> On Apr 11, 10:53 am, "Is there at least one Republican who thinks
>
>
>
> independently?" gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Apr 11, 7:39 am, Jerry Kraus yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>>> During the debate over Global Warming over the past few years --
>>> largely dissipated now, since the world had its coldest winter in 100
>>> years -- I noticed a rather striking characteristic of many of the
>>> debators on the Global Warming side of the issue. They weren't really
>>> debating. They were screaming. They were denouncing. They were
>>> emoting. They appeared to have an emotional investment in the issue
>>> far out of proportion not only to the rather questionable factual base
>>> supporting the concept of global warming, but to any possible
>>> practical implications of global warming even if -- as appears not to
>>> be the case -- their facts had been accurate. The notion that global
>>> warming might not be important appeared to cause them actual physical
>>> pain, to the point of inducing madness.

>

>>> At the time, I thought that, perhaps, this reflected the development
>>> of a new kind of religion based on nature worship and
>>> environmentalism, perhaps focused on the International Green Party,
>>> and harkening back to the nature worship of the Druids and the
>>> polytheists. It appeared to have a fundamentally irrational basis,
>>> indifferent to scientific reality logic or fact, attaching great
>>> emotional significance to powerful totemistic symbols such as the
>>> Nobel Prize and "scientific concensus" without any real interest in
>>> whether they reflected any fundamental, underlying reality.

>

>>> Lately, I have been debating so-called, self described "atheists".
>>> Peronally, I doubt it is possible to truly be an atheist: we all have
>>> to believe in something, after all. We all must have some sense of
>>> purpose, if only to feed our bellies. Some may have a more complex
>>> sense of purpose and structure to things than others, but, we all have
>>> some sense of structure and purpose. In the case of modern, American
>>> "atheists", this structure and purpose is what they call "science".
>>> It has, of course, nothing to do with "science" in the normal sense of
>>> the term, which is the pursuit of knowledge. Rather, it represents an
>>> attempt to find a simple solution to the complexities of life, by
>>> assuming that if something called the "scientific method" is applied
>>> to them, all complexities will, magically, disappear, and everything
>>> will be simple and clear, easily understood and controlled.

>

>>> "Great Scientists" are perceived by these "atheists" as Saints and
>>> Martyrs to humanity, above and beyond all material and practical
>>> considerations, Saviours to humanity. Exactly who these people are,
>>> or why, is not well understood. Many Nobel Prize winners would,
>>> presumably qualify, since the Nobel Prize is one of their great
>>> totemistic symbols. Many University Professors would also qualify,
>>> since Universities are another of their totemistic symbols. They
>>> would be less inclined to support professional scientists working in
>>> Industry, because they see Business as evil, and are somewhat
>>> socialistic in their leanings. But, some inventors would qualify, as
>>> well.

>

>>> Whence comes this new religion, and why? I would suggest that it is
>>> related to the current social and economic difficulties in the United
>>> States, and is largely an American phenomenon. People are looking for
>>> simple solutions, and science and technology have, in the past,
>>> provided solutions. But, rather than focusing on actual progress in
>>> science -- which is difficult and complex -- the intention is to focus
>>> on the symbols of science as an emotionally reassuring manifestation
>>> of progress, whether any progress is actually made or not.

>

>>> I suspect we are at something of a watershed in Science, at the
>>> moment, and this religious manifestation indicates the likelihood of a
>>> fundamental change in the way science is done. Computer technologies
>>> allow the control and analysis of such huge quantities of data, now,
>>> that some systematic method of selection, evaluation and
>>> interpretation beyond conventional peer review and committee methods
>>> is necessary. Some truly "scientific" method of determining which
>>> data is important, and why.

>

>> You have made several errors in your post, the first being that it was
>> the Republicans who first started the screaming when the scientists
>> started predicting global warming. It wasn't the warming that
>> bothered the Republicans. It was the theorized reason for the warming
>> that made the Republicans go into hissy fits. The scientists were
>> studying the data and make predictions without any political motives.
>> The Republican response was all about politics.

>

>> Secondly, science isn't a religion. Science is a system of evolving
>> theories based upon observable data why religion is a dogmatic set of
>> beliefs based not on observable data but upon the voice of god or
>> angels or some other mythical being imparting "wisdom."

>

>> Your "truly scientific method of determing which data is important and
>> why" is already built into the system. Scientists construct theories
>> from data and then use more data to determine if the theory is
>> accurate. Unlike religious dogma, scientific theories are tested
>> rigorously against data by thousands of scientists. Scientists don't
>> ignore data if that data doesn't fit the theory. Instead, the theory
>> is thrown out or modified if it doesn't fit the data. In religion,
>> the dogma never changes so the data has to be changed or tossed out or
>> ignored. Science goes from data to idea. Religion goes from idea to
>> data.

>

>> Lastly, atheists aren't in search of something to replace god. That's
>> the misperception of people who believe in a god. I started out in
>> life as a Christian who loved science. Even as a young boy, I could
>> see the fundamental differences between science and religion. I
>> became an atheist once my mind started thinking logically. It wasn't
>> the theory of evolution or of the Big Bang that turned me towards
>> atheism. It was cold, logical reasoning. I used my understanding of
>> science and logic upon proving or disproving god. I quickly
>> determined for myself that god couldn't be disproved through logic.
>> But I also knew that god couldn't be proven, either. So, left with
>> the conclusion that god couldn't be either proven or disproved, I
>> chose to not believe in god until proof of its existence made itself
>> available to me.

>

>> There was a time, a couple of millenniums ago, that religion was a
>> science. God or gods were a theory explaining how the universe
>> worked. Over time, these "theories" became religious dogma,
>> unyielding to observations. These theories were considered the truth
>> and all observations were made to fit this truth.

>

>> This cannot happen to science as long as theories have to stand up to
>> observations.- Hide quoted text -

>

>> - Show quoted text -

>
> You are oversimplifying on a number of levels, because of your
> religious attachment to conventional scientific thinking. True
> science is, as you say, not a religion. But, saying that conventional
> approaches to the pursuit of science are perfect, forever, and cannot
> be improved upon in any way, ever, is religious thinking. It is blind
> faith. It assumes that conventional approaches are perfect, and, of
> course, nothing is. You are turning conventional science into a
> religion by this approach. Theologians would call it idolatry. Ask
> them, if you don't believe me.
>
> Obviously, given the enormous amount of data currently being analyzed,
> some improvements could be made in our technology of analyzing and
> understanding it. Just saying "it must stand up to scrutiny" means
> absolutely nothing. Scrutiny can be more or less systematic, more or
> less "scientific". That is the issue.