Do we make leaps of faith too?

[Wechtlein Uns]

Thank you BadPoison. I'm blushing.  

[DennisK]

I really wasn't looking for comparisons to the religious per se.  The more I looked into my own thought process and knowledge (or lack there of), the more I realized I was being lazy by not investigating things for myself.  I then wondered if we all do this and came to the assumption we do on various levels.  I didn't mean for it to sound as I was attacking science itself.  I think we all would benefit from finding out for ourselves, though.

Our knowledge of science, even if we accept all mainstream theories, is still in it's infancy.  There are going to be discoveries that could blow what we know out of the water (and I'm not talking about religion).  Maybe not in our lifetime, but will we be open to the possibility if it does occur?  Will we easily discredit someone's findings if they have a shaky past or views that conflict with our own?  Throughout history, change has been slow, sometimes stagnant, when it comes to modifying mainstream views of the universe.  Our current understanding of science came from those who saw outside the box and often threw caution in the wind by their discovery's implications.  Can anyone here honestly say that if you were alive at the time of Copernicus or Galileo, would you accept their findings?

[Kyuuketsuki]

I really wasn't looking for comparisons to the religious per se.  The more I looked into my own thought process and knowledge (or lack there of), the more I realized I was being lazy by not investigating things for myself.  I then wondered if we all do this and came to the assumption we do on various levels.  I didn't mean for it to sound as I was attacking science itself.  I think we all would benefit from finding out for ourselves, though.

OK ... I'm not sure if this is what you mean but a while ago I wrote this which IMO encompasses why I think science is worth my faith in it.

Why I Defend Science!
14 December, 2005

I believe science is important … I believe it represents our best effort to understand the universe around us, that regardless of whether the understanding it engenders is used for good or ill that knowledge is a good thing. Though there are those that will use knowledge for ill I have faith in the human race and I believe that the greater our knowledge the better a chance we, the human race, will have of surviving whatever disasters may befall us over time. I believe that our search for objective knowledge, for real understanding of the nature of the universe in which we exist is one of the finest endeavours (perhaps THE finest endeavour) to which the human mind can put itself. It therefore stands to reason that I wish that that knowledge is passed on to my children and the children of the human race in general … I want us (the human race) to reach as high as we can, I want us to leave this lonely planet in this far flung corner of what may well be a lonely galaxy and throw ourselves outwards exploring and finding out more about the universe. The further we throw ourselves the greater we ensure our survival … if the universe is inhabited by others I hope we can meet them in friendship, if the others are aggressive I hope we survive to be the victors and if the universe is a truly lonely place I hope we can bend it to our will. Whichever way I look at it I believe that science holds the key to our survival.

Religion (and whilst I don’t believe religion of any kind to be a good thing, when I say that understand I refer particularly to fundamentalist religions and not the moderates of this world) stands in opposition to science and to freedom as it represents and engenders IMO the worst of our bigotry, our hatred & our isolationism. Religion teaches us to be satisfied with what we have when I believe we should always strive to improve, to know more, to be better!

Fundamentalist Christianity in particular has mounted a tirade of attacks on science (largely on what they see as science’s bastard child, the theory of evolution) in the US challenging it successively (and unsuccessfully) at the state court, the supreme court and finally at the school board level where it has had some success … and it was with some dismay (and anger) several years ago I learned that the very same fundamentalism had struck at the heart of the UK education system and that that attack, more frighteningly, had bypassed the earlier legal steps and had gone straight for the jugular of the school boards where it was having much more success in the US. In effect they are striking at the very young of our nations and that is not, never will be, something I can idly sit by and accept … before their strike at the UK I almost considered this a game but I can do so no longer.

Science is important, the theory of evolution (a fully paid up and supported child of true science) is important and the sad fact is that scientists are typically too wrapped up in their own world and views to understand the threat that fundamentalist religions represent … science has taken its eye off the ball! That’s where people like me come in, people (science adherents) who are prepared to put in the time and effort to ward off the threat that religious fundamentalism represents. Science is important to our comprehension of the universe around us; it is rational, logical and appears to be correct in terms of its methodology … no religion can say the same and that is why I find creationism, fundamentalism and evangelism generally to be so abhorrent.

If fundamentalist religions gain control it will (IMO) usher in an era where thought and word (spoken and written) will be curtailed, where our basic freedoms and choices will be heavily limited where my children will not be able to appreciate the wonders (the truly awesome majesty) of a natural universe. We’ve been there before … it was called the Dark Ages and I will not stand by and watch these lunatics destroy everything I hold of value and deny the basic freedoms and rights which I hold dear for myself, my children and those I love.

So, I have every intention of defending science (& evolution) from the ravings of a bunch of religious cultists apparently intent on destroying everything I consider good and decent in this world and, on the basis that the best form of defence is (probably always will be) attack I inhabit forums, build websites and mount campaigns with the aim of undermining the belief systems of those who oppose science as they are on destroying the credibility of mine.

It is unfortunate in debates of this nature that this means I have to attack people’s core beliefs, things quite evidently meaningful & important to them, but there would be no point in this kind of debate if the various proponents didn’t seek to win. I do not seek to understand the fundamentalist POV any more than I have to nor do I expect to change the minds of people whose minds are already set but there exist those who lurk, those who read such forums but don’t contribute directly and it is to them that my efforts are primarily directed. It may be that they will read my work as the rantings of an atheist lunatic fighting against the good clean & godly believers of this world but then again it may be that they are not sure where they stand and that they have heard the superficially convincing views of the fundamentalist … to them and for them all I can do is give it my best shot, to put up an opposing argument where I can, to act honourably and concede a point well made where I cant. What I can say is that if I can oppose a fundamentalist point I will, that unlike the fundamentalist debater if I don’t know the answer then I will research it and if I can’t answer, I will not try to blind with bull. However, what I most emphatically will not do is attempt to dodge (one of the defining characteristics of the fundamentalist/evangelist debater) behind irrelevant responses, attempts to turn the conversation in a new direction, defamations of character or run away (though believe me there are times I feel like it, coming back to places like this strikes a chill into my heart at times) repeated appeals to “common sense”, unprovable authority and plain lies.

I am an atheist and proud of it … it took time, effort and a great deal of thought & courage to shed the beliefs I was brought up with. I did not get my views or my morality off anybody else’s shelf, my views on this are entirely home grown and I am proud of that. I am also, I know, a militant and regard this as a kind of war … as such I will adopt whatever strategy I feel best to achieve the aims I have set and if that upsets creationists, fundamentalists and evangelists I really don’t care. If it upsets fellow science adherents it is an issue that I will weigh up at the time. Ultimately I am human and I am prone to aggression on occasion … I can’t help it! I get frustrated at some of the stupidity I see around me! As a friend of mine says of me … I do not tolerate fools (or foolish belief systems) easily.

What an individual believes is entirely their concern, be that creation or otherwise … when that individual brings those beliefs into a public arena and tries directly or implicitly to attack science or to repress free thought on the basis of unjustifiable and supernatural beliefs then, believe me, I get very, very annoyed and I fight!

As Dawkins puts it, “I may not always be right, but I care passionately about what is true and I never say anything I do not believe to be right.” (1986)

The following is another article I wrote which is a little more relevant ... er ... maybe

Science Versus Truth
By
Vampyre UK

Science is an ongoing attempt to explain the universe and in this respect has explained or is attempting to explain all that is observable. Science is not absolute and no one in their right mind claims it is so or has the absolute answer to anything ... apart from creationists! But then that's not true science but the fundamentalist cartoon version of science.

So what is science? Science is, as I say above, an ongoing and self-correcting attempt to understand the universe around us. And what is truth? Truth is something which implies absolute correctness, no doubt whatsoever, a logical concept the opposite of which is something that is not true (by which I mean anything logically the opposite of that which is true AND everything which is not entirely true). To give a simple example:

The statement, "the bath is full" would be true if the water in said bath were lapping at the very top, that no more water could enter that bath without a change of conditions affecting the observation. Conversely the statement would not be true if there were no water in the bath at all or if there were any amount of water in the batch between empty and full ... if any amount of water could be added subsequently to that bath without spilling water over the side then the bath would not be full even though it may appear to be so.

Now, the essential nature of science is that it derives its confidence from accumulated observations and a rational interpretation of the same. Science has little to do with truth (certainty) because nothing in science is above challenge (though it may seem so at times) and therefore cannot be considered absolute. Something can be considered to be correct for decades and can be confirmed by thousands (perhaps millions) of observations but it only takes one verified challenge to bring that theory to its knees and force its removal or change. I am not denying that science (and scientists) can be extremely stubborn at times ... as a philosophy it (was) created and (is) administered by scientists, scientists are human and humans can be hard to shift from a given point of view, we can see examples of that even now, but in principle the above is correct.

Evolution (for example) is now considered so safe that nothing could shake it as a theory but all it would take (to use a theistic example) would be one piece of verified evidence that the hand of deity were involved in the process and evolution as a theory would die ... granted it would stumble on for a while not realising it had been beheaded but it would, if that observation were confirmed, ultimately die. However no such evidence has been uncovered and more and more confirmatory evidence continues to be uncovered in support of it and since its birth the Theory of Evolution, though it has changed in fine, has remained unfazed by all comers for 140 years.

Science doesn't deal with truths or absolutes, it deals with facts, theories and hypotheses, is wholly open to challenge and, in this light, science represents our best current attempt to understand the nature of the universe around us.

Science is the recognised method of discovering things about the universe and it does it not by deductive reasoning but inductive. The inductive method, instead of building conclusions on a set of assumptions deductively, builds on a set of observations and derives generalisations from them and the modern scientist looks on induction as the essential process of gaining knowledge, the only way of justifying a generalisation. Moreover the modern scientist recognises that that no generalisation can be allowed to stand unless it is continually challenged (by newer methods & techniques). The upshot is that no amount of inductive testing can make a generalisation absolute hence the scientific necessity that all of science is tentative hence the fact that I argue that truth (the absolute) & fact bear no relationship to each other. As a result modern natural philosophy makes no attempt to attain ultimate truth because there can never be sufficient observations to achieve such a status.

This is also the reason why modern science CANNOT investigate claims such as god, spirit & soul as it is not possible to build a generalisation without observation and observations of these things have not yet been gained and the more we progress the less likely they appear ... non-testable phenomena lie outside of the sphere of inductive science.

And finally, the piece-de-résistance of science, the peer-review process â€" peer review does not, as some (notably creationists) would have us believe hobble the search for knowledge but in fact opens up the whole of modern natural philosophy to all of the scientists all of the time, for by the very fact of publishing ones work others are made aware of it and a given generalisation is brought into an arena where it can be tested by them. Peer-review is a formalised version of scientific challenge and the difference that process makes is immense ... everything every scientist does (or group of scientists do) is checked (peer-reviewed) by others. That doesn't mean mistakes can't happen, frauds can't be perpetrated but it does mean that such mistakes (purposeful or otherwise) will one day, almost certainly, be uncovered and reversed. Creationists are so very fond of highlighting what the see as the mistakes of science (Piltdown man, Nebraska Man and so more besides) but in fact such examples are more notable for the fact that it wasn't some numbskull creationist that uncovered the fraud or flaw but science and so can be seen as an example of science doing exactly what science should ... self-correcting. It is also the reason why creationists dare not publish their garbage in reputable scientific journals preferring to appeal to like minded theistic individuals and the lowest forms of reasoning in the general public ... because they know that if they did so their claims would be ripped to shreds so quickly that it would hardly have been worth applying their twisted reasoning to paper. It is also the reason why your find it so difficult to get your whacky theories accepted by any rational individual here in this forum ... quite simply because they are applying a peer-review like response to your lunacy.

But back to science ... as a consequence of the nature of science, the very fact that it is capable of admitting to and correcting its errors and claims only tentative knowledge, whilst I cannot say with absolute confidence that any or all of science is correct, what I can say is that science represents our best current understanding of the universe around us.

So, returning again to my opening statement, science is an ongoing and self-correcting attempt to understand the observable universe the key points being that it is ongoing (there is more to discover) and it is self-correcting (it holds no absolutes and EVERYTHING is up for challenge). In that light science can be seen to be no more (or less) than our best current understanding of the universe and no part of science, as evidenced by the huge number of scientific ideas that have been modified, overturned and dismissed as not worthy of consideration, is beyond challenge and therefore simple logic dictates that no part of it can be considered absolute.

It seems to me that people have a choice ... learn what science truly is i.e. not inerrant (nor claiming to be), not possessing an answer to every question (nor claiming to), and recognising no absolutes (nor claiming to) but representing our best current understanding of the universe around us or join the hordes of fundamentalist religious dimwits, placing their faith before cold hard logic & reason.

Then of coursed to the usual fundamentalist question ... how do we know that science works? As one engineer famously put it, "because the bridges stay up!"

That is why science is not absolute (why it has little to do with truth)!

Maybe something in one of them answers or helps you answer the question?

Kyu

[dodgecity]

Have we really hit the 100% proof positive position that we want?

You and I both know that I wouldn't have been so "vitriolic" if he would have phrased it like that. If you see this:

Do we make leaps of faith too?

and that translates as

Have we really hit the 100% proof positive position that we want?

Well, then I apologize, because my selective hearing isn't as primed as yours, since I'm a new atheist, and you're an old one, I guess you've gotten used to translating bombastically insulting statements into exactly what you want to hear.

This is ridiculous, as none of us really disagrees on anything except for the meaning of DennisK's post, and seeing that this has already happened, with DennisK of all people, because he has a tendency of going around saying preposterous things and I'm the only bloody person on the forum who has the passion, as you call it, to be up front about how incorrect he is instead of merely fishing for my preconceptions in the midst of his words.

If you're so sure that you know what DennisK was trying to say, that any other interpretation is forfeit, well then, so be it. Whatever it is that we make, they could never be described as leaps of faith. That's a mockery of the English language. Just say it aloud to yourself. Leaps of faith. And I'm the one who, because of a predisposition, misinterpreted the post? Give me a break.

I won't comment on the ad hominem, seeing as I deserve it, after pulling one out myself. (I should know better.)

On a lighter note, Kyu , I enjoyed the second article. Indeed, the bridges do stay up. The fact that there are bridges at all is a testament of the pragmatism of the methodology. Jesus, I guess I am pretty passionate about science. I always loved that clip of Dawkins saying "Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." Hopefully, that passion will fade in time, once I get used to being an atheist and all. We can only hope.

[DennisK]

Kyu,

I don't think we are on the same wavelength.  It is probably due to my poor technical communication skills and I apologize.  My ideas make sense in my head and seemingly make sense after I write them, however, many times it misses the mark I intended.

I totally agree with you and understand the scientific process.  I do, however, think just because one or many can observe support of their hypothesis doesn't necessarily prove that it is true.  And just because theories haven't been disproved doesn't make them true.

I know I am coming across as being of a religious view.  That is not my intention at all.  I believe in evolution and the basic laws of physics.

Maybe if I gave a little more background into my thought process, it would allow others to see my perspective more clearly.  Really since being "born again" by the teachings of my lord and savior, Richard Dawkins, my world has changed dramatically.  Although, I have been an atheist for roughly 17 years, it wasn't until read The God Delusion that I was given a much deeper view of religion and have a better understanding of how it manipulated the minds of billions.  

I was raised Catholic, but I didn't have a clue what was in the Bible.  I went to church about every week and never listened to one sermon (except for the one about masturbation, that was hilarious).  After being exposed to Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennet, I was initially spurred to learn about various religions so I would have ammunition to combat theists trying to impose their views on me.  I was going to be the champion of free thinkers everywhere.   I learned a lot about religions and the need of the elite to control the masses.  I could see how power (mostly to control others) was the key force that shaped the world at any time in history.

I have since become a YouTube junkie which has greatly helped me to explore perspectives of history and see other sides of stories that were and are spoon fed to us.  If you look at any historical account of history, you don't know if that was the real truth, their biased perspective/delusion/misconception, dictated to them, propaganda or a hoax.  

History is like putting together a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle and only having a couple hundred pieces and no picture on the box to reference.  Some pieces are similar in texture and color, so it is logical they should be grouped together.  Some may even fit together.  One would assume the pieces with a flat side go along the edge based on previous experience with puzzles, but how do you know for sure?  On closer inspection, the pieces that we thought previously fit, don't seem to fit.  Other pieces may be morphing.  For me, the more pieces I receive, the larger the size of the puzzle is becoming exponentially.

Fast forward to the present day.  I am seeing horrible things being done by those in power across the globe including the U.S..  I see all governments seek power and to maintain it they have to keep their people ignorant of their motives by throwing in countless distractions.  I'm seeing a lot of anecdotal evidence to support the theory that our government is not run by those elected, but rather by BIG money.  I also believe there are multiple government agencies that don't answer to congress or any other elected officials.  Besides, most Congressmen/Representatives don't have a clue what they are voting for.  Most of them rely on aids to read proposed bills that are so loaded with pork that no one can truly know where the money is going or the motives behind them.  On top of this you have magical spin machine using 'slide of brain' tricks to keep everyone on their heals.  Our current system of government is ripe for collusion and to think otherwise is illogical to me.  (Music becoming louder)

Because of my findings, it has spurred me even further to learn more about many things.  I have learned a great deal about myself from posting on this forum because I strive to sound like I know what I'm talking about (supply your own joke here).  I also want to invoke others to question what they've been told and investigate all areas of life with a scientific approach to find answers. (Cut to commercial)

[BadPoison]

My ideas make sense in my head and seemingly make sense after I write them, however, many times it misses the mark I intended.

Statements can be missunderstood - but in most cases it's the responsibility of the speaker to ensure his/her point has been accurately conveyed.

I totally agree with you and understand the scientific process.  I do, however, think just because one or many can observe support of their hypothesis doesn't necessarily prove that it is true.  And just because theories haven't been disproved doesn't make them true.

No one ever said this was the case.

I know I am coming across as being of a religious view.  That is not my intention at all.  I believe in evolution and the basic laws of physics.

This is exactly how you're about to come across.

Maybe if I gave a little more background into my thought process, it would allow others to see my perspective more clearly.  Really since being "born again" by the teachings of my lord and savior, [strike:3t05wkn5]Richard Dawkins[/strike:3t05wkn5] Jesus Christ, my world has changed dramatically.  Although, I have been an [strike:3t05wkn5]atheist[/strike:3t05wkn5] theist for roughly 17 years, it wasn't until read [strike:3t05wkn5]The God Delusion[/strike:3t05wkn5] The Biblethat I was given a much deeper view of [strike:3t05wkn5]religion and have a better understanding of how it manipulated the minds of billions.[/strike:3t05wkn5] non-believers and how they're in league with the great satan to manipulate the world.
I was raised  [strike:3t05wkn5]Catholic[/strike:3t05wkn5], but I didn't have a clue what [strike:3t05wkn5]was in the Bible[/strike:3t05wkn5] the world was all about.  I went to church about every week and never listened to one sermon (except for the one about masturbation, that was hilarious).  After being exposed to[strike:3t05wkn5]Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennet,[/strike:3t05wkn5] mathew, mark, luke and john I was initially spurred to learn about various religions so I would have ammunition to combat [strike:3t05wkn5]theists[/strike:3t05wkn5] other people of different world views trying to impose their views on me.  I was going to be the champion of [strike:3t05wkn5]free thinkers[/strike:3t05wkn5] people with silly missunderstandings everywhere.   I learned a lot about religions and the need of the elite to control the masses.  I could see how power (mostly to control others) was the key force that shaped the world at any time in history.

Was that a little harsh? It's only meant to be satire.

[Sophus]

I believe it was Richard Dawkins who said a leap of faith only comes from believing in a positive when there are no positives for it. We don't make leaps of faith. And if we do then we're certainly jumping over a significantly smaller gap than theists are.

[dodgecity]

I believe it was Richard Dawkins who said a leap of faith only comes from believing in a positive when there are no positives for it.

Thank you. That's what I take issue with, trying to criticize a negative position and act as if it has the characteristics of a positive position. As human beings, we make assumptions, we have to. But as atheists, we make none.

[BadPoison]

I believe it was Richard Dawkins who said a leap of faith only comes from believing in a positive when there are no positives for it.

Thank you. That's what I take issue with, trying to criticize a negative position and act as if it has the characteristics of a positive position. As human beings, we make assumptions, we have to. But as atheists, we make none.

It's the idea of rationality, and being able to re-examine what we find to be true. It's like what someone said earlier, that we're fluid in our assertions - they're dynamic. That makes all the difference.

[DennisK]

Statements can be missunderstood - but in most cases it's the responsibility of the speaker to ensure his/her point has been accurately conveyed.

Agreed.  I thought I had taken credit for this.  It is a very difficult task for me to try to look at what I am writing from many perspectives.  I will continue to work on it.

I totally agree with you and understand the scientific process.  I do, however, think just because one or many can observe support of their hypothesis doesn't necessarily prove that it is true.  And just because theories haven't been disproved doesn't make them true.

What I should have said was, "it shouldn't be taken as fact" as many presume.

Maybe if I gave a little more background into my thought process, it would allow others to see my perspective more clearly.  Really since being "born again" by the teachings of my lord and savior, [strike:2zzsxb9i]Richard Dawkins[/strike:2zzsxb9i] Jesus Christ, my world has changed dramatically.  Although, I have been an [strike:2zzsxb9i]atheist[/strike:2zzsxb9i] theist for roughly 17 years, it wasn't until read [strike:2zzsxb9i]The God Delusion[/strike:2zzsxb9i] The Biblethat I was given a much deeper view of [strike:2zzsxb9i]religion and have a better understanding of how it manipulated the minds of billions.[/strike:2zzsxb9i] non-believers and how they're in league with the great satan to manipulate the world.
I was raised  [strike:2zzsxb9i]Catholic[/strike:2zzsxb9i], but I didn't have a clue what [strike:2zzsxb9i]was in the Bible[/strike:2zzsxb9i] the world was all about.  I went to church about every week and never listened to one sermon (except for the one about masturbation, that was hilarious).  After being exposed to[strike:2zzsxb9i]Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennet,[/strike:2zzsxb9i] mathew, mark, luke and john I was initially spurred to learn about various religions so I would have ammunition to combat [strike:2zzsxb9i]theists[/strike:2zzsxb9i] other people of different world views trying to impose their views on me.  I was going to be the champion of [strike:2zzsxb9i]free thinkers[/strike:2zzsxb9i] people with silly missunderstandings everywhere.

[BadPoison]

Statements can be missunderstood - but in most cases it's the responsibility of the speaker to ensure his/her point has been accurately conveyed.

Agreed.  I thought I had taken credit for this.  It is a very difficult task for me to try to look at what I am writing from many perspectives.  I will continue to work on it.

I find it likely that most of us are not "experts" at communicating. I know I'm not.

[DennisK]

I believe it was Richard Dawkins who said a leap of faith only comes from believing in a positive when there are no positives for it.

Maybe the title had a hint of yellow journalism to it.  I originally had "huge" in there as well.  In hindsight, I'm glad I did take it out.

The statement and explanation were mostly meant to be self deprecating.  I am lazy on a lot of issues and often make broad assumptions when dealing with complexities I don't wish to explore in depth, although I am working on it.  I never meant for it to be an apples to apples comparison with theists.

[DennisK]

I recently found this video and thought it might be fitting here.  If follows what I said about being open to ideas.  You may want to FF to 2:17 if you don't feel like sitting through the intro.  I'm very interested what you all think of the content.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=jRf835hwpKI&feature=related

[Kyuuketsuki]

I don't think we are on the same wavelength.  It is probably due to my poor technical communication skills and I apologize.  My ideas make sense in my head and seemingly make sense after I write them, however, many times it misses the mark I intended.

No worries :hail:   I learned a lot about religions and the need of the elite to control the masses.  I could see how power (mostly to control others) was the key force that shaped the world at any time in history.[/quote]

I'm an ex-Catholic too and yes, I think that the near fundamentalism of the Catholics does tend to colour your view even after you've broken fee.

History is like putting together a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle and only having a couple hundred pieces and no picture on the box to reference.  Some pieces are similar in texture and color, so it is logical they should be grouped together.  Some may even fit together.  One would assume the pieces with a flat side go along the edge based on previous experience with puzzles, but how do you know for sure?  On closer inspection, the pieces that we thought previously fit, don't seem to fit.  Other pieces may be morphing.  For me, the more pieces I receive, the larger the size of the puzzle is becoming exponentially.

I don't think of history like that unless you mean the history of the earth in geologic and evolutionary terms in which case yes ... I wrote this some time ago:

All of science uses the same overall methodology and every major theory, every hypothesis in science is based on the work of others OUTSIDE the field in which that theory or hypothesis is perceived to sit. That means that a number of major theories (and evolution is not only no exception but the pièce-de-résistance in this sense) base their evidence and methodologies on the copious evidence obtained from many, many other scientific theories, hypotheses and disciplines so much so that all of science links together in a fashion that can be likened to a jigsaw puzzle ... I'll explain:

Science is naturalistic, science is empirical; science fits with other parts of science much like a jigsaw fits together ... if one could pull one piece of it away (declare it a joke, a fairy tale or inherently wrong based on a given set of beliefs) or indeed force another to fit (as creationists & intelligent designists do by attempting to introduce a non-verifiable, non-supported deity) then the whole of science would collapse around our feet like so much matchwood.

On the nations thing I think it's a mistake to think of nations in a moral sense ... nations don't have morals, they have interests ... it's the only way to explain why "we" went into Iraq but haven't yet gone into places like Zimbabwe. I presume there is insufficient there to interest our governments.

I agree that business has a lot of power but democracy, although imperfect, does attempt to redress that a little.

Education is always a good thing ... from education all good things come.

Kyu

[DennisK]

Kyu,

Me like science.  Science good.

As far as democracy in the U.S., I believe we used to have it a long, long time ago.  However, I think it is mostly illusion now.