Religious/Science Debate Cont.

[rosie]

Posting here to avoid further thread hijack :)

Chas said:

Rosie:

My comment about 'those who rely on a supernatural explanation for natural phenomena' was directed at people who believe that a literal explanation of how the universe works, or how life developed on earth, can be found in a mythological text (in the case of certain christian sects it is the first few books of the old testament). As scientific inquiry has revealed how the natural world works in greater and greater detail, the 'gaps' that this supernatural being is required to fill in human understanding have become smaller and smaller.

Why do you believe the gaps have gotten smaller? I think that the more we learn the more we realise just how much we don't know and the bigger the gaps get - interested to hear your perspective on this.

Oh and the 'global conciousness project' is really not a place I would dwell if I were seeking some evidence of parapsychological phenomena. As is the case with most of these studies, their idea of science is to draw the bullseye on the barn door AFTER not BEFORE you have fired the shotgun! Very convenient indeed. If you are interested in the paranormal you should read any of several excellent books by James Randi, a magician who specializes in exposing frauds of all stripes (fortune tellers, faith healers etc).

I am familiar with James Randi. What I find interesting is that you would dismiss the findings of a group of published, peer-reviewed scientists drawing data from many years of psy analysis, and accept the opinions of an uneducated magician. I would like to hear how you came to your conclusions that Radins data is invalid and that Randi's is.

Dean Radin says:

After studying these phenomena as a scientist for about 30 years, I've concluded that some psychic abilities are genuine, and as such, there are important aspects of the prevailing scientific worldview that are seriously incomplete. I've also learned that many people who claim to have unfailingly reliable psychic abilities are often delusional or mentally ill, and that there will always be reprehensible con artists who claim to be psychic and charge huge sums for their "services." These two classes of so-called psychics are the targets of celebrated prizes offered by magicians for demonstrations of psychic abilities. Those prizes are safe because the claimed abilities of these people either do not exist at all, or they're much weaker than sincere claimants may wish to believe. There is of course a huge anecdotal literature about psychic abilities, but the evidence that convinced me is the accumulated laboratory performance by people who do not claim to possess special abilities, collected under controlled conditions and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

[grasshopper]

Ooooh. Where did this conversation start? I want to read the rest of it.

[rosie]

Charly's journal ;)

[chasman62]

Laughable rosie truly. His studies(and all of a similar ilk) consist largely of a list of statistical anomalies that he and other similar individuals claim are evidence of the paranormal. That plus anecdote and personal testimony neither of which have any probative value.

Randi has offered 1 million dollars to ANYONE who can demonstrate paranormal behavior under controlled laboratory conditions and that reward is still waiting to be claimed.

This stuff is all simply pseudoscience without a shred of credible evidence to support any of it. The fact that it is popular with the lay public simply reflects a sad lack of understanding of what science is and what it is not. No more evidence of this than there is of the Loch Ness monster or flying saucers.

Doesn't really have much to do with the legitimacy or otherwise of religious belief unless you contend that that too is supportable by similar lamentable research.

[chasman62]

Sorry I missed your comment about 'the god of the gaps'.

Far from any revealed truths, ancient religious texts simply reflect the scientific knowledge (or lack thereof) of the people who wrote the documents. Thus their stories of creation, of the development of the diversity of living things, and the origin of human beings (as examples) require the interventions of a supernatural being (god) to enable these events to occur. To ancient people, of course, virtually everything they observed was inexplicable to them and thus 'god' was required to explain almost everything in their world. This of course led to many barbaric practices, including human sacrifice, to appease or placate the god or gods.

As scientific discoveries proceed to offer naturalistic explanations for the world around us, the need to invoke a supernatural explanation for observed phenomena has decreased correspondingly. Scientists seek to account for phenomena by applying the principles of science and one of those is the rejection of supernatural intervention. Those that insist on supernatural explanations are thus forced into smaller and smaller spaces as the gaps get smaller. Biblical literalists are the most prominent of these groups, with their ludicrous insistence that the earth is a few thousand years old, that Noahs ark is true, that man was created de novo, etc etc. If you insist on defining your religious beliefs in such absolutist terms then frankly you deserve to be roundly ridiculed.

Not content, however, with believing this themselves and indoctrinating their offspring they insist on trying to foist this nonsense into schools and want mythology taught in science class. This is almost exclusively confined to extreme protestant cults present in the US but is nonetheless dangerous to the future of progress and science in this country.

[astander]

Of course, I have to jump in here. Unfortunately, I have nothing productive to say because I have absolutely no idea what you guys are talking about. :)

But, I do not believe in "paranormal" activity or in modern day prophets or psychics. The Bible advises against mediums and the like -- why consult a dead spirit when you can talk to the living God?

My cousin believes in reincarnation, and has tried many times to get me to read stuff about a guy named Edgar Cayce. She thinks he's a modern prophet. I couldn't read too much of it, it all sounded like B.S. to me. And I definitely don't believe in reincarnation.

[rosie]

Laughable rosie truly. His studies(and all of a similar ilk) consist largely of a list of statistical anomalies that he and other similar individuals claim are evidence of the paranormal.

He analysed macro-data from 50 years of controlled experiments into psi phenomena and found statistically significant data that 'something is going on'.

Randi has offered 1 million dollars to ANYONE who can demonstrate paranormal behavior under controlled laboratory conditions and that reward is still waiting to be claimed.

Entangled Minds: How to win a million dollars This is why the $1 million Randi prize is a joke...

We'll design an experiment that is run in three phases, where each phase has the same parameters: p(chance) = 0.25, p(hypothesis) = 0.32, alpha = 0.003, power = 0.99. This means that if we assume that telepathy gives us a hit rate of 32%, then if we run this experiment we'll have a 99% chance of getting a final p-value of 0.003 or better, i.e. good evidence for telepathy. The power analysis tells us that we need to run N = 1,147 trials to achieve this result. So now we will run this same experiment two more times, get a result each time at least as good as p = 0.003, and then the combined p-value over all three phases will be one in a million or better, or odds against chance of at least a million to one.

This requires that we run a total of 1147 x 3 = 3441 sessions.

Say we pay each sender and receiver a modest $50 to help compensate their time and costs. So we need to budget $344,100 for participant compensation. And let's say we run one session per workday, and we pay our investigator $80 per hour. That comes to 688 weeks or 14 years of effort assuming we run the experiment 48 weeks per year. For the investigator (we'll assume one investigator, which is an underestimate), at two hours per session x 3441 sessions x $80, we end up with an investigator budget of $550,560.

Now we need a testing facility that provides exceptional security against cheating and will also allow independent observers, and perhaps the general public, to witness each session from afar. (Observers interested in monitoring this experiment are not going to camp out in the laboratory for 14 years to personally observe every session.) To do this, we could use a secure digital video recording system that streams encrypted data over the web to a secure site, and is also designed to detect any interception or tampering of the video record at the source, in transmission, or at the secure site. We will need at least three video streams to cover the sender, receiver, and investigator, and perhaps one or two more to survey the larger environment. So let's say we need five tamper-proof video streaming systems, a secure server, and expert consultants to ensure that the system is not only designed correctly, but is systematically re-examined to check for proper operation. Let's say all this costs $250,000 for the 14-year life of the project, which is undoubtedly a vast underestimate.

The testing facility itself should consist of two isolated chambers that are thoroughly shielded against any possible transmission of sensory cues, including sound, light, vibration, odor, magnetic or electromagnetic signals. This might cost $100,000. The cost of running the facility itself (air conditioning, electricity) might cost say $200 per week or $137,640 in total.

The total so far is $1,382,300, not including costs for independent analysis of the video, Internet bandwidth, storage costs, data analysis, etc. So, for the mere possibility of winning a million dollars, we're already deep in the red, not to mention the investment of 14 years of dedicated effort. In addition, to optimize the likelihood of success, we would want to recruit people who we think would perform well. Based on past studies this would be creative people (artists, musicians, etc.) who believe in telepathy because they've experienced telepathic episodes in their own lives, and/or siblings, spouses or friends who frequently experience telepathic-like connections. So we need an advertising and recruitment budget, and probably a travel budget as well to compensate selected participants who must travel to the testing facility.

In sum, based on the state of the science today, and based on decades of repeated experiments that give us some confidence on what to expect, I believe we could conduct an experiment that would win a million dollar prize (assuming we need odds against chance of a million to one). But from a pragmatic perspective it wouldn't be worth it. Even if it were possible to raise over a million to run the experiment in the first place (unlikely, unless a wealthy individual or foundation is interested in backing this project), this doesn't make either financial or scientific sense. It might generate some publicity for a day or two, but most people already believe in telepathy based on their personal experiences, so this would only be news to a small percentage of scientists who would raise an eyebrow for 10 minutes. And then they'd say "cool," and some of them would start working on explanatory theories. The hardcore skeptics, like flat-earthers and creationists, aren't convinced by evidence or prizes; they'll just go on believing whatever they want to believe.

The fact that it is popular with the lay public simply reflects a sad lack of understanding of what science is and what it is not. No more evidence of this than there is of the Loch Ness monster or flying saucers.

It is popular with the lay? How did you come up with that conclusion? I hear this all the time like its meant to mean something.
In fact, Dean Raid has tested the "stupidity hypothesis", to test the intelligence of those who believe in the 'supernatural' or psi phenomenon, and the findings (which are repeatable), show that
The more educated a person, the more likely they are to believe in Psi Phenomenon, there is a significant positive correlation. Moreover; 60-70% of college professors believe in psi phenomena. Are the majority of college professors lay?

Astandar - To me, 'psi phenomena' and 'God' are explicitly interlinked and interconnected. I don't separate the two, I think it's all part of the same thing.

[rosie]

But, I do not believe in "paranormal" activity or in modern day prophets or psychics. The Bible advises against mediums and the like -- why consult a dead spirit when you can talk to the living God?

So how can you believe Jesus was a prophet if you don't believe in modern day prophets? Confusing.

[hellron]

Okay, time for me to chime in..

Chas, I've noticed quite a few argumentative fallacies in your posts, and it doesn't bode well for you..

In just a casual reading, I've noted everything from straw-men through to appeals to ridicule

Rather than trying to discredit Rosie's posts and sources with erroneous debating techniques, lets hear some actual evidence and critical thinking to support your side of things

-- HR

[rosie]

Far from any revealed truths, ancient religious texts simply reflect the scientific knowledge (or lack thereof) of the people who wrote the documents. Thus their stories of creation, of the development of the diversity of living things, and the origin of human beings (as examples) require the interventions of a supernatural being (god) to enable these events to occur. To ancient people, of course, virtually everything they observed was inexplicable to them and thus 'god' was required to explain almost everything in their world. This of course led to many barbaric practices, including human sacrifice, to appease or placate the god or gods.

I find it interesting that in all cultures, there is a concept of God/creator. I personally don't believe that creation happened the way that the bible states it did, and we have science to prove evolution - I believe it as metaphorical simplistic version of events passed down, but nethertheless, the bible does have some great guiding principles to live by, and much wisdom as far as I am concerned.

As scientific discoveries proceed to offer naturalistic explanations for the world around us, the need to invoke a supernatural explanation for observed phenomena has decreased correspondingly. Scientists seek to account for phenomena by applying the principles of science and one of those is the rejection of supernatural intervention. Those that insist on supernatural explanations are thus forced into smaller and smaller spaces as the gaps get smaller. Biblical literalists are the most prominent of these groups, with their ludicrous insistence that the earth is a few thousand years old, that Noahs ark is true, that man was created de novo, etc etc. If you insist on defining your religious beliefs in such absolutist terms then frankly you deserve to be roundly ridiculed.

I used to think like this too - but I disagree that anyone deserves ridicule for their beliefs. I personally do not subscribe to any one religion and have a natural aversion to dogma of any kind, however, to dismiss the wealth of knowledge in any book, and particularly such historically significant books such as the bible would be unwise in my opinion. It's pretty much a certainty that Jesus et al existed, and that many of the things in the bible were witnessed by many people - lends credibility to many of the claims within. I don't personally buy into the fantastical elements of the bible, but I don't judge those who do, because to me, spirituality comes in many guises, and if believing that a guy got 2 of every animal in a boat and saved humanity from extinction gives that to them, then I am happy for that. I certainly do not think that someone believing in these things makes them stupid or weak or pathetic. No more pathetic than someone believing in love - even though you cannot prove that love exists.

Not content, however, with believing this themselves and indoctrinating their offspring they insist on trying to foist this nonsense into schools and want mythology taught in science class. This is almost exclusively confined to extreme protestant cults present in the US but is nonetheless dangerous to the future of progress and science in this country.

I have a personal problem with those who reject science in favour of religion, and don't see any reason that science and religion cannot coexist without problem - in Australia, a new ethics class has been introduced into schools as an alternative class for religion which I think is fantastic. Even as an atheist, I wanted my children to have religious education though - because the bible, Christianity, etc are so historically important that I believe it is negligent of me to turn down such an opportunity for them to learn.

As for indoctrination - you could say that about anything you do as a parent, really. I would take a stab that your kids are being taught that it's all a load of bull dust and to think otherwise is not acceptable - maybe I am wrong here, but that's how my atheist dad ruled our roost ;).