Just liked your post, thought it was an informative read, and wanted tell you. Thanks.
Do you realize some of your arguments only work because they compare two different things in the most abstract of terms? Hell, using some of your arguments I can argue law enforcement is a religion. Police have to wear special costumes for their duties. Due process could be argued to be the ceremony of law enforcement. Depending on the evidence and the situation whether to bring somebody in can be arbitrary. And what happens when you don’t have the paperwork handy to book somebody? Sounds like something the due process ceremony can’t go on without. Must be very frustrating. If I argue in these abstractions I can turn law enforement, or just about anything else, into a religion. I could continue using the rest of your argumets but I think you get the point. Again, your case about the similarities between science and religin is too abstract to hold water.
I have a Darwin fish in my car. And I’m very happy 
Dude, have you ever attempted a non-homophobic post? Just wondering.
I realize that it’s abstract; that’s the point. If it were concrete no one would question it.
Well, at least you found something worthwhile in my post. Fourth day on ketogenic diet…things are getting better…of course when my brain glucose stabilizes I have the feeling that nobody will care about this thread anymore
Huck…ok…damn it, I’m going to have to type slowly, not for you, but for my own sake on this damn keto diet, so forgive any minor typos or spelling errors. You said:
“Finally, as to beauty, there has been some progress in the area of human beauty, at least. It seems to be strongly correllated with symmetry, and there are certain angles and proportions for female facial features that are almost universally accepted as attractive.”
OK, regarding this statement…let me first state that I do like your posting so far, very clear headed…I just have to honestly say that I think you over-extended yourself here. If you think that there is a scientific basis for beauty, then PLEASE, define in OBJECTIVE terms standards for beauty that would relate to any period of uman history, without ANY reference to cultural standards. That means, if you want to use terms like ‘symmetry,’ define them scientifically and demonstrate how those definitions relate to beauty in a fashion which would NOT be denied by ANY human standards in recorded human history. After all, if there are some scientific standards for human beauty, it should be easily demonstrated that human standards for beauty are absolutely constant in any place in the world, at any time in the world.
The entire point of science is that it can be replicated and remain undeniable by anyone who could replicate such circumstances.
I would posit that ‘symmetry,’ despite its vague appearance of objectivity, is just another cultural metaphor with absolutely no basis outside the realm of individual human experience. But since you brought up this topic, it would stand to reason by most commonly accepted scientific standards that you should be able to defend said topic. If you would be so kind, also posit how one can scientifically determine how any landmark, painting, poem, novel, statue, face, political theory, relationship, sexual encounter, natural formation, chemical, tree, phallus, or inter-personal relationship is superior to any other in terms that if placed in practice by any human, would remain true, replicable, and undeniable. That means – NO rhetoric (like ‘symmetry’ without specific definition and demonstration), only replicable standards that any person here or anywhere else in the world can put into action, in a scientific sense.
I feel that I should make a statement of my principles and intentions. You see, both Huck and Demo Dick represent the two strongest sides of my own personal philosophies (forgive me, you two, for referring to you in the third person, I can’t think of a better rhetorical technique at the moment). On one hand, like Huck, I consider science and the scientific method to be the best and most consistent technique ever devised to find the greatest amount of truth about the majority of problems and/or situations faced by humanity. Then on the other hand, like at least my interpretation of Demo Dick’s writings, I also recognise that science does not and cannot answer all questions, and in fact in terms of the broader religious/philosophical (for lack of better terms) issues, I also consider myself a gnostic, one who seeks personal knowledge on those subjects that science cannot objectively answer, irrelevant of whether or not I can prove to or convince others of my personal relevations or opinions. Honestly, I think that the personal views of people like Huck or Demo Dick are not so much distant, than there is a lack of essential communication. Because of the political charge that exists between science and that which science cannot answer is so powerful, people polarize themselves to one side or another, when such polarity is not logical or even necissary. That is why I constantly second-guess myself in this debate thread – I consider Huck and Demo Dick both intelligent and worthy of respect, at least in the rhetorical context of this discussion (you guys might be major bungholes in person, but I’m not accounting for that ;)). It is my personal belief that if there was just more acknowledgement of the extreme importance of BOTH positions – the replicability and reliability of science, and the inspiration, motivation, and energy of personal inspiration – that there would be less enmity and more mutual understanding, which would in turn lead to a greater improvement of humanity, beyond the objective benefits offered by the scientific method or the personal satisfaction granted by…for lack of a better term…individual inspiration/gnosis/faith. (All terms, by the way, I acknowledge as insufficient, I’m just working with what I got given my current brain glucose levels.)
Hey, hope it helped. I probably mangled a few points, but as long as it helps a little. And by no way do I say that Science proves GOD’s Existance, but that there is overwhelming evidence in modern science that would lean towards this, despite what Bert Russell said. If you’re interested in this topic, well, you’d need a lot of schooling, but there are some great books. I would definitely say look for Gerald shroeder’s stuff. VERY GOOD. and if you want a counterpoint (which all people should have), look up Stephen Gould’s stuff. and never stop looking into it yourself. Too many people take stuff at face value to fit their own beliefs, despite that being the antithesis of the scientific method. anyway, I’m rambling. hope this helps.
Symmetry here refers to equal proportions on the two sides of the body, face, etc. One side being grossly out of proportion is recognized at a very basic level as being representative of disease or deformation, and therefore not indicative of a good breeding partner. This carries over into the psychological in humans, and is demonstrated repeatedly in other animals. A curious side note – sometimes a small assymetrical defect can be seen as a plus, if it is subsumed within beauty. (Think Cindy Crawford’s Mole). As for the rest of you, it is important to remember that I am always right. The only exceptions occur when I am debating a female, and admit error, finally, in an effort to seek respite from exhaustion.