0
0

Another example of why religion is bad: Medical students skip evolution classes


 invite response                
2011 Nov 27, 11:55am   34,828 views  124 comments

by Dan8267   ➕follow (4)   💰tip   ignore  

Muslim students, including trainee doctors on one of Britain's leading medical courses, are walking out of lectures on evolution claiming it conflicts with creationist ideas established in the Koran.

Professors at University College London have expressed concern over the increasing number of biology students boycotting lectures on Darwinist theory, which form an important part of the syllabus, citing their religion.

Similar to the beliefs expressed by fundamentalist Christians, Muslim opponents to Darwinism maintain that Allah created the world, mankind and all known species in a single act.

Full Article

Surprise, surprise. This time the religion is Islam. Whoopie doo.

Yes, evolution does contradict the Koran, the Bible, and every "holy" book ever written. Whenever science contradicts your religion, your religion is wrong. Deal with it.

Now, this isn't just an academic issue. These are people training to be doctors. These are people who want to be able to perform surgery on you, prescribe medicine, diagnose disease, and research new treatments. This is big shit here.

It is commonly said that you can't understand anything in biology without evolution. It is absolutely critical that doctors not only understand the basics of evolutions, but all the nitty, gritty details.

Take for example, AIDS. Yep, that disease. It's called by a virus named HIV. The thing is, when you give medicine to people who have AIDS, at first it impedes the replication of HIV and then it doesn't. You have to take the person off of medication and then put them back on later.

This makes absolutely no fucking sense whatsoever unless you realize that HIV is composed of many strains with different genetic code that compete against each other. By changing the host's chemistry, you allow drug-resistant strains to prosper why killing off the non-drug-resistant strains. But to prevent the resistant strains from killing the patient, you must then take him off the medicine so that the non-resistant strains can crush the resistant ones. It's literally managing the evolution of a virus within a human being.

Also, recently it has been discovered that some women are immune to AIDS. The way some diseases become non-threatening, is that they kill off all non-resistant hosts allowing the resistant ones to pass along their genes including the disease fighting one. This is literally evolution happening right now in our species. Given enough time, our species would adapt to AIDS and it would become a non-life-threatening disease. Understanding how this works in minute detail is essential to finding a cure without waiting for billions of deaths over centuries.

So when this ass-wipes refuse to listen to lectures on evolution because of their "faith", I say their faith makes it impossible for them to be qualified as doctors. Sorry, but you can't piss all over science and expect to still reap its rewards. The technologies and high paying jobs come with the price of accepting and embracing the knowledge upon which they were built.

Evolution is both a theory and a fact. And it is the very basis of all our understanding of biology, ecosystems, and medical science including genetics. Evolution has practical implications, life-and-death implications. Multibillion dollar per year industries are built on exploiting evolution to create biological batteries or mass produce silk for soft body armor.

Perhaps most important, the lack of willingness to accept evolution because of religious dogma demonstrates a lack of rationality that cannot be tolerate in important professions like doctors or policy makers. To completely disregard reality because of some arbitrary myth is to show the lack of critical thinking ability. Anyone who does that should not be allowed in the medical profession or in public office.

Comments 1 - 40 of 124       Last »     Search these comments

1   Ok   2011 Nov 28, 11:14pm  

How is them saying that they don't accept that the universe was created over billions of years make them unqualified to practice medicine?

And yes, you are right that the Bible contradicts modern faith in science. Some people have faith in scripture, you have faith in science. You weren't there for 6 billion years while the earth evolved, there is zero proof that it took that long, no one observed it and there are severe problems with that theory.

Then you say that now they are going to have problems with things like "Evolution has practical implications, life-and-death implications. Multibillion dollar per year industries are built on exploiting evolution to create biological batteries or mass produce silk for soft body armor."

I'm sorry, but advocating that God directly created the universe instantly does not mean they are against technical innovation. They've stated one part of science faith that they don't agree with, and you act exactly like what you hate about them, trusting in your science dogma and forcing it on them. This has zero effect on whether they practice medicine properly.

Get a grip, try reading some actual science, instead of calling them ass-wipes, they are far more intelligent than you.

2   Danaseb   2011 Nov 29, 12:13am  

Advocating that God directly created the universe instantly is rejecting basic science. Rejecting the scientific process makes you a superstition riddled caveman who has no business in civilization, let alone tending to others medical needs.

3   uomo_senza_nome   2011 Nov 29, 2:34am  

Ok says

You weren't there for 6 billion years while the earth evolved, there is zero proof that it took that long, no one observed it and there are severe problems with that theory.

WTF? That's one of the most ignorant, if not THE most ignorant statement I've ever read on patnet.

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

Radiometric dating has been there since 1905.

4   MisdemeanorRebel   2011 Nov 29, 2:38am  

Ok says

How is them saying that they don't accept that the universe was created over billions of years make them unqualified to practice medicine?

You're confusing Evolution with the Big Bang and theories about the origin of planets.

Evolution only speaks about how lifeforms change over time through natural selection, not how life itself, or the universe, first appeared.

Ok says

And yes, you are right that the Bible contradicts modern faith in science. Some people have faith in scripture, you have faith in science.

The two faiths are not the same. One is based purely on claims made thousands of years ago by followers of a religious sect, the other is backed by testing and observation. I have faith that the sun will appear to rise in the east and set in the west. A) Because it's done so my entire life without fail, I have visual proof. B) Because there is a model of the solar system that illustrates that the earth rotates, as well as goes around the sun C) We have the pictures from space to prove it D) The stars "move" around the sky, which would happen if the earth rotated E) I know when I call somebody in the UK around 4PM EST, it's dark there but light here F) Flown on a plane long distances and the daylight and darkness changed regardless of the fact my watch said it was too early for such darkness or light.

You weren't there for 6 billion years while the earth evolved, there is zero proof that it took that long, no one observed it and there are severe problems with that theory.

You weren't there 2000 years ago when the alleged Son of God was crucified. So you simply believe in claims made by his followers handed down in book form. The claims really aren't even that much different than other religions make. Do something bad? Put your guilt in this dove and barbeque it. Do something bad? Put your guilt on this guy and crucify him. Pictures or it didn't happen.

5   uomo_senza_nome   2011 Nov 29, 2:48am  

Ok says

advocating that God directly created the universe instantly does not mean they are against technical innovation.

Advocating that God directly created the universe instantly is a statement that can neither be proved or disproved. It is a statement based on blind faith on a father figure or some such. So it is a waste of time since we cannot really progress from that statement anywhere. Rather, just being skeptical that we 'don't know' what happened prior to the Big Bang makes a lot of sense.

If you doubt Big Bang, then you are rejecting overwhelming scientific evidence that agrees with the theory.

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

data from the COBE mission, which looked at the background microwave glow of the universe and found that it fit perfectly with the idea that the universe used to be really hot everywhere. This strongly reinforced the Big Bang theory and was one of the most dramatic examples of an experiment agreeing with a theory in history -- the data points fit perfectly, with error bars too small to draw on the graph. It's one of the most triumphant scientific results in history.

6   ChristianGuy   2011 Nov 29, 3:04am  

Yes, there are serious issues to rejecting evolution outright. However, it is also ignorant and foolish to use these few people to categorize all religious people.

While it is true that religion is used as a weapon to brainwash people, much the same as government, it does not logically follow that religion and government are bad or wrong.

As thunderlips11 said, "evolution only speaks about how lifeforms change over time". To reach the conclusion that arbitrary selection was the origin of life requires as much of a leap as any religion.

Lazy people like to be told what to believe and think. The fact is that anyone who is intellectually lazy, whether religious or not, will come to some irrational conclusions. While people who believe in a Creator must necessarily reject mutually exclusive explanations for the origin of life, it is unnecessary to reject evolution outright.

I submit that it is also irrational to discount religion or religious people in general. Dedicated Christians, throughout history, while being firmly dedicated to following what you call an "arbitrary myth", have done much good in the world.

7   uomo_senza_nome   2011 Nov 29, 3:19am  

ChristianGuy says

To reach the conclusion that arbitrary selection was the origin of life requires as much of a leap as any religion.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/QHIocNOHd7A

You can think of earth as a chemically active laboratory experiment with all kinds of organic stuff reacting with each other. Origin of life is an actively studied field in microbiology and there are lots of evidence pointing to spontaneous life creation through organic compounds. There is no need for any external Creator per se to have any involvement with origin of life. We are all organic carbon stuff...!!

ChristianGuy says

While people who believe in a Creator must necessarily reject mutually exclusive explanations for the origin of life

This is true, and these other explanations have scientific evidence to back their claims.

ChristianGuy says

I submit that it is also irrational to discount religion or religious people in general.

It is completely rational to discount people who believe in blind faith. If religion = blind faith, it is dangerous because it can make people do crazy things.

8   ChristianGuy   2011 Nov 29, 3:56am  

@austrian_man

*Perhaps* that is *how* part of the process happened, but ultimately science cannot explain why it happened or what was the original trigger.

Science is a good thing. Religion and science can compliment each other. There are some huge problems for which science has no answer:
-How did we develop sensory receivers, and what purpose did the sources of those signals have before there were receivers?
-Are their other types of sensory receivers that we need to yet develop?
-Why do I feel responsible for my actions, or have a right to make judgments?
-What purpose is there for life? Why should I value life?
-If we are purely physical beings, where/how did thought and emotions arise?

These questions cannot be disregarded.

I agree that blind faith doesn't make sense. People who have no reason for what they believe would probably be better off re-evaluating. I disagree that religion=blind faith. One reason for faith is that it is inherent within us. All peoples from all parts of the world have had spiritual inclinations. As C.S. Lewis said,
“A man's physical hunger does not prove that man will get any bread; he may die of starvation on a raft in the Atlantic. But surely a man's hunger does prove that he comes of a race which repairs its body by eating and inhabits a world where eatable substances exist. In the same way, though I do not believe (I wish I did) that my desire for Paradise proves that I shall enjoy it, I think it a pretty good indication that such a thing exists and that some men will.”

9   Dan8267   2011 Nov 29, 4:09am  

Ok says

How is them saying that they don't accept that the universe was created over billions of years make them unqualified to practice medicine?

As I explained in both of my AIDS examples, evolutionary science has life-and-death consequences in the field of medicine. Furthermore, medicine is largely based on genetics today and genetics and evolution are inseparable. Finally, if a person is so utterly irrational as to reject the facts of evolution, then they are not rational enough to practice the very field based on biology and thus also evolution. You can't be a rocket scientist if you reject the laws of physics. You can't be a dentist if you reject the existence of teeth.

Ok says

Some people have faith in scripture, you have faith in science.

I do not have "faith" in science any more than I have faith in mathematics. I have something better: knowledge. Faith is the belief without proof or, even worse, in light of disproof. Faith is bad. Knowledge is good.

Ok says

You weren't there for 6 billion years while the earth evolved, there is zero proof that it took that long, no one observed it and there are severe problems with that theory.

Wow. If you really believe that nonsense, then no one should listen to anything you say. If you don't believe that and are lying, then no one should listen to anything you say.

Anyone living in the 21st century in a developed country who actually believes there is no proof that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old (not 6 billion, not 6,000) is willfully ignorant and deserving of no respect. You have the entire knowledge base of humanity at your fingertips -- and no, I don't mean Wikipedia, I mean the Internet -- and you still choose not to confirm or disprove your basic perception of the universe. That's a level of intellectual laziness that I cannot even imagine.

And to not even know how old the Earth is? I knew that when I was five. Where is your curiosity? All you have to do is type "age of the earth" in your web browser's address bar and you get the answer instantaneously.

Ok says

advocating that God directly created the universe instantly does not mean they are against technical innovation.

Of course, the religious frequently accept the fruits of science while denouncing science itself. That's called hypocrisy. However, you cannot be a good doctor without a sound understanding of medical knowledge, which includes both evolution and organic chemistry. And organic chemistry requires an acceptance of atomic theory. So any decent doctor has to understand atoms, molecules, protein chains, chemical motors, dipolar molecules, hydrophobic molecules, solubility, and a lot of other complex stuff that depends on physics. Similarly, they have to understand genetics, DNA protein sequencing, how RNA messenger strains work, and a host of other things related to genetics and evolution. Put simply, they cannot be good doctors while rejecting a huge and fundamental piece of the knowledge base of medicine. Being a doctor is not a semi-skilled labor that any smuck can do. It involves thinking.

Ok says

Get a grip, try reading some actual science, instead of calling them ass-wipes, they are far more intelligent than you.

I read plenty of science which is why I knew the Earth was 4.6 billion years old when I was five whereas you think scientist say its 6 billion years old, but they could be wrong and it could be only a few thousand years old.

Second, anyone who would risk the health or life of another human being by even attempting to become a doctor without going through the proper and complete training is, by definition, an ass-wipe. If a fellow programmer were to write code for pace makers and not take it seriously enough to make sure the code is bug free, I'd call him an unethical ass-wipe, too.

Third, no one who puts mythology before science is more intelligent than I am. You, perhaps. But not me. Understanding that modern science more accurately explains the universe than Bronze and Iron Age myths is the least a person of moderate intelligence would accomplish.

Finally, the worst thing about your arguments is that you presume that it is even a matter of debate as to whether or not evolution exists. It's not. It's no more a matter of debate than whether the Earth is flat or round. I can excuse the ignorance of past centuries, but in the 21st century, if you reject evolution than you are as retarded as someone who rejects the roundness of the Earth.

10   Dan8267   2011 Nov 29, 4:11am  

I kind of suspect that OK is Bap33 under a new account. It was registered today and has only replied to this one thread. Sounds a lot like Bap33.

11   uomo_senza_nome   2011 Nov 29, 4:19am  

ChristianGuy says

ultimately science cannot explain why it happened or what was the original trigger.

why it happened is a philosophical question. Not scientific in nature. *It just is* that way. Why does the sun rise in the east only? Does that question make sense? I can give an opinion or a belief, but I cannot state any facts as an answer to such question.

Original trigger is matter itself. That's it. There is no other external trigger.

ChristianGuy says

-How did we develop sensory receivers, and what purpose did the sources of those signals have before there were receivers?

Science has gone a long way to answer this question. A lot of our basic sensory perceptions make sense with evolution. Sight and Sound are important to avoid predatory attacks, for example. Has been there since the age of dinosaurs.

There are some perceptions that don't make full sense yet, such as for example: consciousness. But there are scientific progresses made here too.

For example, here are some quotes from Dr. Ramachandran's Phantoms in the Brain book:

For centuries philosophers have assumed that this gap between brain and mind poses a deep epistemological problem-- a barrier that simply cannot be crossed. But is this really true? I agree that the barrier hasn't yet been crossed, but does it follow that it can never be crossed? I'd like to argue that there is in fact no such barrier, no great vertical divide in nature between mind and matter, substance and spirit. Indeed, I believe that this barrier is only apparent that is arises as a result of language. This sort of obstacle emerges when there is any translation from one language to another.

I submit that we are dealing here with two mutually unintelligible languages. One is the language of nerve impulses-- the spatial and temporal patterns of neuronal activity that allow us to see red, for example. The second language, the one that allows us to communicate what we are seeing to others, is a natural spoken tongue like English or German or Japanese-- rarefied, compressed waves of air traveling between you and the listener. Both are languages in the strict technical sense, that is, they are information-rich messages that are intended to convey meaning, across synapses between different brain parts in one case and across the air between two people in the other.

ChristianGuy says

-Are their other types of sensory receivers that we need to yet develop?

who knows? may be, may be not. Science cannot definitively answer something that cannot be verified through experimental observation. Sure it is a limitation, but hey it is much better than blind belief.

ChristianGuy says

Why do I feel responsible for my actions, or have a right to make judgments?

You're talking about free will here I presume. There are experiments conducted to study that as well.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html

Is "free will" simply just a notion in your brain but not a real thing? Such questions are being asked.

ChristianGuy says

What purpose is there for life? Why should I value life?

Philosophical question as opposed to scientific. You're confusing both these fields and thereby making the water muddy. Science can theorize or postulate what it cannot see, but still it needs to be verified through some form of empirical observation to know if the theory holds water.

ChristianGuy says

-If we are purely physical beings, where/how did thought and emotions arise?

Thoughts and emotions are simply chemical reactions in your brain. Your own body is a phantom, one that your brain has temporarily constructed purely for convenience :)

ChristianGuy says

I disagree that religion=blind faith.

at least most western religions are. if you ask a person to believe a world was created in 6 days, that is blind faith.

ChristianGuy says

One reason for faith is that it is inherent within us.

That could just be an evolutionary flaw you know? :)

ChristianGuy says

All peoples from all parts of the world have had spiritual inclinations

Sure, who doesn't? as long as we don't wage wars and impose that same blind faith on others, humanity will probably be okay.

ChristianGuy says

As C.S. Lewis said

Leap of faith is a good thing, same like intuition. But eventually, you cannot simply rely on faith to know if something is true or not. Observation has limitations, but that's the best we got to prove/disprove.

12   ChristianGuy   2011 Nov 29, 4:38am  

@austrian_man

The fact is that science cannot be neatly compartmentalized and separated from the other facts of life.

Some of your answers illustrate the slippery slope of believing in matter only:

-If all we are is chemical reactions, then we have absolutely no moral obligation.
-If all things are matter only, then no matter should be assigned more value than other - pulling a weed in your garden = killing a human.
-What is the point of even talking about this?

I know that I am more than matter, through experience. I know that I have free will, and I'm not merely reactionary. Therefore, I know that you are wrong. :)

13   uomo_senza_nome   2011 Nov 29, 4:49am  

ChristianGuy says

If all we are is chemical reactions, then we have absolutely no moral obligation.

Isn't moral obligation simply a construct of the human mind? :) think again.

ChristianGuy says

If all things are matter only, then no matter should be assigned more value than other - pulling a weed in your garden = killing a human.

but matter evolves as well. there will always be weak matter as opposed to strong matter, the stronger ones displace the weaker ones. Natural process of survival of the fittest. So a weed is a weaker matter than a human, humans take the weed out of their way. 'value' again is just a construct of the human mind. Nothing greater than that. For some people pulling a weed might be equal to killing a human. For most, not so much.

ChristianGuy says

What is the point of even talking about this?

Reason through observation. It is not a religion to observe and conclude facts.

ChristianGuy says

I know that I am more than matter, through experience.

your experience is a construct of your brain. so you are no more than matter. you could say you are refined matter as opposed to crude matter like an asteroid.

ChristianGuy says

I know that I have free will, and I'm not merely reactionary.

THAT statement is the definition of 'slippery slope'. LOL. You know that you have free will and that is the proof? How can we verify independently that there is such a thing as free will? What if you're lying?

ChristianGuy says

Therefore, I know that you are wrong. :)

Axiomatic conclusion from a false premise. Very definition of blind belief.

14   ChristianGuy   2011 Nov 29, 5:03am  

@austrian_man:

I'll go ahead and assume you believe it is OK to murder.

Personally, I don't murder or even attempt to hurt another person. I don't fear the consequences, but rather because I value life in general. I do however, need to use self-control, which is free will. I do not have to prove this to you. I'm telling you that my own consciousness is a rational reason to believe that we are more than simply matter.

I believe that if you are honest with yourself you can independently verify that you have free will. However, if you cannot trust your own experience, you should seriously consider any future attempts to convince others of anything. :)

15   david1   2011 Nov 29, 5:05am  

ChristianGuy says

The fact is that science cannot be neatly compartmentalized and separated from the other facts of life.

Science strives to answer the question "How?"

Religion is better suited and should strive to answer the question "Why?"

Religion is 100% wrong every time it attempts to answer the question of "How?"

As long as science stays out of "Why" it is fine. The scientific method breaks down in the search for "Why" because the method is based upon measurables.

16   uomo_senza_nome   2011 Nov 29, 5:15am  

ChristianGuy says

I'll go ahead and assume you believe it is OK to murder.

LOL, why would you make an unclarified assumption? Is it because of your blind belief?

I don't believe it is OK to murder, but I recognize that killing (of not just humans, but animals and plants) occur on a regular basis. Killing humans also happens for natural resources and other personal gains. Killing animals and plants are for food. Without the act of killing, you can't consume food. So some acts of killing is required for survival.

ChristianGuy says

I don't fear the consequences, but rather because I value life in general.

do you value the life of a cow or that of a plant? Isn't that as valuable as a human? do you have some grades on how you value life? "value" is just a construct. That much should be clear if you answer these questions.

ChristianGuy says

I'm telling you that my own consciousness is a rational reason to believe that we are more than simply matter.

LOL, it is enough for you to "believe". That's it. It doesn't make what you say as a "fact". Learn to distinguish facts, opinions and beliefs.

ChristianGuy says

I believe that if you are honest with yourself you can independently verify that you have free will.

if you're honest with yourself, you should not "believe" anything blindly. you should verify through observation and understand rather than blindly accept anything. So no - I don't blindly accept that I have free will.

ChristianGuy says

However, if you cannot trust your own experience, you should seriously consider any future attempts to convince others of anything. :)

I don't have any agenda to convince anyone. I am just asking questions, but I don't blindly believe in anything.

People who blindly believe are the ones who are forced to convince others. Just like how you're doing now.

17   ChristianGuy   2011 Nov 29, 5:20am  

@david1

I suppose that you think that science can inform us how the earth and life were formed? Like I said earlier, it takes huge blind leaps to reach these conclusions.

Science cannot work independently. Austrian_man has concluded, through science, that people are simply matter. This has the following implications:

1. There is no such thing as free will
2. There is no such thing as morals - no right, no wrong
3. We are blindly led by the chemical reactions in our brains
4. There is no purpose in life

Doesn't anybody else have a problem with this?

18   uomo_senza_nome   2011 Nov 29, 5:25am  

ChristianGuy says

1. There is no such thing as free will

I am not saying there's no free will. There's enough reason to doubt if there is. I don't make any assumptions.

ChristianGuy says

2. There is no such thing as morals - no right, no wrong

As such, if no humans existed on the planet - yes there is no such thing as right or wrong. Right or wrong stems from thought, which originates from the human brain.

ChristianGuy says

We are blindly led by the chemical reactions in our brains

Nope, I did not say that. Think of the human brain like a constantly evolving, positive (reinforcing) feedback loop system. Here's more on the connectome concept.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/HA7GwKXfJB0

ChristianGuy says

There is no purpose in life

Did I say your mental constructs don't matter at all? To each one, his own.

19   ChristianGuy   2011 Nov 29, 5:33am  

@austrian_man

To judge something requires morals. You have called moral obligation "simply a construct of the human mind". Seems logical enough...anyway, I'll ask you: Why don't you believe it is OK to murder?

According to your belief system, you cannot possibly ever verify that you have a free will. Maybe I'm wrong, though - will you please prepare an experiment to test this? ;)

It's hard to take you seriously when you say that you're just asking questions. You've said, among other things: "Original trigger is matter itself. That's it. There is no other external trigger." That seems more like an assertion than a question, now doesn't it?

20   ChristianGuy   2011 Nov 29, 5:35am  

OK, I'm done. You can have the last word

21   uomo_senza_nome   2011 Nov 29, 5:54am  

ChristianGuy says

According to your belief system, you cannot possibly ever verify that you have a free will. Maybe I'm wrong, though - will you please prepare an experiment to test this? ;)

You still cannot distinguish facts, opinions and beliefs. I don't have a belief system, because I question stuff.

The Nature article I quoted conducts several experiments to show that there is enough doubt on free will existence.

ChristianGuy says

"Original trigger is matter itself. That's it. There is no other external trigger." That seems more like an assertion than a question, now doesn't it?

You're right, that statement is an assertion -- but it is an assertion based on overwhelming scientific evidence. Just like the Big Bang, Evolution.

OTOH, religion consists of blind assertions without any proof.

22   MisdemeanorRebel   2011 Nov 29, 6:02am  

Humans are social animals, and are conditioned for BOTH individual and group survival, since the two compliment each other. What helps the group survive is moral, and by extension, what helps the species survive.

Murder doesn't work, since murder breaks down group harmony and puts individual survival at risk. If one person can kill at whim without defined rules, then nobody in the group is safe, even from their own group members.

Theft follows the same lines. If my stuff can be taken from me out of pure greed or desire, then everybody's stuff is at risk and the group loses cohesion. Effort is wasted watching each other suspiciously, as the pack of wolves begins to circle the encampment, looking for a tasty human to chow on...

On the other end, there is reciprocity. You wash my back, I wash yours. I'll wash your back today without the expectation that you wash my back tomorrow, just someday in the future. What I won't tolerate is you getting incredibly rich, but not sharing with the group. This is what is falsely called "Envy" in today's society but is really a "Lack of Reciprocity". This is why we gladly tolerate the wealth of a Jobs or Edison, but do not tolerate the wealth of a Wall St. Speculator whose 'job creating' abilities are theoretical at best. Whereas we can all play with the new Shiny.

In any case, there is plenty of examples of injustice and immorality in the Bible. For example, killing all the Midianites, except the virgins. In fact, God was mad at the Israelites because at first, they spared all the women and children, not just the virgins.

(Numbers 31)

Or sending a bear to tear apart some kids who made fun of a Prophet for his bald head. A little severe, eh?

(2nd Kings, 23-25)

If a guy who got teased by a bunch of kids decided to unleash a rabid wolf in the playground where they hung out, would you consider that moral or immoral?

23   Dan8267   2011 Nov 29, 6:45am  

austrian_man says

Why does the sun rise in the east only? Does that question make sense? I can give an opinion or a belief, but I cannot state any facts as an answer to such question.

The sun only rises in the east because the Earth rotates counter-clockwise along it's axis when viewed looking at the north pole. And the reason the Earth rotates counter-clockwise is that it also revolves around the sun counter-clockwise and the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum (I know, big words) means that the spinning debris of the planetary disk would cause all the planets to initially rotate counter-clockwise with their north poles pointed normal to the planetary disk.

Now, planets can and do flip due to those Newtonian physical forces involving gravitational interactions with other objects. That's why Venus rotates clockwise. These laws of physics are well-known and agree with observation to as many digits as we can measure. I.e., we know they are not b.s. because you don't get that lucky guessing. I'm thinking of a real number between 0 and 1 with 57 decimal places. Think you can guess what it is?

24   Kirk1   2011 Nov 29, 7:07am  

No one has mentioned this so I thought I'd contribute a bit;
The beliefs of the students aren't important in the classroom. The students are not there to learn religion, nor are they there to teach it. The students are there to learn the science upon which they will base a career upon. The class is teaching a fundamental principle of science. I do not require them to believe it as absolute truth, but rather to understand the theory and apply its principles in their field of practice.
If they cannot do this, if their beliefs conflict with learning to such a degree that they cannot tolerate a discussion on the topic, then they have no business in the classroom and should seek a carrer that is more hospitable to the entertainment of beliefs such as unicorns, santa and elves. A student that walks out on a lecture is an arrogant student. Let them walk out and then lock the doors. There are others who will take their place and do a better job.

25   Dan8267   2011 Nov 29, 7:10am  

ChristianGuy says

Austrian_man has concluded, through science, that people are simply matter. This has the following implications:

1. There is no such thing as free will
2. There is no such thing as morals - no right, no wrong
3. We are blindly led by the chemical reactions in our brains
4. There is no purpose in life

people are simply matter.

Correct.

There is no such thing as free will

Correct. You are composed entirely of atoms. Atoms obey the laws of physics and never deviate. Therefore, your entire body obeys the laws of physics and never deviates.

Your brain is part of your body and also is composed entirely of atoms that obey the laws of physics and never deviate. Therefore, your brain obeys the laws of physics and never deviates.

Your brain is your mind, your sentience, and who you are as a person. Therefore, your mind and thus you obey the laws of physics and never deviate.

That's the truth regardless of whether or not you are rational enough to accept it. The fact that you don't want this to be the truth does not have any bearing on whether or not it is the truth. If our desires determined the truth, I'd be dating Taylor Swift right now.

The initial conditions of the universe immediately after the big bang determined that you and I are having this conversation now. However, the Heisenberg Uncertainly Principle means that we could not predict this conversation even though it was inevitable. The universe is deterministic but not predictable.

Free will is not only an illusion, but a meaningless one at that. What would even be the difference between a universe in which you had free will and one in which you didn't? Other than the ability to defy the laws of nature, what is the difference? And as for defying the laws of nature, why is it you can disregard the laws of chemistry and electronics to make your brain do anything it wants, but you can't violate the law of gravity? Why would some laws be optional (subject to free will) and others not?

2. There is no such thing as morals - no right, no wrong

Incorrect. You do make decisions, as do all computers including Turing Machines. Free will is neither necessary for decision making, nor is it helpful. Free will does not explain decision making or contribute in any material way to the discussion of decision making, morality, ethics, or wisdom. It is a vague and meaningless distraction.

3. We are blindly led by the chemical reactions in our brains

This statement is meaningless and therefore, by definition, incorrect.

The laws of physics including the laws of chemistry, electricity, and electronics is what enables our brains to be effective (contrary to many of the posts here) decision makers. The neurological pathways allow our brains to analyze and react to information and to adapt over time. This is hardly a blind process. Intelligence is an emergent property of the universe. It is quite beautiful when you realize this.

4. There is no purpose in life

Incorrect. Philosophers have debated the meaning of life for millennia. Yet, they never solved the problem. This is because philosophers are idiots. If they were smart, they'd be scientists, mathematicians, or engineers instead.

So without any pontification, I'll tell you the meaning of life.

The meaning of life is to produce more life. That's it.

That's the reason why every nook and cranny of this planet that can support life does. It's the reason for every single physical and mental development in nature including emotions, music, and even religion. It's the reason why birds sing and men drive sports cars. It's the reason people die of AIDS and other nasty diseases. It's the cause of all good and evil.

Life produces more life. And that quest determines all the behavior you see around you in your species and every other one.

There are many practical applications of understanding the meaning of life. One is understanding how good and evil works so that you can create a more socially just society. Another application is that you can calculate the probability of another space fairing species existing in our galaxy. Spoiler alert: it's astronomically low. But I'll save that for another thread.

Of course, when I said "The meaning of life is to produce more life.", I'm talking about the purpose of life itself. The purpose of your sentient existence can be more than self-replication and the continuing of your species.

26   uomo_senza_nome   2011 Nov 29, 7:12am  

Dan8267 says

the spinning debris of the planetary disk would cause all the planets to initially rotate counter-clockwise with their north poles pointed normal to the planetary disk.

Dan -- I think you're describing the physics behind the question, I was hinting more towards why the physics is the way it is. I get the physics, but nobody can explain why the mechanism works in such manner. That's what ChristianGuy was asking and that's what I am explaining.

Some phenomena are just what they are. *it just is* the way it is. Why is the Law of conservation of energy true? It is true because we observe it everyday. But that doesn't convince a lot of people, apparently! LOL.

27   Dan8267   2011 Nov 29, 7:19am  

Addendum

ChristianGuy's post illustrates why people are so reluctant to give up religion, faith, and all that mysticism bullshit. The operate under the false assumption that the existence of god and an afterlife and free will are necessary for human beings to be moral and kind to one another. They think that if those three things are removed, mothers will hate their babies and all of society would fall apart. This could not be further from the truth.

Not only is religion and faith no necessary for morality, compassion, and altruistic, they are in fact counter-productive. Once you abandon ancient myths as the basis of your morality, you can learn how morality really works and how it doesn't. You can get a more detailed, mathematical knowledge of morality and thus apply morality far more accurately to real world situations which tend to be a lot messier than parables.

Morality, like all things, should be a science and an engineering discipline rather than an art. When mathematics first came out, it was an art an a religion, but it became a science. Then physics made the transition from mysticism to science. Then chemistry. Then even biology. At every stage, people said, that can't be a science because it involves the creation of the universe or the creation of a human baby. Those people were always wrong. Some day morality will be a science with all the precision of physics. The question is, will you live to see that day.

28   Dan8267   2011 Nov 29, 8:32am  

austrian_man says

Why is the Law of conservation of energy true?

Why are the laws of physics what they are instead of something else? Well, certainly there can't be a contradiction. So how many ways can you create a set of natural laws and avoid contradiction? At least one way: the way the laws of nature are. Maybe more.

If there are more than one way to create a set of natural laws that don't contradict, then perhaps the laws are are one particular set instead of another is completely arbitrary and random. The only reason we're here to discuss that is because the particular set of laws allow for life and complex, intelligent life at that. That's called The Anthropic Principle.

Either we're just lucky that the one and only universe has a set of laws that allow for lifeforms such as ourselves, or there are many universes with variations of the laws of physics, most of which are devoid of life and we observe a universe that seems to be improbably tuned for life simply because if it weren't, we wouldn't be here to observe it.

29   Dan8267   2011 Nov 29, 9:07am  

austrian_man says

Here's more on the connectome concept.

Ah, good video. Brings me back to neural networks class. Not sure if we need the term "connectome". It seems to mean the exact same thing as "neural network". Speaking of which, is there a link to download the neural net of that worm? I'd like to run a virtual worm and play with it's brain.

30   uomo_senza_nome   2011 Nov 30, 12:41am  

Dan8267 says

At least one way: the way the laws of nature are. Maybe more.

Yep. One can think of the inviolable laws (such as conservation of energy) as the basic configuration of this universe. Then of course, there are attempts being made to explain what happened prior to the Big Bang - The Big Crunch.

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

Dan8267 says

Not sure if we need the term "connectome". It seems to mean the exact same thing as "neural network".

Neural network can be thought as an adaptive subset of the connectome. Connectome term is similar to the genome. It indicates the comprehensive mapping of the human brain. Functional connectivity is first understood and then we proceed to anatomical connectivity. It is super-interesting to study the human brain.

I don't know if there's a link for the worm connectome. I'll check out and let you know.

31   Dan8267   2011 Nov 30, 1:27am  

austrian_man says

Big Bang - The Big Crunch.

The Big Crunch hypothesis was discredited in 1998 when the age of the universe was determined and it was also determined that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. The Big Crunch hypothesis was popular because human beings are programmed to love cycles and fear death. Big Crunch allowed them to avoid thinking about the death of the universe.

austrian_man says

One can think of the inviolable laws (such as conservation of energy) as the basic configuration of this universe.

The point is that there are no inviolable natural laws. If a law was violable, it wouldn't be a law.

It's like when people think they can use mind-over-matter to cure diseases like the common cold or infertility. Yet, no one has ever shown mind-over-matter to fix something a lot easier to verify like growing a new limb. Funny how things like mind-over-matter only work in situations that are vague and unverifiable.

32   uomo_senza_nome   2011 Nov 30, 2:04am  

Dan8267 says

The Big Crunch hypothesis was discredited in 1998

The cyclical model is still popular among physicists.

See this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/oct/16/cycles-time-roger-penrose-review

Roger Penrose recently wrote about "aeons", wherein the Big Bang is simultaneously the end and the beginning of the universe.

33   freak80   2011 Nov 30, 3:57am  

Dan8267,

I respect your views and you make a lot of valid points, however...

If everything you assert is true, than aren't your very assertions also just matter and energy? And aren't ChristianGuy's assertions also just matter and energy? So how can anyone say your argument is better than ChristianGuy's (or visa versa)? Both are just matter and energy, so how can one form of matter and energy be "better" than another?

I agree that a lot of religion is BS, but it seems that "radical" determinism/materialism is ultimately self-defeating. Truth and falsehood, right and wrong, good and bad all become meaningless if there is nothing more than mass and energy behaving in absolutely pre-determined fashion, right?

Example: the debate over humans eating meat. In a radically deterministic/matericalistic universe, debate over the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the practice is meaningless: atoms and energy (in the form of a human) are predetermined to occaisonally interact with the atoms and energy (in the form of an animal) that results in the death of the animal. We call this interaction "killing and eating." This interation "just is."

The same line of reasoning holds for every other moral issue. Pollution of the environment? It just is. Genocide? It just is. Even survival itself...why is life (human or not) better than non-life? In a strictly materialistic, deterministic universe, everything is pre-determined and nothing really matters. We're left with radical fatalism. Why even get out of bed in the morning?

Radical materialism also seems to undermine the very pursuit of scientific inquiry. After all, if I there is no distinction between my inquiring mind and the matter, energy, and laws of physics that I am analyzing; how can I really come to any meaningful conclusions? The very concept of knowledge, like so many other familiar categories, is detroyed by radical materialism/determinism.

Is radical materialism even falsifiable? How could it be proven...or dis-proven? If I'm a radical materialist, I will always say (no matter what happens) that said events were predetermined. How convenient!

Radical materialism isn't right...it isn't even wrong! Just like so many other grandiose ideologies (religious or secular).

34   Dan8267   2011 Nov 30, 6:44am  

austrian_man says

The cyclical model is still popular among physicists.

See this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/oct/16/cycles-time-roger-penrose-review

Although the article mentions cycles, the article does not make Penrose's conjecture sound anything like the Big Crunch Theory. It does not mention the force of gravity causing the universe to contract. Then again, the article doesn't really say much about what Penrose is proposing.

35   uomo_senza_nome   2011 Nov 30, 7:19am  

Dan8267 says

Penrose's conjecture sound anything like the Big Crunch Theory

It's not like the Big Crunch, but it is a Conformal Cyclical Cosmology Model. Penrose is not a fan of String theory I gather. So his theory (speculative one so far) is conforming more to General theory of relativity.

This amazon review seems useful: http://www.amazon.com/review/RR89NMD7MILDP/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#RR89NMD7MILDP

36   Dan8267   2011 Nov 30, 7:21am  

wthrfrk80 says

If everything you assert is true

I wasn't aware that I asserted anything. I said we are made of atoms, but I consider that to be a pretty well accepted fact. Do I really need to prove the existence of atoms and that your body is made up of various carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc. atoms? Look, I firmly believe in the burden of proof, but you have to assume some level of common knowledge to have a productive conversation.

wthrfrk80 says

If everything you assert is true, than aren't your very assertions also just matter and energy?

The terms assertions , arguments, proofs, evidence, and facts are abstract concepts. Abstract concepts are physically manifested by energy an matter, yes, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing. For example, when you read the word "dog" in a book, you aren't actually seeing a dog or even a word. You are seeing a splat of ink in a form that you recognize as the word "dog" in your language. That doesn't mean words don't exist or that words are splats of ink.

wthrfrk80 says

If everything you assert is true, than aren't your very assertions also just matter and energy? And aren't ChristianGuy's assertions also just matter and energy? So how can anyone say your argument is better than ChristianGuy's (or visa versa)? Both are just matter and energy, so how can one form of matter and energy be "better" than another?

Yes, ChristianGuy and I are both communicating using matter and energy. However, the contents of are arguments are not simply "equal" because they all reduce to matter and energy or words and sentences. Let's say Bob and Joe are arguing. Bob says the square root of two is rational and Joe says it's irrational. One of them is right and can be proven right. The arguments that Bob can make must be inferior to the best possible argument Joe can make because Joe is actually correct. Joe could present a proof of the irrationality of the square root of two. Bob cannot make any valid argument that the root is rational. The fact that they are both using chalk and a blackboard makes no difference.

wthrfrk80 says

I agree that a lot of religion is BS, but it seems that "radical" determinism/materialism is ultimately self-defeating. Truth and falsehood, right and wrong, good and bad all become meaningless if there is nothing more than mass and energy behaving in absolutely pre-determined fashion, right?

Example: the debate over humans eating meat. In a radically deterministic/matericalistic universe, debate over the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the practice is meaningless: atoms and energy (in the form of a human) are predetermined to occaisonally interact with the atoms and energy (in the form of an animal) that results in the death of the animal. We call this interaction "killing and eating." This interation "just is."

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but it seems that you are confusing the terms right/wrong with good/evil. By right, I mean correct; by wrong, I mean incorrect. Perhaps a bit confusing since English overloads the terms. The issues of correct/incorrect versus good/evil are completely different.

I do need to get around to writing about the nature of morality. I think you're asking the question, "If morality isn't absolute, can it even exist?". I don't want to give a short answer because it will be misinterpreted. Wait for my next tirade.

wthrfrk80 says

Is radical materialism even falsifiable? How could it be proven...or dis-proven?

It was proven on Monday, August 6, 1945 in Hiroshima, Japan. Atomic theory, or radical materialism as you prefer, could have been disproved by proving a number of alternative, incompatible theories.

37   uomo_senza_nome   2011 Nov 30, 7:37am  

Dan8267 says

The terms assertions , arguments, proofs, evidence, and facts are abstract concepts.

I find it very useful to distinguish b/w facts, opinions and beliefs because it brings a great deal of clarity to the discussion.

See this: http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/teaching/co300man/pop12d.cfm

Facts are verifiable and indisputable: we are made of atoms. This is a fact. There is no way to dispute this and it is easily verifiable.

Opinions are judgments based on facts. If they're reasonable, honest then we can listen to them and re-affirm or change our judgments. Being pro-choice or pro-life can be an opinion based on what you know factually about conception.

Beliefs are just convictions based on faith/religion etc. This is where it is mostly bullshit. For example, thinking that the Earth is very young based on some faith is clearly bullshit.

38   Dan8267   2011 Nov 30, 8:19am  

austrian_man says

I find it very useful to distinguish b/w facts, opinions and beliefs because it brings a great deal of clarity to the discussion.

Completely agree with one small change.

Opinions are judgments/convictions, but not necessarily based on facts. "I like vanilla ice cream more than chocolate ice cream." isn't really based on a fact. Neither is "I prefer sunrises to sunsets.".

Not sure if there is a difference between a judgment and a conviction. And I hate to use the word belief because it's so nebulous. Technically, I believe the world is round. It just happens that I based this belief on knowledge, not faith. But the word is often used in the context of faith.

39   freak80   2011 Nov 30, 11:29pm  

Dan8267 says

It was proven on Monday, August 6, 1945 in Hiroshima, Japan. Atomic theory, or radical materialism as you prefer, could have been disproved by proving a number of alternative, incompatible theories

Dan,

I wasn't arguing about the nature of physical matter (whether or not matter is made up of atoms). I was arguing against the belief that physical matter (and energy) is ALL THERE IS. I was NOT arguing against atomic theory. I think that was pretty clear from my post.

40   Dan8267   2011 Dec 1, 10:15am  

wthrfrk80 says

I was arguing against the belief that physical matter (and energy) is ALL THERE IS.

Obviously, there is more in the universe than matter and energy. There is space and time, both of which are discreet. However, everything in the universe is, by definition, physical. What would it mean for a non-physical thing to exist?

Comments 1 - 40 of 124       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions