Are You Open-minded?

[Shawn R. L.]

Originally posted by No Such Agency

Originally posted by Shawn R. L.
Seems that open minded is defined by agreeing with scientific conclusions. Sad to limit the openness so severely.......or am I being intolerant?

I think the whole point of the video was that for a lot of people, being open-minded means agreeing with THEM about whatever they think is out there.

That\'s basically what I\'m saying. And I am a BIG fan of science.

The fellow who isn\'t \'of science\' is a simplistic sketch of what someone who has faith is like - unable and unwilling to think. A straw man they set up to knock down.
Science is now used with force to exclude, minimize and ridicule faith, as in the video. I have almost no talent at debating but have heard enough to know that there are many solid arguments, and yes, scientific answers to much of the derision that is aimed at Christianity.

Scientists generally understand that personal faith is not really within our realm, but we are sick of being told we\'re \"closed-minded\" simply because we ask questions and ask for proof when someone makes an assertion about the material world, especially if that assertion involves something which seemingly goes against well-established principles of physics, chemistry etc.

Again, I agree, albeit from one who includes faith along with science, not excluding science.

So you are perfectly free to disagree with scientific conclusions.

When Newton was investigating the movement of the planets, he quite clearly saw the hand of God at work. He wrote:

‘This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. … This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called “Lord God” , or “Universal Ruler”. … The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect.’2........Issac Newton

ps. it does take open mindedness to practice faith.

 

[Ritual]

It is perfectly possible to combine scientific thinking and religious beliefs. All it takes is a willingness to be open-minded and not too strict about every single thing that is written in the religious texts. You can believe in the \"big picture\" of a certain religion, without having to believe in every single sentence that is written down. Science can not, and for the most part, have no desire to go into the realms of deities, spirits etc. simply because they can not be subject to the scientific method. Thus, no scientist can ever prove or disprove the existance of gods or such. Certain specific claims from the Bible or other texts can be disproven or made unlikely, but not the overall idea of Chrisianity or other beliefs.

When I studied physics at university I met several religious people who felt no conflict whatsoever between Christian belief and particle physics, or cosmology or whatever field of physics they were into. There were even people who became religious after having studied physics for decades.

The only problem, as I see it, are those people who reject science as a whole, just because they rather believe every single word in the Bible (or other religious text, or political manifestos, new age theories, etc.) and cannot accept anything that questions even the least significant parts for whatever reason.

 

[Trevor]

I have quite an open mind and I\'m willing to have my opinion changed, but being a scientist I like evidence and lots of it.

I\'m therefore incredibly skeptical and don\'t tend to believe anything.

I find as I get older my beliefs become less and less set in stone.

 

[Shawn R. L.]

Originally posted by Ritual

The only problem, as I see it, are those people who reject science as a whole, just because they rather believe every single word in the Bible (or other religious text, or political manifestos, new age theories, etc.) and cannot accept anything that questions even the least significant parts for whatever reason.

I wish I could communicate that I\'m not trying to \'get into it\' by responding to this. Just commenting.

What you\'ve said here is the same thing that frustrates me. The total rejection of one vs the other. What I\'ve seen is just what you\'re talking about. In the context of this thread and specifically the little video, faith is simply brushed aside....sometime with force.
. It has cut both ways too. Religion trying to suppress science and while not specifically science, for lack of a better term, humanism trying to suppress religion. Seems to be part of the human condition, no matter one\'s \'take\' on life, to have the tendency to try to force others see things our way.

 

[freakinacage]

Originally posted by Shawn R. L.
In the context of this thread and specifically the little video, faith is simply brushed aside....sometime with force.

aaah thats the problem though isn\'t it? as you said, religion requires open mindedness. after all faith is belief WITHOUT proof

 

[Ritual]

@Shawn
There are certainly fractions who work very actively agains religious beliefs in the name of science, but to me that is hardly what science is about. Science is about studying those things that can be studied using the scientific method (studying, describing and explaining repeatable observations). In my opinion, religious beliefs lies outside of that.

I get the feeling that a lot of people have the idea that scientists are some sort of secular fundamentalists believing that what they do is \"The Law\". But, it certainly doesn\'t work like that. Scientists constantly criticise and pull apart the theories of other scientists. That\'s a necessary thing for science to evolve. Of course, there are \"bad scientists\" and people who have too high opinions of themselves, as in any other group of individuals, but that doesn\'t change the fact that their ideas will be criticised and scrutinised just as everything else. Every single scientist with his or her feet on the ground knows that what they do is creating models for how things work. A model may be added to, changed, or scrapped completely depending on how well it works and what new discoveries are made that the model might not explain.

I think what makes strongly religious people frustrated is that some of the things that the Bible (or other religious text) says actually CAN be disproven or made unlikely through science (it can be historical facts, for instance). That doesn\'t mean that their entire belief is \"brushed aside\", only that certain facts in that text are probably incorrect. If the fact that through science we have strong reasons to believe that the earth is a lot older than some 6-7000 years makes some people discard every piece of scientific knowledge, that to me is sad. More so, since I know plenty of people who have no problem with combining Christian beliefs and belief in science.

 

[Shawn R. L.]

Originally posted by freakinacage
aaah that\'s the problem though isn\'t it? as you said, religion requires open mindedness. after all faith is belief WITHOUT proof

.
Welll......yes and no. My older brother has helped me in explaining that in the original Greek, faith and trust were often interchangeable. I have found faith a amorphous term to get my mind around yet trust was something I could understand in a more practical way.
Walking in faith/trust doesn\'t necessarily REQUIRE the lack of proof - proof as in numbers, touching or measuring with an instrument....something I can quantify with human abilities. That said, I will make choices TRUSTING in the reliability and character of God.
.
.

Originally posted by Ritual
@Shawn
There are certainly fractions who work very actively against religious beliefs in the name of science, but to me that is hardly what science is about. Science is about studying those things that can be studied using the scientific method (studying, describing and explaining repeatable observations). In my opinion, religious beliefs lies outside of that.
.
I would go 50/50 on that one. I do agree that what I talk about when discussing faith and walking by faith is partially outside scientific parameters.
I get the sense that we are agreeing more than disagreeing. It\'s the exclusivity that both sides have shown that is where the rub comes in. I don\'t think science and faith are automatically mutually exclusive. The supernatural is one where I would think science will never be able to quantify, nonetheless I\'m convinced it\'s real. There are some things I won\'t budge on, even in the face of ridicule, and there is MUCH that I will freely admit that I don\'t know.......but....that doesn\'t automatically discount faith in general or the Word of God.
.
I get the feeling that a lot of people have the idea that scientists are some sort of secular fundamentalists believing that what they do is \"The Law\". But, it certainly doesn\'t work like that. Scientists constantly criticise and pull apart the theories of other scientists. That\'s a necessary thing for science to evolve. Of course, there are \"bad scientists\" and people who have too high opinions of themselves, as in any other group of individuals, but that doesn\'t change the fact that their ideas will be criticised and scrutinised just as everything else. Every single scientist with his or her feet on the ground knows that what they do is creating models for how things work. A model may be added to, changed, or scrapped completely depending on how well it works and what new discoveries are made that the model might not explain.
.
We\'re on the same page there. From what I\'ve seen there can be a similar \'blinkered\' view of things from the scientific half. Science is more and more viewed as paramount and the conclusions of science are the final word. A lot of scientific conclusions I have heard as disproving the Bible I simply take a wait and see what pan\'s out attitude. Many of the proofs that I have heard of to discount the accuracy of the Bible have later, through science - archeology - been proven wrong. One that was used was a ruler of Egypt that the Bible talks about that couldn\'t be found in Egyptian linage......till it was dug up. I can\'t rattle off a ton of stuff but I\'ve heard enough to be sure that the Bible is factual and reliable. Like I said earlier, I\'m rotten when it comes to debating and can in no way go \'toe to toe\'. I\'m not at all looking for a fight, just a chance to explain as best I can some detail behind someone who is often in the media portrayed in cartoonish/buffonish/boorish fashon.
.
I think what makes strongly religious people frustrated is that some of the things that the Bible (or other religious text) says actually CAN be disproven or made unlikely through science (it can be historical facts, for instance). That doesn\'t mean that their entire belief is \"brushed aside\", only that certain facts in that text are probably incorrect.

Mostly agree. It seems like we\'re describing mirror images. Just as some Christians can be VERY narrow, conversly (I\'m not trying to accuse you here, just explain the \'mirror\') I see dogmatic faith that is now put in science BY SOME. I\'ve seen a whole lotta extrapolatin\' in science - \'we found A and B, thus Z squared is obvious!\' And frequently it get\'s tied to \'well, this proves there is no God or some such. A type of elitism viewing us believers as uneducated, backwards and stubbornly ignorant and, again, I\'m a big fan of science. The History Channel and TLC ROCK!! If I put my faith in something that science says otherwise about it\'s not that I have shut my brain off, it\'s that I know that we humans are limited and while \'all that we know is all that we know\', what we know doesn\'t necessarilly mean we know EVERYTHING.

If the fact that through science we have strong reasons to believe that the earth is a lot older than some 6-7000 years makes some people discard every piece of scientific knowledge, that to me is sad.

In 1642, Dr. John Lightfoot wrote that man was created at 9:00 a.m., and in 1644, he wrote that the world was created on Sunday, September 12, 3928. In 1650, the Irish Archbishop, James Ussher, published his computations that the world was created on Sunday, October 23rd, 4004, beginning at sunset of the 22nd.


To me, this is silly. I would imagine one could come up with whatever you like if you twist scripture into enough of a pretzel. From what I have heard fro people who have studied scripture way more than I have, such things as when the Bible says things being created in a day, in the original text the term day could mean an actual day and it could also mean an epoch or era. This is the kind of thing that I would simply say I don\'t know and maybe will never know.

More so, since I know plenty of people who have no problem with combining Christian beliefs and belief in science.

.

 

[funnymouth]

science is not a belief system, but a methodology of study to gain empirical information about existence. religion is .... something else (blind faith in a higher power as a vehicle for the social construct of \"morality\"?)

to be blunt:
there is no scientific validity to religious \"explanations\" of the physical universe.

the earth rotates around the sun, the earth is billions of years old, and organisms evolve.

the factual evidence is insurmountable. i have no doubt that these concepts are the best approximation of \"the truth\" as we have. i accept them as fact, but the are not immutable. as more information comes to light, the concepts will be modified.

that being said: you cannot prove the non-existence of something (god, heaven, hell) and the concept of morality is wholly distinct from that of science, but it is still VERY relevant, and more important than ever (especially as it governs scientific research). there is a place for spirituality and religion, and this is it.

\"new age science\" makes me sick even thinking about it. its a repulsive bastardization that has more in common with cults than science (offense intended); based upon wildly ridiculous and unsupported claims of causality. do not mistake this BS for the belief systems of actual scientists (or intelligent people). ossessed:


nod to shawn: you are quite right about implied causality, its a dangerous, reckless, and irresponsible claim unless you have explicit proof of a \"necessary and sufficient\" relationship.

it may be harsh, but thats how i see it.

 

[No Such Agency]

Originally posted by funnymouth
\"new age science\" makes me sick even thinking about it. its a repulsive bastardization that has more in common with cults than science (offense intended); based upon wildly ridiculous and unsupported claims of causality.

Well that sort of thing (by which I assume you include homeopathic \"medicines\", as well as many other things which are marketed and sold using scientific-sounding claims and language, but are wholly unsupported by proper, controlled research) IS cult-like in that questioning anything that is claimed is actively discouraged, and results in accusations of negativity or even conspiracy. People WANT to believe that these things all work, with no side effects or need to consult a doctor... because it\'s easier* to jump on the latest supplement or detox that\'s advertised in Alive magazine, than to make tough long-term lifestyle choices and take effective meds which may also have side-effects.

I am convinced that the majority of this phenomenon is simple snake-oil sales, and the peddlers of it would simply use whatever language of the day would result in the most sales. In the middle ages they would have called it Holy curative water of Lourdes... now they call it homeopathics. Many of the snake oil salespeople have convinced themselves it\'s valid, but that makes it no less fraudulent.

 

[uberdark]

Originally posted by No Such Agency

Originally posted by funnymouth
\"new age science\" makes me sick even thinking about it. its a repulsive bastardization that has more in common with cults than science (offense intended); based upon wildly ridiculous and unsupported claims of causality.

Well that sort of thing (by which I assume you include homeopathic \"medicines\", as well as many other things which are marketed and sold using scientific-sounding claims and language, but are wholly unsupported by proper, controlled research) IS cult-like in that questioning anything that is claimed is actively discouraged, and results in accusations of negativity or even conspiracy. People WANT to believe that these things all work, with no side effects or need to consult a doctor... because it\'s easier* to jump on the latest supplement or detox that\'s advertised in Alive magazine, than to make tough long-term lifestyle choices and take effective meds which may also have side-effects.

I am convinced that the majority of this phenomenon is simple snake-oil sales, and the peddlers of it would simply use whatever language of the day would result in the most sales. In the middle ages they would have called it Holy curative water of Lourdes... now they call it homeopathics. Many of the snake oil salespeople have convinced themselves it\'s valid, but that makes it no less fraudulent.

ok so i am going to have to play devils advocate on this. while some....heck many of these things are trite and lack any semblance of medicinal appeal, some do work. homeopathic medicines that are herbal based in some senses DO help people. just like when people in mayan culture used to chew on the cocoa leaf for pleasure or for numbing a sore tooth. these things do lie in some semblance of truth. and then you have to question truth at the same time. what is truth in all its entirity. truth is subjective. i have seen plenty of people that took certain herbal remedies that were baseless and they still induced the healing effects. much like the power of the mind, these things can make an herbal concoction believable. it is simply faith that people put into certain things and it goes to show that the power of the mind does hold true to many things. my aunt eventually died from lung cancer, and in the end she tried many different things, hoping for a cure. many of the things she did were a joke, but she believed it and for a time she did get better, spiritually if not a little bit physcially. thats all i am saying. to berate something and say it hold no merit at all is just silly and honestly a bit close-minded. lol

 

[No Such Agency]

Originally posted by uberdark
ok so i am going to have to play devils advocate on this. while some....heck many of these things are trite and lack any semblance of medicinal appeal, some do work.

And as a scientist, I say \"prove it\". You (the general \"you\" here) can take horny goat weed or echinacea or St. John\'s Wort all day, for all I care, if YOU think it works. But if you are selling it or promoting it to others and making medicinal claims... you had better have proof that it does what you claim it does, and is safe. And proof does not mean positive testimonials or anecdotes, it means experiments with the proper controls etc. to ensure that what you think is happening is actually happening.

Imagine I sell a sugar pill to cure dehydration, and I instruct people to take it three times a day with 500 ml of water each time to wash it down. My remedy may work... but it sure isn\'t doing what I claim it\'s doing.

truth is subjective. i have seen plenty of people that took certain herbal remedies that were baseless and they still induced the healing effects. much like the power of the mind, these things can make an herbal concoction believable. it is simply faith that people put into certain things and it goes to show that the power of the mind does hold true to many things.

The mind does have power over the body, and positive/negative mindset can have some health effects. This has been shown by medical science, it\'s called the Placebo Effect. But truth is not \"subjective\". The physical basis of the universe is consistent between me and you and everyone else, and that includes pharmaceutical effects etc. This is why I remain skeptical about things like homeopathy... until somebody shows me proof!

And science does study these issues. for example, a randomized controlled trial of surgery patients (published in one of the world\'s most respected medical journals, Lancet) showed that prayer had no significant effect on medical outcome - when the patient did not know whether or not they were being prayed for. Incidentally, the experimenters had hundreds of religious congregants from a number of major world religions praying for the patients by name, which makes a lot of my research seem like a cakewalk in comparison

\"Show me the money, Jerry!\" That\'s all I ask.

 

[uberdark]

but why prove things? seriously, so many people have to have proof to believe something. but look at o.j. only circumstantial. hehe. seriously though, in life many of these things dont need to be proven to work.... it is part of the mind. now when it comes to having something that can actually hurt something then that is something different. but you are closing off the ability of some of these medicinal purposes, by just saying to prove things. we dont need to prove everything in the world. if everything is known and proven, then truly what would be the purpose of life.

 

[Ritual]

Things don\'t have to be directly dangerous to be able to cause serious damage. If, for instance, a sick person choses to believe in a form of treatment that has no proven effect, but the substances or treatment themselves are not dangerous, the person can suffer injuries by NOT chosing a method of treatment that is proven to be efficient.

And, should we just accept that people sell stuff that most likely have no effect whatsoever to sick people? If proper scientific research show that the treatments have no effect at all, should we accept that people make a living out of selling them to sick people?

 

[No Such Agency]

Originally posted by Ritual
Things don\'t have to be directly dangerous to be able to cause serious damage. If, for instance, a sick person choses to believe in a form of treatment that has no proven effect, but the substances or treatment themselves are not dangerous, the person can suffer injuries by NOT chosing a method of treatment that is proven to be efficient.

I have to remind myself that a competent adult in our culture has every right to refuse medical treatment, or pursue any alternative forms they may wish to. If they want to stop their chemo and cure their cancer with ionized water or whatever, we truly have no right to prevent them from doing so. Incidentally, this is why I also support the concept of assisted suicide, it is a matter of control over one\'s own existence.

And, should we just accept that people sell stuff that most likely have no effect whatsoever to sick people? If proper scientific research show that the treatments have no effect at all, should we accept that people make a living out of selling them to sick people?

This is my major beef, as my post above may suggest. It is generally agreed that health care products carry a special legal importance, because their use is often the difference between life and death, or improved health and continued suffering. As such, distributing useless or harmful remedies is Very Bad.

Of course, most alternative medical treatments and supplements carefully avoid making any legally enforceable claims about anything, relying instead on innuendo and the \"common knowledge\" of the users to establish their purpose. I find this in itself to be extremely suspect, but as long as they follow the letter of the law, nothing can be done about it.

 

[hestan101]

just to throw out in, St. John\'s Wart tablets counteract contraceptive pills if there taken within a few days of each other. not many people are told this when they buy the medicine

 

[Ritual]

@NSA
Just to clarify, my point was not that we should refuse people the right to chose method of treatment as they wish. Just that by spreading information about pseudoscience and presenting scientific research about suspicious forms of treatment we can hopefully increase the number of people that chose more effective forms.

 

[Prophet]

Originally posted by uberdark
i see the mans point on many areas....but he draws conclusions from what someone might think about \"ghosts\" and doesnt look at their point of view in different ways. for example, instead of lookign at the heater moving the lampshade, was the man certain he had left it on before? or did a ghost by chance turn on the fan to move the lampshade. this is a possibility. by that rationale he becomes close minded. i felt like this man was a bit one sided, and if truly wants to be \"open minded\" then he should have another person debate these ideas. just my opinion.

He\'s also discounting the idea that a ghost could have turned on the heater in order to provide a plausible explanation for the moving lampshade and then stopped moving the lampshade at exactly the same time that the heater was turned off because the ghost wanted to avoid discovery.

I hope you were being sarcastic.