[RSClyde]

 Winstonm, on 2013-October-11, 09:35, said:

Having thought this over, I now conclude that Harris is not holding the "believer" culpable but the "belief" itself - and the point he may be making is that moderates should take the next step and abandon the belief altogether in order to move mankind as a whole toward a reason-based approach to problem-solving.

I read Harris's book some time back. Yes I think that is his point, though we have departed from this topic for more general discussions it would seem.
He isn't so interested in who's to blame, but rather in what to do. His point is that moderation is not the end game for humanity because there are problems with it which he outlines and I won't go through here. To be clear I heard him say in an interview that moderation is definitely better than fundamentalism: adding that no one flies a plane into a building because they're a moderate.

[kenberg]

Possibly he has a point, in a purely sociological sens. But it goes against the grain of many, or at least I react badly to it. Try varying the question. Were moderate liberlas responsible for the excesses of the Weather Underground? See http://en.wikipedia....her_Underground if you are young.

I take responsibility for my views and, especially, for my actions. I do not accept responsibility for the actions of some guy with a nutty variant on my views.

[Vampyr]

 nige1, on 2013-October-11, 17:57, said:

You mean the God particle? Ad hominem argument demeans you vampyr

I was not making an ad homimen argument. I was making a comment directed towards a specific poster, concerning the subject at hand. 325 knows nothing about science, yet is vehemently anti-science.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2013-October-12, 06:25, said:

Possibly he has a point, in a purely sociological sens. But it goes against the grain of many, or at least I react badly to it. Try varying the question. Were moderate liberlas responsible for the excesses of the Weather Underground? See http://en.wikipedia....her_Underground if you are young.

I take responsibility for my views and, especially, for my actions. I do not accept responsibility for the actions of some guy with a nutty variant on my views.

I feel as I have to take some blame for posting this without enough clarification - but my understanding of the Harris argument is this: 1, beliefs drive actions 2. some beliefs encourage violence 3. remove the belief and there is no further reason for that type of violence.

I don't think Harris uses the word culpable to describe moderates, but he does say that because they foster and encourage the following of irrational belief systems their arguments against radicals' beliefs are dismissed as a misreading or misunderstanding of holy books or of which irrational belief system is right.

In that sense, would the violent Weathermen Underground have risen without the social approval of the anti-war movement itself? Not that any one person opposed to the Vietnam War would be considered culpable for the Weathermens' violence, but providing a cradle of anti-government, anti-war social acceptance led to the birth and existence of that extreme group.

[Trinidad]

 32519, on 2013-October-11, 16:08, said:

This whole science thing is all very confusing.

Why is science so confusing to you?

Saying that "this whole science thing is all very confusing" sounds to me like: "This whole grammar thing is very confusing" or "this whole arithmetic thing is very confusing", because I learned these things (science, grammar and arithmetic) in school.

I don't know much about South Africa. Do they teach Science in South African schools? What do you learn in a South African school?

Again, I don't know, but I could imagine that you never went to school (or went to school for a much shorter time than most forum posters). For Europeans or North Americans it is not easy to realize that school is not a universal thing. We will automatically assume that anybody we talk to will have had at least about 12 years of school... And in the modern days of internet we may be very wrong about that.

Rik

[Winstonm]

 Trinidad, on 2013-October-12, 08:33, said:

Why is science so confusing to you?

Saying that "this whole science thing is all very confusing" sounds to me like: "This whole grammar thing is very confusing" or "this whole arithmetic thing is very confusing", because I learned these things (science, grammar and arithmetic) in school.

I don't know much about South Africa. Do they teach Science in South African schools? What do you learn in a South African school?

Again, I don't know, but I could imagine that you never went to school (or went to school for a much shorter time than most forum posters). For Europeans or North Americans it is not easy to realize that school is not a universal thing. We will automatically assume that anybody we talk to will have had at least about 12 years of school... And in the modern days of internet we may be very wrong about that.

Rik

I think if you reread the last 32519 post that you will see that an education gap is not likely the cause of the consternation but willful ignorance jumps up high on the list of potentialities. The arguments made both before and after the last post are recurring arguments seen from apologists who refuse to surrender their belief system in favor of a "it is unclear or unknown" scientific response.

It matters none what explanations are put forward - the goal post is simply moved each time to the new Aha, you can't explain that! so that it is impossible to ever even be in the game much less win it.

My suggestion: don't play.

[Vampyr]

 Winstonm, on 2013-October-12, 08:51, said:

It matters none what explanations are put forward - the goal post is simply moved each time to the new Aha, you can't explain that! so that it is impossible to ever even be in the game much less win it.

Anti-evolutionists have it really good -- when a new discovery closes a "gap in the fossil record", two new gaps are created.

[kenberg]

Rash generalizations are rash, but possibly the basis for science rather than religion as the source of knowledge is an acceptance, even an insistence, that there are many things that we do not know. With work and an open mind, discoveries can be made. Sometimes these discoveries will later be found to be incorrect, but knowledge, as a whole, moves forward in this manner. The very first thing is an acceptance of a lack of knowledge.

[nige1]

 RSClyde, on 2013-October-12, 05:25, said:

To be clear I heard him [Harris] say in an interview that moderation is definitely better than fundamentalism: adding that no one flies a plane into a building because they're a moderate.

Fundamentalists are often criticised as simplistic and extremist. IMO their acceptability depends critically on the nature of their fundament and its behavioural implications. In particular, how tolerant they are of dissenters. B F Skinner (reinforcement) and Richard Dawkins (selfish gene) behaved like benign fundamentalists -- focussed, unshakable in their conviction and keen to proselytise their belief.

[nige1]

 billw55, on 2013-October-11, 06:38, said:

Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" is a good start, although the level is somewhat high for a popularization. Of course, it endorses the big bang. You won't find much scientific material about other theories, because the scientific consensus on the big bang is virtually 100%. For substantially different ideas, you may have to consult various religious texts.

Fred Hoyle, who championed the Steady-State theory (now obsolescent), coined the Big Bang epithet for its rival.

[Elianna]

 Vampyr, on 2013-October-12, 07:29, said:

325 knows nothing about science, yet is vehemently anti-science.

I'm beginning to think that the only way to BE anti-science is to know nothing about it. (i.e. "If you're anti science, then you know nothing about science" is a true statement, but it's converse may not necessarily be true.)

Maybe this makes me a science fundamentalist?

[barmar]

 32519, on 2013-October-11, 16:08, said:

This whole science thing is all very confusing.

Isaac Newton figured out that gravity keeps my feet on the ground. But when I leave the earth’s atmosphere, the law of gravity no longer applies. Suddenly I have become weightless.

"Weightlessness" is an illusion.

When you're on the earth, gravity is pulling you towards the center of the earth. But the solid ground is keeping you from falling in, and you can feel this against your feet. So you can tell that gravity is in effect.

When you're in orbit around the earth, you're also falling. But the spaceship or space station you're on is also falling at the same rate. So nothing is pushing at you against the force of gravity, so you can't feel it.

The Air Force trains astronauts in a jet they call the "vomit comet". It simulates weightlessness in a very simple manner: it goes up and down like a roller coaster. When it goes down, it dives at the same rate of acceleration as gravity, so the passengers "float" in the middle of the cabin. If the jet were flying horizontally at that altitude, you'd feel the gravity, but because it's going down at the same rate as you would fall if there were no plane, you stop feeling it.

[32519]

I have a question:
How much (or more specifically, what) has man been able to reproduce of, either in the natural world, or the universe all around us?

[hrothgar]

 32519, on 2013-October-13, 09:28, said:

I have a question:
How much (or more specifically, what) has man been able to reproduce of, either in the natural world, or the universe all around us?

I have no idea what this question means...

[kenberg]

 32519, on 2013-October-13, 09:28, said:

I have a question:
How much (or more specifically, what) has man been able to reproduce of, either in the natural world, or the universe all around us?

I have two kids, but probably that's not what you mean. There are artificial diamonds, but I am guessing you mean something else still. But what? It's a lazy Sunday morning so I can chat a bit but I cannot imagine any version of your question that will lead us anywhere.

A friend was once trying to explain a mathematical concept to my older daughter. He began "Suppose that you are on Jupiter and I am on Mars...". She thought that this was a pretty fair summary of their attempt at communication. This story comes to mind as I try to follow this thread.

[mikeh]

Here is a nugget of information that won't mean thing to the torll, despite its last question: in 'nature' the coldest temperature is the level of the background cosmic radiation, left over from the big bang (incidentally the detection of this background radiation had been predicted by the theory of the big bang so its detection was further confirmation of the provisional validity thereof). However, scientists have produced temperatures, in labs, far lower than this. So 'man' has been able to 'go beyond' nature in at least one aspect of reality.

[awm]

To return to the question of religious moderation...

We have a number of books which purport to be divinely inspired and contain various stories about the universe and advice about how to live one's life. There are basically three points of view about these books:

1. One of these books is the literal divine truth.
2. One (or more) of these books contains some divine truth, but also some parables and some historical interpretation.
3. None of these books contains divine truth; they are only interesting from a historical/cultural standpoint.

Atheists would fall into the third category (although there are also people who are "spiritual" but reject organized religion who might fall into this category). The fundamentalists fall into the first category (although there are some remarkable points where their behavior seems to fall short of the book they revere and they usually will not admit this, especially in cases where the book is self-contradictory). Moderates would be in the second category.

Anyway, it seems that the biggest step is actually between 1 and 2; once you accept that not everything in the book is literal divine truth, it is easy to reject more and more of it, keeping only parts that comport with the modern understanding of ethics ("do unto others") or even moving into the third group. I don't think the people in the second group are really "enabling" the people in the first.

[Vampyr]

 awm, on 2013-October-13, 09:59, said:

I don't think the people in the second group are really "enabling" the people in the first.

Not the people, but a culture that tolerates and even respects religious beliefs and acts; and laws that protect them.

[awm]

 Vampyr, on 2013-October-13, 10:16, said:

Not the people, but a culture that tolerates and even respects religious beliefs and acts; and laws that protect them.

Again, I'm not convinced this is necessarily true. The culture and laws are quite capable of protecting some religious beliefs (you are allowed to take time off for religious holidays, or to wear the symbol of your religion in a public place) while rejecting other religious beliefs quite soundly (polygamy, arranged marriage, death penalty for homosexuality are some examples).

More accurate would be to say that we have a culture that tolerates and even respects some religious beliefs and acts, while vehemently rejecting others, even when they derive from the same religious text(s). The big difference has to do with the modern understanding of ethics agreed to by a significant majority, which basically grants freedom to think and do what you please provided there is no direct negative impact on others who choose not to think or act in the same way.

[32519]

 kenberg, on 2013-October-13, 09:53, said:

I have two kids, but probably that's not what you mean. There are artificial diamonds, but I am guessing you mean something else still. But what? It's a lazy Sunday morning so I can chat a bit but I cannot imagine any version of your question that will lead us anywhere.

Let's start small.
1. We have been studying for umpteen years how bees make honey. Has anyone managed to replicate the process yet?
2. Bird's Nest Soup is very popular in places like China. Has anyone managed to replicate the process yet?
Both of these should surely be within man's grasp by now? After all we have been around for the last 100,000 years and the top of the food chain.