect since the translators were supposedly inspired by God. The "King James Only" crowd are a bit nuts, to say the least.

Re:One needs to look no further than religion

[xonar]

The "King James Only" crowd are a bit nuts, to say the least.

This is the consensus on both sides ;D

Re:One needs to look no further than religion

[xonar]

a particular English translation produced in the early 17th century is perfect since the translators were supposedly inspired by God.

I was always under the impression that the 47 scholars that translated the KJV, while sincere in themselves, were threatened under the penalty of death, if they were to purposely introduce false doctrine or make changes to the message therein. The wording is also said to be quite poetic, thus it's popularity as a translation.

The New King James Version clears up a lot of archaic language and does change certain translations.

You can take a word from ancient Hebrew or Greek and it could easily equal out to a whole sentence or expression of an idea in English, this is where some inconsistencies and contradictions in translation can arise.

~Cheers

Re:One needs to look no further than religion

[mcgrew]

Like there is no evidience for Jesus outside of the Bible.

There's no evidence that life in any form exists anywhere but Earth, yet most slashdotters (myself included) believe that it's likely that there is life elsewhere (I do see the possibility that this may be life's only home, but not a probability).

But the Bible isn't the only place that documents Jesus' existance, as others have pointed out. But his teachings were revolutionary; SOMEBODY came up with those radical ideas.

You need a study for that?

[Opportunist]

People thrive on information that reinforces their point of view and reject information that challenge it. How is this news?

That's basically what newspapers and TV stations thrive on.

Re:You need a study for that?

[NeutronCowboy]

Newsflash: science works by subjecting everything to the scientific method. Including things that we think are obvious. Sometimes it confirms the obvious (like here), sometimes it throws everything into complete upheaval (like special relativity).

Next time I hear someone say "Durrr! Everyone knows that!" I'm going to smack them.

Re:You need a study for that?

[Opportunist]

I was just amazed that it wasn't established already.

Re:You need a study for that?

[wizardforce]

People thrive on information that reinforces their point of view and reject information that challenge it. How is this news?

That's basically what newspapers and TV stations thrive on.

Well if the study found the complete opposite was true, would you be so quick to defend the results as they would in that case conflict with what you already expected? As has been pointed out in previous discussions, what seems to be completely obvious must also be tested and the results are not worthless as news just because they confirm what you already suspected.

Re:You need a study for that?

[benjamindees]

Heh, stupid "main stream" media. Heh. People who use that are idiots.

Slashdot delivers once again!

Re:You need a study for that?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

When you figure out how to smack someone over the internet, can you please let the rest of us know? I have a grow list of, 'in-need-of-a-good-smacking,' folks. =)

Re:You need a study for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Durrr! Everyone knows that!

Culture or pre-conceived notions?

[syousef]

I don't think any of these individuals are a clean slate so it's not a surprise that they may have strong pre-conceptions that come into play. It's not that "It doesn't matter whether you show them negative or positive information, they reject the information that is contrary to what they would like to believe". Rather they already have some beliefs they consider true which they apply.

It's also no surprise that people in groups do not behave rationally. Even scientists and medical researchers can be downright stupid about things. I was listening to an interesting podcast this morning: http://www.americanscientist.org/science/pub/everything-is-dangerous-a-controversy

Oh well

[tylersoze]

Everyone knows facts have a liberal bias anyway.

Re:Oh well

[tomhudson]

Everyone knows facts have a liberal bias anyway.

Depends on who's picking the facts ...

... and how they're presented ...

... and who's doing the presenting ...

Example (poll results below): More people feel that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve in the military than homosexuals. Same survey. The only difference between the two questions was the word "homosexual" vs the term "gays and lesbians."

Why do you think that opponents keep saying "homosexual rights" and "homosexual agenda"? It's because "homosexual" is a dirty word because of centuries of religious meddling.

And let's not forget stupidity. These poll results also show that more than 10% of the population (the ones who think it's okay to deny homosexuals rights but not gays and lesbians) depend on someone else to tell them how to think. (FauxNews, the Church, etc).

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/02/dadt_poll.html/print.html

* A February 2010 CBS News/New York Times poll found that 59 percent of Americans favor "homosexuals" serving in the military (up from 42 percent in February 1993), but 70 percent favor "gay men and lesbians" serving in the military.

* The same poll found that 44 percent of Americans favor allowing "homosexuals to serve openly" and that 58 percent favor allowing "gay men and lesbians to serve openly."

Re:Oh well

[Anonymous Coward]

And let's not forget stupidity. These poll results also show that more than 10% of the population (the ones who think it's okay to deny homosexuals rights but not gays and lesbians) depend on someone else to tell them how to think. (FauxNews, the Church, etc).

Yes! Such joy it is to hear the truth at last! We should never let anyone tell us how to think! tomhudson said so! And he is so wise and all-knowing, as he obviously received his way of thinking from himself and from nobody else! Without anyone teaching him or influencing him in any way! Oh, great tomhudson, please tell us more: how do we learn not to depend on someone else to tell us how to think? Tell us, the ignorant, hoodwinked masses who are so beneath your intellectual level!

Re:Oh well

[Anachragnome]

"Depends on who's picking the facts ... "

Atheist: "I'll believe it when I see it."

Non-Atheist: "I'll see it when I believe it."

Trying to explain to the ostrich that the hyena can still see him is a waste of time as it is pretty damn hard to hear anything with sand in your ears.

Re:Oh well

[Anci3nt of Days]

"Depends on who's picking the facts ... "

Atheist: "I'll believe it when I see it, unless it involves the supernatural."

Deist: "I believe it because I see it, although it involves the supernatural."

Trying to explain to the hyena that there is gold buried in the sand is a waste of time as it is pretty damn hard to understand something you are trying to tread on.

---
Agnostic: "meh."

Re:Oh well

[Anonymous Coward]

You screwed it up. It's more like this:

Atheist: Prove to me that God exists.

Non-Atheist: Prove to me that God doesn't exist.

Agnostic: You guys are still arguing about it? This is a question that is, for the moment, unanswerable given the data. Now would you two quit arguing and move on to more important questions?

Re:Oh well

[phorest]

It's because "homosexual" is a dirty word because of centuries of religious meddling

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't they referred to as "Sodomites" in the King James Bible version. Though the term "Homosexual" appears in the New International Edition I am pretty sure it's actually a scientific term.

Meanwhile, the term "Gay" and "Lesbian" probably only became common in the last half-century. Other than that I sorta understand what you're trying to say.

Re:Oh well

[Anonymous Coward]

No, homosexual is not a "dirty word because of centuries of religious meddling."

Homosexual is a term that developed around the mid to late 1800's. It was originally a clinical term, as homosexuality was considered a sort of mental disorder in Victorian England.

It is a dirty word in the same way "schizophrenic" is a dirty word. Granted, the religious have done plenty to reinforce that notion, and one can always keep in mind their conflation of mental illness with "posession."

However, everyone would appreciate it if you stopped spreading FUD. It happens far too often around here. I know you probably have an anti-religious agenda, but lying and spreading misinformation isn't the way to advance it.

Re:Oh well

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Same survey. The only difference between the two questions was the word "homosexual" vs the term "gays and lesbians."

Why do you think that opponents keep saying "homosexual rights" and "homosexual agenda"? It's because "homosexual" is a dirty word because of centuries of religious meddling.

I don't know. I think the poll probably came out the way it did because people think lesbians are hot.

Re:Oh well

[tomhudson]

Atheist: "I'll believe it when I see it."

No, that's not what atheists believe. That's how people who have "religious experiences" think.

If I "see it", I will have to examine why I saw what I thought I saw, rather than suddenly believe. I won't go for uncritical acceptance any more than I would for a UFO.

Re:Oh well

[tomhudson]

Further on "homosexual is a dirty word".

Though the term "Homosexual" appears in the New International Edition I am pretty sure it's actually a scientific term.

The term "homosexual" is definitely NOT a scientific term. It is currently being replaced with the terms "Gynephilia" and "Androphylia", which make no assumptions about the gender or sex of the person.

Even the shrinks now admit that their choice of terms over the last 50 years has been too heavily influenced by cultural assumptions - more specifically, a judaeo-christian bias.

Hope this helps clarify things a bit.

Re:Oh well

[tomhudson]

Homosexual is a term that developed around the mid to late 1800's

It traces its roots back to "sodomite", (remember: English didn't exist then, so we have to use the terms that were in the original language). which has been around longer than most civilizations. Ii is clearly what the writers of the early bible were referring to when they were speaking of "men lying with men as one does with a woman". As such, it carries all the same religious baggage that "sodomite" did in the original hebrew (OT) or the greek (NT)

So the term "homosexual", and its equivalent in other languages, has a LONG pedigree, through various languages, of being used as a 4-letter word.

Re:Oh well

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I could get you in a room with the door locked with some of my giant friends. We would run a fucking train on your transsexual ass. Us being black folk and all, we all been to the joint and raping a tranny is the closest things we get to real womin. We would duct tape your mouth shut while opening your asshole up all fucking night. BIG TYRONE is definitely a fan and will provide you with 72 hours of joyous pain. Now bend over slut.

Signed,
The Prison Niggers

Re:Oh well

[phorest]

From online etymology:

homosexual (adj.) 1892, in C.G. Craddock's translation of Krafft-Ebbing's "Psychopathia Sexualis"
heterosexual (adj.) 1892, in C.G. Craddock's translation of Krafft-Ebbing's "Psychopathia Sexualis"

Now a quick search does not reveal who C.G. Craddock actually is, though I suspect he was a man of some science.
His son(?) C.G. Craddock Jr. is attributed as a co-author for
"LEUKEMIC CELL PROLIFERATION AS DETERMINED BY IN VITRO DEOXYRIBONUCLEIC ACID SYNTHESIS* C. G. Craddock and G. S. Nakai"

He also is referenced as CRADDOCK CG., Jr The physiology of granulocytic cells in normal and leukemic states. Am J Med. 1960 May;28:711-725

Sometimes it's enlightening to look up the etymological root of terms and this one is certainly worth noting. My original point was only that the poster was being less than honest about the time-frame of the usage of those terms and anyone of some age (anyone being born before the "Age of Aquarius...) knows that.

Re:Oh well

[tomhudson]

And its analogue has been around since before the english language ever existed. You don't expect the Israelites from 1500 BC to use english terms, do you? It's always been a derogatory term when used by judaeo-christians, no matter what the language.

Psychiatrists are finally starting, in the last two decades, to admit in print that much of their earlier work, and even their conventional work, is contaminated with a cultural bias as to what's normal, defined by (and this is their words) "judaeo-christian values".

Next you'll be trying to claim that Freud was a scientist instead of an intellectual fraud who couldn't find his own rectum with both hands, a flashlight, and a roadmap.

Re:Oh well

[Anonymous Coward]

If a god exists and he wants us to live according to the code in one of the religious texts, or face eternal damnation in the hereafter, answering the question whether god exists and which religion is correct is by far the most important thing anyone can do.

I knew this already

[Junior J. Junior III]

But then, I'm a cynical gen-x-er.

Really?!

[barfy]

There are biases based on culture that appear in "non-biased" representations of unfamiliar information?

I am shocked, I tell you. Shocked that there is gambling in the back room.

Next week a new study showing that sharpened pieces of metal make it easier to cut cheese!

Confirmation Bias Confirmed

[bazald]

Thanks for confirming confirmation bias for me. It was pretty much what I expected anyway...

Re:Confirmation Bias Confirmed

[AtonalMonk]

You were probably biased...

Re:Confirmation Bias Confirmed

[Anonymous Coward]

I must confirm this...

Re:Confirmation Bias Confirmed

[mahadiga]

Thank you. Complete list of Cognitive biases.

waiting for the discussion to devolve

[FalseModesty]

I'm just sitting here, waiting for this discussion to get sidetracked onto the question of "is AGW true?" like it did on the NPR site.

The Irony

[physicsphairy]

Not commenting on the debate, but I think it's interesting that in an article about cognitive biases (particularly group cognitive biases) that they don't ever bother to probe the question of how such biases affect things like "scientific consensus," they only view it from the perspective of how such biases affect the freshly germinated views of the uninitated. You would think scientists, being human beings as well, would be in some way subject the same effects, and as long as questions are being raised about the human proclivity for certain viewpoints, someone might stop to wonder "in what ratio do people who go into the environmental sciences tend to be individualist or communitarian, and how is this likely to affect their judgment of related information?"

Re:The Irony

[bunratty]

We say there is a scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming because all the scientific papers that reach a conclusion about it reach the same conclusion: AGW is happening. It's not because climatologists "just believe" that AGW is happening due to their personal biases instead of what the facts say. If anyone wants to claim that AGW isn't happening, all they need to do is write up their observations and reasoning in a paper.

The article is much more about whether laypeople (and even scientists from other disciplines) are apt to believe certain scientific conclusions. Whether they do or not has little to do with the evidence.

Re:The Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Big Business has a billion dollars worth of power to influence the minds of people, but they can not get a publication out to propose an alternative to AGW that holds water.

Unfortunately they still can raise doubt with that money and screw everyone in the process.

From each according to his gullibility to each according to his greed.

America is not experience a shortage of greed, or gullibility.

Re:The Irony

[DevStar]

I think that's an orthogonal question, although not an uninteresting one. Although its fundamentally the same thing that Republicans say about elite universities, which is why they tend to discount theories that come out of Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT, etc as being liberal. I do think the study is more interesting than people give it credit for though. I do think there is this belief in (liberal?) society that with increased education a lot of ideological "problems" disappear. I think this study does push us further down the track that education may not be all that helpful. And coupled with what we spoke of above -- self selection for getting education, our current system may simply exacerbate the perceived gap.

Re:The Irony

[martin-boundary]

It's not that simple. While prior bias is highly problematic in the "soft" sciences, that is not much of a problem in experimental sciences.

If you're trying for a theory to predict the evolution of a system, run the experiment, and collect the results. Either the theory fits or it doesn't. Every possible initial bias in beliefs will give the same result. Rince and repeat.

Re:The Irony

[mathfeel]

There is a different. Scientists can have all the opinion they want (and many hold quite wacky ones in their own expertise). They can even be very vocal about it. But their results cannot get accepted without reaching certain level of consensus by peer review. People argue that the whole system is bad because the community is conspiring to reject their idea. I call them sore losers. They claim they cannot get their idea published because it challenge the norm and that's a big no no for the community. Bullshit! Scientists thrive on and have their reputation greatly enhanced by making break through that challenges the norms, but ONLY when doing so with good experiment and data and/or well argued theory/hypothesis. I know all the paradigm-changing paper in the history of my fields are always first published in well established journal even though "the man" and "the process" is trying is keep people down. While I can see flaws in this system, I'd say it works out pretty well in average. Remember: an known patent clerk got published in Annalen der Physik when this guy can't even convince his professor to get him a university job. Good scientist don't make claim for the sake of making a claim. My favorite example is cold fusion where those guys held press conference way before they check their experiment and try to redo it at least once. Some people never accept the fact that they are just doing bad science (some probably deliberately) or their data are just not very valuable.

Re:The Irony

[bm_luethke]

If done truly there is hardly "scientific consensus" - to start with anyone claiming that is simply wrong.

Scientific process is *supposed* to weed ideas like that out. Wide peer review, open data/procedures, specific and exacting processes - these are what should stop that. However, science has morphed into more of a pseudo-scientific religion. It stands on Dogma instead of suspicion and questioning and replaces use of math and scientific sounding with correct processes. Scientific consensus is that even laws may one day be broken/wrong let alone theories (and much of what we call "scientific consensus" isn't anything more than a hypothesis due to poor processes).

I see people responding to you immediately jumped into Anthropogenic Global Warming and, yes I do meant that too (I'll focus on it largely because it is a *really* good example and is current). However the sad fact is that so much of our body of knowledge is that way that it allowed something done that poorly to be "consensus". I was working at Oak Ridge National Labs when they got in trouble for bad research on Cold Fusion and made a great sounding report on having done it. They didn't and if they had done a proper peer review it would have been caught. So, while I think that AGW is a highly visible one I am not really dismayed with it, it tends to be more or less non-scientists or the soft-sciences that didn't see it coming a mile away. It does, however, greatly distress me when things like the Cold Fusion thing happens at ORNL, I saw with my own eyes how institutionalized some of that was, the shakeup of it (including some well deserved gloating and vindication of the old timers who ranted in general about the relaxing of standards and processes and what will occur), and the difficulty younger scientists had with the whole idea.

Richard Feynman books for the semi-layman are great, while the really are not directly focused on it there is a common thread in most of them of what science is. IIRC it was him that told what science was (may be wrong, but it sounds like a story he would use so I'll run with it :)). That is researchers go out and look at geese and note there are no black ones so they make a hypothesis that there are no black geese. They then go and try everything they can do to find a black one or figure out how a black one can exists. As they rule different things out the make note of it and also note supporting reasons for no black geese. It doesn't matter how many white geese they see or how logical it is that you can't have a black one - you have to look for one. Science is finding out what *isn't* true and that is really the only thing you truly know. For highly modeled theories - say much of Einstein's work this was true - you then have to look both at what it predicts will happen and what it predicts will *not* happen. If something predicts, well, everything then it is worthless. There have been more than a few times when some of the harder to measure predictions of his theories has become testable and it's a big thing - if it fails to accurately predict that then a lot of ideas are going to go down the drain, they may have very well appeared to be correct up till this point, but if it isn't right here then something is missed (to harp back on AGW - mainly because it is *really* bad in this case and is my primary complaint - every weather pattern we can see is predicted in one of the models - it *can't* be wrong as they can adjust their model to fit anything and predict anything).

The reason why all that means there is nothing such as "scientific consensus" (which implies that the debate is over, as is said for a myriad of different mathematical models) is that the only thing they can truly create that level of certainty on is what isn't. For instance - one that many roll their eyes at but is a simple illustration of the idea: the ceolacanth (sadly it is used not to show that you can't truly say "doesn't exists" but is usually used to show that it is likely Bigfoot is around). A fish though extinc

Re:The Irony

[khallow]

Mankind needs a standard outside of himself. If man is the measure of all things, then anything by definition of the majority is right.

Why? And can you even provide evidence that there exists a standard outside of mankind? I submit that we, including you, don't know of a standard outside of mankind.

Re:The Irony

[Arthur Grumbine]

True irony would involve evaluating the bias represented by the strength of the researchers' belief in the validity of their conclusions/process, as it is a consequence of their inculcation in their niche (sociology) of the scientific culture.

Re:The Irony

[physicsphairy]

Bias is affecting the experiment even before it begins--hypotheses are made based on human intuition, and experiments are selected based on judgments of value. Historically, look how long science lagged in the same state simply because people didn't think outside of what they had come to expect. Even post-Newton, if it wasn't for chance discoveries--for example, Hertz' observation of the photoelectic effect--one wonders if the human mind would ever have ever dared to venture speculations beyond the 'sensible' mechanisms of classical mechanics. It's not a simple thing to divorce your expectations from the form the science has previously taken.

In any case, I was more specifically interested in the environmental aspect, as it was a central consideration of the article. Climate science (certainly at this stage of its development) does not quite lend to your criterion of "experiment, rinse, repeat." There's not really any experiments that can be run to analyze the sum nature of the system. At best you can confirm small elements of what is going on and try to incorporate them into an approximate model, which is speculative and requires many assumptions. There's also the matter of when certain results contradict other results, and you say "the sum of the evidence says this." But it is a weighted sum, obviously--there's no guarantee a slight discrepancy in one place doesn't represent a fundamental flaw in the model. Beyond that, there is the issue of understanding what the science you're testing states--how much is the methodology based on expectations?

If we accept the study's conclusion that people, when presented with actual facts, tend to select, discard, and reason around them based on their cultural identities, one would imagine a bias in cultural identity could infuse a bias into their net understanding of these statistical considerations. In which case, we may need to examine those biases before coming to such conclusions as "between the 90% and the 10% positions in field X, the 90% position is most probably correct by reason of being a greater proportion." What if that simply represents a proportion of personalties?

Re:The Irony

[bunratty]

"It doesn't matter whether you show them negative or positive information, they reject the information that is contrary to what they would like to believe, and they glom onto the positive information," Braman says.

Does this sound like what you're doing? Ignoring the hundreds of papers on global warming, and focusing on a handful of emails that involve a few climatologists? There are outright frauds in science all the time, and people don't blow those out of all proportion. Why do you do it with AGW? Oh, I get it, it doesn't conform with what you would like to believe. Duh!

Re:The Irony

[martin-boundary]

Yes, I agree that the choice of experiment can be important, even crucial, for the overall direction of the field, but it doesn't follow that human belief related bias occurs in the results of an experiment. The results are just data. Any theory which achieves sufficient agreement repeatedly is valid.

This is vividly illustrated by modern data analysis methods, which tend to be black boxes defying full understanding. A good example that's been on slashdot a few times was the Netflix contest, where the most successful methods defy comprehension in all but the most simplistic way.

On the other hand, the bias in the overall direction of the field depends on individual goals. If one physicist's goal is a grand unified theory of all the forces, then individual experiments can be viewed as biased toward nonessential or irrelevant questions. Such bias does not exist in any objective sense, though, it merely reflects one physicist's priorities.

In this sense, saying that science is generally biased is rather trivial: each scientist is biased towards his interests and priorities. Moreover, this is no bias from his point of view, but it is a bias from another's, if his priorities and interests differ. It still does not follow from this that experiments reported by thusly biased scientists are flawed. Facts are facts. If they are relevant, they must be used, and if they are not relevant, they should be ignored.

If we accept the study's conclusion that people, when presented with actual facts, tend to select, discard, and reason around them based on their cultural identities, one would imagine a bias in cultural identity could infuse a bias into their net understanding of these statistical considerations. In which case, we may need to examine those biases before coming to such conclusions as "between the 90% and the 10% positions in field X, the 90% position is most probably correct by reason of being a greater proportion." What if that simply represents a proportion of personalties?

This point is already well understood in the theory of statistics. A personality is represented as a formal collection of prior beliefs, for which there is only one (reasonable) logical way to combine them with the results of a statistical experiment: namely Bayes' theorem. When statistical data is made available, the prior combines with the likelihood to generate the posterior conclusions. It is routine (nowadays with computers) to evaluate the sensitivity of the posterior on both types of inputs, to gauge the significance of an experimental result, etc.

Re:The Irony

[zsau]

You will find that this particular piece of research is part of a larger body of research, which does address precisely your concern. The fact that it isn't explicitly mentioned (I haven't RTFMed) is because it gets boring (not to mention space-consuming) to say/read exactly the same points in every piece of research.

Re:The Irony

[Rich0]

I dunno - the danger of scientific consensus could be summed up in a few plays on a statement you made:

We say there is a theological consensus about the existence of God because all the theology papers that reach a conclusion about it reach the same conclusion: God must exist. It's not because theologians "just believe" that God exists due to their personal biases instead of what clear logic dictates. If anyone wants to claim that God doesn't exist, all they need to do is write up their reasoning in a paper (and lose their job at their Christian university or church).

We say there is an economic consensus about the risk of credit default swaps because all the economic papers that reach a conclusion about it reach the same conclusion: CDSs are safe investments. It's not because economists "just believe" that CDSs are safe due to their personal biases instead of what the facts say. If anyone wants to claim that a CDS isn't safe, all they need to do is write up their observations and reasoning in a paper (and lose their job on Wall Street).

The concern I have is the herd mentality. There is safety in numbers. How many stock analysts that pushed CDSs lost their jobs? Probably very few, because "who could have seen that coming!" Did anything bad happen to scientists who maintained the majority view that EM radiation must propagate through the ether? Generally you have more security and success if you're wrong but in the majority than if you're right but in a fringe minority. Sure, you could win a Nobel Prize, but if you don't come up with a REALLY clever experiment chances are you'll just end up getting shunned.

Don't get me wrong - scientific consensus isn't a bad thing. However, the part where we dismiss anybody who disagrees with it as a "quack" or whatever isn't always good. Most major advances in science have come from theories that deviated from scientific consensus at the time they were developed. At the same time, the majority of these kinds of theories turn out to be wrong. I think there needs to be a healthy tension in research between conformity and innovation. Most of the funding probably should be aligned with the consensus, but simply voicing a dissenting view should not ruin one's career.

Re:The Irony

[ThaReetLad]

Well said.

Re:The Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Bunratty just pwned your ass!

Re:The Irony

[stdarg]

Why do you do it with AGW? Oh, I get it, it doesn't conform with what you would like to believe. Duh!

And you're assuming that, ironically, because it's just what you would like to believe. There are good reasons for hyperfocusing on AGW errors -- AGW scientists have a decent chance of influencing legislation that will cost trillions and trillions of dollars, potentially ruin the economies of those who try to engage with it (if others don't play equally), and change the balance and distribution of wealth in the entire world (to the disadvantage of developed nations). Someone who hyperfocuses on problems in AGW isn't necessarily doing it because they are closed minded.

Re:The Irony

[edrobinson]

Review of one wacko's paper by another wacko, while peer review, does not validate it.

Re:The Irony

[bunratty]

I'm sure you can always find "problems" to hyperfocus on. If we delay acting while there are "problems", we'll never act. If AGW is happening, dealing with its effects will cost more trillions and trillions of dollars than avoiding it. If there are actual problems with the hypothesis of AGW, all someone needs to do is write a paper. Taking emailed comments out of context isn't the way to show AGW isn't happening. We need actual scientific evidence. You know, the actual facts.

Surely if you're worried about wasting trillions and trillions of dollars you can write a well researched and well reasoned essay about why we should not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Re:The Irony

[stdarg]

I'm sure you can always find "problems" to hyperfocus on.

"Problems", sure, but you can hardly call the things that have been discovered "problems" in the sarcastic scare-quotes sense. The things I've heard about include miscalibrated sensors, locations that got hotter due to the urban heat island effect, huge parts of the world (for instance Siberia I believe) that are purposely excluded, the lack of transparency in the data, the hits to their credibility by switching from global cooling to global warming to global climate change and now back to "anthropogenic global warming", the predicted disappearance of the North Pole reversing and it suddenly growing 26% inexplicably...

I mean you have to be really stubborn not to acknowledge that climate science in general is a very inexact science. It seems to be mostly guesswork. To me, a real scientist is going to say "Look this is what we think will happen 100 years from now but honestly we have almost no certainty in the extent, the causes, or what the effects will really be. We're slowly getting a better picture but it will take time."

Now I have to admit, the publication of the guesswork and the cries for action are not entirely the scientists' fault. You can put a big piece of the blame on the spokespeople of the scientists, namely strict environmentalist politicians and sensationalist journalists who latch onto any scientific report that they even *think* says something scary. I've heard that climatologists never put much stock in the global cooling idea, but you better believe the public heard a lot about it (I was in elementary/middle school at the time and it was a regular topic).

If AGW is happening, dealing with its effects will cost more trillions and trillions of dollars than avoiding it.

You are asking me to take on faith that a band-aid solution at the right time will cost more than preemptively changing the economies and infrastructure of the entire world. I think it's instructive to consider why ships sometimes have to use bilge pumps when it rains, not just when they are damaged and leaking, rather than being designed to keep all water out at all times. Sometimes the band-aid solution really is easier and more efficient.

Surely if you're worried about wasting trillions and trillions of dollars you can write a well researched and well reasoned essay about why we should not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

I prefer to argue from first principles in this case. A theory needs to be tested at least a few times and shown to be successful before it's used as a basis for policy decisions. Current AGW theories make no useful predictions (that I've heard of) that are testable in a reasonable amount of time (we'd have to wait about a century and measure the sea level), so we cannot base decisions on them. There are individual predictions that come true, but those same models fail to make correct predictions in other cases.

It's really as simple as that. I have no doubt that AGW proponents will work to refine their models and make them more accurate and thus testable in a reasonable amount of time, and then we'll take action.

So get back to me when you can point to a model that has predicted some of the major things happening, all around the world, fairly consistently, for at least 5 years. Say... the rapid disappearance of arctic ice followed by its rapid resurgence, also the unusually strong hurricane season followed by a period of unusual calm, mild winters followed by harsh winters. And it has to be more specific than "yeah ok this theory predicts MAJOR CHANGE, and those are all examples" it has to be "this theory predicts precisely those events happening in roughly the right sequence, and it predicted that stuff *ahead of time*, it wasn't designed with historical data and then measured against more historical data."

Re:The Irony

[bunratty]

So get back to me when you can point to a model that has predicted some of the major things happening, all around the world, fairly consistently, for at least 5 years.

We already have! There is research from decades ago that says ice around the world will be melting. We observe that it is melting, and it's melting even faster than anyone realized it could. It's melting in the Arctic, Alaska, Greenland, and the Antarctic. You know, because the world is warming. The warming caused by an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was predicted over 100 years ago by Arrhenius.

Again, what you're doing is utterly ignoring all the scientific research that shows AGW is happening, and harping on the "problems" you perceive.

Re:The Irony

[rapierian]

Right. That's why the solar scientists managed to successfully predict the temperatures we've been seeing, both the warmer temperatures from several years ago, as well as the cooler temperatures of this year and last year. You're following the same line of denial as the Democrats and media keep pushing about the Republicans and their "lack" of health care plans - you just deny that such a thing exists and get like minded people to go along with you.

Re:The Irony

[bunratty]

And, to harp back on AGW (I hope people read what I wrote here and not jump to certain conclusions) - there is nothing more than a hypothesis at this time.

I'm not sure why people keep saying this. We have decades of observations that match the predictions of anthropogenic global warming. Well, actually I guess I understand why people say this.

"It doesn't matter whether you show them negative or positive information, they reject the information that is contrary to what they would like to believe, and they glom onto the positive information," Braman says.

Re:The Irony

[TapeCutter]

"Scientific consensus" is simply the modern term for what Popper called "The republic of science". It applies to all of science not just one particular corner of it.

Re:The Irony

[khallow]

Just as we have no control over gravity or the charge of the electron, so, ultimately we have no control over what is right and what is wrong.

That is grossly incorrect. For starters, since concepts of "right" and "wrong" presume free will, that implies we have control over our own actions.

Second, there is a great deal of variation in interpretation. For example, the various Christian sects differ in what they consider right or wrong. As do the Muslim and Jewish sects. We also have the Sikhs who have yet another interpretation. And they all most definitely worship God, unless there are more than one unique, omnipotent/omniscience deity out there. Should you pray to Mecca five times a day, eat only kosher food, or let your beard grow long as a sign of faithfulness? These sects also differ on more concrete matters like whether homosexuality is good or bad, whether abortion and birth control needs to be practiced or not, whether one should lend money (ursury is commonly considered a sin of greed), to what degree the pursuit of pleasure is bad (is it bad to seek any pleasure at all?), and how one should treat unbelievers (Welcome them? Convert them via the sword or some system of rules that subtly penalizes the unbeliever?).

Third, I see no need for a deity to communicate, much less establish this morality. According to a variety of religions, we are born with knowledge of good and evil. Simple rules like "An eye for an eye" or "Treat your neighbor as you'd treat yourself" would evolve naturally. They are commonsense measures of smoothing out conflict between each other.

Fourth, for other people to accept your code of morality, there has to be some sort of common ground. If I don't believe in your particular interpretation of God (and I don't), then there is no common ground. You can't merely say that it is a sin as decreed by God. My answer is "So what?" Why should we relinquish our abilities and our responsibilities? What happens if the reasons for the rules change? For example, current high populations of humans combined with a lot of sex looks like a strong argument to encourage some sort of birth control beyond abstinence. We also look to be on track to break through the 120 longevity year barrier (technically, already done since at least one person has lived to 122 years) which has been claimed in Genesis to be a hard and firm law of God.

The humans are a prideful creature who thinks he is in charge of his own destiny. God, in his instructions for living, the Bible, says we humans are like lost sheep needing a shepherd. It is not very flattering to be labeled sheep, because among domestic animals, sheep are the dumbest and most helpless.

I think it would also be incorrect to label people "sheep". You already claim that humanity is tasked with following God's laws and that compliance or violation of these laws leads to real consequences, consequences that overwhelm anything else that could ever happen to that person. That right there is destiny and responsibility. Who else has been charged with my destiny? Who else bears responsibility for my actions and their consequences? There is the matter (as some people believe) of Jesus dying and somehow bearing responsibility for everyone's sins, but I see that as a legal fiction, like punishing property that is involved in certain kinds of crime. Using your system of morality, people are in charge of their own destiny. It is not pride, but a fundamental part of the relationship between man and god.

It fails to address our mutable nature. We can change ourselves in profound and dangerous ways. A sheep cannot do that.

Re:The Irony

[Alsee]

Firstly, you shouldn't have been modded troll. I guess the moderator couldn't find the -1 Mistaken mod option ;)

The things I've heard about

A perfect example of what we are talking about - how how cultural groups can selectively ignore overwhelming data when it has "unappealing" implications for their beliefs, and who cultural groups can selectively accept and selectively reinforce anything to support what they would prefer to be true. More than 99 percent of the general public knows squat about climatology and the evidence. They know nothing about it, and they know they know nothing about it. So what people routinely do is turn to "trusted authorities" to learn what the main important points are and what the correct final position is. Those "trusted authorities" tend to be the icons of cultural groups. For example people who culturally identify with some group will tend to receive (and trust) information and arguments from a small number of famous and influential individuals. A significant point here is that individuals often become icons for some group exactly because they are highly motivated to hold and defend certain beliefs. These icons study some subject for any scrap of information to support their position. They take a big complex issue and boil it down to a small number of key points to support that position. The general public cannot become experts in every subject and on every issue. The general public hears cherry-picked information, potentially misleading cherry-picked points to make a case. And from there it turns into public relations war of opinion. Instead of looking objectively at all of the information, it becomes a matter of trusting the judgment and opinions of their own group and their own cultural icons, and it becomes a matter of reflexively rejecting conflicting data on the basis that it is cannot be trusted. No rational consideration of information - just the simple mental shortcut of dismissing other sources source as biased and untrustworthy.

Lets look at the list you gave:
The things I've heard about include miscalibrated sensors

Yes, scientists is every field inevitably have to deal with miscalibrated sensors. They inevitably happen, they inevitably exist. And someone who wants to look for them they will find them. If someone wants to make a list of them, to publish, they can do so. However a rather obvious point is that when miscalibrations happen the error can go in either direction, and that the two possibilities are generally statistically equal. And we get to the problem of people cherry picking misleading "data" to support a position. If you you cherry pick and publish examples that all go in the same direction then you can manufacture a fiction pointing in a desired direction.

And a further point, most common reason people can point to known miscalibrations is exactly because the scientists involved identified that miscalibration, corrected for that miscalibration, and communicated that information exactly for the purpose of ensuring everyone else involved corrected for that error.

There are dozens of satellites, thousands of aerial instruments, and tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of ground instruments. If someone wants to cherry-pick a few specific cases in order to paint a misleading picture, it not hard to do so.

The things I've heard about include ... locations that got hotter due to the urban heat island effect

Yeah. Scientists figured that out almost exactly two hundred. The effect was first published in 1810.

Yes, the urban heat island effect does present a real challenge to analyzing the data from some locations. Scientists already KNOW that. They already account for that. Just to illustrate, the urban heat effect is very large at night but very small during the day. So to a first approximation, you can compare day-vs-night temperatures for each location to identify where it is happening and how big the effect is. That is obviously an oversim

Re:The Irony

[stdarg]

Thanks for the detailed reply. I don't have time to do justice to the whole thing, but I did read it all.

Yes, scientists is every field inevitably have to deal with miscalibrated sensors. They inevitably happen, they inevitably exist. And someone who wants to look for them they will find them. If someone wants to make a list of them, to publish, they can do so. However a rather obvious point is that when miscalibrations happen the error can go in either direction, and that the two possibilities are generally statistically equal.

Miscalibrations are not necessarily symmetric about the true calibration. For instance, I believe car speedometers are designed to favor going out of sync in the positive direction and often times are purposely set to report a higher than actual speed. A spring-based scale will become miscalibrated as the spring wears out and will start reporting heavier weights. I'm not claiming to know why these temperature sensors are miscalibrated but you can't just assume it all balances out. The example of urban heat islands would be a miscalibration that tends positive since cities tend to expand and grow (and thus cause more sensors to become miscalibrated) more than they tend to shrink (thus causing sensors previously calibrated for that environment to show lower readings).

I did a search trying to find what you're referring to, and the closest I could find is some Siberian records were lost during the collapse of the Soviet Union. That is very unfortunate, but it hardly discredits the data we do have.

I think I read it in an article similar to this one after the "Climategate" stuff:

According to the report, UK’s Hadley Center purposely excluded data from Russian stations for no other reason than the fact they did not show warming. The IEA says that Hadley only used data from 25% of the available Russian stations thus omitting 40% of Russian territory. Those stations that Hadley did choose to use were in urban areas where the Urban Heat Island effect is likely to come into play and skew temperatures warmer.

By your own logic, to dismiss those findings out of hand is to assume that the scientists behind the report are corrupt or incompetent.

I think an important thing is to completely separate science and politics. To completely separate scientific matters from political matters. ...

Whether Global Warming is real is a scientific question.

What, if anything, we should do about Global Warming is a political question and an economic question.

Precisely. However, Global Warming research organizations are unabashedly political. That's part of what puts their claims into doubt. On an individual level, Global Warming scientists who I've seen interviewed are not of the "I'm doing this for the sake of research" variety but more likely to be of the "I'm doing this to show the world that we need to take action" variety.

First principles, 1 2 3. (1) It is undisputed that the levels of CO2 (and related gases) are rising at a substantial rate.

Okay, granted.

(2) There is no dispute that that fossil fuel burning and related human activities are overwhelmingly responsible for those increases.

Well, technically there is dispute, but whatever.

(3) It is undisputed first-principles physics that CO2 (and related gases) do trap infrared radiation - they do trap heat.

True.

From trivial facts and first principle physics, the effect at issue is real. It exists. That part of the fighting needs to go away.

But note that even if granted, your first principles are not enough to say that t

Re:The Irony

[khallow]

I am talking about much more basic human behavior than mere enforcement of religious practices, such as divides Christians from Muslims and others.

As I pointed out, the divisions are deeper than you claim (for example, Muslims believe that Jesus was just a prophet, Jews for the most part don't believe Jesus had special status). Further, a lot of the rules for basic human behavior make sense even if you don't have some absolute standard. They emerge naturally from the problems humans in interacting with each other.

I thought about discussing your other statements, except I don't see the point. I don't buy unsubstantiated religious claims (like Jesus isn't "dead and moldering", that a particular belief system grants you a universal pardon for your ill deeds, or that you will be punished for not having that belief) and the existence of these beliefs do not confirm the presence of some absolute standard of morality or other thing.

That is key to my original argument. You don't have any sort of legitimate evidence that there exists a standard of morality outside of ourselves. Your arguments don't even provide a way to search for such evidence.

Re:The Irony

[khallow]

That is exactly this belief system that made possible the Holocaust. The Nazis, convinced a sizable number of Germans, the Jews were subhuman. They need to be exterminated. In their eyes they were right, were they?

They weren't "right" in the eyes of their victims. And as it turns out, there were a lot of (enough) people who happened to disagree with the Nazis. We also ignore the duplicitous nature of the regime. You might be held in high regard one day and dead in a gutter the next on the whim of a bureaucrat. Common sense would indicate that there is a big problem here.

You may recall that there were lesser persecutions of the Jews and other religious groups in the Middle Ages (for example, the Cathars of southern France). I imagine many times, these attacks were justified by claiming that that was what God wanted. One can appeal to higher powers to justify evil actions. There is only consequence, if those higher powers exist, care, and indeed have power.

In our world today, the unborn are not children in the making, but mere pieces of tissue that can be done away with. The Supreme Court and other branches of government said so, so it must be right. Is it?

I take it, you don't think it's right? Then it isn't. My view is simply that there is a spectrum of consistent morality from no restrictions on abortion to making it completely illegal. I have no insight internal or external to me that allows me to determine the correct morality here.

The worldview, that says that right and wrong is whatever we agree is right and wrong, leads to disaster. Yet that is the worldview of the majority today, at least in the West. Is the evidence of the history and the evidence of the present not good enough for you?

Then we will go to disaster. You have made many moral judgments above. These were by your choice and every one of them is graced by the thoughts and deeds of man. You quote the Bible. That was written by man. You cite many deeds which you consider evil and hint at their consequences. Why does the hand of God need appear in this?

The founders of our country realized that humans are endowed with inalienable rights. With inalienable rights given by God, come also inalienable rules given by that same God. You and many others apparently do no longer hold this to be true.

An assertion is not the same as a realization. My view is that there are no inalienable rights. There are plenty of examples of brutal societies which have figured out how to take those inalienable rights away. If you want those "inalienable" rights, then you need to work for them.

Re:The Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

[The US Constitution] carefully enumerates these fundamental human rights and constrains government from taking them away.

The first part is incorrect. The 9th Amendment makes this explicit, and was included in the Bill of Rights as a compromise with those who thought there should be no document called a "Bill of Rights" for fear that people would make and perpetuate the very claim you made. Text, verbatim:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

You're definitely right in that there have been and still are many brutal societies.

I think your difference with the other poster is a somewhat semantic one. You might better paraphrase this as "It's always the case that inalienable rights, even if such things exist, can be trampled by others. I argue that this has no bearing on their status as 'rights'; that they have merely been trampled, not that they were artifacts of a certain viewpoint the tramplers did not share."

Re:The Irony

[khallow]

That is a fundamental disagreement you have then with those who founded our country and wrote the Constitution. This document carefully enumerates these fundamental human rights and constrains government from taking them away.

If those rights are "unalienable", then government can't take them away. But as we've seen, government can take them away. Hence, they aren't unalienable. It doesn't matter what certain founders of the Constitution believe, empirical evidence contradicts the assertion.

(....If you want those "inalienable" rights, then you need to work for them...)

How exactly do you propose to do that?

By exercising your rights.

What if what you think your rights are, conflict with those of what your neighbor thinks they ought to be? Since we live in a democratic society, are the ideas of your neighbors automatically correct ones, as far as what rights are concerned, if they are the majority? Does might make right? If not, why?

The Constitution handles those relatively well. Why should I reinvent the wheel here?

Da Fuck?1

[Anonymous Coward]

SanzunPus, did you swap shit with kdawson?!

More to the point...

[williamhb]

From TFA, one of the group is defined by:"Some embrace new technology, authority and free enterprise. They are labeled the 'individualistic' group."

Shock horror, the people who embrace new technology were more likely to embrace a new piece of technology...

This is almost a zero-information experiment. The definitions classified the results that were then analysed against the classifications. In other news, when we classified coin tosses into a "heads" group and a "tails" group, we found that the "heads" group contained 100% heads results, no matter how many times the coin was tossed ... we conclude therefore that randomness is an illusion.

The participants were not presented with "facts", they were presented with "claimed facts" which they had to both interpret and assess. (A process called "reading" and "understanding".) That the participants were able ahead-of-time to describe the foibles of their assessment strategies (that one group was able to say it was more amenable to new technology) merely shows that the participants were pretty good at reflecting on their own decision strategies.

Next...

Re:More to the point...

[poopdeville]

People who embrace authority are "individualistic"? Who came up with that definition?

Re:More to the point...

[JesseL]

That's what I've been trying to wrap my head around. The article says:

Participants in these experiments are asked to describe their cultural beliefs. Some embrace new technology, authority and free enterprise. They are labeled the "individualistic" group. Others are suspicious of authority or of commerce and industry. Braman calls them "communitarians."

So where does someone who embraces new technology and free enterprise, but is suspicious of authority fit in?

Re:More to the point...

[CptNerd]

So where does someone who embraces new technology and free enterprise, but is suspicious of authority fit in?

Outliers...

Re:More to the point...

[Anonymous Coward]

"not brainwashed"

Re:More to the point...

[colonelquesadilla]

I fit in pretty well in north dallas.

Re:More to the point...

[Jane Q. Public]

Yes, that one got me as well. I would not think that those who embrace new technology and free enterprise would be particularly prone to embracing authority anyway. Their defined group would therefore seem to be an extremely small one.

In general, I am inclined to agree with GP, in that it appears that this study defined some artificial categories, then confirmed that the subjects could be grouped into those categories.

Another criticism might be that the simple act of presenting the information in the form of a newspaper article could very strongly bias some people.

Re:More to the point...

[benjamindees]

Those people go into the "terrorist" group. This was a gov't funded study. Those who fail to fit into the left-right pseudo-dichotomy are impossible to manipulate and placate with the trite bread-and-circus show that is modern US politics.

Re:More to the point...

[anaesthetica]

Who came up with that definition?

His name was Thomas Hobbes and he wrote a book called Leviathan. Hobbes wrote this book in the context of the Thirty Years War and the English Civil War, both of which were massive civil conflicts centered around religion (Protestant sects vs. Catholicism).

In order to prevent further religious conflict, Hobbes set out to create a philosophical basis for the bracketing of religion from public life. Not the abolition of the Church outright, but the removal of the ability for people to make (public) claims about what is true (private piety was still assumed). He rejected revelation as a basis for truth claims, but noted that most things that people 'know' aren't really derived from experience, but are instead things that they believe on the authority of someone else. For instance, we believe certain things about reality because we recognize the epistemic authority of physicists.

Without an ultimate authority to resolve claims about reality/truth, Hobbes believed that people would never escape the devastating civil wars that he saw all around him in Europe. Rejecting revelation as a source of knowledge, Hobbes said that the person of the 'sovereign' would have to serve as the ultimate authority on truth claims in order to prevent civil conflict.

Establishing a sovereign authority would be the only way that rational individualism could prosper. Individuals, freed from epistemic confusion or conflict, could then engage in public life with the maximum freedom to pursue their (material) interests.

This is relevant to TFA given that it pits individualists (epistmeic authority allowing for skeptical materialist individualism) against communitarians (people making broad values/truth claims supposedly binding on others).

It's hard to find a more relevant philosopher for understanding modernity than Hobbes. The way that authority, truth claims, individualism, state sovereignty, and materialism are politically entwined are all to be found within Hobbes' writing. Even if you disagree with the conclusions he came to, it's still worth reading and knowing why he wrote what he wrote.

So yes, individualism and authority are quite closely linked in the history of Western thought.

Footnote: Hobbes was the first major translator of Thucydides. Many of his views on civil war and epistemic confusion come from Thucydides' description of the Corcyraean Civil War (in Book III of Thucydides' History). The episode is only about 8 pages and well worth reading to see how deeply ingrained this particular strand of political philosophy is embedded in Western thought. It's a pretty chilling description of the collapse of convention, law, norms, and the very meaning of words in the face of violence.

Re:More to the point...

[mosb1000]

when we classified coin tosses into a "heads" group and a "tails" group, we found that the "heads" group contained 100% heads results, no matter how many times the coin was tossed ... we conclude therefore that randomness is an illusion.

Ironically, that is not a bad conclusion given the evidence. Don't ask me to explain, 'cause I won't. But I agree, this study did not tell us anything new.

Re:More to the point...

[slimjim8094]

In any case, the individualistic, techie ones were fans of authority? Nobody show them Slashdot...

Re:More to the point...

[MadKeithV]

Someone mod parent up, it's extremely relevant and informative to the "embrace authority" point of the original article.

Re:More to the point...

[Anonymous Coward]

"(Protestant sects vs. Catholicism)"

You mean Catholic sects (such as the Jesuits who tried to blow up the then protestant British parliament - see Guy Fawkes) versus Protestants.

"individualism and authority are quite closely linked in the history of Western thought"

Does Western thought not also hold that submitting to authority is not particularly individualistic?

Re:More to the point...

[sincewhen]

So where does someone who embraces new technology and free enterprise, but is suspicious of authority fit in?

Slashdot.

Re:More to the point...

[radtea]

It's a pretty chilling description of the collapse of convention, law, norms, and the very meaning of words in the face of violence.

It also has a disorientingly modern ring to it. I read Thucydides sometime in the 90's, and there were a couple of conflicts in the headlines at the time that his description of social collapse on Corcyra could have applied to pretty much word-for-word.

The hilarious thing about Hobbes is that he is using historical empiricism to argue for totalitarian subjectivism, abandoning any pretence of self-consistency rather than accepting the possibility of multi-culturalism, which he must have known about because the Romans practised it pretty broadly. And while the Roman Empire didn't last forever, neither did anything else, and the nominal epistemic authority of the Senate (to do things like proclaim dead emperor's to be gods) didn't save it anymore than its relatively relaxed view of what other gods a person might believe in or customs they might have.

Re:More to the point...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've noticed Slashdot likes authority as long as it's derived from merit. Linus Torvalds is an authority. Bruce Perens gets +5 insightful for taking a dump in the comment box.

Re:More to the point...

[Anonymous Coward]

what about somebody who embraces new technology but is suspicious of both authority and commerce and industry?

Re:More to the point...

[Anonymous Coward]

but individualism and authority are not closely linked in MEEE!

Re:More to the point...

[Anonymous Coward]

So where does someone who embraces new technology and free enterprise, but is suspicious of authority fit in?

Erm... Slashdot?

I didn't know...

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know Captain Obvious had enough money to fund studies!

Did you actually read the study?

[copponex]

We conducted a study of the nanotechnology risk- benefit perceptions of a diverse sample of 1,600 americans. The subjects’ worldviews had been previously measured using scales developed for the study of the cultural cognition of risk (Kahan, Slovic, Braman, Gastil & Mertz 2007; Kahan et al. in press). Those scales characterize individuals’ values along two dimensions: “hierarchy-egali- tarianism,” which measures how much subject’s value equality versus clearly delineated forms of social authority; and “individualism-communi- tarianism,” which measures how much they value individual interests versus collective ones.

They framed the questions in what looked like a newspaper article, which I thought was pretty ingenious. The headlines were: "Scientists Call for More Research on Nanotechnology Consumer Goods", "Scientists Call for More Research on Use of Nanotechnology in Government Regulation of Air Pollution", "Scientists Call for More Research on Market Potential of Nanotechnology for Cleaning Environment", and "Scientists Call for More Research on Potential Use of Nanotechnology to Fight Enemies at Home and Abroad"

Then there's a little inset containing the exact same information about Nanotechnology, and the outcomes based on their profiles remained accurate. This is sort of confirmation on the importance of framing questions to get the desired response, but I wouldn't call it a crap study. It shows that we are still a long way from the enlightenment dream of basing our reasoning on hard facts instead of bias and anecdotes. And you can bet your ass that the marketing companies that run the country are all too glad of this fact.

http://www.culturalcognition.net/storage/nano_090225_research_brief_kahan_nl1.pdf

Re:Did you actually read the study?

[GNT]

Actually, they're wrong because you can prove, and E.T. Jaynes did just that at some point, that if people have OPPOSING ASSUMPTIONS Bayesian operations on the same info lead to opposite conclusions.

In other words, priors matter. So they did NOT in point of fact have the same information. What it does mean, and proves without a shadow of a doubt, is that fundamental assumptions need to be challenged and undermined to change outcomes.

I'm an Atheist damnit!

[arcite]

You Satan worshiping scientists!

Are my tax dollars supporting these "studies"?

[Anonymous Coward]

This article just confirms the suspicions I've had about academia all along.

Established Patterns

[sharkbiter]

Y'all will probably kill my karma for this, but: Established dogma is more acceptable than a new theory. Hear me out! If it were proven that "god is in the machine" (ex deus machina) to a group of individuals that don't believe in god but rather; a higher belief in an ultimate creator (one who creates and steps back allowing the course of events to fall as they may), then said group would obviously reject any belief, theory or proof that god is alive and well and influences their daily lives. Think about it. If I were to raise you to believe that god exists but not as a deciding factor but rather as an observer of his experiment, would you not reject out of hand any other individual that came along and insisted that the very same guiding hand that created you is determining which way you should/will live your life?

This is what I believe the author of this article is premising. Sorry to ramble. I hope you can see what I'm attempting to hypothesize.

Diamond Age anyone?

[Fex303]

Wow! They found differences between individualist and collectivist cultures in their acceptance of nanotechnology!

Someone could write a really cool piece of scifi based on this idea.

Oh wait...

Re:Diamond Age anyone?

[QuantumG]

Every time someone does the "Oh wait" routine I can't help but think of this:

http://www.youtube.com/user/RedLetterMedia#p/u/15/FxKtZmQgxrI

A more humerous way to put it

[einhverfr]

I generally consider Heisenberg (author of "Physics and Philosophy") to be one of the finest scientists of the twentieth century. However, I am very much aware of how fast science is moving and so may be slightly unsure of my position on the matter at the moment.....

Seriously, Heisenberg's discussion of the process of formation scientific theory is the clearest work I have ever seen on the subject. The man was a real genius in this regard and certainly comparable to both Einstein and Feynman.

One of the clearest examples he makes in the book is the comparison between Heraclitus's selection of fire as the prima materia and Einstein's equation of E=mc^2. Einstein, Heisenberg tells us, basically took Heraclitus's statement and quantified it, telling us how much of Heraclitus's fire was used to make up the rest of matter.

Mechanical Thinking. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

When was the last time you changed your mind about a significant, foundational piece of data in your life?

I'm not talking about an uncertainty being made resolute on one side of the fence or the other.

I'm talking about a belief you once held to be true and around which you based your daily decision-making processes and then after review, realized that you were wrong and then took steps to alter your behavior accordingly.

Now, if you have experienced that, ask yourself the following. . .

Did you change your mind because of your own curiosity, reasoning and data collection OR because your tribe and its associated authority figures changed their minds and you felt compelled to follow suit?

Are you the sort of person who switches back and forth between beliefs easily?

Are you the sort of person who refuses to change belief systems out of fear of appearing or feeling weak-minded?

Do you lie to yourself in order to take the edge off uncomfortable truths?

Are you lying to yourself right now about any of the answers to these questions?

Just asking.

-FL

Re:Mechanical Thinking. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Never, because I've been right all along. Suck on that!

Re:Mechanical Thinking. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes I have changed my opinion on two rather major issues:

I used to be pro-capital punishment and anti-gun ownership.

I am now anti-capital punishment and pro-gun ownership.

I'm talking about a belief you once held to be true and around which you based your daily decision-making processes and then after review, realized that you were wrong and then took steps to alter your behavior accordingly.

That would be something like becoming a vegetarian or something?
Oh well I'll reply even though I don't fit the narrow definition.

Did you change your mind because of your own curiosity, reasoning and data collection OR because your tribe and its associated authority figures changed their minds and you felt compelled to follow suit?

Both changes were because of reasoning and data collection.

Are you the sort of person who switches back and forth between beliefs easily?

Not usually.

Are you the sort of person who refuses to change belief systems out of fear of appearing or feeling weak-minded?

That depends entirely on the circumstances. I say no.

Do you lie to yourself in order to take the edge off uncomfortable truths?

Now that's an interesting question. If I lie to myself I must be so good at it I don't notice.

Are you lying to yourself right now about any of the answers to these questions?

No.

Re:Mechanical Thinking. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

When was the last time you changed your mind about a significant, foundational piece of data in your life?

Last year.

Did you change your mind because of your own curiosity, reasoning and data collection OR because your tribe and its associated authority figures changed their minds and you felt compelled to follow suit?

Not the latter, in part the former. The other part being the more important one and reflected by another alternative:

OR because your self-image changed?

That happened first. I stopped seeing myself as an engineer and started to see myself as an entrepreneur. From a strong Linux/C++ background, I then delved into .NET out of curiosity and judged it to be much more than a here-too-java-clone - which I always thought it to be. I now consider it to be genius. I changed from being a Microsoft hater to an admirer. People like Ballmer who always felt abhorrent became likable and funny. I reconsidered my previous reasoning and reflected myself. I, too, prided myself with obsessive self-reflection and objectivity, but I failed.

Are you the sort of person who switches back and forth between beliefs easily?

Forth it seems to happen a lot and somewhat easily when above conditions are met. Back never happened so far. It seems to be the classical left-to-right movement that many people undergo in their biographies.

Are you the sort of person who refuses to change belief systems out of fear of appearing or feeling weak-minded?

No, but I prefer to keep my opinions to myself to some extend to remain liked.

Do you lie to yourself in order to take the edge off uncomfortable truths?

Apparently.

Are you lying to yourself right now about any of the answers to these questions?

How can I tell?

Re:Mechanical Thinking. . .

[MadKeithV]

When was the last time you changed your mind about a significant, foundational piece of data in your life?

I thought I was wrong once, but it turns out I was mistaken.

Re:Mechanical Thinking. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually have done this. I have had a lot of beliefs challenged and changed by going to war. The problem with this though, is that it creates an existential issue, that in turn can turn your life upside down. For example, If for all your life you have been religious, but have had some occurrence change your mind, what do you believe now? Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean you know what you should, but only that you no longer believe what you did before. So you can either be ignorant and dumb and stubborn, and never change your mind, or you can be a wishy washy type of person who changes their mind all the time, or in between, each having its ups and downs. There is no easy answer.

Re:Mechanical Thinking. . .

[Jason Levine]

When was the last time you changed your mind about a significant, foundational piece of data in your life?

I'm not talking about an uncertainty being made resolute on one side of the fence or the other.

I'm talking about a belief you once held to be true and around which you based your daily decision-making processes and then after review, realized that you were wrong and then took steps to alter your behavior accordingly.

Honestly, a couple of weeks ago. I realized that a religious practice I had been following for over a decade wasn't justified (religiously speaking) the way I had thought it was. Looking at the actual religious justification, I didn't agree with it. So I changed my practices. I'll admit that it took me a long time to actually make the change, though. Momentum in beliefs can be a powerful force.

Now, if you have experienced that, ask yourself the following. . .

Did you change your mind because of your own curiosity, reasoning and data collection OR because your tribe and its associated authority figures changed their minds and you felt compelled to follow suit?

My rabbi would definitely disagree with my change, so no to that authority figure. My wife (less religious than I am) liked the change but would probably prefer I changed much more. In the end, I decided that I was going to set aside every's expectations of what I should do and only consider what *I* felt was right. It was the only way to be true to my own self. If, after arriving at my decision, people weren't happy with it, I'd deal with it afterwords.

Are you the sort of person who switches back and forth between beliefs easily?

Not at all. Like many people, I'm susceptible to "belief momentum": The feeling that, since you've done things this way for a long time you've got to keep doing things this way. Plus, I fear the slippery slope. I'm afraid that if I change belief A that I'm ambivalent about, it'll lead to pressure to change belief B that I feel strongly about. One big reason why I decided to not consider anyone else's opinion. I wanted to arrive at my decision based purely on my own beliefs and not based on fears of what others would think/say/pressure me to do.

Are you the sort of person who refuses to change belief systems out of fear of appearing or feeling weak-minded?

I'd say no with qualifications. It's not a fear of appearing or feeling weak-minded that held me back, but a fear that changing one belief would lead to pressure to change other beliefs.

Do you lie to yourself in order to take the edge off uncomfortable truths?
Are you lying to yourself right now about any of the answers to these questions?

No and no. (Or, at least, not anymore than the average person lies to themselves.) I prefer to confront these things head-on, even if the confrontation takes awhile to fully resolve.

Re:Mechanical Thinking. . .

[Aceticon]

I suspect that most people in this world are very much unaware that they do belong to "tribes", how they have "authority figures" and how they influence one's behaviour.

In fact, i reckon that most Slashdoters have never looked at Slashdot as the tribe it is.

The problem with your argument is that it relies on the targets having the know-how and self awareness to understand it and recognize themselfs on it.

Countless sessions of friendly discussions with the local Jehovah's Witnesses that pop-up at my door (when I have the time and the passience) have taught me that those that believe the strongest and the truest are usually the most ignorant of their own compulsions, motivations and sorrounding social pressures.

In other words, your post was either like preaching to the converts or like pearls to pigs.

Re:Mechanical Thinking. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you finally let yourself try the lobster roll?

Re:Mechanical Thinking. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

You'd get a gold star if I was handing them out.

If it WAS an argument and not just a friendly tickle under the brain, then I'd have a whole sheet of stickers for my best students. But I'm no teacher. I'm the guy struggling to stay awake in the third row.

Cheers!

-FL

Re:Mechanical Thinking. . .

[BJ_Covert_Action]

I wonder how many folk read these questions and thought to themselves that one answer was better than another answer. For instance,

Do you lie to yourself in order to take the edge off uncomfortable truths?

Can be effectively answered with a, "Yes, No, or Sometimes," (and probably a few more word-mincing in-between washy answers). I wonder how many folk thought, "Yes! and I am glad I am not one of those people that would answer no." Versus how many people thought, "No! and I am glad I am not one of those people that answered yes."

I wonder, also, if you have any thoughts on whether one answers is, "better," than any other, for any particular question Fantastic Lad. It's always interesting to me read these types of threads and questions on slashdot because many folk here manage to abstract things at a higher level than the immediate quality judgments that are spun out reactionarily (I made a new word!) by various other communities. Furthermore, there is, at least to some extent, some value in the Slashdot culture that gets placed on thinking or responding in a way that is significantly different than other responses (Will this response fulfill that criterion? Who knows!). That said, I always find the, 'deep philosophical and/or introspective questions and responses addictive and intriguing on here. I also love the stubborn ol' fuckers that come out with the harsh realism. "Back in my day asking those kind of questions made you a commie! The only reason the truth would make you uncomfortable is if you're gay! Now get off my lawn I have some fortran to go debug!" (Such lovely passion and endless amusement).

Yet all ramblings aside, I wonder how many people associated any of these questions with quality adjectives like better or worse.

wrong description

[readin]

This article describes an experiment that demonstrates that people don't put as much weight on facts as they do their own belief about how the world is supposed to work.

No, the article describes an experiment that shows that people don't necessarily trust scientists to get things right, and the degree of the trust varies by culture. This is hardly surprising. Scientists are people, and one's opinions about people tends to be a result of your interactions with people around you, most of whom are generally from your own culture. Most of what culture is is the result of such interactions. How could your culture not affect what you expect to see from a group of people?

No shit, Sherlock.

[leftie]

Watch a Christian complete phase out and stop processing info when you point out the the many similarities between Jesus and many other similar shepherd gods in other cultures of that same region of the Eastern Med.

Watch a so-called science-focus skeptic phase out the same way when you point out that a recording of Dallas police broadcast has scientifically proven there were more than 3 shots fired in Dealey Plaza.

Re:No shit, Sherlock.

[c6gunner]

Watch a Christian complete phase out and stop processing info when you point out the the many similarities between Jesus and many other similar shepherd gods in other cultures of that same region of the Eastern Med.

I'm not religious, but I "phase out" at that, too. The problem is that these "similarities" are an invention of a whacked-out conspiracy nut who basically just pulled them out of his ass. Non-religious people who buy into it are simply swallowing another form of dogma.

Watch a so-called science-focus skeptic phase out the same way when you point out that a recording of Dallas police broadcast has scientifically proven there were more than 3 shots fired in Dealey Plaza.

If you think that a recording of police broadcasts can "scientifically prove" anything, then you don't really understand what that phrase means.

As far as I can tell, the only thing that your two examples have in common is that they're based on ignorance. Anyone capable of doing basic research and applying simple logic should reject both claims.

Re:No shit, Sherlock.

[leftie]

Watch c6gunner prove my point

This...

"whacked-out conspiracy nut who basically just pulled them out of his ass" ...is logical fallacy called an ad hominem argument. You attack me with insults, and you never address the statement I made.

Police broadcasts recordings can be analyzed sound experts. There's a sub-discipline of physics which studies sound. The police recordings of the broadcasts coming from the motorcycles around the motorcade in Dealy Plaza can be analyzed just like any recording can be analyzed for the sounds of gunshots. There were sounds of more than 3 gunshots in those Dallas police broadcast recording.

Re:No shit, Sherlock.

[grumbel]

Watch a so-called science-focus skeptic phase out the same way when you point out that a recording of Dallas police broadcast has scientifically proven there were more than 3 shots fired in Dealey Plaza.

A quick google brought me to a paper that said the chance of the shot being random noise was 0.037 or in other worlds 1:27. That's not much, but far away from a solid irrefutable proof that it was a real gunshot, especially considering that other evidence seems to be missing (shooter, bullet, bullethole, ...). Which would leave me to conclude that there is no solid evidence for more then three shots and that this is simply a case of anomaly hunting, i.e. when you search long enough, you are guaranteed to find something that is unlikely to have happened.

Re:No shit, Sherlock.

[c6gunner]

This...

"whacked-out conspiracy nut who basically just pulled them out of his ass" ...is logical fallacy called an ad hominem argument.

No, it's a statement of fact.

You attack me with insults, and you never address the statement I made.

I wasn't referring to you - I was referring to the originator of that argument, who really IS a whacked-out conspiracy nut. I had assumed that you were simply misguided, although I'm starting to change my mind.

The police recordings of the broadcasts coming from the motorcycles around the motorcade in Dealy Plaza can be analyzed just like any recording can be analyzed for the sounds of gunshots. There were sounds of more than 3 gunshots in those Dallas police broadcast recording.

That's complete garbage, of course, although thanks to you I've now learned about yet another piece of Conspiracy Theory lore. D.B. Thomas' "paper" was thoroughly trounced by O'Dell, and has been dismissed by anyone who isn't already a CT nut. Subsequent research has further decimated those claims. You're grasping at straws. Please don't respond any more, if you intend to continue to lie.

discouraging research...

[Anonymous Coward]

I do find these kinds of results discouraging. They diminish my optimism that people actually have some measure of free will and therefore could learn to listen to information, think about it, and possibly Do The Right Thing even if it conflicted with their prejudices. More and more, it comes down to neurobiology. You don't think so? - How would you tell if it's really that you CAN'T think so?

We already knew why....

[Auckerman]

So, I was that guy in college who double majored in unrelated subjects. Chemistry and Religion. Then went on to a handful of jobs in unrelated fields. I get bored easily and put a lot of thought into some esoteric things that no one cares about.

As you look very closely at how belief functions in society, it becomes extremely obvious that belief in and of itself is not rational. It's a functional experience. This is true for all people, even scientists (reason is accepted because it's useful way of achieving a goal) Is a set of norms and beliefs useful for the person whom is called to believe? If answer is no, then they won't accept the belief structure or they will chose to be willfully ignorant of the subject. If answer is yes, they will accept it without question in so far as narrative can be used to explain any "apparent contradictions" between the belief and reality. The core idea of something being actually true is completely and 100% irrelevant to the evaluation.

As a side note, it appears the experiment cited in the article is useless for describing the problem. You describe nano tech to some people, then it's uses. They reject the tech, if they don't like the uses. Doesn't mean they don't BELIEVE the tech is possible, they just don't like it.

Well...

[Tromad]

Social psychologists say no shit, thanks for finally hearing about our field.

Yes he did actually read the study?

[mjwx]

Yes he read the study and he came to the conclusion that the study was wrong because it conflicted with his belief. Regardless of what the study actually says, because the GP believes there is no danger from being detracted by a mobile phone.

This is the reason the story is tagged "confirmation bias"

Thanks for link to original PDF study

[Anonymous Coward]

There seems to be a high noise to signal ratio in their results! Makes me very pleased I don't have to deal with soft sciences..

Flamebait

[Endo13]

Tag the summary flamebait and be done with it.

Nothing to see here.

Well duh!

[PingXao]

Years ago I was taught there are 3 takes on reality: the way you see it, the way you want it to be, and the way it really is. TFA seems to be covering absoulutely nothing new in the world. That this comes as a surprise to anyone is the only newsworthy aspect of the story. It's how humans operate for the most part.

Cognitive dissonance

[Anonymous Coward]

The behavioral phenomenon is called "cognitive dissonance".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Misleading picture

[LoRdTAW]

I like how the Picture they show for the climate change article is a big scary looking cooling tower. What makes me laugh is the cloud of water vapor emanating from the stack would be mistaken by many as environmentally harmful smoke.

The Consequences of Social "Science"

[catchblue22]

A premise of the social sciences is that human social behavior can be studied from outside, as if the person observing the social behavior is not part of society, an impartial alien observer. I think that there is an important consequence of thinking like a social scientist that is often overlooked. I believe that this type of thinking, where one observes society from the outside encourages passivity in the observer. Specifically, in the case of TFA, it is found that people filter their scientific views through a political spectrum, that they don't use logic, reason, and observation to form their opinions, that in fact many of the participants in the study are quite irrational. A person who views society from the outside, through the lens of social science might shrug their shoulders and think "hmmm....that's interesting. I guess people aren't as rational as we believe them to be.". And if enough of us think this way, a sense of profound apathy and passivity about our civilization becomes widespread.

I however have a problem with this passive outside view. In my opinion, if the participants in the study were behaving irrationally when forming opinions, then they should be ashamed of themselves!. Our civilization, our democracy depends on rational and logical decision making on the part of the public. If too many of us abandon logic and reason, then our democracy will begin to make increasingly bad and irrational decisions. If too many of us start to believe that there are no facts, only opinions, then democratic dialog between citizens will become increasingly difficult. Instead of debating based on a common set of facts, we will "debate" by shouting opinions back and forth at each other, with little reason and logic.

I do believe that the social sciences have their place, and that some useful insights can be gained from them. But I also believe that the ascendancy of the social sciences to the top of our academic pyramid has had damaging consequences, which if left unchecked could result in societal decay, intellectually, socially, and economically. We must remember that we are all part of this civilization, and that the willful ignorance of our fellow citizens can and will affect us. Though we are all free to think and believe whatever we want, there are some beliefs and ways of thinking that are worthy of shame.

Succinct summary of the study

[Torodung]

"Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus"

ABSTRACT:

People tend not to listen to your message if they view it as threatening to their livelihood, their community, or their ego.

--
Toro

Mythbuster's quote

[Anonymous Coward]

"I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own" -- Adam Savage

Is this even news?

[Monty_Lovering]

Wow, you mean people don't like ideas that threaten them?

Hoo wud hav thunk it... :-P

Look, I grew up in a religious cult. Got ut, but do know shit a lot about the mechanics of belief. This is not news, although it may be verification of something caled "Milton's Demon", which is like an osmotic filter for thoughts and facts that do not fit your own world view.

This pattern of behaviour and associated topics like cognotive dissonance are as old as 'we' are.

Re:Is this even news?

[Zarf]

Do you have links on "Milton's Demon" as related to any cognitive studies?

Re:Is this even news?

[Zarf]

And, yes I googled the term and can't find anything but "paradise lost" links. I'm assuming you aren't just quoting paradise lost and have some other basis...

Re:Is this even news?

[Monty_Lovering]

My apologies for inordinate craptitude.

I mean Morton's Demon.

See here; http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html

It's an idea off the back of Maxwell's Demon (all those M's, confusing :-P)

Instead of (as in Maxwell's demon) letting molecules past depending on their energy/room they are in (as part of a thought-experiment that tried to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics), Morton's demon;

" ... was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data."

If you regard arguing with Creationists as a stress-relieving hobby (like some people treat squash - they ARE similar; hitting dense objects hard so they bounce around... ), it is a term you will eventually run accross.

Outside of that arena it has gained some recognition;

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evil-deeds/200811/truth-lies-and-self-deception

Re:Is this even news?

[Zarf]

I liked this explanation best:
http://www.arcamax.com/newspics/9/902/90256.gif

'Cause it makes a lot of sense to look elsewhere.

[mosb1000]

Seeing as when they compiled the bible, they packed together all of authoritative, trustworthy written documents that gave an account of Jesus' life or spoke of the man, I'd say it's probably going to be pretty hard to find a "authoritative" source which is not present in the Bible. Of course, there are other written documents which mention then man. If you are looking for physical evidence, what kind of evidence are you looking for? He was a guy that lived 2000 years ago. He didn't build or have built monuments in his name, and he spoke out against such things (not that it's stopped "Christians" from doing it since then, but that's another argument). Literature is pretty much the only proof we have that any people in history really existed (we have bones in tombs, but how do we know they are who the literature says they are, and even if we did know, how would that verify other aspects of the literature). If you want to throw out the Bible as proof, what's to stop you from throwing out other literature?

So-called Knowledge

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you want to start alluding that things aren't real because they happen that way in stories, I submit that you have lost your mind completely. Many people have used exactly those supposed "standards" and have concluded that all sorts of people didn't exist.

Moreover, how do you explain Paul? He should be your real focus here. The guy goes from one who persecutes Christians to being a martyr for them. Which is very interesting given that this story is about how people DON'T change their minds (which, incidentally, is why I expect you to prove this by keeping the same view). You've already discarded the fact that nobody ever thought "what if this guy didn't exist" until modern times. It's also interesting that this Paul guy, in spite of writing most of the NT, apparently had to come up with a fictitious leader for "his" religion. After changing his mind about persecuting it.

You've been

Next, the "outside the Bible" thing is an odd criterion. The Bible is a disparate collection of books. There are 66 of them all told. They were collected that way because people made lists of the books they believed reliable and the consensus was adopted as cannon. So the "there's no evidence outside the Bible" only tells us that they were pretty thorough about collecting the reliable accounts.

But there are plenty of unreliable ones (Gospel of Thomas, and other such books). And there are plenty of other early, non-Biblical, writings about Jesus other than that one. I'd Google up a list, but why bother? People pull absurd stunts like saying that it's not clear enough, it might've been another guy called Jesus, or it's not early enough. Though apparently we accept random gnostic crap from the 500s, stuff from Christian fathers in the 300s is just too biased or something. You know, the anti-global warming people do that, too. Apparently we can only accept climate data from people who don't believe there's such a thing as anthropogenic global warming. We're seeing the same trick here, in that these early accounts are somehow allegedly biased. Even though we have many copies of them, translated into different languages, and spread across the globe.

In short, I don't expect you would deal with any of those accounts in any detail. Now, I do agree with you that there were Hellenized branches of Christianity (gnostics, for example, as far back as when they wrote about people going astray by professing "so-called knowledge" [that's a subtle jab at the gnostics; look up "gnosis" to see why]). But they were declared heresies and done away with a very long time ago. And they existed in parallel to the main church, not instead of it.

So in terms of there being a complex backstory, yes, there really was one. But if you want to posit that there's no Jesus, or even that there are good reasons to believe that Paul made everything up, it just doesn't make sense. If that sort of thing was common, you'd expect Jedis to be taking over the country, even though everyone knows it was just a movie, and in spite of being constantly martyred for refusing to renounce their faith.

Oh, and back to the original topic at hand, I change my mind early and often. Whenever I diagnose PC problems, I start making a lot of conclusions quickly that are best fits for the evidence. Then I test them. I often find that I was wrong. I refine this until I am unable to produce further evidence that I am mistaken. And I'm always on the lookout for any indication of data that doesn't fit my theories. That data is the only way I can improve them.

One specific case I can think of is that I had an industrial machine with an onboard computer that wasn't being turned off (it was DOS-based and required reboots to update itself using autoexec.bat and some scripts on the Novell network). I could tell from the logs that it was NOT being turned off. It couldn't be. But the user *insisted* that they were. I thought they were mistaken. I have logs, after all. But I checked on it. Lo and behold, the power s

Re:So-called Knowledge

[einhverfr]

Well, if you want to start alluding that things aren't real because they happen that way in stories, I submit that you have lost your mind completely. Many people have used exactly those supposed "standards" and have concluded that all sorts of people didn't exist.

Well, that misunderstands my point. If we remove from the New Testament elements which appear to be borrowed from earlier traditions, we have very little that is new, and what is left could reasonably be an invention.

As for what is "real" I think that is a far more interesting question than we are getting into here. I personally think that Odin is "real." So why would I think that Christ is not "real." I might only dispute the general historical assumptions and suggest that we have insufficient basis for concluding that Jesus lived a life around the time claimed or not, or what his life was anything like it was claimed to be.

Next, the "outside the Bible" thing is an odd criterion. The Bible is a disparate collection of books. There are 66 of them all told. They were collected that way because people made lists of the books they believed reliable and the consensus was adopted as cannon. So the "there's no evidence outside the Bible" only tells us that they were pretty thorough about collecting the reliable accounts.

A major part of the problem is that the Gospels actually arrived in their current form well into the second century. Some of our earliest references to Christ come from the Greek and Demotic Magical Papyri (and in these "Christos" and "Chrestos" seem to be used interchangeably, and invoked alongside various Greek and Egyptian gods).

Secondly there are a number of claims made in the Gospels of a historical nature which don't hold up. Herod's orders to the soldiers to go kill children for example would seem to be noteworthy enough to appear in other sources and we see instead a conspicuous absence of such a reference. For this reason I cannot really see the Gospels as a set of historical documents, and the other references to Christ in the Bible are based on them so that more or less ends that inquiry for me.

What I see the Bible as offering is instead something very different. Instead of offering an historical record, I see it as offering, like any good mythology, a set of templates for living life. For example, you can try to look at the Fall from Eden as history (which doesn't work), or as a lesson about how knowledge of good and evil is evil (then why study the Bible? So that doesn't work), or you can see it for what it is: a mythological template for an experience every one of us goes through in growing up where we become independent and are no longer welcome living in our father's house. Thus we can replay the story at different times in our lives from different perspectives (as a young adult being adam or eve, as a parent of an adolescent, etc).

Now, regarding changing minds....

The issue here is that data does not imply a single correct theory. We can arrive at more data which causes us to change our minds. However, in general two of us will put that data together differently into different theories based on pre-existing notions. Data + pre-existing notions = theory. Multiple interpretations of any set of data is always possible.

So I don't think this is about changing minds so much as asking why this happens. Funny though, Werner Heisenberg wrote a whole book on the topic (and of that I am quite certain ;-) )

Slashdot needs a like button.

[mosb1000]

I like these questions, Slashdot needs a like button.

Re:Slashdot needs a like button.

[ScruffyScrode]

Don't go all Facebook on us though, if there is a like button, we also need a dislike button.

Re:Slashdot needs a like button.

[CordableTuna]

More than that, Slashdot needs agree and disagree buttons. The rest can just be modded.

Re:Slashdot needs a like button.

[moonbender]

I've always been deeply opposed to new buttons on Slashdot, but now that I've come to think about it, YES you're right, Slashdot DIRELY needs a like button.

Re:Slashdot needs a like button.

[Anonymous Coward]

It has. It's called "Reply to This".

Re:Slashdot needs a like button.

[jaafonso]

Or digg and bury buttons.

In other words . . .

[avilliers]

Translated: "In a laboratory setting, we demonstrated we couldn't magically persuade people of whatever we wanted about hot-button issues by selectively presenting facts."

Good.

Braman

[WinstonWolfIT]

Is that pronounced 'Brahman' by any chance?

Who said there was a problem?

[srussia]

The people who did this experiment started out with a hypothesis (a belief). Their findings ("the facts") confirmed it, in their opinion.

Contrarian.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Both groups made their decisions based on the same information. "It doesn't matter whether you show them negative or positive information, they reject the information that is contrary to what they would like to believe, and they glom onto the positive information," Braman says.'"

PIRACY IS GOOD!

Re:Contrarian.

[grumbel]

That's a strawman argument. People are for most part not proclaiming that piracy is good and should be practices by everybody, but that it is doing no harm or at least far less harm then the media companies want you to believe and well, looking at the evidence seems to confirm that as movie industry profits are still on the rise.

Re:'Cause it makes a lot of sense to look elsewher

[Anonymous Coward]

I would throw out "other literature" if it claimed there was a man who walked the earth who had magical powers when there is zero evidence of these powers. Many people believe the Bible is a reliable source of history and fact. It is not. It is a mangled piece of literature of highly suspect origin, made up of morality tales and recycled mythology.

Ultimate Acai Max

[reandryck]

From what I've witnessed in the passed 20 years there is far too much chaos and instability for nationalism. That place has always been volitile. Ultimate Acai Max

effect of slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Does reading ./ also has any effect on your decisions?

Related article in the NYT, and old subject

[rduke15]

A few days ago, there was an article in the NYT (titled "Are there secular reasons?") which is closely related, and worth reading. Basically, it argues that secular reasons alone (which we call "reason" here) cannot lead to any action. Science tells us facts, but they are useless without beliefs which set goals and allow us to use the facts to act in the pursuit of these goals.

Also related, the very old (16th century) quote from Rabelais: "Science sans conscience n’est que ruine de l’âme" ("Science without conscience is but the ruin of the soul").

We are made of both beliefs and reason, and need both. It's no surprise that different people mix these two aspects in different ways, and that many give so much more weight to beliefs that it blurs their view of facts.

I Believe I'll Have A Datum

[DynaSoar]

" people don't put as much weight on facts as they do their own belief "

Facts don't require weight, they come with their own. Beliefs, having no solid anchor in reality, require the appearance of a basis in reality to remain believable.

Facts derive from data, they just 'are', beliefs are constructed a priori and adjusted as needed, the open ends of which are labeled and relabeled as needed as 'evidence' that supports the belief. The a priori belief is necessary so we can classify an observation, something far more necessary than getting it right the first time.

Re:I Believe I'll Have A Datum

[ThaReetLad]

No such thing as a fact. Every measurement has uncertainty, and the possibility of failure. Therefore a datum is not a fact. It is merely data with a confidence value, and that confidence value is itself culturally conditioned to some extent.

Read The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors

[leftie]

The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors by Kersey Graves

"Known to be a masterpiece of freethought literature, The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors has been out of print but sought after for many years. A small part of it was reprinted in The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You to Read in 1994, thereby causing renewed interest. Many people are unaware that before Christianity there were 15 other religions that also had a savior who died for their sins, then arose from the dead. Graves gives all the details inside, plus much more found in common like the immaculate conception of the gods, virgin born gods, magi, shepherds and angels who visit the infant saviors, the birthday of the gods being December 25th, plus an explanation as to how Jesus began to be worshipped as a God..."

http://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Sixteen-Crucified-Saviors-Christianity/dp/1585090182

2nd Amendment/Gun Control

[jeko]

Penn Gillette turned me around on this issue.

Completely off-base

[branewalker]

Talk about confirmation bias. The study only "proves" confirmation bias to those looking for it. The irony! Look again. See that word "values" there? That's important, because it has meaning that goes beyond "belief" or "religion." It means "what people hold dear." A little example. Let's say you've been informed that your significant other has a life-threatening illness. Her (or his) chance of survival is 2%. Terrible, right? Now, let's tell you about the new experimental treatment, and its pros and cons. Now, let me tell this to your worst enemy. How do you think he's going to react? Back to climate science. Similarly, that 2% is the same 2% dissent we've got in climate science (which may be underestimated by its proponents, but we'll let it stand). For those whose lives and livelihoods depend upon the climate staying right where it is, they're gonna talk about that 2% like it's nothing. And for those whose lives and livelihoods would be ruined if they had to change and accommodate the long run (a lot of big businesses on the quarterly-profit-increase treadmill) they are going to talk up that 2% dissenting opinion. And really, since when did truth belong to the majority? That is merely the realm of popularity. When the majority is caught with their pants down fixing statistics to drum up more evidence, and using sources that may be flawed (NASA climate data?) that 2% begins to look less crazy. I dunno, this isn't really news.

As the late & great Terence McKenna said...

[Terminus32]

CULTURE IS NOT YOUR FRIEND!

Confirmation Bias Exemplified

[jonaskoelker]

Thanks for confirming confirmation bias [wikipedia.org] for me. It was pretty much what I expected anyway...

I know what you mean. I believe in confirmation bias. That's why I only acknowledge evidence for it...

Re:Confirmation Bias Exemplified

[Random BedHead Ed]

I think confirmation bias doesn't exist at all. In fact, after cherry picking some posts above that avoid confirmation bias, I remain 100% convinced it's bunk.

Humanists (Amsterdam declaration)

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe this helps in the discussion: http://www.iheu.org/amsterdamdeclaration.

 

2 Humanism is rational.

  It seeks to use science creatively, not destructively. Humanists believe that the solutions to the world's problems lie in human thought and action rather than divine intervention. Humanism advocates the application of the methods of science and free inquiry to the problems of human welfare. But Humanists also believe that the application of science and technology must be tempered by human values. Science gives us the means but human values must propose the ends.

Maybe rationality is just something to strive for. ("advocates the application of" instead of "applies")

Re:Humanists (Amsterdam declaration)

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the humanists of the 19th century that believed in ghosts and spiritism ? Humanism is another philosophy that reintroduce god under another name "the beauty of the universe". Fuck that: the universe isn't beautiful, it's just there. Science need this useless "awe in front of the beauty of the universe" bullshit as much as it needs an omnipotent god.

Really!

[Anonymous Coward]

News at 11.

Water vapor is ALSO a greenhouse gas.

[EWAdams]

So it's not really an ideal thing to be dumping into the atmosphere either. Once the fuel cell cars come along, I hope they'll have condensers. Of course this means that the roads will be wet and slick ALL the time.

Re:Water vapor is ALSO a greenhouse gas.

[bunratty]

You are correct that water vapor is a greenhouse gas. In fact, it provides most of the greenhouse effect for our planet. However, water vapor is not a forcing (in other words, adding water vapor to the atmosphere does not increase the temperature of the planet) because the added water vapor condenses out within days. Carbon dioxide is such a problem because it is a stable chemical compound that can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. Methane is a also very powerful greenhouse gas, but remains in the atmosphere only a few decades because it is highly reactive (in other words, it burns).

It's amazing that considering how much discussion we have about global warming here that we don't cover basic facts such as these much.

Re:'Cause it makes a lot of sense to look elsewher

[ThaReetLad]

In my view, the best evidence of these powers is that the disciples were all killed for claiming Jesus rose from the dead, but since they all claimed to be eyewitnesses they would have had to have known it was a lie. In my experience people don't cheerfully and joyfully allow themselves to be executed for something they KNOW to be false. I find their faith in a life after death, flowing from their experience, in the face of certain death to be compelling.

Re:'Cause it makes a lot of sense to look elsewher

[Anspen]

Seeing as when they compiled the bible, they packed together all of authoritative, trustworthy written documents that gave an account of Jesus' life or spoke of the man...

They didn't. They gathered together *all* stories they had and then picked the ones they liked. So at the very least there's a ton of writing which isn't in the bible. And academic researches generally assume that two of the gospels were written much later and were largely based on the other two (with some random additions).

Facts are not goals

[argent]

Facts are not goals. Thought and reasoning is driven by goals. The fact that people who have different goals make different decisions based on the same facts doesn't automatically mean they're *rejecting* those facts, it may mean that they are using those facts *correctly* to determine whether they approve of a development that supports or opposes their goals.

The labels are odd...

[neuroklinik]

From the article:

Participants in these experiments are asked to describe their cultural beliefs. Some embrace new technology, authority and free enterprise. They are labeled the "individualistic" group. Others are suspicious of authority or of commerce and industry. Braman calls them "communitarians."

This seems to miss a huge group of people who mistrust authority, but embrace new technology, commerce, free enterprise and industry. It's bizarre to label those who embrace authority individualistic.

Broken logic

[evanh]

The problem with that particular subject matter - Global Warming - is that people have already been convinced through a smear campaign that the facts were politically motivated. Result is blinkered, heavy filtering of all input relating to global warming simply because they think it's all lies. Not because of any standing beliefs or "cultural identities".

And part of that smear campaign has now convinced them that science in general is a political entity and should be treated as if it's just one little pesky politician that needs banished for good.

Re:Broken logic

[bunratty]

But why do they believe the smear campaign? Could it be that some people's beliefs make them more susceptible to believing that climatology is all lies? I notice that when people say science is religion or science has become politicized, they are talking only about a narrow aspect of science that their beliefs are in conflict with. For example, creationists disagree with evolutionary biology, but seem to have no problem with other areas of science.

Re:Broken logic

[evanh]

Most are disinterested. They don't ever read a thing. They just hear loud shouts on the tele and from people they meet. The catch phrases sound cool.

That's the why of why a smear campaign works. They just accept whatever is loudest most exciting arguments without any thought at all. And certainly don't have pre-standing beliefs.

Some people NEED religion

[Theovon]

I've been reading through a lot of the discussions on this article, and I see what I consider to be a blind knee-jerk reaction against the "evils" of religion. Now, probably a lot of you are in the "kill all the stupid people" camp. But for those of us who aren't in to mass murder, we believe that the world has a place for those who have lower IQs or just fundamentally must think about the world differently from those of us who understand what's going on when we compile a Linux kernel. We "rational" people are able to do things like ponder two contradictory ideas at once (well, some of us are), change our minds in the face of new evidence (ditto), and not assume that unexplained things must be driven by supernatural forces (is Linus an incarnation of Vishnu?). However, there are people who contribute meaningfully to our society that do not have the mental wetware to do these things. They may annoy you because they have to come to more primitive conclusions, but they have value like any other human being. And they have different intellectual needs. They NEED to believe that fact==truth and to have the truth handed to them by an authority. They cannot manage in the world in any other way. The effect of ripping away their religion would be to ruin their ability to function in the world. Some would just glom onto another religion. Some would go into deep depression and/or go insane. And some would just continue to believe in secret. But they will NEVER be able to grasp your world view. They simply cannot process the concepts, and you therefore cannot force them to.

If you want to have the right to believe in your "weird" way (face it, we geeks are a minority and most people don't understand us), then those "morons" should have the right to believe their weird stuff too. And frankly, your attempt to "enlighten" them is just shortsighted and unethical.

Re:Some people NEED religion

[g4b]

We can even turn that around. Some people need to hold on to the thinking that trying to analyze the world through logic and acquiring information in our mind, believing to get a grasp of objective knowledge equals understanding truth; furthermore, concluding, that every thought about a God is impossible if you do that stuff, and therefore religion must be "just a more primitive conclusion" in their thought patterns.

And there it is born, the fight between (pseudo-)intellectuals in the religious faction and in the open minded technotheist faction, while it never was a real war at all, just a historical schizma.

The western way of thinking about religion and science as contrary, the arrogance of calling any conclusion of another being as "more primitive", it's just you being the playball of historical development.

there is always the option of keeping an open mind and still believe in an authority, but the truth is, especially bible based religions teach us, that the main authority of every human is he himself, which the bible calls the origin of sin. So maybe believing in a bigger authority means more not to believe in your own conclusions as absolutely right.

Being open minded does not mean, not to make any decisions at all, it just means, to know about there could have been another decision you could have taken.

Well we are all feeding a troll, just to mention ;)

Cultural Bias Not necessarily Religion

[happy_place]

It's kinda sad that the first thing in the discussion of this study is the most simple-minded moronic solution one can come up with. Abolishing religion won't remove this human tendency. Essentially if you want to introduce ideas to a cultural group of any sort, you have to relate that idea to something they already believe. Belief is a necessary component to the acceptance of truth. It doesn't matter if its religious or even antireligious, the key to adoption will always be whether or not you can adapt your message to your audience. This is the problem with trite solutions like 'abolish religion' and religion haters. they are some of the least creative minds on the planet, because they fail to crystalize what they want and adapt it to those who might help them obtain it--instead religion (or politics, or those darn hillbillies in the mountains) is to blame and becomes a weak-minded scapegoat. Turns out that most of us want very similar things, but if you force us to have them--against what we believe--we push back.

duh

[McGiraf]

"people don't put as much weight on facts as they do their own belief "

pff. you do not need to tell me, i already knew that ....

many-many years ago, Immanuel Kant said...

[dogganos]

that there is no external reality, in the sense that we cannot ever know it. The only things that we know are the ones perceived by our senses, which actually translate the 'reality' through the brain, normalizing it to something brain-processable and understandable. Id est, we know shit, we understand shit!

Of course, the Greek philosophers also said that, a couple of thousand years back...

Cultural abuse?

[tigre]

By your argument, raising your children within a culture of any sort could be an "abuse of human nature and damages your free will to an extent that is [irreparable]". Religion is just a peculiar sort of culture which is entwined with, but not at all synonymous with, spirituality. As such, it generally does have a stronger impact than, say, what type of music you listen to, but it is still ultimately a culture issue. We all are influenced by our origins, and make choices as a result. Life in the long run is largely about progressing from that origin to a better place, often requiring that we recognize that our free will is not as "damaged" as we think, no matter what we have gone through. Granted, there are exceedingly many examples where religion is used as a cudgel to beat down free will, and it leads people to make horrible choices, and woe to those who wield such weapons. I do not mean in any way to excuse such actual abuse. But you overstate the case that "making" someone into a Christian or Muslim or Jew is in and of itself abusive.

I for one view myself as a Christian (culturally) who pursues Jesus as a spiritual choice. I know plenty of people who share one of the two labels above but not both. I don't advocate abolishing all Christian or religious cultures, but I am totally on board with loosening the coupling between religious cultures and spiritual choices because in the end it will only be good for people.

Re:Cultural abuse?

[Hognoxious]

Religion is just a peculiar sort of culture which is entwined with, but not at all synonymous with, spirituality. As such, it generally does have a stronger impact than, say, what type of music you listen to, but it is still ultimately a culture issue.

There's a world of difference between exposing a kid to Beethoven and telling him that it's OK to hijack planes and fly them into office buildings, throw stones at rape victims or [insert something bad that some religion does here].

A difference of degree is still a difference.

You guys are amazing, oblivious

[Kohath]

The whole point of this article is that people believe information that confirms their biases and the react accordingly.

And you guys respond immediately with "See! This information confirms my biases against religion..."

I've dealt with this.

[Tibia1]

I'm always the one among my friends talking about nanotechnology and it's implications. I was even caught preaching while drunk about nanobots. The thing is, most people don't even believe that some things are possible through technology, or at least not in their lifetime at all. If they can get past this belief, however, I've noticed that they don't take that much interest and seem to shut down all potential thoughts they could've formulated about future technology.

As an aside

[Anonymous Coward]

Hobbes' negative view of humanity is what convinced Bill Watterson to name Calvin's stuffed tiger after him.

You, Sir...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are excused from the jury panel.

Resistance if futile?

[redmid17]

I'm getting really confused. If the communitarians dislike nanotechnology, how come the Borg rule the Delta Quadrant?

Experiment doesn't show what is claimed

[DragonWriter]

This article describes an experiment that demonstrates that people don't put as much weight on facts as they do their own belief about how the world is supposed to work. From the article: 'In one experiment, Braman queried subjects about something unfamiliar to them: nanotechnology -- new research into tiny, molecule-sized objects that could lead to novel products. "These two groups start to polarize as soon as you start to describe some of the potential benefits and harms," Braman says. The individualists tended to like nanotechnology. The communitarians generally viewed it as dangerous.

That doesn't support the idea that people "don't put as much weight on facts as they do on their own belief about how the world is supposed to work", it instead suggests the much less interesting conclusion that what people subjectively like (rather than what they believe to be true in fact) is based not on facts alone but also on their personal priorities. This, of course, is true by definition, since you can't get to a conclusion about "X is good" without a premise of the same form.

What's odd is that the experiment that actually shows something closer to what is claimed -- conducted by the same group -- by showing that the perception of the existence of scientific consensus on various current issues, as well as the credence given by individuals to claims from particular scientists, is predicted vary strongly by where the subject stands on the "heirarchical individualist" vs. "egalitarian communitarian" scale isn't referenced here instead of this one, which shows nothing like what is claimed.

Let me get this straight...

[RJHelms]

People's beliefs hinge on their world-view.

In other words, people's beliefs are determined by their beliefs.

How come I don't get paid the big bucks to do this research? I could've saved them a lot of time.

Yeeesh.

[mea37]

Well, I clicked a lot of links looking for sufficient detail to back the article's claims, but didn't find it. Based on the information I was able to find, I'd say this:

1) There is nothing new in the observation that people tend to favor information that confirms their already-established world view. In decades past terms like "cognitive dissonance" were used to talk about this.

2) That said, it's very hard to take two people with different value systems and distinguish whether they're "rejecting" different subsets of those facts as TFA suggests, or applying different values to those facts and therefore reaching different conclusions at a summary level. A person who oppostes embryonic stem cell reserach isn't necessarily "rejecting" information about how many lives could be saved or how much suffering could be stopped; they are, however, valuing those things less than the moral harm they ascribe to destruction of an embryo. A supporter of such research, meanwhile, isn't necessarily rejecting the premise that embryos get destroyed; but rather puts less value on that loss than on the potential gains.

The people I know who are most prone to outright reject a fact are those who cannot confidently stand by a solid core value system. That makes it very hard to say "I see that there are negatives to the solution I favor, but they are outweighed by the positives"; or to sacrifice convenience if it turns out that the pros and cons really do balance out to favor an inconvenient solution.

3) It's also nothing new that people put more trust in others who they perceive as similar to themselves. Again, this has been observed for decades (often when takling about ethnic bias).

4) The article fails to provide a useful conclusion. It talks about approaches they think won't work for getting people to think open-mindedly, but it doesn't offer any advice on what will work.

Air Conditioning Techs and the Ozone Layer

[srobert]

Back in the late eighties, I was required to get an EPA certification that allowed me to work on refrigeration and air conditioning. The course and EPA test centered on the effects that refrigerants were having on the ozone layer and techniques to mitigate the problem. Out of a class of twenty or so, I was the only person taking the course who actually believed that CFC's might be having a real environmental impact. Everyone else there believed that CFC's destroying the ozone layer was a hoax masterminded by DuPont because their patents on old refrigerants had lapsed. AC techs typically follow procedures to capture old refrigerants and re-use them, thus reducing their release into the atmosphere. But they don't do this because they actually believe there's a real environmental problem. Most of them just do it because the price of new refrigerants was too high to waste them. So to apply this to today's concern over greenhouse gases, if you want the Dale Dribbles of the world to reduce their use of fossil fuels, you're going to have to raise the price of those fuels. You're not going to convince them that the science is anything other than a conspiracy theory.

Wow! Newsflash!

[Quiet_Desperation]

I'm the only person left that I know willing to say "You know, I'm not sure" on a complicated issue. Everyone thinks they *have* to have a definite conclusion on every topic in the universe.

I also very rarely hear anyone else say "it depends" because not only do lots of folks think they need that definite conclusion, but that conclusion is invariable and must (MUST!) be applied to the letter in every possible set of circumstances.

Re:Wow! Newsflash!

[BJ_Covert_Action]

I also very rarely hear anyone else say "it depends" because not only do lots of folks think they need that definite conclusion,

You don't hang out with very many engineers do you?

Re:Wow! Newsflash!

[FiloEleven]

Agreed. There is also with that mindset the implicit belief that a solution or answer exists for every problem or question. And not only is it sadly out of fashion to say "I'm not sure," but any tentative answer such as "I'm currently leaning toward this line of thought" usually results in an immediate endorsement or attempt to poke holes in the theory. There is very little open dialogue with the goal of deepening understanding; it's all us versus them all the time.

Re:Wow! Newsflash!

[Quiet_Desperation]

Dude, I *am* an engineer! :-)

I make far more than most of my peers, so maybe that says something further about being open minded.

Not to even mention that social problems != technical problems.

Negative or Positive?

[mikein08]

The article states " ... negative or positive information ... ". Uh, people, information is not negative or positive; the interpretation of information is negative or positive (or maybe neutral), depending only on the interpreter. Ergo, we should not be surprised that different people interpret the data data (information) differently, depending solely on their frame of reference.

I'll have a go at it :-)

[Quiet_Desperation]

Did you change your mind because of your own curiosity, reasoning and data collection OR because your tribe and its associated authority figures changed their minds and you felt compelled to follow suit?

Purely empirical. From my conversion to atheism (more of a very stern agnosticism, perhaps) to my willful abandonment of "one size fits all" ideologies, it was all based on looking at the world and a voracious appetite for information... and after reading a couple books by John Douglas (famed FBI profiler), I realized that ideologues on the pundit shows sound *WAY* too much like the serial killers that Douglas interviewed when he as developing profiling techniques.

Are you the sort of person who switches back and forth between beliefs easily?

Define "easily". Do you mean wishy-washy and easily swayed by gentle breezes, or, once are there are sufficient facts to form a conclusion in a particular situation, a decision is made without hesitation?

I abandoned "beliefs" altogether. Every situation requires its own solution. The solutions may be labeled by others as "libertarian" here or "progressive" there, but all I give a damn about is what works. What others label it is their problem.

Are you the sort of person who refuses to change belief systems out of fear of appearing or feeling weak-minded?

No. Don't give a gnat's fart what people think about it.

Do you lie to yourself in order to take the edge off uncomfortable truths?

No. Well, OK, I'm guilty of little things like "a couple more cookies won't hurt" or "I'll do an extra workout tomorrow". :-) You gotta paper over the little things once in a while otherwise you katches teh crazies or you turn into Monk and start vacuuming your carpet diagonally.

Are you lying to yourself right now about any of the answers to these questions?

I don't think so. Would I know if I was? Maybe I'm a really good liar. :-)

This just in!

[Galestar]

Your opinions determine your opinions! Novel research guyz

Veeery old news.

[Hurricane78]

I thought a lot about these things (like “truth” and beliefs), and here is what I came up with:

————————————————————

• You can not prove that anything, except for yourself, exists. It can only be deduced.
• There is no absolute knowledge (aka facts / truth). Knowledge is relative to the the ingoing information that it’s based on.
• There is no “neutral“ information. Information is defined trough being a difference from the neutral default, and then it’s modulated by all the sources that it passed trough.
• Every source has an associated trustworthiness factor for every point in time, that is calculated out of the consistency {{of the past experiences and the new experiences} from that source} with all the other knowledge. (I’m unsure about the weighting though.) [= Network of trust]
• There is always another source behind any source. [Causality]
  • That is why there is no “guilt” of a source.
  • The primordial original source is unascertainable. [What caused the big bang? “God” as a trick to protect the mind from getting stuck over this.]

————————————————————

• Every input (=information) changes us. (Physically mandatory.)
• And we act (=react) solely on the basis of our state at a point in time.
• Our state is defined by the folding (foldl over t) of all earlier inputs.
• Folding" in the sense of
  • the self-modulating superpositions of the learning effect of the neural network, in particular
  • and fundamentally of all changes of us (as matter) caused by that input, in general.
• Put simply: So the question is, what it makes out of you, and what you then make out of it. [=Causality]
• Our mental existence is thus defined by a sequence of transformation of our inputs.

————————————————————

We are only

• expanding bio-mass ((self-)organizing matter/energy)
• expanding ideas (in the sense of the input transformation)

fighting for available resources

• Bio-mass: space-time, matter/energy,
• Ideas: space-time, mental energy.

————————————————————

I’m obviously open for corrections. But beware that I blew my own mind, multiple times, while in the progress of understanding it. So your quick shot will most likely turn out to be only valid until you think a bit more about it. ;)

A note on the Trinity

[einhverfr]

First, Philo is an interesting source and I consider to be one important to the study of this topic. I would argue however that the trinity does derive (as was believed in the Renaissance) from Plato's works, in particular "Republic" and "Letters." However, the roots of the concept go even further back. In Republic you have Plato essentially arguing that a tripartite structure unites the human condition and society, and in Letters, this is applied to the structure of Godhead (though Plato only mentions two of the three components himself: Jupiter (The Shining Father) and the active principle, the son of Jupiter (Note that Jupiter, though the Latin name I have usually seen in translations was a word borrowed into Latin from Greek and seems etymologically related to Zeus but with -piter on the end signifying "father"). This Father/Son structure is particularly interesting here and worth coming back to.

Of course, the third element was filled in by Plato's followers by adopting the World Soul discussed in Timaeus. So we have The Shining Father (or The Father Zeus, or some other interpretation), The Active Principle/Logos/Son, and The World Soul. That is not far at all from Father/Son/Holy Spirit.

However, as Georges Dumezil has shown, this structure was not entirely invented by Plato. Instead Dumezil places the structure into a larger context comparable to the Vedic formula of Mitra/Indra/Ashvins (and in some rituals these are further divided as Mitra/Varuna, Indra/Vayu, and the Ashvins or Horse-Twins). This would also make the structure comparable with the Three Great Gods of Uppsala mentioned by Adam of Bremen (Odin, Thorr, and Freyr), of the three gods mentioned for their treasures in the Battle of Magh Tuiredh (Lugh, Nuada, and In Dagda). Other comparable structures include the Old Capitoline Triad (Jupiter, Mars, Quirinus), and the three offspring of Rig in Norse myth (Jarl/Earl, Karl/Freeman, and Thrall/Slave).

To these I would add the Three Gunas of the Bagavad Gita (Sattvas/Truth, Rajas/Kingship, and Tamas/Inertia), the three top varnas in Hindu society (Brahman/Priest, Kshatrya/warrior, Vasaya/Farmer-merchant), and the three top classes in post-Solon Athens (Elites, Horsemen, and men-of-yoke).

This suggests a very old pattern, the ancestor to which (I think which was a spacial/cosmic model roughly comparable to heaven/earth/hell) was dispersed as the Indo-European peoples expanded out from the Pontic-Caspian steppes. However to get into that is at least a 30-page paper!

Or the Hindu Solution

[mano.m]

I see your One True God and raise you 330 million!

Other types of bias and logical fallacy

[whyde]

Bandwagon effect: n. The tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. Related to Groupthink.

Bias blind spot: n. The tendency not to compensate for one's own cognitive biases.

Choice-supportive bias: n. The tendency to remember one's choices as better than they actually were.

Confirmation bias: n. The tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.

Congruence bias: n. The tendency to test hypotheses exclusively through direct testing.

Contrast effect: n. The enhancement or diminishment of a weight or other measurement when compared with recently observed contrasting object.

Disconfirmation bias: n. The tendency for people to extend critical scrutiny to information which contradicts their prior beliefs and accept uncritically information that is congruent with their prior beliefs.

Endowment effect: n. The tendency for people to value something more as soon as they own it.

Focusing effect: n. Prediction bias occurring when people place too much importance on one aspect of an event; causes error in accurately predicting the utility of a future outcome.

Hyperbolic discounting: n. The tendency for people to have a stronger preference for more immediate payoffs relative to later payoffs, the closer to the present both payoffs are.

Illusion of control: n. The tendency for human beings to believe they can control or at least influence outcomes which they clearly cannot.

Impact bias: n. The tendency for people to overestimate the length or the intensity of the impact of future feeling states.

Information bias: n. The tendency to seek information even when it cannot affect action.

Loss aversion: n. The tendency for people to strongly prefer avoiding losses over acquiring gains.

Neglect of Probability: n. The tendency to completely disregard probability when making a decision under uncertainty.

Mere exposure effect: n. The tendency for people to express undue liking for things merely because they are familiar with them.

Color psychology: n. The tendency for cultural symbolism of certain colors to affect affective reasoning.

Omission Bias: n. The tendency to judge harmful actions as worse, or less moral than equally harmful omissions (inactions).

Outcome Bias: n. The tendency to judge a decision by its eventual outcome instead of based on the quality of the decision at the time it was made.

Planning fallacy: n. The tendency to underestimate task-completion times.

Post-purchase rationalization: n. The tendency to persuade oneself through rational argument that a purchase was good value.

Pseudocertainty effect: n. The tendency to make risk-averse choices if the expected outcome is positive, but risk-seeking choices to avoid negative outcomes.

Rosy retrospection: n. The tendency to rate past events more positively than they had actually rated them when the event occurred.

Selective perception: n. The tendency for expectations to affect perception.

Status quo bias: n. The tendency for people to like things to stay relatively the same.

Von Restorff effect: n. The tendency for an item that "stands out like a sore thumb" to be more likely to be remembered than other items.

Zeigarnik effect: n. The tendency for people to remember uncompleted or interrupted tasks better than completed ones.

Zero-risk bias: n. Preference for reducing a small risk to zero over a greater reduction in a larger risk.

Ambiguity effect: n. The avoidance of options for which missing information makes the probability seem "unknown".

Anchoring: n. The tendency to rely too heavily, or "anchor," on one trait or piece of information when making decisions.

Anthropic bias: n. The tendency for one's evidence to be biased by observation selection effects.

Attentional bias: n. Neglect of relevant data when making judgments of a correlation or association.

Availability error: n. The distortion of on

they threw the wrong bit away

[Hognoxious]

just like the trappings of an angry atheist's strawman of religion.

Angry? I'm laughing at you right now, snipcock.

Re:'Cause it makes a lot of sense to look elsewher

[mosb1000]

I don't think it's reasonable to characterize the Bible as a suspicious. The Bible in it's present compiled form has been subject to rigorous literary criticism for sixteen hundred years(and the majority of the Bible has been subject to this treatment for significantly longer than that, with the law of Moses being some three thousand and five hundred years old). I've not heard challenge to it's credibility that would warrant the description you have provided here. I can't prove that those who wrote it were telling the truth, but there is good reason to believe it was written when it claims to have been written.

Likewise, there is good reason to believe these have been used as holy texts for that whole time, and that the books which are presented in the new testament give an accurate account of the early christian movement and philosophy associated with it. Even if the books themselves were not written by the saints, they were definitely written by people associated with the movement, when it was first taking shape. Books which meet that description are generally considered to be a reliable source of historical information (most of the literature doccumenting antiquity is significantly less reliable than that).

Apart from the claims of supernatural occurrences, do you have any reason to believe it is incredible? Whether or not someone will accept it as true has a lot to do with their life experiences when they learn of it, so someone else who has personally experienced some of the things the Bible speaks of will be convinced, while if you have not, you probably won't find it believable.

The Bible is not like the book or Mormon, which makes claims to have been written thousands of years ago and have been recently translated, but offering no proof of the matter. All indications are that it has been continually in use since it's creation, and describes historical events which are supported by archeological investigations and other historical texts.

Re:'Cause it makes a lot of sense to look elsewher

[mosb1000]

Other gospels, as far as I am aware, do not focus on giving an account of the life of Jesus, but rater give accounts of "secret" wisdom given to some of his disciples, myths and parables used to describe christian teaching, and parables and phrases given by Jesus. I just purchased a book containing all the other early works recovered to date, so I'll know better what they say after I've read them.

As far as the gospels go, most believe that Matthew and Luke were written from Mark (and some believe from the "Q-document", a hypothetical collection if phrases and parables spoken by Jesus). If you read John, you'll notice that it is completely different from the other three, both in form, and in terms of which events are described (though it does not contradict them). John reads like a personal account from a close friend, while the other three read like biography.

I was researching the Gnostic gospels because of your comment, and I came across a claim that John was included because it was widely accepted among Gnostics, and extremely important to them, but not considered heretical by the orthodox church. I think it is fitting that the gospel that speaks the most about love would be used in such a way, though it is just a hypothesis.

No Kidding/How Ironic

[rolandansgar]

The author's observation belongs in the "No Shit, Sherlock" category. And the author, Christopher Joyce, uses himself as the prime example. The science behind human-initiated global warming has been shot to hell. Not that Sir Christopher should bother with this fact, rather than sailing about the Chesapeake Bay in his spare time. Phenomenal.

Ayn Rand & Robert Heinlein Will Get Us All Kil

[progliberty]

What the slashdot summery didn't mention was that the "individualists" were actually authoritarian capitalist/free market Ayn Rand types, and the "communitarians" were really left libertarian/progressive libertarian/libertarian socialist/Noam Chomsky oriented types. The Rand types embrace authority and the destruction of the earth via pollution and the extinction of humanity via forced-technology driven by profit motive. The Chomsky types prefer grass roots, humanitarian, individualism-for-the-rest-of-us (and not just the elite) solutions. Why does this not surprise anyone?