# Why are the 'intelligencia' less devout?



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

We've recently seen a few threads around here, and a poll, which, among other things, serve to illustrate that ehMacians are decidedly less religious as a population, than Canadians in general (as of the last set of numbers, it was a 50/50 split on theism here on ehMac, whereas the 2001 census reported that 84% of Canadians were adherents of some religion).

I have seen more rigorous studies showing that scientists, and biologists in particular, are vastly less religious than the general public (approaching 95% non-religious, if I remember the data correctly). My personal experience is completely consistent with that.

So my question is, why would the technically literate, well-educated population be so dramatically less likely to participate in the otherwise ubiquitous supernatural belief system adhered to by the general culture?

I'm curious about your perceptions on this dichotomy, but I'd like to request that you not use this thread to denigrate religious beliefs.

cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Is "intelligencia" in quotes to point out a spelling error, or did you mean "intelligentsia"?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL

You beat me to it.

Anyway, I think the question is flawed by being too open-ended. It assumes that membership in the intelligentsia (hey, are these cats card-carrying members - can you identify them via arm bands, tatoos, or specific body language?) and 'being devout' are somehow incompatible. I don't think that's true at all. But then again, I don't equate being 'devout' with being aligned with any given religions. I see it more as a spiritual thing.

In any case, no matter - the latent artifice of the question is interesting. Good luck putting the matter to bed - in here or elsewhere.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Is "intelligencia" in quotes to point out a spelling error, or did you mean "intelligentsia"?



it's the spanish and/or italian spelling


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

When confronted with a mystery (eg. the creation of the universe, the weather, Honeycomb cereal), you have two options:

a) assume an unseen, omnipotent being created it

or

b) investigate it to determine where it came from, knowing everything is a chain-reaction, and nothing happens 'magically'

The intelligentsia are less likely to settle for option a.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Where did the universe come from? Why are we here? Will it snow next week where you are located? Is there honey in honeycomb?

If I ask enough of these questions, will I be booted from the intelligentsia? Will the literati accept me, in my exile from an affiliation with dead white male European philosophers? Should I look back in anger?

What if we were created by someone who is not omnipotent, but is omniscient and omnipresent?




guytoronto said:


> When confronted with a mystery (eg. the creation of the universe, the weather, Honeycomb cereal), you have two options:
> 
> a) assume an unseen, omnipotent being created it
> 
> ...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I find it interesting that the GT dude puts glib credence in the bald statement that "everything is a chain reaction." One, what in blazes does that mean, exactly and

Two, do you accept that as an article of faith?

[insert winkie here]


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.
> 
> The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.





> Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.





> Some stand-out stats: 41 percent of the biologists don't believe, while that figure is just 27 percent among political scientists.


LiveScience



> In a 1997 survey in the science journal Nature, 40 percent of U.S. scientists said they believe in God—not just a creator, but a God to whom one can pray in expectation of an answer. That is the same percentage of scientists who were believers when the survey was taken 80 years earlier.


National Geographic

I've heard the 95% number before but these surveys say something else.

I know more scientists at my church than cops.

edit for spelling.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

"Intelligentsia" = very pretentious label.

If a truck driver with only a highschool diploma is an atheist, does that automatically make him part of the intelligentsia...or is he a freak?

...and if a well educated, Vietnam war veteran and technically literate airline pilot is a devout believer, what label should we apply to him?

The above references two actual human beings, real persons...one of which I'm very familliar with. 

People believe what they want to believe, but I'm with Max...it's a spiritual _thang_.

Some of us are more predisposed to being spiritual or needing some form of spiritual fulfilment than others. Humans will never stop believing in some omnipotent being. Be it "a hairy thunderer or the cosmic muffin".


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Intelligentsia? Us?  

Next thing you know someone will us elite.  

Seriously though, these are pretty broad brush strokes that I'm not certain hold true.

I would suspect that scientists are less likely to believe in creationism, but that doesn't mean they don't believe in a God.

But then that's just speculation.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hey Z - How about going to the source in Nature



> *Leading scientists still reject God*
> 
> Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998) ? Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
> 
> ...


http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

and that cross section was from the US which is notorious amongst first world democracies



> *In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies (Figures 1-9). The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. *The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health.


http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html




> Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality)"


and that's in THE most religious of the first world democracies.......

Not speculation Brainstrained....and what are anyone's guesses it might be a decade later.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

kps said:


> "Intelligentsia" = very pretentious label.
> 
> If a truck driver with only a highschool diploma is an atheist, does that automatically make him part of the intelligentsia...or is he a freak?
> 
> ...


Ah, at last, some _real_ intelligence on the subject from a member of your "familiar" group. :clap: :clap:


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

As if anyone takes the label seriously.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I didn't intentionally start the thread out with a spelling error, but I have to agree that it is funny.

I am, however, intentionally using broad generalizations, because it is obviously and trivially true that there are plenty of intelligent, well-educated people who are believers in various religions, and plenty of unintelligent, uneducated atheists. However, the interesting thing about which I'm trying to generate some honest discussion, is that _as populations_ people with the most rigorous educational background reject beliefs that are ubiquitous and ostensibly fundamental to the rest of society.

Evidence for this can be seen in our own ehMac polls, scientific research cited by MacDoc earlier in this thread, data from Statistics Canada, and, for those of us who work in an academic or technical environment, in our day-to-day interactions with our colleagues. I've just recently started in my current position, so I don't really know all my colleagues that well, but my impression is that I'd be hard pressed to find a deist, let alone a theist, among the lot of 'em. That was certainly the case in my previous research environments.

It seems to me that there are several possible explanations for this empirical observation. I have some ideas, but I'd like to hear yours.

Cheers


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Here's my own non-scientific-wildass guess.

As I said earlier, it is possible that we may be genetically predisposed with a need for some inner spiritual need. It certainly manifests itself in various degrees and there are definitely external factors influencing its strength. 

To answer your question, I'll say that the ingrained predisposition does not manifest itself as strongly with those that end up interested in sciences as youth and choose to follow that as a lifetime work.

If we blanket the theory and say that it's education alone that makes the decision to believe or not, then I think it's incorrect. At one time in our past, it was the priests that were the most educated.


----------



## simon (Nov 2, 2002)

My question is .. Why is bryanc so afraid of Christians and their faith that he has to continually attack their beliefs using science as a crutch?

and yes, you have convinced me to give up my silly beliefs based on your strong posts using the big words, MacDoc's "research", the ehMac polls (that ask if you believe in some sort of god or series of gods - where's the God choice), your data from Stats Canada and the rest. 

My faith, my beliefs, they are all lost ... I have been lied to all these years. I don;t know where to turn.

Lord Save Me ...


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

The article you quoted appears quite partisan and biased.



> The AMS no longer makes these designations, so we chose as our "greater" scientists members of the NAS, a status that once assured designation as "great scientists" in the early AMS. Our method surely generated a more elite sample than Leuba's method, which (if the quoted comments by Leuba and Atkins are correct) may explain the extremely low level of belief among our respondents.


Among scientists in general it still says:



> In 1996, we repeated Leuba's 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature [3]. We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt.


Which is roughly the 40% from the National Geographic article.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

the 'intelligencia' would be the likes of conrad black and michael ignatieff. i don't know what their religious beliefs are, but i'm pretty sure they've never posted on ehmac.

(this is the first time i've used the folksy phrase 'the likes of'. hurray for me.)


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

_Well, I never!_

I think it unbecoming of the Intelligentsia to use such disgusting phrases belonging to the dreaded folksy rabble. I'm off to tea with some distinguished intellects to discuss the virtues of godlessness. Ta-ta.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> So my question is, why would the technically literate, well-educated population be so dramatically less likely to participate in the otherwise ubiquitous supernatural belief system adhered to by the general culture?


The religious authors that I enjoy reading (Marcus Borg, N.T. Wright, Alister McGrath, etc...) tend to live in or come from academic environments and in each of their books I find comments that academic culture in general tends to view religious people as less intelligent and more primitive than those who are not.

Your initial post seems to echo that to some extent.

I can't comment on other religions, but when it comes to Christianity, even though a large number of Canadians associate with that religion, most don't practice it on a day to day basis and most don't show up at a church more than once a year, if that.

If you start to look at Canadians who associate with Christianity and who attend church on a weekly basis and are involved with their churches, the percentage drops off dramatically and I have seen statistics as low as 7% to as high as 20%.

I guess my question is, if you take someone only loosely associated with a religion and put them in an environment where those views are looked down upon, to what extent does peer pressure influence them to abandon something that they have little association with.

OTOH, if you take someone who is reasonably devout and committed, a much smaller portion of society, and put them in the same environment, are they more resistant to that peer pressure (if they are weekly attenders who are active with their church they would also have counter peer pressure).

If the above is true, and there are certainly some assumptions made, would we expect that the percentage of people in one of these fields who believe in God would be closer to the percentage of people who attend weekly and are active in their churches?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

simon said:


> My question is .. Why is bryanc so afraid of Christians and their faith that he has to continually attack their beliefs using science as a crutch?
> 
> and yes, you have convinced me to give up my silly beliefs based on your strong posts using the big words, MacDoc's "research", the ehMac polls (that ask if you believe in some sort of god or series of gods - where's the God choice), your data from Stats Canada and the rest.
> 
> ...


It's not that we are afraid of them (well, maybe just a little because of irrational behavior based on religious beliefs).

It's the fact that too many religious types don't keep their religion to themselves. They feel the necessity to impose their religious beliefs on others.

Christmas and Easter are Christian holidays. The government gives everyone the day off. Why not the same for other religions?

Take a look at how Christianity has run rampant in the US.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg

When you make a decision based on a religious belief, what are you basing this on? A 1500 year old book called the Bible? That's a great resource of fact!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

But if everything is a chain reaction, it follows that religion and science are linked!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

simon said:


> My question is .. Why is bryanc so afraid of Christians and their faith that he has to continually attack their beliefs using science as a crutch?


Perhaps you should take a deep breath and try to calm down. I'm not attacking anyone. The recent poll here reminded me of something I've observed many times, and which is corroborated by rigorous research on the subject: people with advanced degrees in science (or, in my experience, philosophy), tend to be significantly less religious than the rest of society? I'm simply asking for your opinion of why?

KPS suggests that this is a manifestation of an intrinsic spirituality, or lack thereof, whereby those with less innate spiritual sensitivity gravitate to the natural sciences (or, presumably, philosophy) out of a need to build a naturalistic conceptual framework that satisfies their otherwise unsatisfying spiritual existence. I've never considered this interpretation. I'll have to think about it.

In my experience, I've had several friends who went through a 'crisis of faith' during their education (usually as senior undergraduate or graduate students), all of whom wound up abandoning their religious upbringing (sometimes with rather traumatic personal ramifications... a very good friend of mine wound up breaking off his engagement, and becoming rather unfortunately disconnected from his very religious family due to his loss of faith). So I've always thought that the rigorous training in logic, rationality, empiricism, and skepticism required of scientists filters out people inclined to seek subjective, emotional, or supernatural explanations for phenomena, and that such people find scientific education more stressful/distastefull than those of us of a more rational bent.

So is lack of religiosity among scientists cause or effect of their scientific training?

I suppose these aren't mutually exclusive... it could be both.

Cheers


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Max said:


> But if everything is a chain reaction, it follows that religion and science are linked!


Yes, everything is linked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Well, I certainly can't say I'm not pleased by your generous spirit of inclusiveness, but I'm afraid I can't let you off that easily without demanding some proof on your part... care to offer a scientific, iron-clad, certifiably chainreactive formula for determining the correct linkage of religion to science?

And please - no Wikipeeing now. I'm looking for your own intelligentseeya to shine on through.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

simon said:


> MacDoc's "research"...
> 
> My faith, my beliefs, they are all lost ...


When dissenting opinion strikes, MacDoc transforms into the formidable "Linkman" a superhero relying on the immense power of Google to fell his enemies.


----------



## simon (Nov 2, 2002)

bryanc said:


> Perhaps you should take a deep breath and try to calm down. I'm not attacking anyone.


Never was any calmer - I as calm as I can be - no issue with me .. I'm just "praying for your soul" and wondering why you need to knock a differentiating belief system down to raise your ideals up ...


----------



## simon (Nov 2, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> It's not that we are afraid of them (well, maybe just a little because of irrational behavior based on religious beliefs).


Religious fanatics who cause death, disruption and hate paint all religions with a broad brush of distaste for those "outside" and viewing in. Jesus was a denouncer of religion and created a basis of distrust and disharmony from the church leaders of the day. Religion has been the basis of hatred, wars and inhumanity. I am not religious but I believe in God. There is a difference.



guytoronto said:


> It's the fact that too many religious types don't keep their religion to themselves. They feel the necessity to impose their religious beliefs on others.


Really? Spreading the gospel is a part of some churches. I for one can't stand Jehovah's Witnesses and I ask them to go away - but does that stop me from telling somebody else the good news? You are only imposed upon if you let yourself be. 




guytoronto said:


> Christmas and Easter are Christian holidays. The government gives everyone the day off. Why not the same for other religions?


Our country was based on Christian principles and beliefs. Our foundation as a people was based on the bible and teachings. We except these things with the freedoms they other. How about this - why don't you tell your boss that you don't want to celebrate either Christian holiday and work it as a regular day like it was a Tuesday in the middle of August. No extra pay, no special treatment - enjoy as it is your right to believe what you believe.




guytoronto said:


> When you make a decision based on a religious belief, what are you basing this on? A 1500 year old book called the Bible? That's a great resource of fact!


If I make a decision regarding faith - I make it on faith. The Bible is an excellent resource of fact as the word of God.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

simon said:


> The Bible is an excellent resource of fact as the word of God.


Says who?


----------



## simon (Nov 2, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> Says who?


God does


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

simon said:


> God does


 You've....gasp...spoken with him?


----------



## MacBookPro (Jun 22, 2006)

guytoronto said:


> Says who?


Simon says.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacBookPro said:


> Simon says.


I thought it was Matthew, Luke, and John. Broken phone style baby!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

simon said:


> I'm just "praying for your soul" and wondering why you need to knock a differentiating belief system down to raise your ideals up ...


Gee... I was trying to be nice and avoid drawing any conclusions or 'knocking' anyone's beliefs. I just asked a question.



> Why is bryanc so afraid of Christians and their faith that he has to continually attack their beliefs using science as a crutch?


Is it possible that you're the one who's feeling insecure in your beliefs, and thus interpret honest questions as 'attacks'?

Just a thought.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Perhaps the "intelligentsia" is too full of itself to accept the idea of a Supreme Being. They're too full of their own greatness to see beyond themselves, Just a theory I'm throwing out there.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

A reasonable suggestion, though completely inconsistent with my experience. Part of doing science is accepting that you're wrong most of the time. And even when you're not immediately and obviously wrong, you're probably still wrong in the long run.

But it's fun learning new stuff everyday.

cheers


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Perhaps the "intelligentsia" is too full of itself to accept the idea of a Supreme Being. They're too full of their own greatness to see beyond themselves, Just a theory I'm throwing out there.


We can always flip that and say the religious types are too full of themselves to accept the idea that the concept of a Supreme Being is outdated, and having faith in a 1500 year old book is silly. Just a theory I'm throwing out there.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Sarah Polley used to post on the old Magic.ca. (She was very young. The audiodan of her day, shall we say.)

She still seems quite intelligent.




TroutMaskReplica said:


> the 'intelligencia' would be the likes of conrad black and michael ignatieff. i don't know what their religious beliefs are, but i'm pretty sure they've never posted on ehmac.
> 
> (this is the first time i've used the folksy phrase 'the likes of'. hurray for me.)


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I've got the following choices (limited due to what comes to mind):

Believing in, 

The Greek Pantheon (let's, realistically, include the Roman set here too)
Viking gods
Egyptian gods
Abrahamic God (say there's one concept, despite different messages)
A reincarnation system of karma (not decided by the Supreme Court)
Druidic nature spirits
Vague spiritual concept of "something"
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Pencil behind Alpha Centauri (personal favourite)
Nothing until a rationally plausible case for one/many of the above (or other examples)


All but one are based on belief without evidence and elimination of other options without evidence. The last one is simply "Show me". Crass rationality -- heaven forbid.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

To answer your question Bryanc, I've offered before that it could be based on expertise. Similar things are seen in other areas of knowledge versus the "conventional wisdom" of others. 

Sometimes researchers can prove reason behind conventional wisdom, other times all information leads to the opposite. Either way, the researchers do their thing (with some reasonable bias, one way or the other...even lying sometimes) while others are open to new understanding or, for some, cling to an unchanging understanding. Sometimes the clingers are right. Health research comes to mind with its limited knowledge and too small samples, but that doesn't rationalise the loyalty beyond a standard risk of change approach. 

I can fabricate conventional wisdom with a dart board and be right some percent of the time. At the same time, some odd historical practices have good scientific backing that is only understood much later (essentially knowledge evolution: science, the hard way). Others, sociological/political reason. But things change and some approaches will not allow for that as a relevant consideration.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Beej, tell me more about the Pencil behind Alpha Centauri! I like the idea. This may change my life.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SQ: It controls everything. You are not responsible for anything, nor is anyone else. It's all about the pencil, so give up. 

Note: It is recommended that you not gnaw on pencils, just in case.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Eccentricities don't matter so much when there are

a) few humans

b) lots of planet

We have that inverse just now and it matters much.

Too bad we can't the Universal Encyclopaedia solution with various human demographics taking their own planet and evolving along different lines.

Then again....they fought too.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> I've got the following choices (limited due to what comes to mind):
> 
> Believing in,
> 
> ...


Beej, you forgot Yogic Flying:


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Those guys really should have the multi-coloured Apple logo on their shirts.




SINC said:


> Beej, you forgot Yogic Flying:


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

As long as there is mystery in this world there will be religion of various stripe. The more mystery we solve via scientific discovery, the more a notion of god will loose influence. We see that in our times, even among those claiming belief in God. Many have seen their notion of a higher power become more vague, abstract or spiritually impotent and are either cold or lukewarm in the faith the profess.

Science has solved much that we used to view as mysterious/mystical in the past like the origins of electrical storms, the northern lights, volcanoes etc. etc. These awe inspiring sites were often attributed supernatural origins in many early civilizations but through science we've come to understand their natural origins.

Through education, people are revealed to much science that has disproven what we may have once considered supernatural with a natural explanation. That said, a highly educated individual in the field of science (or a D student that watches a lot of PBS) could come to the conclusion that all things attributed supernatural are actually natural phenomena waiting for an eventual natural explanation. Therefore they reject the notion of "anything" supernatural entirely, based on that assumption. 

That being said, I recognize the importance of science and its contributions to mankind, however I still see mountains of evidence of the supernatural that science fails to explain or the explanation they offer is extremely weak requiring a leap of faith to accept as true. Until the day a guy in a lab coat can mumble some words over a man with cancer and his tumor disappears, I'll have my faith.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A reasonably accurate assessment tho I'd disagree entirely on "mountains of evidence" as that's exactly where your thesis falls apart.

'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke ..."

The human body's ability to heal itself is as yet untapped and only vaguely understood in it's complexities.

THAT'S where wonder resides.

and in the exhange of glances and sharing of emotions with the other intelligent creatures that share our planet.

Supernatural explanations unneeded.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> That being said, I recognize the importance of science and its contributions to mankind, however I still see mountains of evidence of the supernatural that science fails to explain or the explanation they offer is extremely weak requiring a leap of faith to accept as true.


Please, provide this evidence of the supernatural. 
_
Disillusion comes only to the illusioned. One cannot be disillusioned of what one never put faith in._
Dorothy Thompson



MacGuiver said:


> Until the day a guy in a lab coat can mumble some words over a man with cancer and his tumor disappears, I'll have my faith.


Well that's just silly. Especially since in 2001, almost 64,000 people died of Cancer alone in Canada. Are you saying that one or two "miracle" healings out of 64,000 is the basis of your faith?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> The more mystery we solve via scientific discovery, the more a notion of god will loose influence. ...
> 
> a highly educated individual in the field of science (or a D student that watches a lot of PBS) could come to the conclusion that all things attributed supernatural are actually natural phenomena waiting for an eventual natural explanation. ....
> 
> I still see mountains of evidence of the supernatural that science fails to explain or the explanation they offer is extremely weak requiring a leap of faith to accept as true.


I take it yours is a 'God of the Gaps' then? Such a deity is certainly safe, in that there will always be gaps in our understanding of the natural universe, but it doesn't strike me as very metaphysically satisfying to rest your faith on fundamental ignorance.



> Until the day a guy in a lab coat can mumble some words over a man with cancer and his tumor disappears, I'll have my faith.


Personally, I'd rather have any tumors I develop treated with medicine than by a witch doctor, but whatever turns your crank, I guess.

Cheers


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> Please, provide this evidence of the supernatural.


That would be a lot of typing for nothing since anything I pointed to as evidence would be given a knee jerk scientific explanation, ignored or belittled.



> Well that's just silly. Especially since in 2001, almost 64,000 people died of Cancer alone in Canada. Are you saying that one or two "miracle" healings out of 64,000 is the basis of your faith?


When that one person was my own father diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma over 12 years ago its not that silly to me.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Methinks the scientiligionists are warring with the religionists over just who has dibs over the biggest set of absolutes. Holy giganto _cojones,_ Batman!

Lost somewhere in this epic warring is the situation on the ground. Which is, when you get down to it, a tough thing to nail down. On the internet or elsewhere.

I expect the energy propelling this thread to finally extinguish itself sometime just before Sol burns itself out.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"scientiligionists"... wrong and you do know better but you're just wallowing for self pleasuring

....you ALSO know what your mama said about THAT


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

It's odd, Max. 

As with the SSM debate, I can think of family members that, based largely upon their upbringing, have difficulty with the new "truth". I freely discuss my points of view on the divine and SSM with them, and understand (to the best of my knowledge) where their reticence comes from. Within reasonable and civil discussion, things work out fine despite vast differences...until actual family matters get discussed. XX)

If things deteriorate, there are problems but, otherwise, the lessons learned from All in the Family are quite valuable. Simple understanding of how important upbringing is (yes, we can all think for ourselves, but it still matters), while not in any way lessening one's rationality. 

I can openly talk of the logical equivalency of Zeus, pencils and God without screaming at them about bigotry. There are limits, purely subjective, that have been pushed (and I have pushed back -- strongly), but overall some basic understanding over condemnation is useful.

To the atheist/pure-logic approach, it is fair to discuss all gods alongside all other divine beliefs, old, new and made up on the spot. Given that, there's no reason for spittle to fly from the logicians other than personal insecurity or zealous behaviour, except for a limited set of counter-arguments. 

Everybody has their own definition of said "set" but some just define it so broadly that it simply encompasses anyone who doesn't follow them. The religious-like fervour of some non-religious types is awkward.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> "scientiligionists"... wrong and you do know better but you're just wallowing for self pleasuring
> 
> ....you ALSO know what your mama said about THAT


LOL! You're one to talk, you irredeemable emoticonista, you. Seems to me you wrote the book the book on meandering wallowism. And fair warning: you bring in my mom, I'm going to have to discuss the ongoing symptoms of your compulsive linkage dependencies. We _are_ seeking treatment for that, hmmm?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Beej said:


> The religious-like fervour of some non-religious types is awkward.


Oh yeah, Beej. Good thoughts there. I'd offer a rousing "amen" or "can I get a witness?" but the scientilligionists would pull some bad voodoo on the whole forum. Best keep one's head down while the high dudgeon rains down from the angry kingdoms and their lofty perches over us all.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Max said:


> but the scientilligionists would pull some bad voodoo on the whole forum


This *insert slurs* is a prime example of your *insert insults*! 

The scientilligionists will use science to manipulate the physical universe to rain logic-fire upon you and everyone who doesn't fit! You have been warned; put on a (foil) hat for your own protection.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacGuiver said:


> That would be a lot of typing for nothing since anything I pointed to as evidence would be given a knee jerk scientific explanation, ignored or belittled.
> When that one person was my own father diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma over 12 years ago its not that silly to me.
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


There are many of us who understand the type of beliefs you have MacGuiver, and especially where it concerns your father.

You have to consider that the likes of guytoronto, bryanc and far too many other self proclaimed intellectual superiors to us lowly types on this board, who have not in their short term on this planet, experienced the loss of someone close, or the release of emotion upon the loss of a friend, that they just might interpret differently when not constrained to their lab coats or scientific ideals.

When that day happens, they will think very different. Kinda like the reawakening of Apple.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> who have not in their short term on this planet, experienced the loss of someone close, or the release of emotion upon the loss of a friend, that they just might interpret differently when not constrained to their lab coats or scientific ideals.
> 
> When that day happens, they will think very different. Kinda like the reawakening of Apple.


Be careful about age-experience assumptions. I think I understand what you're getting at and we may even agree but, as worded, your age connection with experience of loss is a mistake. It can be relevant, but needs more filler beyond "us" and "them".


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Be careful about age-experience assumptions. I think I understand what you're getting at and we may even agree but, as worded, your age connection with experience of loss is a mistake. It can be relevant, but needs more filler beyond "us" and "them".


Tell me that again in thirty five years Beej.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Beej said:


> This *insert slurs* is a prime example of your *insert insults*!
> 
> The scientilligionists will use science to manipulate the physical universe to rain logic-fire upon you and everyone who doesn't fit! You have been warned; put on a (foil) hat for your own protection.


I bow my head in affirmation of the perceptive wisdom of your post and accordingly vow to refrain from further commenting (at least for this evening) that the pompous emperer is, yet again, naked and shivering. And I take your caution in earnest regarding the objective, clear-thinking, utterly rational hellfire the demons of scientilligion will attempt to visit me with. Alas, I fear I have misplaced my foil hat in a moment of rash, terribly tragic indiscretion; I wonder if some merciful objectivists among us might lend me theirs?

Beej, I bid you goodnight. One of these days, when I am visiting my mom, I'll have to look you up. I promise to wear a hat over my horns... no need to alarm the general populace.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> You have to consider that the likes of guytoronto, bryanc and far too many other self proclaimed intellectual superiors to us lowly types on this board, who have not in their short term on this planet, experienced the loss of someone close, or the release of emotion upon the loss of a friend, that they just might interpret differently when not constrained to their lab coats or scientific ideals.


This is a mighty big assumption SINC. I suppose MacDoc has never lost a friend or loved one? His three years less experience makes all the difference?
I doubt it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Devices just for you Max



















aptly named the "jaws of sensibility'


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> You have to consider that the likes of guytoronto, bryanc and far too many other self proclaimed intellectual superiors to us lowly types on this board, who have not in their short term on this planet, experienced the loss of someone close, or the release of emotion upon the loss of a friend, that they just might interpret differently when not constrained to their lab coats or scientific ideals.


I usually let this sort of thing slide, SINC, but you owe me an apology on this one. I have never proclaimed myself superior to anyone, intellectually or otherwise, and your assumptions about my lack of experience with painful loss is both factually incorrect and uncharacteristically mean-spirited of you.

You're welcome to disagree with my philosophy, or with the way I choose to present it, but you can keep your assumptions about my personal life to yourself.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sinc you have very few few more years than me and you little or nothing of my losses either or my reaction to them beyond an abiding dislike of old men sending young men to war.

No one is inferior unless they allow themselves to accept that about themselves.
You've used similar phrases in the past - is that YOUR self assessment?
T'would appear so from the evidence.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> I usually let this sort of thing slide, SINC, but you owe me an apology on this one. I have never proclaimed myself superior to anyone, intellectually or otherwise, and your assumptions about my lack of experience with painful loss is both factually incorrect and uncharacteristically mean-spirited of you.
> 
> You're welcome to disagree with my philosophy, or with the way I choose to present it, but you can keep your assumptions about my personal life to yourself.


If I offended you, I apologize.

The fact remains that the spirit of your posts about other beliefs contrary to your own, and your constant references to "sky daddy" in _their personal lives_ are as offensive to those you direct them to as mine was to you.

Doesn't sit well when it goes the other way it would seem?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Sinc you have very few few more years than me and you little or nothing of my losses either or my reaction to them beyond an abiding dislike of old men sending young men to war.


You're right, I know nothing of your losses.

What I do know however, is that if old men had not sent my young father and uncles to war and in some cases to their deaths, you would not be free to express your opinion of disliking old men's decisions today.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

SINC said:


> There are many of us who understand the type of beliefs you have MacGuiver, and especially where it concerns your father.
> 
> You have to consider that the likes of guytoronto, bryanc and far too many other self proclaimed intellectual superiors to us lowly types on this board, who have not in their short term on this planet, experienced the loss of someone close, or the release of emotion upon the loss of a friend, that they just might interpret differently when not constrained to their lab coats or scientific ideals.
> 
> When that day happens, they will think very different. Kinda like the reawakening of Apple.


Thanks SINC

Maybe I wasn't clear in my posting about my dad. He isn't dead. He's very much alive in fact. My father had a swollen lymph node on his neck for about 8 months. He finally broke down and went to the doctor and had it checked. After a biopsy, he was diagnosed with non Hodgkin's lymphoma, a potentially lethal cancer. My folks were shocked and devastated to say the least. Being devout Catholics, they turned to their faith but also sought medical care. My mother prayed with my father one night right after the diagnosis and before any treatment. The next morning he awoke and the lymph node was back to normal. The doctor was baffled by the disappearance of the tumor but recommended chemotherapy just the same since cancer in the lymph nodes is known to spread rapidly throughout your body. 
Its been 12 years and the cancer has never returned.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> You have to consider that the likes of guytoronto, bryanc and far too many other self proclaimed intellectual superiors to us lowly types on this board, who have not in their short term on this planet, experienced the loss of someone close, or the release of emotion upon the loss of a friend, that they just might interpret differently when not constrained to their lab coats or scientific ideals.


What a load of bunk SINC. Emotions don't equal spirituality. Chance occurrences don't equal God. Death doesn't equal unknown master plan. Life doesn't equal intelligent design. Hiding behind God, religion, or faith when unable to deal with the realities of our world is your weakness, not mine.

Ya, I've had friends and relatives die. You want to know something. I have never cried at a funeral. Why? Because death is a natural part of life. It happens to everyone. Some sooner than later. Is that cold of me? Perhaps, but I'm not looking for miracles or answers when it comes to death.

As for MacGuiver's father recovering from cancer, that's fantastic. It happens. In some people, cancer just stops, and goes away. If you want to belief God did it, good for you. Nobody can prove you wrong. It would be nice to know though why God saved that one person, and let the other 63,999 rot away in a hospital.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> As for MacGuiver's father recovering from cancer, that's fantastic. It happens. In some people, cancer just stops, and goes away. If you want to belief God did it, good for you. Nobody can prove you wrong. It would be nice to know though why God saved that one person, and let the other 63,999 rot away in a hospital.


I really don't know why thousands die of cancer.
Maybe they didn't believe in God? Maybe they never asked God to heal them in the first place? Maybe because they lacked faith? Maybe it was just their time? I've lost numerous relatives to cancer as well, many of whom were also prayed for. But I do know my father's story is not unusual among devout Christians. However I can't speak with any authority of other faiths so I won't.
I'm also yet to meet someone where cancer just disappeared where they didn't attribute it to God or treatment? Does this really happen?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> You want to know something. I have never cried at a funeral. Why? Because death is a natural part of life. It happens to everyone. Some sooner than later. Is that cold of me?


I don't know. Some might describe it as being cold. I simply describe it as not natural. 

Containing feelings to the point of suppressing emotion is certainly not natural nor desirable. Many would say it takes a real man to cry.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

no offence macguiver, but the only reasonable explanation for your father's overnight recovery is that he was misdiagnosed originally. he may have had a sebaceous cyst in his neck. i've had one - they feel like a swollen lymph node, but it's just a lump of hard tissue in the neck that can get infected occasionally. sometimes they disappear on their own, and sometimes they don't.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> If I offended you, I apologize.


Very good of you. Thank you.



> The fact remains that the spirit of your posts about other beliefs contrary to your own, and your constant references to "sky daddy" in _their personal lives_ are as offensive to those you direct them to as mine was to you.


Let me be clear, I was not offended at your attack on my beliefs. This discussion is invariably going to involve some criticisms of peoples personal beliefs, and if that sort of thing offends you, you shouldn't be here.

What I was offended at was firstly, being accused of having declared myself an intellectual superior - I did no such thing - and, more significantly, your off-hand dismissal of any personal losses I have experienced.

I am always impressed when someone can admit when they are wrong and apologize. I'm not sure you know what you're apologizing for in this case, but I'll assume there was no malice intended and leave it at that.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> I'm also yet to meet someone where cancer just disappeared where they didn't attribute it to God or treatment? Does this really happen?


Misdiagnoses happen all the time. Our neighbors dog had cancer and they couldn't afford to treat it, but it just disappeared one day. They probably prayed for it. But they were Hindus, so if they did, it wasn't to the same god.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> What I was offended at was firstly, being accused of having declared myself an intellectual superior - I did no such thing - and, more significantly, your off-hand dismissal of any personal losses I have experienced.


And that is exactly what I apologized for, just to be clear.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Misdiagnoses happen all the time. Our neighbors dog had cancer and they couldn't afford to treat it, but it just disappeared one day. They probably prayed for it. But they were Hindus, so if they did, it wasn't to the same god.
> 
> Cheers


:lmao: :clap:


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

How exactly do you know?



bryanc said:


> Misdiagnoses happen all the time. Our neighbors dog had cancer and they couldn't afford to treat it, but it just disappeared one day. They probably prayed for it. But they were Hindus, so if they did, it wasn't to the same god.
> 
> Cheers


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

He doesn't, but it's okay. He was jonesin' for a clever quip, not to make a rational statement.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Max said:


> He doesn't, but it's okay. He was jonesin' for a clever quip, not to make a rational statement.


Oh, thanks, I thought he had solved the "is there more than one god or does each pray to their own god(s)" dilemma.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Max said:


> He was jonesin' for a clever quip, not to make a rational statement.


How is the observation that the 'power of prayer' does not appear to correlate with any specific god or even pantheon irrational?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Man, I'm just yanking your chain. I thought you were being [email protected] about your multiple-gods crack. Clearly I'm not the only one. But apologies are due if that wasn't your intent.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Max said:


> Man, I'm just yanking your chain.


Irony is difficult to convey in text. My original use of 'intelligentsia' in this thread was intended ironically, but I've still enjoyed most of the ensuing discussion, despite the unintended insult some took from my choice of words.

This would all be much more fun in person over a few beers, but then it would be difficult to do while I'm marking biochemistry exams, so I guess it's a wash.

Happy Solstice!

Cheers


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Hey man, it's all good. A few beers over this and at least half of the nonsense would go away. Of course, a few beers and probably there would be a different kind of nonsense. But I too have enjoyed this and other threads.

Good luck with those exams and see you in here next year. I'm about to go incommunicado for a week or so. Cheers!


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Umm, are you coming on to bryanc?




Max said:


> Hey man, it's all good. A few beers over this and at least half of the nonsense would go away. Of course, a few beers and probably there would be a different kind of nonsense. But I too have enjoyed this and other threads.
> 
> Good luck with those exams and see you in here next year. I'm about to go incommunicado for a week or so. Cheers!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL

Do you think I should?

All I meant was that the convo would probably take on a more beery hue. Might be a refreshing change from the usual exchanges we see in here... some of which can be mighty brittle, not to mention crusty.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

TroutMaskReplica said:


> no offence macguiver, but the only reasonable explanation for your father's overnight recovery is that he was misdiagnosed originally. he may have had a sebaceous cyst in his neck. i've had one - they feel like a swollen lymph node, but it's just a lump of hard tissue in the neck that can get infected occasionally. sometimes they disappear on their own, and sometimes they don't.


Troutmask,

No offense taken. If you dismiss the possibility of a higher power it is the only reasonable explanation. Misdiagnosis happens all the time and could explain what would appear as an inexplicable healing. 
The lab technicians at the cancer institute in Ottawa and the cancer specialist analysing the biopsy could have screwed up. A cyst that was consistently present for 8 months may have coincidentally decided to disappear overnight on the day my mother had prayed for my dad.
As for the bryan's miracle dog. I guess he has more faith in a cancer diagnosis from a veterinarian than a cancer specialist and a biopsy.

Here's another story I'd love to hear the reasonable explanation for. 
http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/us/2006/12/21/carroll.blind.man.sees.cnn


Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It does not need to be a misdiagnosis - cancer is an aspect of biology and may indeed be a driving force of evolution.
There any number of ways the body could have dealt with it even if the diagnosis was correct.
••

Max - you need an irony emoticon......seems it would be useful here in a number of ways


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> There any number of ways the body could have dealt with it even if the diagnosis was correct.


Cancer and evolution? Don't people usually die of cancer, not improve?
That explains my dads new gills 
While you're at it, how about shedding some light on that spontaneous retinal regeneration?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It's all the same mechanism - perhaps if you spent a bit more time with the science journals you'd understand a bit more.



> Stem-cell transfer breakthrough raises hopes for blindness cure
> By Steve Connor, Science Editor
> Published: 09 November 2006
> A breakthrough in restoring sight to the blind has been made with a study showing that a damaged eye can be repaired by transplanting light-sensitive cells. The results of an experiment on laboratory mice have been so successful, scientists believe clinical trials on blind people could start within 10 years.
> ...


http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article1962699.ece

Stem cell research is just at the beginning and hampered by your fellow travellers Bush and Co.

Just the way you phrase "die of cancer" shows your very limited understanding as if it's "one thing".

There are extremely complex relationships between genes, viruses, types of body cells that are just beginning to be understood.



> Does Natural Selection Drive The Evolution Of Cancer?
> Science Daily — The dynamics of evolution are fully in play within the environment of a tumor, just as they are in forests and meadows, oceans and streams. This is the view of researchers in an emerging cross-disciplinary field that brings the thinking of ecologists and evolutionary biologists to bear on cancer biology.
> 
> Insights from their work may have profound implications for understanding why current cancer therapies often fail and how radically new therapies might be devised.
> ...


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061117114616.htm

This is a fascinating glimpse at some of the still little understood mechanisms.

http://www.medgadget.com/archives/2006/05/spontaneous_reg_1.html



> May 10, 2006
> 
> Spontaneous Regression of Advanced Cancer in Mice after White Blood Cell Transfer
> Filed under: Genetics
> ...


of course it requires removing the blinkers.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacDoc

Unfortunately, as an unworthy candidate of the "intelligentsia" I probably don't spend as much time reading science journals.
You provided some interesting info on scientific research that looks promising but how does any of this remotely explain the cases I sited? These are people that simply had a prayer said and recovered the next day. No experimental transplanted light sensitive cells or purified white blood cell transfers were carried out here. All the info you gave related to experimental medical procedures that none of these people had undergone, yet alone any humans. 
And if this is all some sort of natural phenomena of no supernatural significance, you should have no problems finding documented cases of atheists waking up one morning inexplicably healed as well. 
As for blinders (I assume you didn't mean blinkers?), pot and kettle come to mind. Fascinating that a computer salesman could easily find a natural explanation for the miraculous eye restoration yet the scientist that treated the man could not.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> cancer is an aspect of biology and may indeed be a driving force of evolution.


you've misunderstood the article you linked to. cancer does not drive human evolution. look at the article again.

i dont' see what this has to do with anything or how it proves your point.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

TM - there's a much wider aspect than that article covers. Stem cells and cancer cells have some common aspects and the balance between repair and destructive capability varies amongst humans.
Humans have been in a long dance with cancers - breast cancers clearly have a genetic component and various populations have different responses to externals like viruses and internal damage factors of all sorts.
View cancer as an ongoing challenge to human immune systems...and the response varies amongst groups.....it hasn't stopped. External factors have caused rises in certain cancer types and some human's have immune systems that prevent the development.
Diabetes and asthma on rise in young populations are all challenges for immune systems. 

Cancer evolution over time must be meet with immune system changes over time - they are two sides of the same coin. We may be able to intervene in it now but just as our current immune systems have never been 100% successful in eliminating cancers intervention also selects.



> "Evolution is also driving therapeutic resistance," Maley adds. "When you apply chemotherapy to a population of tumor cells, you're quite likely to have a resistant mutant somewhere in that population of billions or even trillions of cells. *This is the central problem in oncology. The reason we haven't been able to cure cancer is that we're selecting for resistant tumor cells.*


Our immune systems haven't solved the problem either.
••

MG - human recovery systems are incredible and we are not even close to understanding the full capabilities.
If you took the time to read you'd realize that the breakthrough on the eyesight was that the cells in the failing eye were triggered to repair themselves.
It was not just the transplant.
This aspect is also being applied in other areas notably diabetes.
Learning to reliably trigger stem cell repairs - especially adult stem cells for various tissue types is a major goal.

Stick to your mumbling and incense 

Corneal stem cell repair techniques is a growing area that will save thousands around the world.
Finding out how to stimulate that repair where the cornea has been damaged is an ongoing goal.
It's a project in Canada.



> Eye Stem Cells: Biology & Therapeutic Applications
> 
> Funding: 2005-2008
> The adult eye contains two known stem cell populations. Stem cells on the surface of the eye, lying at the periphery of the cornea, have the potential to generate new corneal cells and are currently therapeutically useful for the treatment of a limited number of corneal diseases and injuries.


http://www.stemcellnetwork.ca/research/projects/project22.php

Instead of recognising the situation as an opportunity to learn so others may benefit you put it down to "it's a miracle" and shake rattles around the fire.
What hogwash.

It's hardly a stretch knowing that corneas repair themselves and that we don't know what all the circumstances that trigger regeneration to think there are any number of explanations without invoking voodoo.

But that doesn't make for appealing headlines in the RR world.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Unfortunately, as an unworthy candidate of the "intelligentsia" I probably don't spend as much time reading science journals.


You are, at least to an extent, what you do. There's nothing stopping you from educating yourself, and becoming a more sophisticated and well-rounded person if that's what you want.



> You provided some interesting info on scientific research that looks promising but how does any of this remotely explain the cases I sited? These are people that simply had a prayer said and recovered the next day.
> 
> ....
> 
> And if this is all some sort of natural phenomena of no supernatural significance, you should have no problems finding documented cases of atheists waking up one morning inexplicably healed as well.


I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to find examples of people of any faith, or lack thereof, who enjoyed sudden spontaneous remission, but that would be purely anecdotal, and of no value to this discussion.

Our scientific understanding of these phenomena is currently growing as fast as we can do the experiments (much faster in Europe and Asia, thanks to the influence of the Religious Right in the US). There is certainly nothing supernatural going on, but it is quite amazing.

We know that many other vertebrates can do a lot more regeneration than humans, and it is now becoming clear that humans don't lack the basic biology necessary to regenerate. However, like our ability to fight cancers, our ability to regenerate has been greatly reduced in evolutionary trade-offs that have allowed us to exploit other opportunities.

Experimentation, not prayer, is what will give us understanding of these phenomena, and allow us to develop applications that work with some reliability.

You're welcome to keep praying, but please try to stay out of the way while those of us who are actually making real progress on these problems do our work.

Cheers


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

So to sum up the Doc and BryanC dynamic duo. I have no explanation but I'll embrace the nearest blade of grass that fits my atheistic world view and hang on that and serve it up with a side order of insult and debasement. 
:clap: :clap: :clap: 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

At least they aren't making *Batman* references.

btw, here is a better "blade of grass" quotation for your purposes:



Thomas Edison said:


> Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so called scientific knowledge.





MacGuiver said:


> So to sum up the Doc and BryanC *dynamic duo*. I have no explanation but I'll embrace the nearest blade of grass that fits my atheistic world view and hang on that and serve it up with a side order of insult and debasement.
> :clap: :clap: :clap:
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Current human knowledge is finite and cannot explain everything. That's pretty straight forward.

Now, from there, how is the notion of one God a better explanation than a pantheon? If it is (big if), how is an explanation of that one God versus a different one God superior? How is any of that a more powerful explanation than one of how human belief creates divinity and how that concept connects with the likelihood of intelligent life somewhere else (far away and not interested in making cute circles or molesting our livestock)?

If God is just a concept used to fill in what is beyond finite human knowledge, that's not actually divine. That is just a label. 

The list of divine intervention is shrinking due to expanding human knowledge. The list may appear to be growing as we learn more about what we don't know but, with divinity as explaining the unexplainable, the list only ever shrinks. Quite telling.


----------

