Carl Sagan: little gods

[Wise Young]

I came across the following quote from Carl Sagan recently:
http://www.wayofthemind.org/2007/02/21/carl-sagan-little-gods/
In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed!”? Instead they say, “No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.”

Last December 6 was the tenth anniversary of Sagan's death and NPR Science Friday with Ira Flatow had an interview of his wife who had mentioned Sagan's religiousness. He was not a believer in any of the organized religion but he definitely believed in a God. How can a scientist not believe in a God when confronted with so much beauty and the awe-inspiring inspiring universe?

Sagan was of course an astronomer. I am a biologist but I have the same experience that Sagan expressed in the above quote.

Wise.

[rfbdorf]

Whenever I look at a picture of a cluster of galaxies, I am awestruck, both by its beauty and by the thought of what all there is contained within that cluster - such as unimaginable civilizations. There is more there than my brain can process; it is similar to a religious experience. How much more amazing it is to know that its existence and construction is ultimately logically explicable than it is to say it's all there simply because another being made it one day - that just passes the buck.
- Richard

[Juke_spin]

This seems like the old "clock=clockmaker" propostition to me. Unfortunately, when it comes to the awe inspiring cosmos, the one need not imply the other.

Sagan was a genius and a great guy but that doesn't make him right in an area the nature of which forces us back on speculation.

[Hellonwheels]

Whenever I look at a picture of a cluster of galaxies, I am awestruck, both by its beauty and by the thought of what all there is contained within that cluster - such as unimaginable civilizations. There is more there than my brain can process; it is similar to a religious experience. How much more amazing it is to know that its existence and construction is ultimately logically explicable than it is to say it's all there simply because another being made it one day - that just passes the buck.
- Richard

Amen.

[darthe]

I am reading "The Language of God" by Francis Collins, subtitled "A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief". He is the Collins of the Human Genome Project. He proposes that there is a harmony between real scientific knowledge and the spiritual knowledge of God. As a believer I have always been astounded at the fear of scientific truth that many religious people have. I like to say to them that because we know "The Truth" does not mean that we know all the truth. It is not surprising that so many in the scientific community have such disdain for religion but I think they confuse religion with the religious people. If there is a God, then all truth is God's truth. It is nothing to fear, but something to be sought with all of our might. The Hubble telescope has done much to increase my awe of a God who knows and cares for me especially through these 5 years of living with my son's SCI.

[Wise Young]

I am reading "The Language of God" by Francis Collins, subtitled "A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief". He is the Collins of the Human Genome Project. He proposes that there is a harmony between real scientific knowledge and the spiritual knowledge of God. As a believer I have always been astounded at the fear of scientific truth that many religious people have. I like to say to them that because we know "The Truth" does not mean that we know all the truth. It is not surprising that so many in the scientific community have such disdain for religion but I think they confuse religion with the religious people. If there is a God, then all truth is God's truth. It is nothing to fear, but something to be sought with all of our might. The Hubble telescope has done much to increase my awe of a God who knows and cares for me especially through these 5 years of living with my son's SCI.

Darthe, thank you.

In the past year, I have been exposed to the Buddhist religion for the first time. Several months ago, I met with the Head of a Chi Lin nunnery, a wonderful woman who has impressive vision, energy, and passion. She has created an incredible garden, a temple, and was supervising the final stages of a room where the different Buddhist stories are being told in pictures all around. She had supervised the creation of most of these pictures on computer and they had been printed by one of the most biggest and highest resoluton printers in the world.

She paused in her work to talk with us (a group of scientists). I was amazed by her knowledge of the modern world... because she told us that people should not mistaken the garden, the temple, and the worship chamber, and even her as objects of worship (many people do venerate her because she is so wonderful). She searched for words when she finally hit upon the analogy. She said that the garden, temple, and worship places are tools, in the same way a confocal microscope or the Hubble telescope is to the scientist. We would not worship the microscope or telescope. Rather, we are awed by what we see with the microscope and telescope.

She continued by pointing out three Buddhist precepts (my interpretation). First, life and existence is just a journey through many states. The key to advancing is to know where you are. Until you know where you are, you will now know where to go. Second, action matters and consequences are important. In short, one must consider the consequences of what one does. Third, people and our current states are not as important.

This morning, I was watching TV and heard a Zen Buddhist teacher talk about "good religions". He said that good religions embrace what society considers wholesome, that good religions tolerate other religions and people who believe in other religions. I am struck by how different the Buddhist "religious" perspective is.

Wise.

[john smith]

This morning, I was watching TV and heard a Zen Buddhist teacher talk about "good religions". He said that good religions embrace what society considers wholesome, that good religions tolerate other religions and people who believe in other religions. I am struck by how different the Buddhist "religious" perspective is.

Posted by Wise

What a refreshing idea in an intolerant world.

John

[rfbdorf]

What a refreshing idea in an intolerant world.Absolutely. A wholesome, positive approach, as opposed to the negativity of the "my god is better than yours" that is the basis of so much suffering in the world.
- Richard

[Hellonwheels]

Science is not the enemy of religion (unfortunately, the reverse is not always true). Religion is simply not part of science because science is based on evidence, not faith, and there is simply no scientific evidence to support any particular supernatural belief. It's an individual's prerogative to hold such a belief, but you cannot insert such beliefs into a scientific explanation and still call it science. I'd like to point out that it's also a person's right to not adhere to or even have a reason for a supernatural belief.

[Foolish Old]

Is the Belief that there is no God because it has not been Proven logically consistent?

How does one define/describe this bigger god?

Is Skepticism an essential element of Science? Is Belief of God a contradiction to the scientific approach to discovery?

These are not academic questions, but rather parts of a puzzle I have yet to solve on a personal basis.

After a youth mired in Sophistry, I now believe that the universe contains elements of universal/absolute truth in regards to the actions and responsibilites of humans. Is this acceptance of "God"?

[Wise Young]

Athiests form a small minority of our population. If you spend much time with athiests, you will realize that they tend to be quite individualistic and that not all of them reject the concept of gods, a God, or some entity that represents the unverse. Many reject the concept of God as stipulated by the established churches and religions.

The antipathy towards established religions is growing and fueled by the recent crisis due to by sex abuse by priests. As much as 4% of Catholic clergy may have engaged in pedophilic acts over the last 50 years (Source (http://www.americancatholic.org/News/ClergySexAbuse/) and these are only the documented and accused priests in the U.S.

Apparently, an even higher percentage of priests of both Catholic and Protestant churches have engaged in much higher rates of inappropriate sexual contact with members of their congregation, as high as 21% (Source (http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/priest_sexual_abuse_cases.htm)). Some 17% of laywomen have reported that their own pastor has harassed them and 10% of Protestant Pastors have admitted being sexually active with an adult parishioner (Source (http://biblia.com/christianity/clergy.htm)).

The scandal, combined with ignorant and anti-science dogma concerning evolution and stem cell research, have significantly damaged the trust of people in their churches. A large majority of the U.S. population now disagree with their churches on one or more of issues that the Catholic Church would consider a "mortal sin".

In the eyes of the average churchgoer, the church has become fallible. Who or what can replace this lost faith? It seems to me that the concept of Universe-is-God (UIG) may replace the omnipotent-God-faith (OGF) promulgated by many Churches. For the lack of a better word, UIG is a form of worship using the tools of science.

Wise.

[darthe]

I understand the horror reaction to the news of abusive priests but this, to me only adds to my original point about the confusion between the reality of God and the behaviors of man. Jesus dealt with this issue when he spoke the parable about the wheat and tares. The tares are the weeds and he said they would always be mixed in with the wheat, until the harvest, since ripping them out would harm the roots of the wheat. Meaning that there always will be truly evil people mixed in with the good people in the world and in his universal church. I am a Catholic and the fact that there are evil priests does not damage my faith in God or the church he established. It just opens my eyes to be vigilent in my judgements of people who I entrust with my family. But I respect and have deep admiration for the huge percentage of priests who are authentically living a life of love and self sacrifice. Men who love God but who now have to carry the shame that these other monsters have left them to live with.

There is a much larger percentage of teachers in public school who have molested children but we don't hate all teachers now. We don't give up school.

I'm hopeing I can have open dialog here and not get all barrels aimed at me. But I don't have a knowledge of anti-science gogma concerning evolution. Few are taught in school that Fr. Georges Lemaitre, Catholic priest and mathematical physicist, developed what became known as the Big Bang--the theory of an expanding universe which had a beginning.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0022.html

Fr. Lemaitre follows in a distinguished line of priest-scientists that include names such as Fr. Nicolai Copernicus, the astronomer who first published the heliocentric solar system, Fr. Grimaldi, discoverer of diffraction of light, Abbot Mendel, the father of modern genetics, Bishop Stenson, father of the field of geology and many, many more eminent scientists. I have found in the church an intellectual rigor that is compelling and would be astounding to many who judge the positions of the church as ignorant, without actually reading what the great thinkers of the church write. But saying that, I also have seen much ignorance about evolution being stated by people who claim to be speaking for the church and they just aren't.

The church is not a democracy so even if a majority disagree the church must stand firm on the core issues. Evolution is not a core issue. The sanctity of innocent life is. But the definition of a "mortal sin" is: "A grave infraction of the law of God that destroys the divine life in the soul of the sinner, constituting a turn away from God. For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must be present: grave matter, full knowledge of the evil of the act , and full consent of the will." My reading of this is that if a person has a different opinion than what is taught by the church and they are sincere in their belief, that cannot be a mortal sin.

Please know that I totally respect your beliefs but if I may comment on your last paragraph. God is the creator of the universe and he is present in it as a binding agent of it but the universe is his creation. Therefore the universe is not God. But God can be percieved in his creation.

I am willing to discuss anything I said here and I know that Wise will be but I just ask others to be gentle.

[Raven]

Athiests form a small minority of our population. If you spend much time with athiests, you will realize that they tend to be quite individualistic and that not all of them reject the concept of gods, a God, or some entity that represents the unverse. Many reject the concept of God as stipulated by the established churches and religions.

The antipathy towards established religions is growing and fueled by the recent crisis due to by sex abuse by priests. As much as 4% of Catholic clergy may have engaged in pedophilic acts over the last 50 years (Source (http://www.americancatholic.org/News/ClergySexAbuse/) and these are only the documented and accused priests in the U.S.

Apparently, an even higher percentage of priests of both Catholic and Protestant churches have engaged in much higher rates of inappropriate sexual contact with members of their congregation, as high as 21% (Source (http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/priest_sexual_abuse_cases.htm)). Some 17% of laywomen have reported that their own pastor has harassed them and 10% of Protestant Pastors have admitted being sexually active with an adult parishioner (Source (http://biblia.com/christianity/clergy.htm)).

The scandal, combined with ignorant and anti-science dogma concerning evolution and stem cell research, have significantly damaged the trust of people in their churches. A large majority of the U.S. population now disagree with their churches on one or more of issues that the Catholic Church would consider a "mortal sin".

In the eyes of the average churchgoer, the church has become fallible. Who or what can replace this lost faith? It seems to me that the concept of Universe-is-God (UIG) may replace the omnipotent-God-faith (OGF) promulgated by many Churches. For the lack of a better word, UIG is a form of worship using the tools of science.

Wise.

I am hoping that I may be able to say my thoughts here as clear as I can. Since I am still having problems with the results of my ammonia levels, I am also having a hard time making some of my thoughts clear at times but I will attempt to do my best.

My belief is that at times we tend to see the leaders; be it priests, ministers, rabbis, etc as the ones we are to follow. This is something I have noticed in many people and religions. In the process of doing this, we then come to a point where we meet the flesh of the person and we see the sin that comes from it. We are all fallible no matter who we are. We are flesh and therefore we fail and fall into committing such wrongs. If we honestly stop and see each person regardless of what they presently are now, we all were born flesh or human. There is possibly good in most of us but not perfection. I remember the saying .. "to err is human" .. which lets us know that we all err and as humans, we are not infallible. Therefore when we also began to put another human on what could be like a pedestal, then we are disappointed to find that that human can be just that .. a human with frailties. Not perfect. We may attempt to do the right thing but we may either do the wrong thing or be wrong about the whole thing. I believe that as long as we continue to expect perfection in a human being, we will also continue to feel betrayed, be displeased, unhappy and most likely confused by the ending result. I'm not saying that everyone is bad, just emphasizing that perfection is not possible in us. We are human above everything else.

My two cents. I hope that I did not confuse anybody with my words.

Btw, Wise, I too am awed at the wonder I see when viewing the universe. I am left speechless at their beauty.

Raven

[Wise Young]

Raven and Darthe,

Thank you for very thoughtful comments. Please understand that I am not criticizing religion but simply pointing out something that I think is happening in our society. The United States is the most religious developed nation in the world in terms of belonging to and participating in organized religions. However, many people are becoming disillusioned with their churches.

I had brought up sexual abuse by priests because I think that it is causing many people to question the positions of their church. Likewise, I believe that the Catholic Church's position on in vitro fertilization, embryonic stem cells, and even abortion is being questioned by many Catholics. These are issues that the Church considers to be core values.

Regarding the anti-science positions of many churches, I think that the embryonic stem cell debate clearly illustrates the problem. The problem is that leaders of the church do not trust scientists to be moral. While even the most hardened opponents of embryonic stem cell research would probably agree that it would be better to use embryonic stem cells to save lives rather than to trash them, they are afraid that if they let an inch, proponents of will just embryonic stem cell reearch.

Yes, I know and have commented previously about the importance of Catholic scientists and their contributions to science, including the Gregor Mendel who some would regard as the "father" of the genetics. The Catholic Church has a relatively enlightened stance regarding evolution but not towards embryonic stem cells. A recent commentary by Mehul Kamdar is perhaps relevant to this discussion:
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/mehul/id_today_context.htm
I had already heard from the thirteen year old son of a friend at a school in Appleton that he had decided not to study science when he grew up, because, he had been taught at the non-conformist church that he went to every Sunday, that “science did not have room for moral values.” I wondered how many more young boys and girls were being taught this at this particular church. When I tried talking about the church in question to several people from other “rival” churches, all they had to say was that in this economically backward part of the USA, the church in question had been able to raise more than $ 3 million in one year. There was a sense of awe in the other churches about this achievement by the anti-science church and I wondered how many more similar churches existed in other parts of this country. How many of them got people who were basically poor to contribute huge amounts from their incomes and then pursued a policy that, in the long term, would ensure that their children stayed poor and desperate. With no background in science, what were they trying to get their followers’ children to become? Taxi drivers? Wal Mart clerks? One thing that those who ran the church in question were certain of creating out of these children was a source of revenue for as long as the children stayed with the church. It did not matter that without science in their educational curricula these children would be doomed to doing minor jobs and that their own futures would impact on that of the country as well in the long term.

Wise.

[Jack Spratt]

Science is not the enemy of religion (unfortunately, the reverse is not always true). Religion is simply not part of science because science is based on evidence, not faith, and there is simply no scientific evidence to support any particular supernatural belief. It's an individual's prerogative to hold such a belief, but you cannot insert such beliefs into a scientific explanation and still call it science. I'd like to point out that it's also a person's right to not adhere to or even have a reason for a supernatural belief.

There was a time when religious belief (and faith) thought that the world was flat , and that the world was the center of the universe . Science has proven this to be untrue ... So where is that FAITH today ??? Where are the faithfull to proclaim that the earth IS flat?

[Shayne]

There was a time when religious belief (and faith) thought that the world was flat , and that the world was the center of the universe . Science has proven this to be untrue ... So where is that FAITH today ??? Where are the faithfull to proclaim that the earth IS flat?


Jack

The world's not flat?

People would probably be more tolerant of different religions if they looked at it as a game.....with lot's of different teams. Don't know if I want to be around for the grand final though:confused:

[darthe]

Wise
I wonder why would we need to trust scientists to be moral any more than we can trust the religious to be moral. The hearts of men are not moral without constraints. Do you think it is impossible for there to be embryo farming. And not just a few days or weeks old. The prospect is real and horrible. I bet it is happening in North Korea now. I just read that the average height of North Koreans is two inches shorter than it was a couple of decades ago. They don't care about morality. Believe me, as a mother and caregiver of a high level quad, I want moral research but I don't trust the hearts of men. It is what the church calls the slippery slope. The end cannot justify the means. Please read:
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=6451

As for the idiot in Appleton it just proves that religion that is devoid of the Spirit and Truth of God is as evil as any other man made idea can be. How about the religion that believes that their ultimate reward will be raping dozens of little girls. I have seen first hand how an outward form of religion can harden hearts and cause the worst meanness and destruction. But true religion is a real love of a real God in spirit and truth and love of our fellow man by concrete actions and guarding moral laws. I don't see that as unenlightened.

Thanks for the good conversation today, this caregivers life can be lonely.
Darthe

[Foolish Old]

The concept of the Universe is God and pursuit of science (knowledge?) as worship provides some language to describe my core spiritual beliefs. To me, religion, spirituality, moral compass, or similar ideas always come down to the need for an individual to interpret, accept and act upon their fit into the whole.

For me, religions that personify God and empower select individuals as that God's chosen representatives strike no chord.

My personal difficulty has always been the balance between an understanding of God that provides enough detail to be meaningful as a guide to living life without becoming lawyerly, arbitrary, and, ultimately, secular. I suppose that God will always have elements of mystery and wonder.

[Wise Young]

Wise
I wonder why would we need to trust scientists to be moral any more than we can trust the religious to be moral. The hearts of men are not moral without constraints. Do you think it is impossible for there to be embryo farming. And not just a few days or weeks old. The prospect is real and horrible. I bet it is happening in North Korea now. I just read that the average height of North Koreans is two inches shorter than it was a couple of decades ago. They don't care about morality. Believe me, as a mother and caregiver of a high level quad, I want moral research but I don't trust the hearts of men. It is what the church calls the slippery slope. The end cannot justify the means. Please read:
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=6451

As for the idiot in Appleton it just proves that religion that is devoid of the Spirit and Truth of God is as evil as any other man made idea can be. How about the religion that believes that their ultimate reward will be raping dozens of little girls. I have seen first hand how an outward form of religion can harden hearts and cause the worst meanness and destruction. But true religion is a real love of a real God in spirit and truth and love of our fellow man by concrete actions and guarding moral laws. I don't see that as unenlightened.

Thanks for the good conversation today, this caregivers life can be lonely.
Darthe

Darthe,

Isn't it interesting that you should ask why we should trust scientists any more than we should trust religious or political leaders. It is evident that you (and most people) no longer trust their religious and political leaders. Worse, most people have been and are continuing to give their church and government leaders free passes to be engage in extraordinarily immoral conduct. Scientists will have the earn the trust.

Religious leaders who accuse others of lacking "moral values" are often themselves responsible for repeated and sordid transgression of the most fundamental values of society and faith. For example, much evidence indicates that the Catholic Church not just covered up but knowingly allowed sexual abuse of thousands of children by its priests.

We have a White House that not only allowed but pushed for laws to legalize "extraordinary rendition", indefinite detention, painful torture, and murder of thousands of people without due process. Somehow, moral pronouncements from this White House are not credible.

Legislative leaders are fond of citing 79 diseases that have "cured" by adult stem cells as the reason why they cannot support embryonic stem cell research. It is amazing that they have the gall to look families with spinal cord injury in the eye when they do say this. One of the diseases that they claim to have cured is spinal cord injury.

Sigh.

Wise.

[Rbrauer]

I prefer the idea that Terry Pratchet brought up "Small Gods"
Basically if you think it, therefore it is.
Example.. imagine Baccus. He's a spiffy guy, always partying. Has all the girls and drinks and drinks and drinks. He's the party god.
What about after the party? Like what happens after everyone gets puking drunk and begins to .. well.. pray to the porcelin god?
Now suddenly there is a new god in town.. the "after party god".
Always feeling sick, puking his guts up from time to time.

[Raven]

Raven and Darthe,

Thank you for very thoughtful comments. Please understand that I am not criticizing religion but simply pointing out something that I think is happening in our society. The United States is the most religious developed nation in the world in terms of belonging to and participating in organized religions. However, many people are becoming disillusioned with their churches.

I had brought up sexual abuse by priests because I think that it is causing many people to question the positions of their church. Likewise, I believe that the Catholic Church's position on in vitro fertilization, embryonic stem cells, and even abortion is being questioned by many Catholics. These are issues that the Church considers to be core values.

Regarding the anti-science positions of many churches, I think that the embryonic stem cell debate clearly illustrates the problem. The problem is that leaders of the church do not trust scientists to be moral. While even the most hardened opponents of embryonic stem cell research would probably agree that it would be better to use embryonic stem cells to save lives rather than to trash them, they are afraid that if they let an inch, proponents of will just embryonic stem cell reearch.

Yes, I know and have commented previously about the importance of Catholic scientists and their contributions to science, including the Gregor Mendel who some would regard as the "father" of the genetics. The Catholic Church has a relatively enlightened stance regarding evolution but not towards embryonic stem cells. A recent commentary by Mehul Kamdar is perhaps relevant to this discussion:
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/mehul/id_today_context.htm


Wise.

Wise, I understand what you are saying. The stem cell view by many religions perplexes me also. I have often thought that if it is viewed as immoral, then why is the invitro fertilization accepted? These churches views honestly seem at times hypocritical. My main point of my previous post also was to point at the view by many whom see priests and other religious leaders as a sort of 'god'. What ever these priests, leaders, etc say is taken as God's word. That is also why I bring up the point that they are fallible. These people are as human as the followers. I also believe that we should not just accept their word as the rule but make our own personal decision for what we will do or not do. I believe that like in life, if we are wrong, we will pay the consequense of our own mistaken decision(s).

Sometimes I wonder about the invitro fertilization.

1. some of the embryos will end up being destroyed

2. if it has life: isn't it wrong to destroy it (kill it)?

3. isn't it what is claimed as a reason for not using it for stem cells?

4. so then, doesn't the creation of these embryos from the first step make it wrong to even start it?

5. What is the difference then if we accept the beginning when we know the end when these embryos/cells are not used and will end up being destroyed?

These and other thoughts run through my mind when it comes to this subject and the religious' opinions on all this.

Confusing, I know but those thoughts are what make me feel that I can not follow or accept the religious' reasons on it all.

Well, enough of my rambling. I have probably gotten everyone's mind here going around in circles like mine is but that is my way of thinking. Am doing my best to bring my thoughts/opinions across here and hoping that I am making sense to some degree. Sorry if I haven't.

Raven

[darthe]

Raven
Exactly, invitro fertilization is NOT an allowed practice for Catholics.
Darthe

[Wise Young]

Raven,

I have known many wonderful Catholic scientists. When I was a graduate student, I often had wonderful dinner conversations in Woods Hole with a nun who was a marine biologist. The training by Jesuits is wonderful, rigorous, and enlightened. The mentor of my mentor (Rodolfo Llinas) is Sir John Eccles. Sir John is a devout Catholic and Nobel laureate. He wrote a number of books about neuroscience and his faith.

In my opinion, the Catholic Church has made several very serious errors in its decisions of the past ten years, equal to or worse than their opposition to Galileo. Please note that the decisions that it has made concerning abortion, embryonic stem cells, and in vitro fertilization don't have any solid basis in the Bible. If one wants, one can probably find scripture to support both sides. The Catholic Church chose one side and it has led to misery and pain for many.

In its early years, the Catholic Church did not regard life as beginning with conception and its views were closer to the Jews. It was not until about 300 years ago that the Church decided that abortion was a mortal and excommunicable sin. Incidentally, it was at about the same time that the Catholic Church decided to enforce celibacy on all its priests, as well as the principle that sex should only be for procreation. The decisions of the Church to impose celibacy and chastity on its leadership has had great influence on other aspects of the church.

The leaders of the Catholic Church, influenced of course by celibacy and chastity, began to impose their naive beliefs on the lay population. For example, the Church forbade masturbation, pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, homosexuality, contraception, and sexuality not only to priests but to lay people as well. In vitro fertilization is of course banned. Opposition to embryonic stem cell research followed suit.

These decisions are all linked. The discovery now that as much as 6% of Catholic priests have sexually abused children, that probably a quarter or more priests have had illicit sexual relations with women, and probably a higher percentage of priests are homosexual or homophilic, has raised major questions whether the Catholic Church can and should maintain its celibacy and chastity requirements. It is not likely to change since Vatican appears to be in denial.

Embryonic stem cell research may be the final divider. In New Jersey which has 48% Catholics, between 70-80% of the population support embryonic stem cell research. Probably a higher percentage do not oppose in vitro fertilization. The Church has argued that embryonic stem cells will lead to "embryo farms" and adult stem cells are cures but these arguments ring false to families that have difficulties with fertility and who have loved ones who could benefit from stem cell research.

Every parent who has had in vitro fertilization faces the question of what to do with the leftover blastocysts. When they no longer want or need the blastocysts, they must choose between trashing them or donating them to help others. Most parents want to donate the blastocysts to save the lives of others. Note that because the Catholic Church regards in vitro fertilization as unnatural, they would advocate the destruction of the embryos. This paradoxical position results from the original decision to consider conception as the beginning of life.

Wise.

Wise, I understand what you are saying. The stem cell view by many religions perplexes me also. I have often thought that if it is viewed as immoral, then why is the invitro fertilization accepted? These churches views honestly seem at times hypocritical. My main point of my previous post also was to point at the view by many whom see priests and other religious leaders as a sort of 'god'. What ever these priests, leaders, etc say is taken as God's word. That is also why I bring up the point that they are fallible. These people are as human as the followers. I also believe that we should not just accept their word as the rule but make our own personal decision for what we will do or not do. I believe that like in life, if we are wrong, we will pay the consequense of our own mistaken decision(s).

Sometimes I wonder about the invitro fertilization.

1. some of the embryos will end up being destroyed

2. if it has life: isn't it wrong to destroy it (kill it)?

3. isn't it what is claimed as a reason for not using it for stem cells?

4. so then, doesn't the creation of these embryos from the first step make it wrong to even start it?

5. What is the difference then if we accept the beginning when we know the end when these embryos/cells are not used and will end up being destroyed?

These and other thoughts run through my mind when it comes to this subject and the religious' opinions on all this.

Confusing, I know but those thoughts are what make me feel that I can not follow or accept the religious' reasons on it all.

Well, enough of my rambling. I have probably gotten everyone's mind here going around in circles like mine is but that is my way of thinking. Am doing my best to bring my thoughts/opinions across here and hoping that I am making sense to some degree. Sorry if I haven't.

Raven

[Jack Spratt]

This thread reminded me of a TIME Magazine artical "Is God in Our Genes?"
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,995465-1,00.html

Which kinda made me giggle thinking of just how little God could be, and got me thinking that maybe the key to finding God is to look inward-into ourselves rather than outwards-into the eternal universe.

The God gene hypothesis states that some people bear a gene which gives them a prediposition to episodes interpreted by some as religious revelation. The idea has been postulate and promoted by geneticist Dr. Dean Hamer, the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the U.S. Nat. Cancer Intitute. Hamer has written a book on the subject titled, The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into our Genes.
According to this hypothesis, the God gene (Vmat2), is not an encoding for the belief in God itself but a physiological arrangement that produces the sensations associated, by some, with the presence of God or other mistic experiences, or more specifically spirituality as a state of mind.
Simply put, the gene is involved in monoamines, neurotransmitters that have a lot to do with emotional sensitivity. The interpretation is that the monoamines correlates with a personality trait called self-transcendence. Composed of three sub-sets, self-trancendance is composed of "self-forgetfulness" (as in the tendency to become totally absorbed in some activity, such as reading); "transpersonal identification" (a feeling of connectedness to a larger universe); and "mysticism" (an openness to believe things not literally provable, such as ESP). Put them all together, and you come as close as science can to measuring what it feels like to be spiritual. This allows us to have the kind of experience described as religous ecstacy.

Here is a similar artical: "The Brain Chemistry of The Buddha"
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/154/story_15451_1.html

This also adds to the discussion of "science vs. God" ... or suggests that science can be used to find God. :)

[quadvet]

Which kinda made me giggle thinking of just how little God could be, and got me thinking that maybe the key to finding God is to look inward-into ourselves rather than outwards-into the eternal universe.

Just "maybe" ? I feel there is more "God" looking inward-into ourselves than most can handle. That's why they take up these other obsessions.

Great discussion Wise, thanks.

[Juke_spin]

Just "maybe" ? I feel there is more "God" looking inward-into ourselves than most can handle. That's why they take up these other obsessions.

Great discussion Wise, thanks.
Basically in agreement with you here, quadvet. How very perceptive of us.;)

[rdf]

We spend all the years of our lives wondering about god; does he or she exist, or is he or she something dreamed up by the people to explain the unknown?

Maybe my greatest fear is that we may never know, even when we die.

What if we die and don't find out the answer? Does that mean we will never get an answer, or that we just haven't reached that level where the answer might be found?

Or are we just wormfood and fertilizer once we're done?

I just hope that whatever entity was involved in creating the first energy in the universe and/or all universes (and it had to have come from somewhere, no matter what you believe) will be known to us at some point, either in life or in death.

If we don't ever get to know, then many people will have wasted much of their lives on something irrelevant to our lives and deaths.

[Wise Young]

We spend all the years of our lives wondering about god; does he or she exist, or is he or she something dreamed up by the people to explain the unknown?

Maybe my greatest fear is that we may never know, even when we die.

What if we die and don't find out the answer? Does that mean we will never get an answer, or that we just haven't reached that level where the answer might be found?

Or are we just wormfood and fertilizer once we're done?

I just hope that whatever entity was involved in creating the first energy in the universe and/or all universes (and it had to have come from somewhere, no matter what you believe) will be known to us at some point, either in life or in death.

If we don't ever get to know, then many people will have wasted much of their lives on something irrelevant to our lives and deaths.

rdf,

Is the question of god is so important that it is your "greatest fear" that you might never know? In my opinion, that *knowledge* depends on our faith and not the object of our faith. I have met people who profess to know to the depth of their being who God is. At the same time, I know some who are convinced that God doesn't exist and would die happy if they were proven right. In the end, it is what you believe you know. If you don't believe that you know, you won't know,

Wise.

[adi chicago]

if to cure sci and other devastating diseases is a sin ...i will never go to a church again .i must ask the pope to tell the truth regarding this matter.

[rdf]

rdf,

Is the question of god is so important that it is your "greatest fear" that you might never know? In my opinion, that *knowledge* depends on our faith and not the object of our faith. I have met people who profess to know to the depth of their being who God is. At the same time, I know some who are convinced that God doesn't exist and would die happy if they were proven right. In the end, it is what you believe you know. If you don't believe that you know, you won't know,

Wise.
Wise, I used the wrong choice of words. It's my greatest fear only where this subject is concerned...as opposed to an actual answer to mankinds' most profound mystery.

You write, "In the end, it is what you believe you know. If you don't believe that you know, you won't know..." - Wise, to me that is just faith again, not factual and tangible knowledge one way or the other of the existence of "god."

I believe I'll know when I see god, or at least if and when his/her/it's existence is proven to me...not any other time.

Some months/years I believe in a god, because of the beauty I've seen in nature and in fellow humans. Other times I believe it's all made up to keep people warm and comfortable when pondering life after death.

My agosticism increased once I educated myself as to the origins of religions. They all build on religions that came before, and the famous stories in the Bible about Moses and Jesus and the Flood, etc., were parts of previous religions before Christ was around.

My second greatest fear is this: If I've loved two women in my life, equally, and one has passed on, and I'm involved with the other...well, when we're all dead, who will I meet in heaven? The first one or the second?

We're told by religion that heaven is a place to spend eternity with one's loved ones, a time of happiness with no worries. But who will I spend eternity with? Which loved one(s)? And to the women I've loved, what if they had past loves before I was around? Who will they meet in heaven and spent all time with?

Yesterday the Pope said the fires of hell are real. I say he has no clue whatsoever, and shouldn't be saying such a thing.

If one believes in a god, and bases this belief on faith, then there is no reason one shouldn't also believe in ghosts and daemons and the "fires of hell," and take it all on faith.

Sorry, faith doesn't work for me in this instance. If we die and are never anything more than what we were while alive on Earth, then that will truly be sad and a waste of a good amount of peoples' time in their lives. But it shouldn't be a concern, because we won't know that the end has come, right? We won't even know if our lifelong question was ever answered, or not answered.

If we die, and there is some form of afterlife, then to be truly happy, I need to know the existence of god is a fact, and I need it proven to me. And I need to know which loved ones are awaiting or will alter come to spend time with me in heaven. (the word heaven actually only means "sky" in the language used in the Court of King James, from which the King James version of the bible is written).

-peace

[Jack Spratt]

OH the joys of agosticism !!!
What if you die and find out that YOU are God ? And every being that ever lived was/is one of your many personalities ?

When I was 5 years old I used to lay on this big rock in our yard and stare at the sun (until my sister told me I'd go blind) it was a form of meditation - contemplation . One day I was hit with the question " Why do I excist?"
It scared the begeezes out of me, My Mom explained the whole God thing to me and told me that I was a "child of God" But I was still haunted by that uneasy feeling that I really didn't KNOW, the church (and Mom) said I lacked FAITH and I needed to pray more ... Then a lot of horrible things happened to me ... I had to question this so-called "Heavenly Father" because he certainly wasn't protecting me. When I was 16 years old I had a "bad trip" on LSD, angel dust, and meth ... I might have died or hallucinated that I died ... In my mind, I met God (two different Gods) the first was pretty much like Jesus but when I took his hand he lead me into eternal darkness (The Prajna Paramita-Heart Sutra: No eyes,No ears,No mouth, No body...) I stayed there for what seemed to be an eternity, Then I saw "the light" and went to that place , the second God , It was a bright mass of energy like our sun, made up of all the souls from every living being, I figured that the key to becoming part of this "God" or "heaven" was that I had to be non-ego , true compassion, and accepting that beings are just "emotion generators" , "good" "bad" "evil" saint" and everything in between ... I try to believe that there is some truth in this hallucination and find peace and tranquillity with the idea that "hell" was just a response to death (having no physical body) and "heaven" was full of emotion, like orgasm X 1000 !!!

But then again, it could have just been that God gene (Vmat2) on hyper-drive.
Either way ... I still haven't gotten an answer to my question "why do I excist ?" It's probably too abstract for my pea-brain to understand.

[quadvet]

OH the joys of agosticism !!!
What if you die and find out that YOU are God ? And every being that ever lived was/is one of your many personalities ?
Ever watch or read "The Five People You Meet in Heaven" by Mitch Albom? It's kind of a simple analogy of this.

Why do I exist? To live, and to die. I don't fear being dead - I died twice, in full conscience of what was going on. No biggie, after the pain of it - well there was no pain in drowning, but it sucked when my ventilator tube broke and I suffocated. I don't look forward to what I have seen other SCI go through prior to and in death. I have a lot of respect for those I've known who have lived and died this way. Even those with supposed great faith questioned, to the last day.

Like Shaun's signature says:
"Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair or f**king beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back." ~~Al Swearengen


I personally don't have any hopes of any "god" saving me from troubles that lie ahead. I have full confidence that being dead will be a beautiful thing but it's not something I dwell on. Life itself is a beautiful thing; our challenge is to find that beauty.

<Steps off stump>

[Foolish Old]

I've endured a little punishment in this life, awarded the same to some deserving folks as well. "Don't mind rolling with the punches, but sometimes I want to throw a few."

But, as quadvet wrote, Life itself is a beautiful thing; our challenge is to find that beauty.



Yes, to find that beauty - and to share it. "And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."

Make some love - start with yourself. (no jerk-off jokes, please :p ).

[quadvet]

Make some love - start with yourself. (no jerk-off jokes, please :p ).Now if that was the first feeling that came back, I ain't waiting around for a woman. :agog:

But seriously, this is a mantra of mine, good reason to live and give back:
I have gotten more good out of life than I put into it; well more than I deserve. Even through the hardships, that's how I feel.

[Wise Young]

Wise, I used the wrong choice of words. It's my greatest fear only where this subject is concerned...as opposed to an actual answer to mankinds' most profound mystery.

You write, "In the end, it is what you believe you know. If you don't believe that you know, you won't know..." - Wise, to me that is just faith again, not factual and tangible knowledge one way or the other of the existence of "god."

I believe I'll know when I see god, or at least if and when his/her/it's existence is proven to me...not any other time.

Some months/years I believe in a god, because of the beauty I've seen in nature and in fellow humans. Other times I believe it's all made up to keep people warm and comfortable when pondering life after death.

My agosticism increased once I educated myself as to the origins of religions. They all build on religions that came before, and the famous stories in the Bible about Moses and Jesus and the Flood, etc., were parts of previous religions before Christ was around.

My second greatest fear is this: If I've loved two women in my life, equally, and one has passed on, and I'm involved with the other...well, when we're all dead, who will I meet in heaven? The first one or the second?

We're told by religion that heaven is a place to spend eternity with one's loved ones, a time of happiness with no worries. But who will I spend eternity with? Which loved one(s)? And to the women I've loved, what if they had past loves before I was around? Who will they meet in heaven and spent all time with?

Yesterday the Pope said the fires of hell are real. I say he has no clue whatsoever, and shouldn't be saying such a thing.

If one believes in a god, and bases this belief on faith, then there is no reason one shouldn't also believe in ghosts and daemons and the "fires of hell," and take it all on faith.

Sorry, faith doesn't work for me in this instance. If we die and are never anything more than what we were while alive on Earth, then that will truly be sad and a waste of a good amount of peoples' time in their lives. But it shouldn't be a concern, because we won't know that the end has come, right? We won't even know if our lifelong question was ever answered, or not answered.

If we die, and there is some form of afterlife, then to be truly happy, I need to know the existence of god is a fact, and I need it proven to me. And I need to know which loved ones are awaiting or will alter come to spend time with me in heaven. (the word heaven actually only means "sky" in the language used in the Court of King James, from which the King James version of the bible is written).

-peace

Oive! Heaven and Hell are scientific conundrums. By definition, both must be pretty crowded places.

When my father died, I mourned because he was gone. As a biologist, it gave me comfort that he is part of me, that half the genes I carry come from him and that he is living, in many ways, inside me. I know this because I have studied genetics, because people like Gregor Mendel studied genetics.

But, at the same time, there is some faith involved in my belief in genetics. What do I mean by faith? It is my faith in science that makes me believe that my father's genes are inside me. Wait, you hasten to say... there is evidence that my father's genes are inside me. You can test DNA.

But how do I know that genes are carried by DNA? Well, if you really delve into the subject, you will find that not too long ago, i.e. before World War II, most scientists did not accept the hypothesis that our genes reside in our DNA. It was not until the 1960's that the hypothesis became established.

Our belief in DNA as the carrier of our genes is partly based on faith, i.e. my belief that the scientists who did the work were right. I certainly have not reviewed the evidence. What if this whole thing about DNA is just a big hoax? After all, worse hoaxes have occurred.

So, in the end, it still comes down to faith, faith in science and the scientific process.

Wise.

[rdf]

Well Wise, that's a pretty broad generalization for the use of faith.

I have faith that if I close my eyes I won't be able to see in front of me, and voila!, it works!

So I guess faith in God and Ghosts works the same way? Not for me. I know from my own store of knowledge that if my eyes are closed I won't be able to see in front of me. But I have no relevant knowledge of God and Ghosts.

[Wise Young]

Well Wise, that's a pretty broad generalization for the use of faith.

I have faith that if I close my eyes I won't be able to see in front of me, and voila!, it works!

So I guess faith in God and Ghosts works the same way? Not for me. I know from my own store of knowledge that if my eyes are closed I won't be able to see in front of me. But I have no relevant knowledge of God and Ghosts.

At the cutting edge of science, where most of eveyrthing that we know in biology has been overturned in the past decade, I must say that my "faith" has been sorely tested. Let me give you some examples of absolute scientific dogmas that were regarded to be tested and true, as short a time ago as 1997. Sorry, I feel some obligation to bring the discussion back to science.

1. No new neurons are born in our brains after birth. Now that is about as firmly established a scientific "fact" as any other. Doctors were telling patients that the number of neurons decline and are not replaced. Scientists are telling each other that neurons are terminally differentiated and cannot make any more neurons. In fact, I started my scientific career in college arguing with a senior scientist that neurons are plastic and can reconnect. The vast majority of neuroscientists believed that there is no regeneration in the brain, that the neurons are "hard-wired", and there was no way to get new neurons. This dogma has not only now been proven to be false but it is beginning to seem that there may not be any neuron in our brains that lasts as long as we live. After all, all cells in the body are replaced. If neurons are replaced, that means the neurons that we have in our bodies have been there since before we were born.

2. Remember mitosis, how a cell divides to make two of itself? We were all taught about mitosis in biology, how cells divided and made more of themselves. But, it seems that very very few cells make more of themselves. I was just listening to a lecture by Irv Weissman, my old professor from Stanford who is the father of bone marrow biology and stem cells. He said in his lecture something that was about as extreme and radical as anything that anybody has ever said about cells in our body. He more or less claimed that the *only* cells that can self-replicate in our body are stem cells (and "cancer stem cells"... but that is just quibbling). All the rest of the cells in our body are either progenitor cells that made cells other than themselves or terminally differentiated cells that made no more cells.

Now, these two ideas are probably more revolutionary than the idea that DNA is the substrate of genes. What a topsy turvy world we live in. I remember arguing with my mentor (the man who told me that neurons were not plastic and must be hardwired) about Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolution (Source (http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhn.html)). My mentor thought that there was scientific knowledge that was not overturnable. While he agreed that there were scientific revolutions, they only involves certain areas of controversy. Science, my mentor contended, was a structure that was constantly being built and parts of it are really solid and incontrovertible.

But, even within our lifetime, many of our most established scientific concepts have been not just replaced by more sophisticated concepts actually proven to be wrong. As scientists, we have been inculcated in a series of "received beliefs". As the following outline of Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" states:

http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhn.html
Kuhn begins by formulating some assumptions that lay the foundation for subsequent discussion and by briefly outlining the key contentions of the book.

1. A scientific community cannot practice its trade without some set of received beliefs (p. 4).
a. These beliefs form the foundation of the "educational initiation that prepares and licenses the student for professional practice" (5).
b. The nature of the "rigorous and rigid" preparation helps ensure that the received beliefs exert a "deep hold" on the student's mind.
2. Normal science "is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like" (5)—scientists take great pains to defend that assumption.
3. To this end, "normal science often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments" (5).
4. Research is "a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education" (5).
5. A shift in professional commitments to shared assumptions takes place when an anomaly "subverts the existing tradition of scientific practice" (6). These shifts are what Kuhn describes as scientific revolutions—"the tradition-shattering complements to the tradition-bound activity of normal science" (6).
a. New assumptions (paradigms/theories) require the reconstruction of prior assumptions and the reevaluation of prior facts. This is difficult and time consuming. It is also strongly resisted by the established community.
b. When a shift takes place, "a scientist's world is qualitatively transformed [and] quantitatively enriched by fundamental novelties of either fact or theory" (7).

I am always a little frightened when I look at the NASA plans to search for life. They always seem to look for water, carbon, and oxygen. Some plans even look for DNA. There is this assumption that there can be no other form of life other than our own. Because we cannot imagine it, we assume that it cannot be. The failure of our imagination is so evident. This is a recurrent problem amongst humans. We cannot imagine it and therefore deny it.

When my first daughter was only 8 weeks old in her mother's belly, I told my father that we were going to have a girl and that I would like him to give her a Chinese name. He gave a name that was suitable for both boys and girls because, as he put it, the Chinese have been trying for thousands of years to predict the sex of babies before birth and have failed. What makes you so sure that it is a girl? I did not have the heart to tell him about amniocentesis and X-chromosome.

If you look back at the postings from 2001 on this site and embryonic stem cells, you will find me predicting that cellular programming will be here soon and there will not be any need to do somatic cell nuclear transfer to create cloned embryonic stem cells. But, there were those who were so incapable of imagining this that they wanted to criminalize SCNT with a 10-year prison term and $1 million fine, because they were afraid. By 2020, I predict that we will all be looking back at the debate at the beginning of 2001 and puzzling over why we made such a fuss over such a stupid thing. The use of cloned stem cells to treat wounds and diseases will be an everyday occurrence.

Wise.

[Foolish Old]

I know what I know; I believe what I believe?

[rdf]

I think that NASA is now getting it together, and is realizing that searching only for carbon-based life needing water to survive isn't the way to go. They seem to know/realize the Universe could be abundant in life of other forms, based differently and maybe not needing water as a basic needed ingredient.

Problem for them is, how do you search for something you can't even imagine? Maybe they'll find life in one of the methane saturated moons in our solar system, that uses methane to survive...that's as good as place as any to start looking for stuff you find it hard to even dream up.

I agree with your views on science. I think that once Bush loses power, the US will revert back to forward-looking, scientifically-progressive policies that will better all of our lives in so many areas.

[Wise Young]

I know what I know; I believe what I believe?

There is a dominant philosophy of science that basically holds that science can only refute hypotheses definitively. It cannot prove the positive hypothesis. It can confirm the hypothesis but additional data may refute it at any time. This idea was popularized by Karl Popper who proposed the "survival of the fittest" or the most falsifiable of scientific theories.

Thomas Kuhn denied that it is ever possible isolate the theory being tested from the principles that govern observation. He argued that observations always depended on the "paradigm", a logically consistent "portrait" of the world that has no contradictions. When contradictions appear, we have a "paradigm shift".

There are two scientific approaches. One which modern western science favors and believes should be paramount is the deductive approach. In this approach, the experiments are designed to ferret out the mechanisms and principles underlying a phenomenon. Based on this, one then predicts other phenomena.

The second scientific approach is something that was practiced and referred to as natural science for many centuries. Called empirical science, this is the kind of science that Darwin practiced. He observed natural phenomena and interpreted the observations to state his understanding of the universe.

Constructionist and reductionist approaches complement each other and makes use of the empirical and deductive approaches. Constructionist or empirical science is needed to gather the initial data for the proposal of a theory and testable hypotheses. Deductionist or reductionist science establishes and tests the principles of the theory.

There has been much debate over scientific realism, i.e. the notion that the theoretical constructs that scientists make up to explain phenomena are real. So, for example, we have never seen an electron or neutron and only have indirect evidence of their existence. Their postulated existence is supported by data. But, does this mean that they exist? Some scientists think so but others are not so sure.

Many aspects of science started out as purely mental constructs. For example, string theory is something that a mathematician created but it may have some parallels with what is happening in the real world. To what extent do "strings" exist in nature? More important, to what extent do "strings" not only represent or describe phenomena in the real world but exist as real phenomena?

The acceptance of scientific knowledge as absolute is called scientism. Most experienced scientists, that I know, do not believe in scientific infallibility. In contrast, many non-scientists believe the infallibility of science and often call upon "science" to arbitrate theological or political disputes.

Science is just what a bunch of people try to do, to establish a view and theory of reality based on evidence. Given the same evidence, scientists disagree. They may not accept even the same principles. They have to work hard at achieving a "scientific consensus" in the same way that politicians achieve a "political consensus". Finally, the consensus is discarded when it no longer works.

Wise.

[Foolish Old]

There is a dominant philosophy of science that basically holds that science can only refute hypotheses definitively. It cannot prove the positive hypothesis. It can confirm the hypothesis but additional data may refute it at any time. This idea was popularized by Karl Popper who proposed the "survival of the fittest" or the most falsifiable of scientific theories.

Thomas Kuhn denied that it is ever possible isolate the theory being tested from the principles that govern observation. He argued that observations always depended on the "paradigm", a logically consistent "portrait" of the world that has no contradictions. When contradictions appear, we have a "paradigm shift".

There are two scientific approaches. One which modern western science favors and believes should be paramount is the deductive approach. In this approach, the experiments are designed to ferret out the mechanisms and principles underlying a phenomenon. Based on this, one then predicts other phenomena.

The second scientific approach is something that was practiced and referred to as natural science for many centuries. Called empirical science, this is the kind of science that Darwin practiced. He observed natural phenomena and interpreted the observations to state his understanding of the universe.

Constructionist and reductionist approaches complement each other and makes use of the empirical and deductive approaches. Constructionist or empirical science is needed to gather the initial data for the proposal of a theory and testable hypotheses. Deductionist or reductionist science establishes and tests the principles of the theory.

There has been much debate over scientific realism, i.e. the notion that the theoretical constructs that scientists make up to explain phenomena are real. So, for example, we have never seen an electron or neutron and only have indirect evidence of their existence. Their postulated existence is supported by data. But, does this mean that they exist? Some scientists think so but others are not so sure.

Many aspects of science started out as purely mental constructs. For example, string theory is something that a mathematician created but it may have some parallels with what is happening in the real world. To what extent do "strings" exist in nature? More important, to what extent do "strings" not only represent or describe phenomena in the real world but exist as real phenomena?

The acceptance of scientific knowledge as absolute is called scientism. Most experienced scientists, that I know, do not believe in scientific infallibility. In contrast, many non-scientists believe the infallibility of science and often call upon "science" to arbitrate theological or political disputes.

Science is just what a bunch of people try to do, to establish a view and theory of reality based on evidence. Given the same evidence, scientists disagree. They may not accept even the same principles. They have to work hard at achieving a "scientific consensus" in the same way that politicians achieve a "political consensus". Finally, the consensus is discarded when it no longer works.

Wise.

It is the dynamic nature of scientific "belief" that confuses and frightens some fundamentalist religious into declaring science an enemy. Unfortunately, the one true word has many authors. No wonder they need God appointed leaders to explain the symmetry of apparent contradictions.:confused:

Meanwhile, the damn scientists keep changing their minds every time they are proven wrong!;)

[Wise Young]

It is the dynamic nature of scientific "belief" that confuses and frightens some fundamentalist religious into declaring science an enemy. Unfortunately, the one true word has many authors. No wonder they need God appointed leaders to explain the symmetry of apparent contradictions.:confused:

Meanwhile, the damn scientists keep changing their minds every time they are proven wrong!;)

F.O.,

I have talked to many people who are fundamentalists. I don't think that many really know what they are opposing. It is usually some wierd fake version of science that their leadership makes up. Most of science is really quite mundane, looking for ways to solve problems.

For example, the stem cell problem is quite straightforward. How does a cell produce all these different kinds of cells and how is this regulated. Answers to this question will not only tell us how development occurs but also tell us how cancers arise. But, perhaps the best example of a recent paradigm shift in biology comes from spinal cord injury.

In spinal cord injury, the question was not obvious for a long time and therefore the answer could not be obtained. For years, scientists did not understand the problem. They thought that neurons and their axons simply stopped growing after development and the nervous system was fixed. Therefore, scientists simply denied that regeneration could occur.

In the 1970's and 1980's, the inability of the central nervous system to grow was blamed on the absence or insufficiency of growth factors. I still remember listening to a lecture by Hans Thoenen (the discover of brain-derived neurotrophic factor) saying that there must a central nervous sytem growth factor. He distilled 1000 kg of pig brain into a mg of protein that they partially sequenced and then used that sequence to fish out the gene. This was the first of a family of neurotrophins.

A company called Regeneron was formed to license all the patents to the neurotrophins and to take them all the clinical trials. Unfortunately, the growth factors themselves were not enough. In fact, neurotrophins turn out to be two-edged swords. In addition to stimulating growth and regeneration, they also stimulated apoptosis. As Dennis Choi pointed out in 1991, neurotrophins have a "dark side".

The appropriate question for regeneration question came backwards out of a separate phenomenon. Scientists and doctors have long known that peripheral nerves can regenerate. Since the dogma was that the central nervous system could not regenerate, the question became why can the peripheral nerve regenerate while the central nervous system cannot.

The breakthrough came in 1981 when David and Aguayo published ground-breaking paper in Science showing that central axons can regenerate when they are placed in a peripheral nerve environment. Suddenly, the onus for regeneration was taken off the neuron and placed on the environment of the growing axon.

Two decades of research later, we now know at least half a dozen molecules present in the central nervous system that will stop growing axons in their tracks. The first one that was discoverd was Nogo. Then there was chondroitin-6-proteoglycans (CSPG), myelin-associated glycoprotein (MAG), and oligodendroglial myelin glycoprotein (OMgp). Then there were all the cellular surface molecules, including semaphorins and ephrins.

Thus, the paradigm shift really came from looking at the environment of the spinal cord rather than looking at the ability of the axons to grow. It doesn't mean, however, that the first paradigm, i.e. growth factors, was wrong. It just meant that growth factors alone cannot do it.

By the mid-1990's, most scientists were convinced that the spinal cord can regenerate and the solution was to create an environment in the spinal cord that would support growth. The most recent studies suggest that the best regeneration occurred when the environment in the spinal cord supported axonal growth, there was sufficient growth factor stimulation, and the growth inhibitors in the rest of the spinal cord were blocked.

So, that is where we are right now.

Wise.

[Hellonwheels]

The word "theory" seems to confuse many people. Maybe there should be different words for things like Evolution & Relativity, for which abundant evidence has been amassed, and String Theory, which so far is purely hypothetical.

[rfbdorf]

...
There are two scientific approaches. One which modern western science favors and believes should be paramount is the deductive approach. In this approach, the experiments are designed to ferret out the mechanisms and principles underlying a phenomenon. Based on this, one then predicts other phenomena.

The second scientific approach is something that was practiced and referred to as natural science for many centuries. Called empirical science, this is the kind of science that Darwin practiced. He observed natural phenomena and interpreted the observations to state his understanding of the universe. I'd like to amplify that a little. One reason that Darwin followed the empirical path is that there was at that no recognized alternative - how could one possibly test the theory of evolution? We know now that there are any number of ways (including simulations). And I expect that once he formulated his ideas, based on one set of observations, he was probably elated to see that another set of observations confirmed the idea. That would really be very close to a deduction. Of course I can't say that Darwin would have performed any experiments had he been aware of their possibility!

Another example is astronomical - galaxies and their evolution. Hubble made a wonderful atlas of galaxies, and created a taxonomy based on their shapes (elliptical, spirals, barred spirals, etc.), with no idea about their true relationship. Subsequently, as the tools have been developed, astronomers have been able to transform those empirical observations into relationships based on deductive simulations using ideas about gravitation (including non - 1/R^2 behavior), radiation pressure, and proposed "unusual" things such as dark (not directly unobservable) matter, and dark energy. Of course, at this stage, completely satisfying theories of these things have not yet been constructed.

The empirical and deductive approaches are very tightly bound - science generally, and possibly necessarily, starts with empirical observations, and evolves towards the deductive approach as that becomes practical.

The empirical stage occurs when the knowledge or theories are not sufficiently advanced to make any predictions. With our collective experience of cause and effect, we are not satisfied with just saying "that's just the way things are" - there has to be a reason. In the absence of anything better, we would fall back on saying "it must be that way because a higher being made it" or "it happens by magic."

As the understanding develops, the deductive stage takes over and the and the theories evolve, based on other knowledge. Another example of this is the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram of star color vs. brightness (temperature vs. luminosity), originally purely empirical. The discovery of radioactivity, together with the later invention of computers, greatly facilitated the development of the understanding of stellar evolution, from the initlal, purely thermodynamic, models of the later 1800s, to the present relatively complete ideas. But somewhere before the initial models were postulated, there was the realization that the stars are explicable phenomena, not gods or angels watching over us.

...
Many aspects of science started out as purely mental constructs. For example, string theory is something that a mathematician created but it may have some parallels with what is happening in the real world. To what extent do "strings" exist in nature? More important, to what extent do "strings" not only represent or describe phenomena in the real world but exist as real phenomena? Does it matter? If one theory explains something better than another theory does, it is valid, at least until it is replaced by a yet better one. So I don't really care if strings "exist," as I don't think it matters. If it seems to work for now, good.

The Bohr theory of the atom has caused a lot of confusion! It explains lot of things (e.g., many things about spectra) surprisingly well, but very early on it was recognized that it is a gross simplification, and it unfortunately conveys a number of quite false impressions (e.g., little electrons orbiting like planets around the nucleus) that have stuck in people’s minds..

...The acceptance of scientific knowledge as absolute is called scientism. Most experienced scientists, that I know, do not believe in scientific infallibility. In contrast, many non-scientists believe the infallibility of science and often call upon "science" to arbitrate theological or political disputes. Good points. An example of the first is the above-mentioned string theory, which I very much doubt (based on nothing more than my gut feeling) is “correct.” We see the confusion about infallibility of science in the way that fundamentalists refer to evolution as “Darwinism,” as if it involves some kind of religion - that is, based on faith rather than observation. So not only is there the problem that many perceive science as infallible, but also the problem that many people perceive scientists as perceiving science to be infallible.

- Richard