I would say the point that you are missing is the point which you already made in your quote below: religion does not turn people into mindless slaves; they are quite capable of thinking for themselves. People can choose to be mindless slaves if they so wish--to anything: a political ideal, nationalism, capitalism, etc.--not just religion. You seem to blame religion for people's tendencies to want simple answers and to blindly follow authority, but I blame human nature for that.

Criticizing things that are wrong is fine. No, it is not okay for people to hate homosexuals or deny them equal rights to other people--and it is particularly wrong to do so on the basis of one's religious beliefs. The people that do so claim their religion forbids this, but when you look at the issue closely you find that really this view is at odds with what, for instance, the religion actually preaches. The original message has been twisted to suit the needs of those who want some sort of justification for their hate.

For instance, I'm not a Biblical scholar myself, but I do know that the passages the right-wing Christians quote when they denounce homosexuality are vague at best, and certainly any interpretation that calls for violence against homosexuals flies in the face of the dominant message of the Bible which is summed up by the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you (which I've been fascinated to find exists in one form or another in every single one of the major world religions--including the Far Eastern ones).

But even going beyond the actual messages of the major religions, I think you are unintentionally ignoring the great benefits that religious belief provides to society (and the individual worshipers themselves)--the community building, the volunteer work, the social work, and the spiritual fortitude provided in times of challenge. Religion changes people, and in my experience that change is almost always for the better--a change away from being self-centered to thinking about others. A change away from separating oneself from society to participating in making it better. And most importantly, a change towards happiness. I am not claiming religion is the sole method of bringing about these changes--only that I haven't seen you acknowledge them in any of your posts about religion.

You are free to believe what you like--in no way am I saying you must subscribe to a particular religion. However, I think it is always better to keep an open mind. Several of your posts have come across as degrading to religious people--as if you are somehow smarter than they are or more enlightened or figured out some secret that they haven't yet. I just want to point out that it is probably just as annoying for you when some (misguided) religious person looks at you in pity because you don't subscribe to their particular religion. Such attitudes I think foster only more misunderstandings and division. Approaching things with an open mind and engaging in respectful dialogue, I believe, is the way to bring about peace between the many divisions we see in the world around us. That means acknowledging, and not belittling, others points of view.

So, when I said "I think you're missing out," I meant several things. I think if you talked sincerely with some moderately religious people, you'd find they're not all insane zealots who blindly follow what their religious teacher or text tells them--that religion is indeed a living, breathing, social construct. I think you'd see a lot more of the positive things that religion can bring to both individuals and society. And if you're studying the world's major religions and philosophies and thinking about how you can use the messages they contain to make the world a better place, then in my opinion you are practicing religion. The dominant message I see in the world's major religious traditions is that we should continue to improve ourselves and the world around us (through, for one example, forgiveness). If believing in something supernatural helps people take that message to heart, I'm not convinced it is such a bad thing.

In reply to this comment by BicycleRepairMan:
In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:


I'm guessing they decide the exact same way I decide. By thinking for themselves.

Your video, Richard Dawkins meets Stephen Hawking, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

What? No gratitude for the promote.

Your video, Carl Sagan: A Universe Not Made For Us, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Successfully processed your "amazon" invocation - view all Amazonized posts here

Your video, Homeopathy technobabble orgie, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 1 Badge!

Your video, Karl Pilkington: An Idiot Abroad, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your video, Brian Cox: Why we need explorers, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Congrats on the 4 years, you old dog.

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 4 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

First off, thanks for replying. I enjoy these conversations. They give me lots of great things to think about and explore.

Now, I think you unintentionally changed my argument. My argument wasn't "How does science explain why I like sugar?" I know people like sugary foods already. My point was that science cannot tell me why it is that of all the yummy flavors of ice cream out there, I like chocolate chip mint best. This, by the way, is not a technical limitation of science. Science can, as you noted in your post, provide an explanation as to why I prefer eating ice cream to say, spinach. It can indeed tell me about all the processes that occur in my brain (which areas get activated, what chemicals get released, etc.) when I eat chocolate chip mint ice cream. The problem is that these processes will not be the same for all people who eat chocolate chip mint ice cream.

So what we have here, then, are people experiencing that same exact objective event--we're all eating the same ice cream--and getting different results. Science is utterly unprepared to deal with this situation. Science only works in a situation in which objective knowledge can be obtained. It shouldn't matter who is doing the measuring--you should get the same result. Yet in this situation, we have multiple people "measuring" (ie tasting ice cream) and getting different results depending on the person.

To truly answer the question of why I like chocolate chip mint best, we are forced to refer to subjective knowledge and explore my personal life history up to this point, including things like my experiences, feelings, attitudes, likes and dislikes, etc. These things cannot be measured. How do you measure an experience? How could you possibly understand what I meant by without being me--having access to all of my memories, thoughts, feelings, EVERYTHING that is me? The answer is simple: you couldn't. I could explain to you in crude terms that I like chocolate chip mint better than chocolate chip by only a little bit, but you will never be able to "know" exactly what I mean "by only a little bit" (without being me, that is).

Your argument is that this problem is simply a technical matter, but I'm curious if you've taken that view to its logical conclusion--that we have no free will and are simply automatons that function at the whim of electrical impulses and chemical reactions in the brain. If science truly could explain to me why I like chocolate chip mint ice cream over say pistachio without taking into account my subjective experiences, then subjective experiences would have no meaning at all. Is that really what you're suggesting?

Let me next address a couple of unspoken assumptions you made in your reply to me. One seems to be that people of faith stop searching for answers because they believe in a god or higher power. But here clearly we have significant counter-evidence to your belief--namely in the vast number of scientists who are also believers in some religion (see this article). As scientists, they must continue to look for answers and re-evaluate new evidence as it arises, which seems to run counter to your assumption.

Another assumption seems to be that science and "rational thinking" makes people less likely to believe in religion. Again, see the previous article, which shows the percentage of scientists believe in religion hasn't changed so much despite the advances in science from 1916 to 1997 (when the second study was done). Are there religious people who are closed-minded and refuse to re-evaluate new evidence as it arises? Absolutely. But that is not a characteristic of many religious people and therefore your assumption would be an over-generalization.

Now, on to your next assumption--that no one will cry over the loss of dark matter. While I agree that in an ideal world, this would be true, I think you and I can agree the world we live in would be far from ideal. Science takes a great deal of time to change. The very skepticism that science holds so dear also puts the brakes on quick change in consensus within the scientific community. People will refuse to change their beliefs quickly. Experimental data will be checked and re-checked and I'm sure criticisms will be made about experiment design and other factors. Few experiments are performed that are so well designed as to be able to defy criticism. Skepticism doesn't just require evidence for belief, it requires overwhelming evidence and hence any change will be slow (there are still scientists arguing against global warming).

Ironically, I think you could look at religious people as reverse-skeptics. Where a skeptic will not believe anything without overwhelming evidence to support it, a religious person will not change their belief in something without overwhelming evidence that the belief is wrong. And this, I suppose, is the main reason why skeptics and believers simply cannot agree with each other. There is not enough (I would say any, actually) reliable evidence (objective or subjective) to convince either side. How could there be? Most skeptics discount subjective knowledge (their own included) right from the start. Everyone is arguing over apples and oranges.

Now, by all means, when someone says the world is 6000 years old, or that Jesus walked with dinosaurs, or that evolution is "just a theory," by all means take these people to task. They're wandering about in the realm of objective knowledge where science reigns supreme. But when someone says they believe in something (religion, Democracy, volunteering, world peace, whatever), demanding they show objective evidence of their belief and ridiculing them if they can't meet your arbitrary standard of proof (science requires overwhelming evidence, but there's no clear definition of how much is enough) is just plain wrong in my opinion.

In reply to this comment by BicycleRepairMan:
Perhaps, but no religious apologist I've ever heard has managed to convince me of that. Thats my whole point. If a believer came to me saying something like "we have independent statistics showing a significant benefit of prayer among cancer patients", that would be the kind of thing that might make me admit that belief in god was a rational and logical decision.

To your point about chocolate preference, I wouldn't be as sure, it may be a technical limitation rather than an absolute one. We already know why people tend to like chocolate, for instance (evolved sugar craving) its a tad more tricky to find out the specifics of your particular taste, but if we fully understood every detail of the brain, it might not be impossible, even without actually being you. Either way, Chocolate is a perfect example of how our subjective experience fails us: Because our ancestors lived in environments where sugar was a rarity, our bodies treat every carbohydrate molecule like it was the jackpot, basically our bodies telling us "Sugar in large quantities is great for you" Well its not, and thats a perfect example of how objective knowledge and scientific thinking always prevail over the subjective assumptions we make.

Which brings me to the point about the sun moving across the sky, which is again were science triumphs: Yes, the default assumption was that the sun, moon and stars moved around the earth, but the important part of the story is that as scientists and curious apes as we are, we arent happy just making assumptions and stop there, we keep investigating, as we will do with dark matter, it may be the best assumption we currently have, but thats not the important thing, the important thing about science is that we keep trying to figure out exactly whats going on, and if that means scrapping the whole idea about dark matter, no scientist will shed a tear, (just like we didnt when it turned out we werent the center of the universe) we will rejoice in our deeper understanding of things.

>> ^SDGundamX:

What you see as a leap-of-faith may be to the experiencer a perfectly rational and logical decision.

Regardless of the fact that it is based on reasoning, it still is, in fact, a guess. Evidence suggesting dark matter exists does not prove the existence of dark matter (as is evidenced by the other competing theories). 2000 years ago evidence suggested the sun revolved around the Earth. At the time, that was a reasonable explanation given the evidence--the apparent motion of the sun in the sky--even though it wasn't actually the truth. I am not suggesting dark matter won't be proven (ie measured or detected) someday. I am suggesting that science allows for belief in unproven things--so long as that belief is based on reasoning and logic.

To take it one step further, I am also suggesting that many religious people base their beliefs on reasoning and logic. However, unlike science, most people, when making decisions about their beliefs (any belief, not just religious attitude), do not restrict themselves to objective evidence. Science limits itself arbitrarily to the objective realm, despite the fact that we as humans have access to both objective and subjective knowledge about the world.

The limitation to objective knowledge is necessary for science because the whole point of science is to explore the physical properties of the universe--to acquire objective knowledge. Science dismisses out of hand subjective knowledge. The problem is that we have access to both types of knowledge and indeed use both types of knowledge in making decisions. Just to give one example of the limitations of science, science can tell me all about the processes that occur in my brain when I eat chocolate chip mint ice cream but it cannot answer the question of why I think chocolate chip ice cream is the best. The processes in my brain are objective knowledge that does not require "being me" to be understood. Truly understanding why I believe chocolate chip mint ice cream is the best, on the other hand, can only occur if you are able to actually be me for a moment and experience it yourself. Since that's not possible, the only in-between is for me to describe in words how it makes me feel--a clumsy method, to be sure, and one which is unlikely to convince you chocolate chip mint is the best if you favor a different flavor.

So, while science claims that there is no objective evidence to support someone's belief in a particular religion, that person can offer their own subjective experiences as evidence for why they believe. The fact that science cannot deal with subjective experience as evidence is a limitation of science and not a limitation of the mental faculties of the person who believes. The fact that such subjective experiences are not convincing to others is a limitation of not being able to experience what the other person has experienced (and possibly a limitation of the communication skills of the speaker). A believer in a particular religion most likely has evidence (both objective and subjective) to support their position. They may not have enough objective evidence to meet science's rigorous standards, but that doesn't mean their belief is unreasonable or illogical. What you see as a leap-of-faith may be to the experiencer a perfectly rational and logical decision.

NOTE: This is not to say that there cannot exist religious believers who are unreasonable or illogical. They can and do exist. I am merely pointing out that science cannot be used to measure the validity of viewpoints like "Chocolate chip mint is the best ice cream" or "I believe in Christianity" [which I don't, by the way].

In reply to this comment by BicycleRepairMan:
SDGundamX: I think you misunderstand what I was trying to do with that post. I had thought that ponceleon's objection of religion (and religious people) was "faith"--believing in something for which there is no "proof" (as defined as something that can be scientifically measured or tested) for their beliefs. I brought up dark matter to point out that science itself does not always have such proof.



I dont think I misunderstood what you attempted to do, but I think you failed to show that scientists make the same kinds of leap-of-faith as religion does. My whole point about dark matter is that there IS evidence that strongly suggests that it exists, its not just about scientists throwing out a guess. Infact, we wouldnt even have the concept of dark matter in science at all, if it wasnt for all the evidence.

So even tho we cant see or measure the dark matter, assuming that it exists is a reasonable and logical thing to do, its precisely not "faith" like you need to believe in God.

Your video, Dawkins to Imam: What is the penalty for leaving Islam?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your video, Thunderf00t vs Islam, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Ah yes, I saw that when I posted, but left it to gather some votes. Was a shame it was stuck in a PQ. If no one else gets around to duping, I'll do it tomorrow, to let it ride out the top 15. Great talk.

In reply to this comment by BicycleRepairMan:
dupe, I tried sifting this a few days ago, didnt fare as well : http://videosift.com/video/James-Randi-on-TED-a-fiery-takedown-of-psychic-fraud