Religion Saves - Us from stupid religious types.

[melon]

There is more than enough evidence of things like ufos in the ancient hindu texts , or the great pyramids to suggest the ancients might well have known things , we still do not today.

Unfortunately however , it seems the Scientific Community in general are far more interested in suppressing this , rather than than exploring why - which is perhaps not so surprising when you consider how science has cut off anything even remotely connected to the spiritual self while endorsing free market of money that has made us less free instead.

m

[kalniel]

Id also like to point there is evidence of crafts like ufos in the ancient hindu texts and other civilizations that suggest they might well have known things , we still do not today.

Unfortunately however , it seems the Scientific Community in general are far more interested in suppressing this , rather than than exploring why .

That's not really in the science field to be honest, more humanities I guess.

[melon]

That's not really in the science field to be honest, more humanities I guess.

Fortean , Cryptology , Archaeology , Neurotheology ?

Archaeology had Hancock until he got pissed off with the anti establishment and decided to quit - due to the very sort of thing I'm talking about , which of course why he - as a journalist - became involved to start with .

Your reputation and credibility would be destroyed for the most part if you were involved in anything like this - so of course you are never going to get any interest in it, after all what scientist is going to risk their career ?

m

[directhex]

It was a randomised study that showed prayer improved the condition of a large group of people (larger than the study you link to and rather differently carried out). The twist to this one is that the prayer was carried out long after the event so it was retro-active.

So either prayer has time travel capabilities, or you've seen a reverse correlation and bloodstream infection causes prayer

[kalniel]

Archaeology had Hancock until he got pissed off with the anti establishment and decided to quit - due to the very sort of thing I'm talking about , which of course why he - as a journalist - became involved to start with .

I tend to think archeology is humanities rather than science.

Your reputation and credibility would be destroyed for the most part if you were involved in anything like this

I don't agree. Credibility/reputation is only destroyed by bad or unethical science (and not always in the latter case). The controversial on the other hand has never been shied away from by scientists.

So either prayer has time travel capabilities, or you've seen a reverse correlation and bloodstream infection causes prayer

Hehe Or predestination in the case of the latter.

[melon]

I tend to think archeology is humanities rather than science.

I don't agree. Credibility/reputation is only destroyed by bad or unethical science (and not always in the latter case). The controversial on the other hand has never been shied away from by scientists.



Hehe Or predestination in the case of the latter.

But as you have found out here what some term as " unethical " is not the same as others .

So what is ethical to someone who only accepts one possibility or view , if the criteria demands more ... possibilities to ensure a " fair " trial ?

m

[kalniel]

But as you have found out here what some term as " unethical " is not the same as others .

Exactly, which is why their reputation is not harmed among the people who consider it ethical.

So what is ethical to someone who only accepts one possibility or view , if the criteria demands more ... possibilities ?

If that's not a rhetorical question, can you rephrase it? My brain comprehends less at weekends, sorry.

[melon]

Exactly, which is why their reputation is not harmed among the people who consider it ethical.
.

And what about those who dont ?


m

[kalniel]

And what about those who dont ?

Then it is harmed among those.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

not until you posted some links - no

dont think we got it ( any one ? )

Only seen a bit of it myself - but it was meant to be relatively popular worldwide.



U remember Sabre Rider and the Star Sheriffs?

I like the Ramrod transformation sequence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IktsM1rG66s

True.

I think the whole problem stem from the bastard son syndrome .

Science has a good knack for Plagiarism and reinventing ideas as they were their own , instead of affirming what the original ideas where - which is like disowning your own father really and declaring you have none.

Perhaps that lack of honesty is why they have to spend have their time referencing every little thing to each other, when trying to research anything .

Its no less shallow than any social network or pointless system that requires you give cheap endorsement to others by saying they were the ones involved or who gave you that idea , song or whatever.

Its like being blackmailed into spamming so you can get more scooby snacks - a complete ego trip and nothing more than social snobbery

The reasons science has to be referenced extensively is for transparency,and moreover it means the work can be repeated and confirmed by others independently.

This useful for two reasons:
1.)Unintentional mistakes can be discovered
2.)Falsification can be discovered and corrected

It also means the work can be critiqued by anyone has a basic knowledge of the field,as long as they are making some sense.You could argue that both religion and politics are probably less transparent in many ways and less open to criticism.

Religion is based on faith,or should I say a leap of faith. The issue this is incompatible with science which requires evidence for a hypothesis to be accepted,or disproved.

You can know understand why many scientists do have issues with faith as it is absolute.

However,this is not indicative of all scientists though.

Ideas can be independently rediscovered,if the original one has been long forgotten and it can happen.

Falsification unfortunately is down to two things:
1.)Egos.

This happens outside of science too in politics and theology too. This is why religions have split into multiple camps based on this.

2.)Money

This is probably the greatest reason for falsification of results. Money has been always tough to get in science and is dependent on the quality and even amount of publications you put out during a period. For every grant publication accepted,the large percentage fail.

The issue this puts massive pressure on people to perform,and is also part of the reason why 1.) can happen too,ie, you really need to fight your case to get funding. Also,science does tend to attract more people with OCD too!

The worst thing is that research by its very nature is not guaranteed expected results as you are exploring the unknown. However,politicians and the public do not understand this,and expect science is like some 9 to 5 office job which will give you defined results in a certain time. For the pay,people in science can work atrocious hours as a result.

IMHO,this has lead to more and more political interference in funding as time progresses,and now things like basic research are being more and more sidelined(sadly the riskier but potentially the one which might find undiscovered things),and more towards directed research within more specific boundaries.

It also means that certain credible ideas are also sidelined in the longterm due to politics.

My other issue is that thinking about life around us started with being aware of who , and what we are in it . ( usually forced I admit through death , fear etc )

It did not start with an equation or any concept we declare today is proof of things, but something " spiritual " because higher mortality then meant we couldnt take ourselves / life for granted .

So say whatever you will about fire , or the wheel so on but those things only came about through fear / survival and that does not create atheists or ignorance , it creates builders, artists and shaman ( scientists of the spirit ) who use that heightened awareness that death brings to explore those worlds and how it affects us.

Without those people asking who they were and what brought them here , science and everything else would not exist .

So while i love science and technology it owes spirit and the spiritual a great debt and favor which few still acknowledge today. ( No thanks in part to western religion though and all that newage hippy crap Leary endorsed etc )

m

The thing is you could argue,that many scientists started that way by asking questions about the world. They use scientific method as a means to try and answer those questions.

Although your point about western religion is an interesting one,considering how much Islam(not modern Islam) actually promoted scientific thought AFAIK.

The whole anti-science movement in the west was down to the top lot getting worried that they would lose their positions. It might also further explain that due to the persecution of scientists which happened as a result,that this whole rift of sorts started.

See,how power,greed,selfishness and intolerance always get in the way!

[melon]

Then it is harmed among those.

If thats true then why is it we hear so many reports of " coverups " and even Nasas own Astronauts claiming things ?

Are you saying its all rubbish , and if so where are the measures and whistle blowers to ensure those people denying these claims and influencing research are being " ethical " themselves ?

Im sure a lot is rubbish ,done for money etc , but what about the the 5 % that may not be
and the ramifications of admitting some of it were true ?

Wouldn't that threaten the beliefs of the very scientists/people responsible for research , and explain why its never considered or funded ?

Look what happened with our Government and expenditure, or sciences unethical treatment of animals based on assumptions.

Just because someone is a scientist , a church minister and supposedly acting in one way , does not always mean the case - esp if money is it at stake.

http://thefire.org/article/12214.html


m

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Just goes to show how odd science can be and how what we accept as scientific fact isn't always (or usually) a clear cut answer to a question. Communicating what science actually does and what it answers is something we scientists struggle with (which was my point with the original link). Just look at melon's comments above about science plagiarising - we don't even think of it as plagiarising, it's validating, and in fact, science holds less weight until it is validated by someone else. The idea of who came across something first is less important than establishing real knowledge about the world around and within us.

Sadly,communicating what science does is the not the strong point of many scientists and neither is people management skills.

The current system only really promotes people on academic ability,ie, quality and quantity of publications.

[melon]

Only seen a bit of it myself - but it was meant to be relatively popular worldwide.



U remember Sabre Rider and the Star Sheriffs?

I like the Ramrod transformation sequence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IktsM1rG66s







The reasons science has to be referenced extensively is for transparency,and moreover it means the work can be repeated and confirmed by others independently.

This useful for two reasons:
1.)Unintentional mistakes can be discovered
2.)Falsification can be discovered and corrected

It also means the work can be critiqued by anyone has a basic knowledge of the field,as long as they are making some sense.You could argue that both religion and politics are probably less transparent in many ways and less open to criticism.

Religion is based on faith,or should I say a leap of faith. The issue this is incompatible with science which requires evidence for a hypothesis to be accepted,or disproved.

You can know understand why many scientists do have issues with faith as it is absolute.

However,this is not indicative of all scientists though.

Falsification unfortunately is down to two things:
1.)Egos.

This happens outside of science too in politics and theology too. This is why religions have split into multiple camps based on this.

2.)Money

This is probably the greatest reason for falsification of results. Money has been always tough to get in science and is dependent on the quality and even amount of publications you put out during a period. For every grant publication accepted,the large percentage fail.

The issue this puts massive pressure on people to perform,and is also part of the reason why 1.) can happen too,ie, you really need to fight your case to get funding. Also,science does tend to attract more people with OCD too!

The worst thing is that research by its very nature is not guaranteed expected results as you are exploring the unknown. However,politicians and the public do not understand this,and expect science is like some 9 to 5 office job which will give you defined results in a certain time. For the pay,people in science can work atrocious hours as a result.

IMHO,this has lead to more and more political interference in funding as time progresses,and now things like basic research are being more and more sidelined(sadly the riskier but potentially the one which might find undiscovered things),and more towards directed research within more specific boundaries.

It also means that certain credible ideas are also sidelined in the longterm due to politics.



The thing is you could argue,that many scientists started that way by asking questions about the world. They use scientific method as a means to try and answer those questions.

Althoigh your point about western religion is an interesting one,considering how much Islam(not modern Islam) actually promoted scientific thought AFAIK.

The whole anti-science movement in the west was down to the top lot getting worried that they would lose their positions. It might also further explain that due to the persecution of scientists which happened as a result,that this whole rift of sorts started.

See,how power,greed,selfishness and intolerance always get in the way!

get back 2 u on this : hands need rest.



m

[kalniel]

If thats true then why is it we hear so many reports of " coverups " and even Nasas own Astronauts claiming things ?

To do with science? Cover ups in science are quite rare precisely because of the need for validation. Only clear example I know of was a paper which the US requested be censored because it talked about the creation of a transmissible form of flu virus. I can't remember what happened, but I think they just modified the methods section - that didn't alter the science, but it reduced the opportunity for validation because it would be harder for others to reproduce the results.

I guess similar efforts are underway to prevent iranian scientists from developing a nuclear weapon, though developing those is a case study for the theory of intrinsic knowledge - the science theory has been around for a long time, but you need something more than just a textbook to be able to make one.

Are you saying its all rubbish , and if so where are the measures and whistle blowers to ensure those people denying these claims and influencing research are being " ethical " themselves ?

In the example I mention, it's down to the editors of the journals being asked to publish the data. There's nothing stopping the scientists from publishing somewhere else if they want to, or from self-publishing.

Im sure a lot is rubbish ,done for money etc , but what about the the 5 % that may not be
and the ramifications of admitting some of it were true ?

There's no question of truth in my example - the US were quite open about the fact they asked for the censorship, and the people involved understood the reasons for it.

Wouldn't that threaten the beliefs of the very scientists/people responsible for research , and explain why its never considered or funded ?

I can think of lots of things that aren't considered or funded - there's only so much time/money/resources to go around. But there's usually nothing stopping you if you want to generate your own funds and do your own science - we use an algorithm developed by someone who didn't previously have any background in the field for example. He wanted a change of career so self-taught and self-funded the research.

Look what happened with our Government and expenditure, or sciences unethical treatment of animals based on assumptions.

Can you give some examples? Science is very introspective with regards to ethical treatments as far as I know (I can't speak for all countries of course).

[Galant]

Just with regards to the OP. As a Christian I would stand opposed to any such ridiculous, pointless and harmful practices such as snake-handling. It really has absolutely zero to do with Christian teaching or the gospel of Jesus Christ. I'm sure those involved would somehow say it is a brave step in exercising their 'faith' but that would only show how little they know of the gospel, and what faith really is. It's sad that that man, and his father, died in useless nonsense.

I hope some nearby Christians are able to go to talk with them to explain the errors they seem to have waded into deeply and get them out of such practices and belief.

If anyone is interested in where this crazy idea came from, there are a couple of verses in the New Testament, one spoken by Christ Himself, which speak of God's protection of His ministers/servants, that though they may face perils/persecution as they carry the gospel, they need not fear.

I can only assume that the people in the video some how take that and believe that it's some sort of divine promise of invulnerability.

As for faith, what frustrates and saddens me is that it is so poorly understood and so often misused.

[kalniel]

Just with regards to the OP. As a Christian I would stand opposed to any such ridiculous, pointless and harmful practices such as snake-handling. It really has absolutely zero to do with Christian teaching or the gospel of Jesus Christ. I'm sure those involved would somehow say it is a brave step in exercising their 'faith' but that would only show how little they know of the gospel, and what faith really is. It's sad that that man, and his father, died in useless nonsense.

I hope some nearby Christians are able to go to talk with them to explain the errors they seem to have waded into deeply and get them out of such practices and belief.

If anyone is interested in where this crazy idea came from, there are a couple of verses in the New Testament, one spoken by Christ Himself, which speak of God's protection of His ministers/servants, that though they may face perils/persecution as they carry the gospel, they need not fear.

I can only assume that the people in the video some how take that and believe that it's some sort of divine promise of invulnerability.

And forgot the part about not putting God to the test...