y'know, sometimes I can't tell when you're being serious or not.
Regardless, whatever makes you happy...

I've gone through the same things.

I honestly don't blame you. In the face of relentless dogmatic religions that proselytize their finger-pointing judgemental folklore as though it is absolute truth, I really can't blame anyone for being turned off by the very thought of anything "spiritual".

I feel that it's a very sad thing that it has actually come down to that. There are spiritual concepts that are truly beautiful and actually complement scientific observations rather than challenge them or conflict with them. Had these spiritual philosophies been the norm in our society there probably wouldn't be any divide between the scientific-minded and the spiritual-minded at all.

It's truly a shame that some scientists (or scientifically minded people) are falling for that make-believe 'war'. It's just a war that doesn't even need to exist.

It's entirely the finger-pointing judgemental religions that are truly causing it. Having worked in scientific fields all my life, I'm well-aware that most actual scientists are not atheists, but actually quite spiritual. Yet most of them do indeed reject the traditional "Abrahamic picture". I certainly don't blame anyone for that, as I am definitely among those who take that view.

My position on science and spirituality is really quite simple and straight-forward. There is nothing in science that rules out a spiritual essence to reality. On the contrary, there are many doors of science that are wide open for this possiblity to exist.

Therefore, unless you can point to a particular scientific theory that clearly states that no such thing as spirit can exist, or point to some scientist who won a noble prize for having made such a discovery, then for you to claim that spirituality is incompatible with science, or that science in any way suggests that the universe cannot have a fundamental spiritual essense, well,...

Then you can hardly argue against spirituality in the name of "science". At best all you can do is argue it in the name of your own hopes and expectations of what you believe science might eventually become in some futuristic wet dream of your owm making.

In the meantime, all you have at the present moment is BLIND FAITH that science might actually become something other than was it genuinely is today.

Reading the above reminded me of something that we should all remember. Science and Religion (faith in the unknown/unknowable) are two completely separate ideologies.

Science, as others have related, is the study af things that are; observable phenomina that exists whether we recognize it or not. Science studies the observable. This holds true for studies of mind as well. Often we observe behavior and attribute it to mind (psychology or social sciences). From those observations more physical evidence supporting the theories (or disclaiming them) are often found. For example, certain types of mental illness have been known (by behavor alone) until technology evolved and we discovered that the theroies of certain mental illness are actually driven by physiological means - hormones, steroids and such and sometimes an actualy physiological misconnection in the brain.

Religion is faith in the unknown/unknowable made visible through the actions/behaviors of its followers. How beliefs develope or even what they are is completely based on individual conceptions or acceptance of various fundamental beliefs associated with a particular sect.

Science has a purpose, it helps up to navigate more safely in our world and provides us with ways to make our life easier. While the study of science provides us with answers to mysteries, it also provides many more questions leading to future opportunities for greater exploration.

Religion has a purpose to, it serves to fulfill a psychological need. It offers answers to questions that science cannot even approach because the answers deal with things outside the realm of the physical universe which is the only interest of science.

Religions have overwhelmingly been the major force in providing strong social connections between people, even on a global level.

Science, unlike religion, requires a completely different and intense knowledge base which requires a structured and logical progression of learning in order to become a part of the social network of scientists.

To me both science and religion are on different footings with no comparison between them.

In my opinion there are only two things which keep Science and Religion at odds against each other.
The first stems from the perceived challenge of science agaist religion. I say perceived becasue as science broke down older religious traditional beliefs into facts which deconstructed the belief, religionists felt threatened and so saw the threat as a challenge to PROVE their religious beliefs are founded in truth not just in faith.

Accepting that challenge was a bad idea, it opened the door for non-believers to diss religion and to require ever greater proof, of which none can ever be found, not in the physical world.

The second 'at odds' phenomina add fuel to the fire of the challenge from the first one above. When religionists beliefs become so strong as to deny science or to deny cultures the ability to evolve.

Cultures evolve to keep pace with science - all part of the physical world. But religionists often attempt to set moral and ethical standards for entire cultures based on a belief system which is actually no more than an individual concept to begin with.

And so Science and Religion two totally separate and unrelated issues cause social discord and even segregation of populations.

Both are valid ideologies well suited for the role each plays in an individuals life. The key is, that religion is individualistic, while science is a progressive stream of new knowledge which influences cultures in way too strong for religions to overcome.

I think much of science does involve the observable,, but much of it involves faith in someone elses CLAIM of what they observed,,,AND what it meant (most of what I am cautious about is the analysis of what observations mean, although I do believe it just as possible for 'scientists' to be dishonest and to make false claims as anyone else)

for example, the bell curve was once manipulated by those CLAIMING in one instance that it meant african americans were not as intelligent as others,,,,

In fact, almost every scientist thinks precisely as I'm suggesting:

Has science confirmed that there exists other lifeforms in the universe?

No, it hasn't.

Do many scientists believe that there very well may be other life forms in the universe?

Yes, in fact, I would dare to say that most scientists do believe this is quite possible.

Why? For two reasons.

1. Science hasn't ruled out that possiblity.

2. Science leaves the door wide open to that possiblity.

Well, if you stop and think about it, this is precisely the same situation in terms of a possible spiritual essence to the unvierse.

And that's really all I'm saying.

In other words I don't used science as an excuse to rule things out that science itself has not yet ruled out.

That's all I'm saying.

Period.

You're trying to turn that around into claiming that I'm somehow saying that since science hasn't ruled something out that's proof that it must be true.

I see what science doesn't yet know as a vast ocean of possibility.

So who's being optimistic here, and who's being pessimistic?

And more importantly, does science SUPPORT either view anymore than the other view?

NO, IT MOST CERTAINLY DOES NOT!

And that's my ONLY POINT.

In his book "Yes, We Have No Neutrons", A.K. Dewdney knocked that and other bad science for a BIG loop. That's the thing about science-- when somone doesn't do their homework or tries to pull a fast one, their peers come down out of the hills on them like a load of lead bricks. The sacred oxen get a cheerful goring if all the 'i's and 't's aren't dotted/crossed.

The same can't be said about religions, for the most part-- the sacred texts and dogmas are challenged on pain of dire consequences if at all.

-Kerry O.

Yes, Kerry O. has hit it on spot but only as far as the scientific community goes.

The non-scientific community often takes what science has to offer on faith because, in most cases, we lack the education to review the data for ourselves. As Kerry O. indicates there is a relevant pathway for scientists to declare their findings so that PEERS can review those findings from all angles of scientific perspective. They are not attempting to validate they are attempting to invalidate all findings.

When this process has been repeated 100's or 1,000's of times and the results hold firm - we consider it a theory and the non-scientific community accept what we cannot confirm for ourselves.

Religion is not suppose to be about confirmation of beliefs BUT they are PEER reviewed by other religionists who will be happy to tell you why your religion is wrong, with absolutely no more valid point of reference than what you could supply in return.

When an athiest attempts to invalidate religions, they usually attempt to back up their claims with science. In some cases science does invalidate traditional religious claims - such as the young Earth claim. But that should be cause for reflection on the part of believers, because if there is truthfulness about one's faith, then it must be recognized that even 'religions' evolve to keep pace with science and culture.

To me, that's ok, correcting a wrong belief of faith is the same as correcting an invalid scientific claim. Every invalidation is the removal of an obstical from your truth. It doesn't have to destroy a person's faith but it may change the hypothesis it began with.

I'm unlocking this thread. Leave the insults and attacks off of the forums. Please keep the post on the topic and not the posters.

Kim

Gee, I wutt'n even playin' in 'dis sanbox...



Hello everyone who I like!

No body created me.

I am god. I manifested.

From the OP...



Life as we know it is not necessarily the only possible life...


Is it?

I'm aware of a handful of ways the pretense (not the reality, but the pretense) of objectivity was used as a tool to justify immoral and inaccurate culturally-based beliefs about 'race', and I assume there are many more.

I'm curious about this specific instance re: 'the bell curve' - do you have a link or a search phrase I can use?

I'm curious because the notion of a bell curve itself undermines any idea that one can presume specific knowledge of a member of a group by the qualities of that group. Men are statistically taller than women, but we cannot presume to know someone's height based on their sex. The notion of the bell curve makes it obvious that being racist against individuals is irrational.

The bell curves are done on groups. So this leads to being racists against a group, not an indvidiual.



In the above graph, the red bell curve supposedly represent the IQ of whites, and the blue bell curve supposedly represents the IQ of blacks. Based on this graph the average white person has a higher IQ than the average black person, and the smartest white person is far smarter than the smartest back person.

However, I personally don't give these studies any merit because of how they measure IQ. Quite often IQ tests actually require a certain degree of education (which has nothing to do with intelligence), so if these states were taken in a place where the white subjects just happen to be more educated than the black subjects then clearly the results are going to be affected by that.

Never trust the statisticians because they inevitably ignore important details.

The graph above came from the following web site.

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/retard.htm

Please Note: I did not read this web site and I have no clue what they are talking about specifically, my only point in using their graph was to show how bell curves are used, in a general way, to single out a "group" of people. It's done by simply using two bell curves side-by-side with each bell curve representing a particular group.

Here's the source web site for the graph, and like I say, I am not endorsing what they actually say, nor have I even bothered to read their commentary. I'm not interested in that. I was just looking for an example graphic, and this graphic suits my purpose for demonstration.

I disagree that this is implied by the graph - and this is central to my point. The frequency distribution drops off asymptotically to zero - there is a tiny non-zero chance of having ultra-smart white people, and a tiny non-zero chance of having ultra-smart black people. This doesn't say anything about whether the smartest white person is smarter than the smartest black person.



Most definitely! IQ test are not tests of true intelligence. They are test of 'whatever aspects of intelligence are being tested for', which depends on how the tests are designed.


Edit: Took another look at the graph - the asymptotic behavior of the curve is not evident in the picture, because of the resolution. If you look at the actual equation, though, it will be clear that nothing is being said about the smartest and dumbest people of any race - only that there is a tiny nonzero chance of very high and very low IQ for both races (according to those curves).

Statistics show a definite and unmistakable correlation between
poor grades and alcohol consumption in college students.



cause or effect?

That's interesting.

So are they going out drinking to drown their sorrows about having made poor grades? Or were they drinking whilst studying thus causing them to make poor grades?

This is one thing about statistics. Unless you know the actual situation, the stats alone can't really be used to reveal the truth. All you can do is jump to conclusions based on what you think might have been the sequence of events.

Here's a good one!

A study once showed that pet owners tend to be happier, healthier, and less-stressed out people than non-pet owners.

So the conclusion is that if you go out and buy a pet you'll become a happier healthier person.

Is that true?

Well, probably not.

What's probably true is that people who are generally happier and less-stressed out just happen to be the kinds of people who enjoy having a pet around. They are healthier because of their natural disposition.

Therefore if a miserable person who is all stressed-out, goes out and buys a pet, what will most likely happen is that the person will remain miserable and stressed-out and end up making the pet miserable and stressed-out too.

So much for statistics.

not to offend, but this makes me think of a similar comparison my mom once mentioned,,,,, in the correlation between lower intelligence and spanking,,,,which came first?...lol


did they get more spankings because they were too dense to get it the first time, or were they dense because they got so many spankings,,,,, boggles the mind

Exactly - correlation does not imply causation. There might be no causal relationship at all.

I agree that that any cause-effect relationship that might exist might also work in the opposite direction as one might first think - dense children getting spanked for being dense, rather than spanking causing children to become dense.

It might also be that both are a consequence of some other cause. A child is hyper, therefore he is both spanked more and lacks the focus to develop his intelligence. A student is an undisciplined hedonist, therefore they both drink more and fail at their studies. A person enjoys caring for others, therefore they have a pet and they are happier.