Societies don't have to be secular to be modern

[crazy canuck]

I would say I don't believe in it (or at least in the spiritual message it contains).

Interesting.  What is the spiritual message that is distinct from Christianity?  Is it that there is only one God whereas Christians (or at least some Christians) believe in at least two?

[Berkut]

I am sure glad scientist working on theories that could not be proven until technology was improved were insane enough to pursue theories that could not yet be "evidenced".

You are confusing evidence with proof.

Scientists who posit hypothesis that do not explain anything are not very good scientists. Could you provide some examples of scientists who crated hypothesis to explain non-existent phenomenon, and how much success they had with that?

People have lots of believes in lots of fields.  Some prove right some prove wrong and some remain unproven.  Religion, like philosophy, is a field where there is a lot of argument, a lot of strongly held views but no evidence.

Religion is not "special". It is just a catch all phrase to describe the human fascination with the supernatural, and the idea that there is something "more" than that which we can actually evidence.

Religion is not at all like philosophy in fact.

Religion is pretty interesting, but only insofar as it is rather fascinating that human are so susceptible to belief in imaginary things.

[crazy canuck]

There appears to be a significant amount of actual evidence that L Ron Hubbard went out and created Scientology as a deliberate scam. 

Tax dodge.  A scam is usually illegal whereas Scientology is, so far, legal.

[crazy canuck]

I am sure glad scientist working on theories that could not be proven until technology was improved were insane enough to pursue theories that could not yet be "evidenced".

You are confusing evidence with proof.

Scientists who posit hypothesis that do not explain anything are not very good scientists. Could you provide some examples of scientists who crated hypothesis to explain non-existent phenomenon, and how much success they had with that?

People have lots of believes in lots of fields.  Some prove right some prove wrong and some remain unproven.  Religion, like philosophy, is a field where there is a lot of argument, a lot of strongly held views but no evidence.

Religion is not "special". It is just a catch all phrase to describe the human fascination with the supernatural, and the idea that there is something "more" than that which we can actually evidence.

Religion is not at all like philosophy in fact.

Religion is pretty interesting, but only insofar as it is rather fascinating that human are so susceptible to belief in imaginary things.

Berk,

Before science had microscopes powerful enough so see them, scientists were actively theororizing about atoms.  One small example but I am sure if Hamilcar were still here he could inform us about all kinds of theories that have been produced by scientists based on incomplete data.

Another example was the old debate (pre DNA sampling) about whether all humans came out of Africa or not.  During the 80s and 90s there were huge scientific debates about the issue.  It wasnt until DNA sampling showed that in fact we all came out of Africa.

If scientists were precluded from forming ideas simply because there was no concrete proof of their theories, we would be a poorer society for it.

[Berkut]

I am sure glad scientist working on theories that could not be proven until technology was improved were insane enough to pursue theories that could not yet be "evidenced".

You are confusing evidence with proof.

Scientists who posit hypothesis that do not explain anything are not very good scientists. Could you provide some examples of scientists who crated hypothesis to explain non-existent phenomenon, and how much success they had with that?

People have lots of believes in lots of fields.  Some prove right some prove wrong and some remain unproven.  Religion, like philosophy, is a field where there is a lot of argument, a lot of strongly held views but no evidence.

Religion is not "special". It is just a catch all phrase to describe the human fascination with the supernatural, and the idea that there is something "more" than that which we can actually evidence.

Religion is not at all like philosophy in fact.

Religion is pretty interesting, but only insofar as it is rather fascinating that human are so susceptible to belief in imaginary things.

Berk,

Before science had microscopes powerful enough so see them, scientists were actively theororizing about atoms.  One small example but I am sure if Hamilcar were still here he could inform us about all kinds of theories that have been produced by scientists based on incomplete data.

Of course - but you can evidence things you cannot see. We cannot "see" gravity, but we know it is there, and we can create hypothesis about what makes it, test those hypothesis, and create theories from our tested hypothesis.

This is not unevidenced claims at all, so your bitch about my comment does not apply.

Another example was the old debate (pre DNA sampling) about whether all humans came out of Africa or not.  During the 80s and 90s there were huge scientific debates about the issue.  It wasnt until DNA sampling showed that in fact we all came out of Africa.

And? This is science, and is not based at all on "belief" or faith, but on evidence and data - incomplete data f course, but still data. There is no comparison between this and whether or not there is a heaven.

If scientists were precluded from forming ideas simply because there was no concrete proof of their theories, we would be a poorer society for it.

Who are you arguing with?

[crazy canuck]

Berk, to the extent I am arguing with anyone it is you I suppose because of your statement:

imagine on the basis that everyone who is not insane operates under the presumption that non-evidenced things do not exist.

I have given you a some examples of perfectly sane scientists working with "non-evidenced" theories to explain the natural world.  The thing that distinguishes science from Religion or Philosophy is that through the scientific method the hope is that an unproven theory will be proven through more study.

In Relgion all there is, is faith.

[Barrister]

In Relgion all there is, is faith.

I don't think that's fair.  Religion has reason.  Religion has science.

Religion also has faith, but it does not have only faith.

[Viking]

Berk,

Before science had microscopes powerful enough so see them, scientists were actively theororizing about atoms.  One small example but I am sure if Hamilcar were still here he could inform us about all kinds of theories that have been produced by scientists based on incomplete data.

We proved the existence of atoms about 100 years before the electron microscope. But I assume you are talking about the Ionian enlightenment. Democritus and the other Ionians belived that everything was made of matter and the nature of that matter was such that there was an ammount of matter which could not be cut with a knife, no matter how sharp. So he postulated atoms. He couldn't test so it remained the Atom Hypothesis until the late 18th century when Atomic Theory started.

Another example was the old debate (pre DNA sampling) about whether all humans came out of Africa or not.  During the 80s and 90s there were huge scientific debates about the issue.  It wasnt until DNA sampling showed that in fact we all came out of Africa.

Yes, and I want to point out that there were competing hypothesis for the origin of man, none of which were considered true until the hypothesis could be tested and all but one were found false. Confusing scientific inquiry and the scientific method with the untested, untestable and unproductive (i.e. makes no useable predictions) religion.

If scientists were precluded from forming ideas simply because there was no concrete proof of their theories, we would be a poorer society for it.

[garbon]

Religion has reason.  Religion has science.

[Berkut]

Berk, to the extent I am arguing with anyone it is you I suppose because of your statement:

imagine on the basis that everyone who is not insane operates under the presumption that non-evidenced things do not exist.

I have given you a some examples of perfectly sane scientists working with "non-evidenced" theories to explain the natural world.  The thing that distinguishes science from Religion or Philosophy is that through the scientific method the hope is that an unproven theory will be proven through more study.

In Relgion all there is, is faith.

A theory is not evidenced. It doesn't even make sense to say a theory is "evidenced" or "non-evidenced". A theory is tested hypothesis which attempts to explain some observed characteristic of the natural world. Said "observed characeristics" are in fact evidence - they are data.

A theory can be dis-proven, but never proven.

And no, you have given NO examples of sane scientists working with unevidenced data to prove anything. Quite the opposite in fact - science is about using the evidence given to create hypothesis, then test those hypothesis by (typically) obtaining MORE evidence.

Science has nothing to do with beliefs that are not evidenced, and the very basis of science precludes it dealing with things for which there is no evidence. Data is its bread and butter.

[crazy canuck]

Viking, I agree.

My simple point is it is not insane to believe in something not yet evidenced.  Indeed that is where a lot of good science comes from.  Pursuing an idea that is not yet proven or evidenced.

A lot of science is simply the best theory at the moment - take for example the non out of Africa folks.  They had some evidence but not prove one way or the other.  They could have been right.  But DNA proved them wrong.

[Viking]

In Relgion all there is, is faith.

I don't think that's fair.  Religion has reason.  Religion has science.

Religion also has faith, but it does not have only faith.

Can you make one single falsifiable statement about religion? If not, it's not science.

Religion does have reason, incomplete reason since it does start with an unproven and unprovable ipso fact, but reason non the less. Modern Theology does use reason in religion.

[Barrister]

Viking, your chart on religion isn't true.  Or it is true for only a certain amount of religious persons.

Christianity once accepted as a matter of faith that the sun revolved around the earth, and the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for saying otherwise.  Once science demonstrated that was false, religion came to accept and embrace that fact.

While some religious people may deny evolution based on pure faith, many do not.

[crazy canuck]

In Relgion all there is, is faith.

I don't think that's fair.  Religion has reason.  Religion has science.

Religion also has faith, but it does not have only faith.

Really?  What sience is there to prove the ressurection?  If you were to apply reason (like textual analysis) you would also say it didnt happen.

So all you are left with is faith.

[Berkut]

Viking, I agree.

My simple point is it is not insane to believe in something not yet evidenced.  Indeed that is where a lot of good science comes from.  Pursuing an idea that is not yet proven or evidenced.

A lot of science is simply the best theory at the moment - take for example the non out of Africa folks.  They had some evidence but not prove one way or the other.  They could have been right.  But DNA proved them wrong.

So in fact they DID have evidence, and so in fact they were NOT "believing in something not yet evidenced".

Still waiting for the single example of a scientists who made hay believing in things for which he had no evidence.