What is CNN allowing on their commercial breaks?

[Danger]

I don't trust people who put there noses up in the air and act like they know the answers to big questions... whether they're a scientist or a preacher.

That's what I see as the overwhelming difference between science and religion. Science comes up with an idea, tries everything in its power to destroy that idea, and decides that it's worth further investigation if it survives. Religion comes up with an idea and says 'Believe this or we'll kill you'.

 

[Manchot]

That's exactly what I mean. The Vatican's initial stance was, of course, that God created the universe in its current state. Later, in the face of scientific evidence, it relaxed the view, and instead said that evolution may have happened, but that God must have started or driven it.

That's my point -- religious people have been grudgingly accepting scientific evidence for a while now, but they're always very careful to leave a narrow path through which they can continue to have faith in their deity.

- Warren

On the other hand, the Big Bang theory was ultimately conceived by a priest, and the Vatican jumped on the Big Bang bandwagon pretty quickly (because it supported the idea of a starting point).

 

[Pythagorean]

That is basically a textbook definition of giving up. So, yep, you basically gave up in your head that "its not going to happen, screw it."

did you read the rest of my post? I'm not really giving up if I don't think I'm doing something righteous in the first place.

 

[Pythagorean]

On the other hand, the Big Bang theory was ultimately conceived by a priest, and the Vatican jumped on the Big Bang bandwagon pretty quickly (because it supported the idea of a starting point).

And Newton discovered a lot about chemistry while he was searching for God through alchemy. Religious people have contributed tons to science.

 

[Cyrus]

Who said anything about being righteous?

 

[Pythagorean]

Who said anything about being righteous?

you...

Righteousness:
"characterized by or proceeding from accepted standards of morality or justice"

[...]Do you sit back when injustice happens[...]

 

[Cyrus]

I never said this was an injustice, I said Do you sit back when an injustice happens.

You took what I said out of context. Read it again.

 

[Pythagorean]

I never said this was an injustice, I said Do you sit back when an injustice happens.

You took what I said out of context. Read it again.

You're complaining about a TV commercial right? Calling it an injustice? That's what you seemed to imply. Otherwise, why would you bring it up, because that's what I was talking about... Are you trolling me or something?

If you really want to hate on CNN, consider Bosnia, when they paid off the natives to ambush US Troops so they could get it on film. I had a friend who got a dead baby thrown at him.

 

[Cyrus]

I never called the TV show an injustice, Pythagorean. So can we stop misquoting me?

Huh? What are you talking about? I am not talking about Bosnia...

 

[Pythagorean]

I never called the TV show an injustice, Pythagorean. So can we stop misquoting me?

Huh? What are you talking about? I am not talking about Bosnia...

oh ok.

Do you sit back when an injustice happens?

No.

 

[siddharth]

And Newton discovered a lot about chemistry while he was searching for God through alchemy. Religious people have contributed tons to science.

Different era and zeitgeist.

Religious people (by that, I mean people believing in the Abrahamic religions) may have contributed tons to science, but that's mainly because it was very hard to be non-religious during that period of human civilization.

In the absence of the scientific theories on the origin of life, the best alternative was to believe in the creationist explanation of the world.

However, in the modern era, although religion may offer personal happiness, it contributes almost nothing to science or the scientific method.

 

[Moridin]

And Newton discovered a lot about chemistry while he was searching for God through alchemy. Religious people have contributed tons to science.

Ah, the classic 'Argument from Admired Scientists'. It is really a non sequitur. Just because people with the idea X have contributed to science, does not validate idea X.

Note that the discussion has not once dealt with individual people; but with ideas. Ever though about what separates us from the Medieval humans? I am willing to bet that a lot of it has to do with science and secularization. I generally echo siddharth's post.

In any case, I do think that the scientific community needs to be vigilant against such attempts to inject supernaturalism in our world society. I like the NCSE's approach. Too bad their funding is low.

 

[Pythagorean]

Different era and zeitgeist.

[1]Religious people (by that, I mean people believing in the Abrahamic religions) may have contributed tons to science, but that's mainly because it was very hard to be non-religious during that period of human civilization.

[2]In the absence of the scientific theories on the origin of life, the best alternative was to believe in the creationist explanation of the world.

[3]However, in the modern era, although religion may offer personal happiness, it contributes almost nothing to science or the scientific method.

(references added)

[1] Well, people from all over the world... but even into the 20th century plenty of religious people have contributed to science. They're just not crackpots is all. (I don't know about the 21st century)

It's still difficult not to be religious all around the world. It's different... but so is the rest of the world. You no longer get killed or maimed for your inability to keep up with society as much as you lose in finance and reputation, even in communities all over the US.

(An honest question... not an argument: when's the last time we had a non-Christian president? How many non-Christian's do we have in control of the military in the US?).

[2] Yet Newton was still a sadist and a science tyrant, but dismissing his being religious anyway (I do have much appreciation for Newton's work):

Science can advance all it wants, but mainstream society chooses when it cares about science. We went from the world being round, to it being carried on a turtle's back, to it being round again in the west. Look at the long struggle over whether light is a particle or a wave... how many people even know the difference in our society. More importantly, how many people care? Why should we expect they'll ever care, especially when they're busy defending their religion?

[3] I realize that. Science is definitely on the rise currently, but what I'm saying is that you can't play their game, trying to convince them through argument . Have you ever successfully proven anything to a religious nut that wasn't already having doubts? I've pissed a couple off having discussions with them.

But I don't think you NEED to argue with them, because Science is solid if it's done right. It will always be there for our grandchildren to verify. I can't say whether religion will come back or not, but it's already on it's way out.

It's more important, in my opinion, to reach out to the people who want to do science, but aren't able to, and to contribute to discovery in research.

Or... we could breed them out Zardoz style...

 

[Pythagorean]

In any case, I do think that the scientific community needs to be vigilant against such attempts to inject supernaturalism in our world society. I like the NCSE's approach. Too bad their funding is low.

It just all looks like a history lesson to me that will come about. If they get violent, I'm in, but I won't argue with them. Everybody listening to the argument already has their side, I highly doubt there's much turnover. I think the money is better spent helping people that already want it.

If you're implying that people are held against their will, there's laws against that. If you want to be an investigator instead of a scientist, have at it.

Call me an elitist, but scientists should only waste their time arguing with other scientists and scientist-wannabes. It actually picks up momentum that way.

 

[Moridin]

Yes, people are held against their normal state by parasitic and dangerous memes. Saying that 'oh well, they will never change' is very unrealistic. So is the argument that science should not push the frontier of public understanding of science.

http://richarddawkins.net/convertsCorner

There are quite a few that has changed their minds due to scientific reasoning. They are currently having MySQL troubles, but you can view the Google Cache of the page http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:IKiHdVtObCsJ:richarddawkins.net/convertsCorner+convertscorner&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1 .

In any case, we need more people like Carl Sagan.

 

[Pythagorean]

Yes, people are held against their normal state by parasitic and dangerous memes. Saying that 'oh well, they will never change' is very unrealistic. So is the argument that science should not push the frontier of public understanding of science.

http://richarddawkins.net/convertsCorner

There are quite a few that has changed their minds due to scientific reasoning. They are currently having MySQL troubles, but you can view the Google Cache of the page http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:IKiHdVtObCsJ:richarddawkins.net/convertsCorner+convertscorner&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1 .

In any case, we need more people like Carl Sagan.

Yeah, FAQ is down. I'll check it out tomorrow, anyway. Thanks for the discussion.

In closing for the night, I'm not saying 'oh well, they will never change'. I thought I made it clear that they will change on their own time, and I'm perfectly willing to help someone understand the universe the way I like to see it (through science).

The first testimony I read on that site implies the person was already doubting religion, which was an exception. We lose certainty on how convincing the Dawkins site was since the thought was already in someone's mind. I'm not trying to discred the site... if that's the case, it's exactly what I'm talking about: being there with open arms.

 

[Aether]

That's my point -- religious people have been grudgingly accepting scientific evidence for a while now, but they're always very careful to leave a narrow path through which they can continue to have faith in their deity.

Out of any sufficiently large population of "religious people", some fraction of those people will behave as you describe here; but some other fraction of those will gladly accept valid scientific evidence if it is clear and convincing.

One problem with religion is that naive people tend to first define some dogma as being true, and then they filter everything else through that dogma. Some people never recover from this mistake, but others do recover from it.

 

[Kurdt]

Its undoubtedly a complex issue. I don't agree with an advert trying to take down an argument from either side. Thats not the way to get people to believe in your world view. It comes off petty and bitter. If you want to promote your religion you should do so by advertising the supposed benefits, and it should stand or fall on those values.

On a semi-historical note, its interesting talking about the Greek gods. Greece at the time had many philosophers and mathematicians that were finding things out about nature which made many of those gods obsolete. Its interesting that the Greeks of the time were very accepting that their gods were obsolete but kept the stories as fairy tales. I think Roger Penrose in the introduction to his book Road to Reality hit the nail on the head when he said that the gods were just the way for the people of the time to understand the regularity of the world around them. Perhaps the Greeks were so accepting because they realized this themselves.

The move to monotheism around this time was I suppose a defensive reaction. Well you may be able to explain the smaller gods away but the one true god, the zeus if you like, made the universe. That has been a lot harder for science to discount and might be something it can never explain. Its just recently when the religious try and make ridiculous claims like the young Earth theory which is in no way supported by observational evidence that things have gotten nasty. I have no idea how anybody could be convinced by such arguments at all or why they would want to be. It is literally the promotion of ignorance.

Basically I think some people have a strange idea of what priority to give certain statements. They don't understand the difference between a falsifiable statement and a non-falsifiable statement (to try and put it simply) and the consequences for reality for both of these.

 

[Moridin]

I have no idea how anybody could be convinced by such arguments at all or why they would want to be. It is literally the promotion of ignorance.

Young Earth Creationists are like scientists, only backwards. Science favors empirical observations over arguments from authority, while creationists like Kent Hovind does the exact opposite, excluding claims because the bible contradicts it. That is all that it hinges on. It is not the arguments, but their origin.

 

[mathwonk]

there is a logic cartoon from BC in my favorite old algebra book by harold jacobs, of two guys, one on a unicycle arguing that "if god wanted you to fly he'd have given you wings", and the other guy retorts, "well he didnt give you a bug screen".

i think this was suppressed in the more recent edition.

 

[jim mcnamara]

You guys are missing something important about how cable and a few satellite providers work. See sites like spot runner for details if you're into advertising. www.spotrunner.com

The idea is this: you pay for a local cable provider to insert your ad over a fiber-filler ad the cable network carries. If you have cable - you've probably seen ads for other shows on channel Q while you are tuned to channel A. That's an example of what I mean by fiber-filler ads. Satellite providers do the same thing.

So, with a cable company designated as the intended ad provider, the LDS church (or fill-in-the-blank chruch )provides bucks. Then provider can insert that ad into the stream for local consumption only. It gets shown instead of what's on SCIFI or HGTV tonight.

I think it's meant for local smaller businesses to expand their market.

Conservative, fundmentalist churches with strong tithing requirements are often cash-rich when they are in a well-off suburban setting. The cash is meant for missionary operations, among which getting the "truth" about Evolution out to us ignoramuseseses is prolly a high priority.

In fact, those kinds of churches have political clout far beyond their memberships for the very same reason.

 

[Pythagorean]

I think it's meant for local smaller businesses to expand their market.

It's meant for the TV station to make money, that's their source of income. Any station that has commercials doesn't get paid by the people who watch it. They don't particularly care who they sell slots to as long as they're making bucks and not pissing the FCC off.