Science is screwing up the battle for America's minds.

Great Debates
201

And I submit that your definition suffers from several problems in that “existence” does not have the clear meaning that I infer you give to it (go look up some of the philosophical discussions regarding essence, existence, being, and so forth on the SDMB), and that “force” is also unclear in that it appears that you mean “act of creation” although you might mean “first cause” or some other concept although I would expect your definition to mean that existence, itself, has some sort of expressed power and that expressed power is god.

I am sure that “force of existence” conveys a very clear idea to you. I submit that it lacks the ability to clearly convey a single meaning to theists, much less to theists, deists, agnostics, and atheists. There are many believers (the overwhelming majority of the Hindu faith and pretty much all Buddhiists, for example) for whom the sentence “In the beginning, God created the universe” is a meaningless construct.

I am not trying to shoot down your belief. I am pointing out that you asserted that there was a definition of god on which all could agree and that science denied but that I find your definition to be inadequate to the task you have assigned it.

Recall that this sidebar began when you asserted that

And yet, I, a believer, do not find the definition meaningful for philosophical and theological reasons, and we haven’t even gotten to the point where science is dragged into the discussion. How can a “definition” be accurate when it conveys multiple meanings with no indication which menaing it intends? It is clearly NOT “obvious.”
So I find that your initial claim for a reason that science is not trusted has no bearing on the topic. (And we have not even gotten around to arguing over the false claim that you have joined lekatt in repeating that science actually denies anything about god/God.)

202

…the theological equivalent of “LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!” :wink:

203

Just a short question if I may, Who created the place for God to exist? If God is a being, God would first need a place in which to exist. Where was this being before existing?

Monavis

204

When science teaches the brain produces consciousness and when the brain dies, consciousness dies. I think that takes away life after death.

I realize science can not measure spiritual things, but most are ready to say there is nothing beyond the material world.

On NDEs, there exists good scientific evidence that consciousness lives beyond the death of the body. Controlled studies show this. the Pam Reynolds surgery is a bench mark case of evidence of life after death. It has been the subject of books, magazine articles and TV documentaries. It is not that the evidence doesn’t exist it is the denail of scientists that makes it appear not to exist.
But this is changing, more research is being done and more researchers are believing.

All serious researchers of NDEs, I mean those that read the NDE materials, interview the experiencers, and write about their studies in a scientific manner, come to respect the individuals who have them. Most become believers.

The reason they become believers is the profound personally changes NDEers go through after their experiences. These personality changes are dramatic and long-term, like the rest of their lives. Many go back to school and become teachers or counselors, some write books, give lectures, even build centers of service to others. Some volunteer at hospitals and hospices. Nearly all begin some kind of service to their fellow man. They have lost their desire to become rich and/or famous. The world is forever seen in a different way. The reason for this is the knowledge gained from the experience. We experience the “ghost in the machine” and know the reality of a higher intelligence. Now the experience doesn’t change them, they change themselves after “seeing the light” and want to get in step with reality.

This part of the near death experience is what makes believers out of skeptics.

There is nothing in the form of delusions, illusions, drugs, dissociation, or any other means known that has the ability to cause people to change so.

205

But you are the one imposing your belief, here, not that of science. If science says that the operation of the brain stops at death and that we use the word consciousness to indicate awareness mediated by the brain, it is you, not science that have decided that our current knowledge of consciousness is identical to that of any spiritual awareness. It is a problem of defining commonly used terms to mean slightly different things.

206

I 100% agree with this as a scientist. Science says that your memories are stored as the unique interconnections of your neurons. It stays completely silent on whether the data stored in these interconnections are transmitted to heaven or hell or whatever your choice of afterlife is.

207

I think these incessant philosphical discussions are the biggest sideshow red herring ever contrived for the purposes of discussing the Failure of Science to Get Through to People, and some might even be harping on it to invite more useless debate that draws attention away from the obvious.

The obvious being that Creationists play dirty, and do so with such a mastery of populist appeal and clever obfuscation that a “purely scientific” approach of formulating falsifiable theories and hypotheses and reporting the evidence of their observations and experiments will quite possibly never win in the court of public oppinion. They lose because they lack the collective will to get down in the mire with the “anti-materialist” ideologues and make the kind of slick, immediately satisfying, and essentially vacuous emotional appeals conservative religionists are willing to make to prevail. This isn’t about metaphysics or other philosophical flapdoodle. It’s about power and PR, and the fact that scientists seem, for the most part, to be constitutionally incapable of effective politics, which is probably to their credit.

I am thankful that science does not need America; and if the current trends in attendance at our research universities is any indicator, many foreigners are seeking greener pastures, which must exist. I suspect America needs good science to remain a Power; but perhaps it is not for the betterment of the world that a culture so beguiled by superstition remain so.

208

God is not a being. God is an entity outside our understanding.

The difference (as I see it) as postulating something as always existing is outside the models science uses.

209

So many comments to make!

As to the trickster coyote hypothesis. I reject it not only because it is needlessly complex, but because it has no predictive power. Again scientific models make testable predictions. Likewise, God is behind it all does not add to my ability to predict future events. It may be true, but since it adds no predictive benefit, it is not a useful concept for science.

rwj asks me “Is it not your belief that ‘In the beginning, God created the Universe’?” and I must answer no. I am not sure there was a beginning. I am not sure what the physics around the Big Bang are but I have been told that time does act like we percieve it in our current universe. Bluntly put I am humble enough to suspect that human minds, and in particular my human mind, are limited things. Heck, I can’t even imagine how a bat thinks, I am supposed to believe that God has goals and intentions similar to mine? God is beyond my comprehension and I leave it at that.

But yes, as loopy suggests, we have gone quite astray. What are some proposed answers?
[ul]
[li]Scientists should publicly testify as to their religious faith and reassure the religious public that they are not trying to disprove God. Many scientists are quite religious. Many believe that studying science is geting a small peak into God’s workings. At least show more respect for religious beliefs.[/li][li]Play the political game as hard and dirty as the fundamentalists do.[/li][li]Find/develop a cadre of charismatic media savvy scientists, who can reach the general public and engage them. Not with simplistic sensationism but with real science.[/li][li]Education. Begin young with critical thinking skills. Teach why skepticism and doubt are essential to developing increasingly predictive models of the physical world.[/li][li]Ride out the wave. As times become less insecure this too shall pass. There may actually not be much more anti-intellectualism out there, it may just be better represented in today’s political clime.[/li][li]Say good-bye to American leadership in science. Look to Asia and Europe in the future to lead.[/li][/ul]

Did I miss any?

210

In stem cell research, quite demonstrably in Asia, this is already happening. Although China and India, are, per capita, poorer countries than the US, they each have more people in the middle-class than the US does. India has harbored a secularist movement, which, with relatively recent constitutional affirmation, may be more robust than that of America. China is slowly extricating itself from the shadow of the Maoist cult of personality, though it still operates in a state of deeply-disturbing authoritarianism. Japan and South Korea are democracies that are essentially areligious, and much of Europe is described as “post-Christian”, and appears fairly resistant to upstarts like Scientology.

I say none of these challenges to American hegemony are a bad thing for the world. Especially if we so willingly relinquish it.

211

Well, the launch of Sputnik managed to wake up the Americans. I suppose a Chinese lunar mission or an Indian human clone or something equally dramatic will be required to get the Americans off their duffs.

212

I understand that there are so many additional definitions and interpretations of God. It also goes without saying that some might go a little too far in their interpretation (even if not so to their believers).

The fact remains. We exist. I am. [/hijack]

DSeid There is no question that there is a g~ (call it what you will ~ force, power, energy) that is somehow responsible for our existence. Some of us understand a difference between God and Religion; a difference between Truth and Belief.

We understand that there is also a way to test a Belief on behalf of Truth. It is called Science.

We have screwed up the battle for America’s minds. How can this be fixed?

America’s puritan heritage runs deep. As long as science is seen as the antithesis of the understanding of God, science will struggle. Only when it is understood that the goal of science is to understand the Truth of God, regardless of Religion (or lack of) or prior Belief, will we win the battle for All (or at least, most) minds.

It is unfortunate that this understanding is beyond even some scientists.

r~

213

Those are not my words. Please do not link them to me.

Then you are NOT a scientist?

I believe I am beginning to understand.

r~

214

I understand the difference between science and other forms of knowing. I acknowledge that there arew questions not suited for answers within science. I am comfortable enough with not knowing that I do not need to accept any explanaion as true.

215

I don’t believe I ever experienced anyone that can redefine words as well as you. Or jump from one topic to another without blinking. Mostly, to me, you just talk in circles.

I understand what I said and so do most other people. Go try the word dance on the public and see if they understand.

216

Fine, show me the memory. If you are saying memory is energy impulses, or electrical impulses and can’t be seen you may have defined spirit. But the trouble is you don’t know where memory is, or any other part of consciousness. Why don’t science just admit they don’t know? Or show me the memory.

217

I will regret this…

First, I will start by saying, no neuroscientist (and I am NOT a neuroscientist) would ever come out and say, “We understand memory perfectly”, and would fully acknowledge that we don’t know everything, but we do know quite a bit. A lot of work is currently being done, and it’s a very hot area.

Second, Eric Kandel (who won a Nobel a few years ago for it) did some pioneering work in Aplysia, a snail with a limited (and clearly identifiable) number of neurons and neuroanal connections. People painstakingly mapped where every neuron connected to every other neuron. Tasks such as habituation and sensitization, which required memory of previous events, could be traced to specific neuronal connections.

If you want to define the spirit or the soul within those connections, I have no beef with that. That’s how you interpret the data, and you are clearly able to use faith, whereas I am not as willing or able to use it. I’m waiting for more data.

218

“neuroanal”. You should probably remove a letter from that word.

219

There was once a time when:

A brilliant gentleman naturalist could take an extended sea voyage and draw conclusions about common descent.

A brilliant monk could raise some peas and draw conclusions about heredity.

A brilliant Philadelphian provincial could observe the behavior of objects around thunderstorms and draw conclusions about electricity.

A brilliant mathematician could spend a year hiding from the plague and draw conclusions about light.

There was once a time when anyone in the upper third of the bell curve of cognitive ability could read about these conclusions, smack his forehead, and cry “Of course–that’s brilliant!”

Now, in the 21st Century, extensions of scientific knowledge can no longer be understood by the armchair afficionado.

I consider myself a reasonably intelligent man, yet I cannot get past Chapter 4 of A Brief History of Time, let alone comprehend the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Even my beloved field of casual inquiry, Evolutionary Psychology, has passed beyond my ken, what with all the statistical arguments.

Scientists are the new priests. We commoners simply cannot get our heads around the arguments, and we lack the extensive background within the increasingly narrow specializations to evaluate the evidence for those arguments.

We must simply read, nod, and say, “Why yes, isn’t quantum teleportation a fascinating concept.”

And what do these new priests offer us? What do we benighted commoners get for surrendering ourselves to their pronouncements?

Scary stuff, like particle accelerators that will inadvertantly create black holes that will suck us into oblivion. Nihilistic stuff, like cosmologies that bubble up infinite universes until one that supports us comes along, then bubbles away. Abhorrant stuff, like creating embryos then plucking cells from them to grow into organs. Freakish stuff, like corn seeds that grow into computers, then get get smarter than us, then kill Sarah Connor!!!One!11Shift!11. Hold me.

Ahem.

Science is no longer participatory, where smart kids can get a rough handle on the sum total of scientific knowledge through self-study, and wish to get in on the game.

Far easier, and far more comforting, in this easiest of nations to slack off in, to retreat to the pronouncements of our fathers and our pastors. God created us and has a plan for us. The soul exists outside of the body and persists after death. Scientists are hucksters and charletans, and arrogant to boot! Leave science to the godless chinamen and dot-heads. There’s good money in plumbing and accounting. How bout those Yankees? Now say your prayers, son.

I’m not at all convinced that the state of US science education is any worse off than it ever has been. I just think there are fewer customers, and the international talent that has previously come to the US will increasingly go elsewhere to make their careers.

I think Loopydude nailed it. Science will proceed without us. America will pass into the condition that Britain finds itself in now–a former superpower with memories of glory, but which still muddles along just fine. And the upper one half of one percent of America’s intellectual treasure will find its way to wherever the action is, where comfort doesn’t come from wrapping one’s self in cozy folds of comprehensible tradition.

It is the way of things. :dubious:

220

Now, there, lekatt, it cuts both ways. Don’t claim to know what “most other people” understand. And plenty of THIS public understands tom~ quite well. To many here, you are the one insisting that your definitions are the ones we ought to use in the discussion no matter what anyone else says.
For example, the whole “consciousness” thing. To the neuroscientist, the word “consciousness” DOES mean that which is produced by the functioning of the brain, because it’s the only way he can detect it, and it obviously ceases to be when the brain does. To you, it means a spiritual attribute that must be noncorporeal and persistent past bodily death, because you percveive it in NDE. And there seems to be a perception that one or the other of these definitions has to prevail and displace the other, when it’s not necessary at all, and that one or the other of these definitions is a deliberate lie, which does not follow either.
The scientist does not know, cannot know, if there’s a “soul” after death or what happened “before the Big Bang” – the questions are pointless to him because what he cannot observe and measure non-subjectively. “eyewitness” reporting as in the case of NDE is calle not good enough, not out of an impugnation of the observer (though it often degenerates into it), but because the scientific method deliberately seeks (though often fails) to exclude the subjective. So when the scientist gets to the “I don’t know” point, he can not say “OK, maybe this is the realm of the spirit”. He MUST provide the closest-fit materialistic explanation, not out of enmity to the spiritual but because it’s his job.
That some folks go on to categorically say “there is no more, and I can prove it” is just human weakness. The most they could say is “I see no scientific evidence of anything else”, where we should understand that they’re not saying your evidence does not exist, just that it does not meet the evidentiary rules of their field. Is it unfair they themselves make the rules? Someone has to – and it has worked well, so far.