Category: Ideas

After Mutants & Masterminds on Monday we sat around for over an hour talking about ghosts, UFOs, hypnotism, science and religion. Ken and Caleb believe (to some extent) in…well let’s call it the supernatural (lumping little grey almond eyed aliens in there) just to give it a grossly broad label…while Joe and I do not. Ken’s told the story of his father experiencing a UFO, and why his dad would have no reason to make it up. We countered with “that doesn’t mean there are greys visiting Earth – it could be weather balloons or secret govt experiments etc etc.” That led to discussion on Occam’s razor, how we can’t understand reality we can only observe it with the 5 senses given us, and how science is telling us that we change reality by our very observation. But on the subjects of ghosts and god and whatnot, my question was “what is the value in believing in this that have no proof?” to which Caleb’s reply was “for the experience.” And I can’t deny that for some that would have value. However, it is a very short leap from that kind of thinking to anyone calling himself a doctor and conning sick people out of their money, and to people being burnt at the stake for witchcraft. Which, I will point out, still happens to this very day in many places.

Speaking of science, here’s a very interesting article on the recently discovered ‘bug’ that causes ulcers, and how it can help track the origins of mankind, and both cause and prevent cancer (yes, I’m being deliberately imprecise, read the article) http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2005/10/03/a_prize_bug.php

I quote Bad Astronomy

If I do think the Universe is accidental, that does not mean there is no rhyme or reason– all of science depends on the Universe obeying a set of rules (even if the rules are hidden, or hard to understand, or involve seemingly random events as quantum mechanics does). So right away, even if I do think the Universe is accidental, I would say that quotation is going too far and is wrongheaded, but not in the way the quiz means.

I also may not think life on Earth is inconsequential. I have heard this many times from religious people talking to atheists: how can you cherish life if you don’t believe in God? I find that question pretty funny, actually! The mindset is, if atheists don’t cherish life, what is to keep them from simply murdering anyone who ticks them off?

The answer is that atheists, as well as believers, have evolved a sense of morality over millions of years. Mammals tend to be family-oriented, and primates very much so. Tribal customs evolved to aid survival, which means helping others when needed. It’s not hard to get an idea of how morality evolved from that, although of course I am grossly oversimplifying things here.

If you think this is wrong, then consider this: if no God means no morality, then you’d expect atheists to commit more crimes. Yet, if you look at prison statistics, atheists are grossly underrepresented in jail. Only 0.21% of prisoners are atheists, though in the US some 3-9% of the population call themselves atheists. If religious people were more moral than atheists, then you’d expect the number of atheists in prison to be much higher than their percentage in the population. Yet the opposite is true. This means that atheists commit proportionately fewer crimes than religious people (well, it really means that atheists are caught and successfully prosecuted less, but one can assume those numbers scale with the numbers of crimes committed).

Are atheists more moral than believers? That’s a hard jump to make. But those numbers are very interesting.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/the_god_worm.php

I had a really interesting idea this morning.

So, if you live in Canada and you want a little special something in the (snail) mail from your pal Toren, email me at thickets@uniserve.com with your mailing address and watch your mailbox for something fun but…unusual.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4950876.stm

This article by an historian touches brilliantly on what was being discussed in the comments for my post about faith in science post. It also points out excellently that good science does not rest on its laurels, and that warm support doesn’t parse to cold fact. As it says in the article, “A scrupulous scientist like Huygens would rather be disappointed, than accept dubious evidence to provide pat confirmation of a pet theory” So, recommended reading for pro-sciencers. And if you’re into nautical navigation the article will interest you too.