Fighting Fire With Fire

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

“Evolution,” “natural selection,” and “mutation” are different things. When we start to confuse them, we get into real trouble.

When most people talk about evolution, they look at it as teleological… goal directed. The idea of design is especially tempting if one starts by thinking “the organism somehow wants to see, or is developing specifically so that it can see (or hear, or think, or whatever).”

Organisms don’t “want,” in that sense, to evolve. Human beings might want things, but certainly amoebae do not.

Another problem is that people look at mutations, and think that evolution is random. Mutations may be random (again, cells don’t “want” to evolve), but natural selection is not. If a mutation causes one to have slightly better sight, and all other variables remain the same, one is probably going to outlast one’s competitors. One will probably breed more, and pass the genes on for better eyesight.

Again, this isn’t goal directed… if better eyesight meant that more neurons were being used to process sight, and less were being used to process sound, and the environment is very sound-rich and light-poor, the likelihood of better sight genes surviving is small. Further, even if the better sight genes aren’t selected away, if they don’t provide some breeding advantage (either through longevity, attractiveness to mates, or increased fertility), the genes won’t establish their own line.

We’re also at a very late point in evolution. Mutations occur all the time, but the vast majority of them result in still births or defects that don’t provide any reproductive advantage to the organism. Early life forms, necessarily crude, had a lot of possible permutations to go through that would lead to more efficient fuel processing and reproduction. The longer a species survives in an environment, the less likely it is that a given mutation will be useful to it. Further, the more complicated it is, the more likely a given mutation is to disturb other processes that are going on within the organism.

So, take away points:

  1. Evolution is not goal directed, or teleological.
  2. Evolution is not random… it is a combination of mutation and natural selection.
  3. The longer a species survives in a given, unchanging environment, the less likely it is that a new mutation will be beneficial. Rapid environmental change may mean that mutations might be beneficial that otherwise would not have been, but once a certain level of complexity is reached (think dinosaurs), the amount of genetic change that would be required is so great that mutations are unlikely to happen on that scale, and the species is likely to die out.
42

[quote]ALDurr wrote:

Actually, I have seen this dynamic on both sides. You have a subgroup on here that rejects aspects of religious thought that compete with their worldview and you have another subgroup on here that rejects aspects of science that compete with their worldview. There is close-mindedness on both sides. So long as this exists, these threads will exist.
[/quote]

Somehow I cannot get over the fact that one option means closing ones mind to ancient fairytales and the other means closing ones mind to reality.

Contrary to the “it all means “believing” anyway” crowd, I insist that there is a difference, that the difference is important and that it is by no means harmless or wise to try to make it disappear.

43

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
If I were to reject science in favor of religion, I wouldn’t have my well paying job, I wouldn’t go to the doctor, use this computer, take supplements or have anything to do with what science has provided. Conversely, if I were to reject religion in favor of science, I wouldn’t have had the spiritual strength to deal with many of the tragedies and obstacles that I have delt with in my life. It has literally helped me to live, survive and thrive.

My point is, these two things can work together if you allow them to.[/quote]

Dawkins clearly disagrees with you – I, however, admit I’m split.

On one hand, Dawkins is right that religion has served as an excuse for great atrocities, and even today it does. Even in countries where it does not turn to terrorism and violence, quite frequently when you make decisions based on religious beliefs, it’s really bad – like Bush’s decision regarding stem cell research. Religion breeds ignorance and ignorance breeds bad decisions.

On the other hand, I also believe you are absolutely right in everything you said; I know personally several people for whom faith has been instrumental, and not only helped them through rough times, it actually made them better people. My wife being one of them, and her father – which I actually have a better and closer relationship with than I ever had with my own father – being an even more obvious example. They are also quite possibly the two most intelligent people I’ve ever met, so I simply cannot say that faith IMPLIES ignorance.

Although they are theists they are not religious (in the stricter meaning of the word) at all; they are even more liberal than I am. They have no desire to judge others, and believe that the government’s job is to protect people from each other, not from themselves (that’s the church’s job). They believe in separation from church and state, not teaching ID in schools, in liberalizing currently controlled substances, support legal abortion before the 3rd month or in case the mother’s life is in danger, giving gay couples the exact same benefits straight married couples enjoy, embryonic stem cell research, etc, etc, etc. My wife is an even more avid scientist than I am and my father-in-law, although not having had the privilege of higher education, is an avid amateur scientist himself. And a pretty good one – he knows more about electromagnetism than most Physics PhDs I’ve met!

The fact that they believe in Jesus Christ as their savior and in the baptism of the Holy Spirit does not close their minds at all to reality and the scientific method.

Basically, they separate religion – which they associate with bigotry and self-righteousness – from faith. They also clearly distance themselves from the religious right.

That has caused them many problems finding a church over here in the US, especially here in the Bay Area (ironically). Interestingly, in their own native countries (Brazil and Mozambique, respectively), they have no problems finding churches that are filled with people and have pastors that share their beliefs; unfortunately, as Dawkins pointed out, over here in the US it’s a different story altogether. They do find some comfort in Baptist churches, but still there are some issues there…

So, again, you are absolutely right: being a theist doesn’t mean you have to become a religious zealot, a bigot, a homophobe and/or a self-righteous prick.

Unfortunately, Dawkins is also partially right in asserting that more often than not, you do, especially in the US.

As a final thought, I also realize that religion is mostly an excuse some people use for their bad behavior – after all, monstrous butchers like Stalin in the past and the Chinese Government for several decades now have done horrible things that were NOT justified by theism. So I am very aware that religion is not the true source of our ferocious nature; it is just an excuse that seems to work very well, to the point we have a religious zealot in charge of the most powerful country on Earth.

44

[quote]nephorm wrote:
So, take away points:

  1. Evolution is not goal directed, or teleological.
  2. Evolution is not random… it is a combination of mutation and natural selection.
  3. The longer a species survives in a given, unchanging environment, the less likely it is that a new mutation will be beneficial. Rapid environmental change may mean that mutations might be beneficial that otherwise would not have been, but once a certain level of complexity is reached (think dinosaurs), the amount of genetic change that would be required is so great that mutations are unlikely to happen on that scale, and the species is likely to die out. [/quote]

Your ability to neatly summarize complex issues while still retaining the important details never ceases to impress me. You have a real gift there, nephorm.

45

[quote]vroom wrote:

Rejecting “parts of science” is very strange, because you use and depend on the fruits of science every day and in so many ways. I’m guessing we have “salad bar science” just as we have “salad bar religion”.
[/quote]

Vroom, I am not rejecting any scientific evidence!!! I am rejecting theories and speculation. The day someone can show me hard evidence for anything other than microevolution, then you can accuse me of “salad bar science”.

46

[quote]hspder wrote:

The fact that they believe in Jesus Christ as their savior and in the baptism of the Holy Spirit does not close their minds at all to reality and the scientific method.

[/quote]

I don’t really want to come on here and talk about your wife as I’m sure its naturally going to make you very defensive. But I want to point this out because she seems to have fallen under a big misconception about the saving grace of Jesus, and for that reason I am afraid for her soul.

Jesus Christ is never just your Saviour. He is your Lord and Saviour, or he is your enemy. If he is your Lord, that means complete death to self and complete submission to the word of God. I can tell your wife is not in submission to the word of God as she is supporting many things that the Bible clearly tells her to reject. This means she has rejected Jesus as her master, and therefore rejected his entire person.

Jesus said:
“He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.” - John 14:21

47

[quote]JPBear wrote:
hspder wrote:

The fact that they believe in Jesus Christ as their savior and in the baptism of the Holy Spirit does not close their minds at all to reality and the scientific method.

I don’t really want to come on here and talk about your wife as I’m sure its naturally going to make you very defensive. But I want to point this out because she seems to have fallen under a big misconception about the saving grace of Jesus, and for that reason I am afraid for her soul.

Jesus Christ is never just your Saviour. He is your Lord and Saviour, or he is your enemy. If he is your Lord, that means complete death to self and complete submission to the word of God. I can tell your wife is not in submission to the word of God as she is supporting many things that the Bible clearly tells her to reject. This means she has rejected Jesus as her master, and therefore rejected his entire person.

Jesus said:
“He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.” - John 14:21

[/quote]

Do you have any idea at all how your words come across?

Really, you sound like a psychopath.

Hspder’s wife is supporting “things the bibl tells her to reject?”

Does that include evolution? Because if it does, then Pope John Paul II is roasting right now.

48

[quote]harris447 wrote:

Does that include evolution? Because if it does, then Pope John Paul II is roasting right now.
[/quote]

Did you ever hear me claim that Pope John Paul II was a Christian?

Not only did he believe in a works-based salvation and the worship of false idols, but he led millions down the same path. Now I can’t say for sure that he was not converted on his deathbed, so I’m not going to say that I know for a fact that he is in Hell.

And I’m not saying that it is impossible to be a born again Christian and hold a figurative interpretation of the Genesis creation account. I think there are some true Christians who are misled here. I do think that those who are teaching this are going to be held accountable to God though, as they are teaching weaker Christians that it is okay to undermine the authority of scripture.

Yes, I am fully aware that I sound crazy to you.

Don’t you think that I have the same human desire to fit in and have friends as everyone else does? Don’t you think I realize that everything I write alienates me from many people that I really do want to be friends with? This is not just on an internet forum either, this is my life. But what a small sacrifice compared to what my Lord has done for me.

“Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake… Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.” Luke 6:22,26

49

[quote]JPBear wrote:
Jesus Christ is never just your Saviour. He is your Lord and Saviour, or he is your enemy. If he is your Lord, that means complete death to self and complete submission to the word of God. I can tell your wife is not in submission to the word of God as she is supporting many things that the Bible clearly tells her to reject. This means she has rejected Jesus as her master, and therefore rejected his entire person. [/quote]

See, this is a discussion she has had many times, so I know exactly how she would answer.

The fact that she would never abort, for example, because of her beliefs, doesn’t mean that she wants to force that belief on others.

The thing is that she believes, as I said, that the job of the government is to protect people from each other, not from themselves, and hence does not believe the government should enforce or even preach submission to the Word of God. That is the job of pastors, not Presidents and Senators and Congressmen. And judging people for their actions and working to change them is the job of God, not humans. I’m flabbergasted by christians that believe that people will change because other people tell them they must, or because of some law; my wife, on the other hand, basically believes that only God can change people, and any attempt of a fellow human being to induce change, or any human law that tries to condition certain behaviors, will backfire. We both grew up in a heavily christian environment and both witnessed first hand what human repression actually results in. It is fascinating how while she was given a lot of freedom by her father while growing up, she never engaged in any risky or promiscuous behaviors (in fact, she was a virgin when we married), while every single one of her friends, who had much less liberal parents, were the exact opposite ? as an example one of them died of AIDS complications just a couple of years ago, and another one committed suicide exactly 4 years ago.

I’m exactly the same: my parents gave me carte blanche as far back as I remember, and after I became an orphan as a teenager, I was completely on my own anyway. However, even though I had no-one repressing me, I never engaged in risky behaviors. My more repressed friends and colleagues, again, were the opposite, and I could actually observe a direct “positive” correlation between repression and risky behaviors.

The fact that my wife believes that it is not the job of the Government to prevent people from doing those very things does not mean she believes they are right, or that she would herself engage in behaviors that go against the word of God.

Very big difference.

Same thing with regards to her belief in Science; there’s absolutely nothing in the Bible that outrightly goes against, say, Evolution. It is quite easy to argue that while God was hands-on during the Big Bang, everything from that point on, while still being the fruition of His plan, was very hands-off. It’s like computer programming – you write the code, and then let it run on its own. You don’t really personally run every line of code, especially because with God being omniscient, there surely aren’t any bugs. Evolution, for her, is basically a really good piece of God’s programming.

I truly believe that if you actually read up on Evolution, you would come to the same realization, and the only reason you reject it is because you do not understand it – not because of your belief in God.

My wife sees Science basically as the Reverse Engineering of God’s work. That is a quite common attitude among scientists, and one that actually motivates them to continue when being faced with the enormity of the task… We have barely started Reverse Engineering ourselves, much less the whole Universe…

One of my favorite Einstein ideas is his belief that not only we might never completely Reverse Engineer our Universe, if we ever do, God will then immediately create an even more mysterious Universe for us to figure out… from scratch. Like my wife, he believed that it was his job, as a scientist, to help that effort, which is driven by a curiosity that was put in us… by God.

After all, in a sense, you can see the Universe as God’s Scientific Experiment, and if we were indeed created in His own image, it is no wonder we have the same drive.

50

[quote]JPBear wrote:
Not only did he believe in a works-based salvation and the worship of false idols, but he led millions down the same path.[/quote]

He also moved the Catholic Church away from the Dark Ages, and inspired many young people to live happier, healthier lives. He was a big supporter of world peace, a uniter of cultures, a brilliant diplomat and instrumental in the fall of Eastern European Communism. He was quite possibly the least judgmental and most humble priest I’ve ever seen.

I might not be a Catholic, but I have no doubt that he deserves all respect you can possibly give him. You also cannot possibly claim to know what he REALLY believed in – it is perfectly feasible that he simply seemed to go along with Catholic doctrine in order to change it from the inside. If he had lived longer and healthier, you might have been surprised with what changes might have happened in the Catholic Church.

Please realize that if it hadn’t been him, it would have been somebody else leading the 1 billion Catholics on this planet – and no person would be able to change them by starting off proclaiming that some fundamental parts of Catholic dogma – including saints (“false idols”) and works-based salvation – were wrong. In fact, in his lifetime, he did much more to change the Catholic Church for the better than anyone before him.

He was a brilliant, kind man, and the world owes him a debt of gratitude for taking the almost 1 billion Catholics further away from the Dark Ages.

51

[quote]lucasa wrote:
hspder wrote:

My American friends tell me that you are slipping towards a theocratic Dark Age. Which is very disagreeable for the very large number of educated, intelligent and right-thinking people in America.

It was a nice read right up until this car crash. The sort of sentence that in the Middle East would be followed by ‘wiped from the face of the Earth’.

Unfortunately, at present, it’s slightly outnumbered by the ignorant, uneducated people who voted Bush in.

Because a leader you happen to disagree with got elected, everyone who supports or supported him is ignorant/uneducated.

It’s like a leftist fundamentalism wrapped up in a pseudo-intellectual message.

[/quote]

At least he is objective. ;}

Me Solomon Grundy

52

[quote]JPBear wrote:
Vroom, I am not rejecting any scientific evidence!!! I am rejecting theories and speculation. The day someone can show me hard evidence for anything other than microevolution, then you can accuse me of “salad bar science”. [/quote]

Actually, if you were really and honestly interested in learning about evolution, there are tons of resources available. The theory is simply the best one we’ve got now; the one that explains the most evidence and has the least flaws. If you can look at the same evidence and come up with a better theory that explains it, your theory will replace Evolution as the one being taught in science class.

Now, how do I know you’re dishonest? You cherry-pick quotes and try to pass them off as being from “evolutionists”, geologist, etc. I’m sure you took all of them off some creationist web site, as it’s the standard tripe all the IDers keep repeating whenever they’re presented with a pro-evolution account.

For example, Fred Hoyle was not an “evolutionist”, he was an astronomer. And while, late in life, he did publicly come out against evolution, it was not in the manner your quote appears to suggest. He rejected “chemical” evolution in favor of his own pet thoery: panspermia. According to Hoyle, evolution on Earth (see, it still occured, even according to it’s critics) was driven by viruses brought to Earth by comets. Personally, I find it quite amusing that you reject a sound theory by using quotes from people with, let’s say “pretty out there” theories. Of course, for a Creationist, nothing is quite as “out there” as their magical tale of creation, so I guess moving up the “craziness” scale is logical in a backward sort of way.

Now, I may be wrong and you’re a big panspermic proponent; but I think you’re just dishonest and simply parroting stuff you pick up from religious websites because you simply can’t cope with anything that deviates from the worldview you think the Bible dictates.

53

[quote]hspder wrote:
JPBear wrote:
Jesus Christ is never just your Saviour. He is your Lord and Saviour, or he is your enemy. If he is your Lord, that means complete death to self and complete submission to the word of God. I can tell your wife is not in submission to the word of God as she is supporting many things that the Bible clearly tells her to reject. This means she has rejected Jesus as her master, and therefore rejected his entire person.

See, this is a discussion she has had many times, so I know exactly how she would answer.

The fact that she would never abort, for example, because of her beliefs, doesn’t mean that she wants to force that belief on others.

The thing is that she believes, as I said, that the job of the government is to protect people from each other, not from themselves, and hence does not believe the government should enforce or even preach submission to the Word of God. That is the job of pastors, not Presidents and Senators and Congressmen. And judging people for their actions and working to change them is the job of God, not humans. I’m flabbergasted by christians that believe that people will change because other people tell them they must, or because of some law; my wife, on the other hand, basically believes that only God can change people, and any attempt of a fellow human being to induce change, or any human law that tries to condition certain behaviors, will backfire. We both grew up in a heavily christian environment and both witnessed first hand what human repression actually results in. It is fascinating how while she was given a lot of freedom by her father while growing up, she never engaged in any risky or promiscuous behaviors (in fact, she was a virgin when we married), while every single one of her friends, who had much less liberal parents, were the exact opposite ? as an example one of them died of AIDS complications just a couple of years ago, and another one committed suicide exactly 4 years ago.

I’m exactly the same: my parents gave me carte blanche as far back as I remember, and after I became an orphan as a teenager, I was completely on my own anyway. However, even though I had no-one repressing me, I never engaged in risky behaviors. My more repressed friends and colleagues, again, were the opposite, and I could actually observe a direct “positive” correlation between repression and risky behaviors.

The fact that my wife believes that it is not the job of the Government to prevent people from doing those very things does not mean she believes they are right, or that she would herself engage in behaviors that go against the word of God.

Very big difference.

Same thing with regards to her belief in Science; there’s absolutely nothing in the Bible that outrightly goes against, say, Evolution. It is quite easy to argue that while God was hands-on during the Big Bang, everything from that point on, while still being the fruition of His plan, was very hands-off. It’s like computer programming – you write the code, and then let it run on its own. You don’t really personally run every line of code, especially because with God being omniscient, there surely aren’t any bugs. Evolution, for her, is basically a really good piece of God’s programming.

I truly believe that if you actually read up on Evolution, you would come to the same realization, and the only reason you reject it is because you do not understand it – not because of your belief in God.

My wife sees Science basically as the Reverse Engineering of God’s work. That is a quite common attitude among scientists, and one that actually motivates them to continue when being faced with the enormity of the task… We have barely started Reverse Engineering ourselves, much less the whole Universe…

One of my favorite Einstein ideas is his belief that not only we might never completely Reverse Engineer our Universe, if we ever do, God will then immediately create an even more mysterious Universe for us to figure out… from scratch. Like my wife, he believed that it was his job, as a scientist, to help that effort, which is driven by a curiosity that was put in us… by God.

After all, in a sense, you can see the Universe as God’s Scientific Experiment, and if we were indeed created in His own image, it is no wonder we have the same drive.
[/quote]

Sorry to intrude, but Salvation should be considered independent of any worldly good that is done.

54

[quote]JPBear wrote:
Yes, I am fully aware that I sound crazy to you. [/quote]

Crazy people always think that they only sound crazy, never that they are crazy.

Doesn’t that tell you something? Do you really think that an infinitely loving God, if he existed, would want you to lead a life where you alienate most of the people you meet?

That makes sense to you?

Reading shit like this makes me sad. I simply can’t believe how brainfucked some people can get with faith and religion. What a sad waste of life.

55

I’d like to add one thing with regards to works-based salvation and repression:

One of the most dangerous things I observed that the “if you’re baptized and believe in Him as your Lord and Savior, you shall be Saved” dogma is that it gives people – especially kids, but also some adults – a sense that they can get away with anything. Although I understand this is a distortion of the Bible, a large majority of kids and teens that were raised in right-wing Christian homes have an intrinsic lack of respect for they own lives (because they were indoctrinated with it being a temporary situation, with the real prize being the afterlife), and they respond to their parent’s repression with ultra-risk behaviors – because a) it is in their human nature to do so (hey, it started with Adam and Eve!) and b) they are not taught to fear death.

Again, although I understand that is a monumental distortion in their childish minds, it is an extremely common result of a Christian upbringing, and basically gives a lot of credence to the theory that we should shield our kids from religion until they are mature enough to understand that life is indeed a precious thing that we should all be VERY thankful for, irrespective of our faith.

Furthermore, the lack of respect for Knowledge and Science, and lack of Critical Thought that is being instilled in these kids has even deeper consequences.

You see Jewish and Atheist and Buddhist kids being consistently the most well behaved kids and teens, as well the best students, and Christians consistently the worst. In fact, just the other day I was talking to a High School teacher that works with honor roll students and he (actually a Christian) was observing that for the fifth year running there wasn’t a SINGLE Christian kid in Honor Roll (from his school), which is amazing considering that 80% of the students there are from self-proclaimed Christian families.

Coincidence? I think not.

As it is not a coincidence that the County of Tulare has for decades been simultaneously the most Christian, the most Republican and the one with the highest rate of single teenage mothers in California.

56

[quote]hspder wrote:
One of my favorite Einstein ideas is his belief that not only we might never completely Reverse Engineer our Universe, if we ever do, God will then immediately create an even more mysterious Universe for us to figure out…
[/quote]

That’s from Einstein? Would you happen to have a reference? It sounds like Douglas Adams in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Universe…

I wish people would lay off Einstein when discussing God, since every side simply claims him as “one of their own” regardless of his actual beliefs.

57

[quote]pookie wrote:
Crazy people always think that they only sound crazy, never that they are crazy.[/quote]

Actually, that is the very definition of a psychological disorder.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Doesn’t that tell you something? Do you really think that an infinitely loving God, if he existed, would want you to lead a life where you alienate most of the people you meet?

That makes sense to you?[/quote]

As our resident psychology student can probably testify, that is actually a very good driver of groupthink – the fact that everybody outside the group is alienated is one of the cementing factors of the group’s beliefs. In fact, alien means “differing in nature or character typically to the point of incompatibility”.

Also, remember that many great, pioneering scientists were also alienated by the majority of the population – even by other scientists. For example, even as recently as the 90s, scientists that supported the theory that neutrinos have mass and flavor oscillate were ridiculed by the scientific community – until eventually they were proven to be right.

Before that it was Black Holes, and before that… you can see where I’m getting at.

I actually believe that if you do not – at least temporarily – alienate most of the people you meet, it’s because you’re basically irrelevant.

That does not mean I disagree with your underlying point; quite the contrary, I agree – because the difference here is that Christians are compelled to bring people to Jesus, and by alienating them they are doing the exact opposite. There lies the hypocrisy. They apparently do not realize that you can’t catch flies with vinegar, and that, my friend, is indeed a psychological disorder.

My wife, on the other hand, is very much sane and is an expert at using honey to catch flies…

[quote]pookie wrote:
Reading shit like this makes me sad. I simply can’t believe how brainfucked some people can get with faith and religion. What a sad waste of life.[/quote]

Calm down. Becoming sad with those statements is also a waste. I understand your frustration, but you cannot let it affect you. You’ve lost the battle if you do.

58

[quote]pookie wrote:
That’s from Einstein? Would you happen to have a reference? It sounds like Douglas Adams in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Universe…[/quote]

You mean, the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy?

Haven’t read the book in a while. If it’s there, you have to ask Douglas Adams for the source, because I can’t find the exact reference right now. Does it matter?

[quote]pookie wrote:
I wish people would lay off Einstein when discussing God, since every side simply claims him as “one of their own” regardless of his actual beliefs.[/quote]

Because he was purposively vague about his actual beliefs. Brilliant marketing… Example:

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind
" – Albert Einstein

59

[quote]hspder wrote:
As our resident psychology student can probably testify, that is actually a very good driver of groupthink – the fact that everybody outside the group is alienated is one of the cementing factors of the group’s beliefs. In fact, alien means “differing in nature or character typically to the point of incompatibility”.[/quote]

The “us/them” distinction is important in forming groups. Without differentiators, the group lacks cohesion. In the “skin ego” model of group-psychology, the differentiators are the “skin” or membrane that protects the internals of the group. This is subconscious externalization of the distinction between the “outside world” and the “organs”… that is, there is some subconscious realization that differentiation protects and preserves the body of an individual, and likewise, group.

But we needn’t even look to group psychology for an explanation… people who are mentally ill tend to feel persecuted to a large extent. “Persecution complexes” are not uncommon. I don’t know that it’s fair, though, to call all people who believe themselves to be persecuted “mentally ill.” As with many mental illnesses, persistant feelings of persecution are extensions of natural human cognitive processes. Most everyone has, at one time or another, felt that he was being unfairly treated because he was correct, or his views were unpleasant, and the people with whom he was dealing were either unwilling or unable to see the truth.

Sometimes it’s even true… afterall, “just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.”

60

[quote]hspder wrote:
Also, remember that many great, pioneering scientists were also alienated by the majority of the population – even by other scientists. For example, even as recently as the 90s, scientists that supported the theory that neutrinos have mass and flavor oscillate were ridiculed by the scientific community – until eventually they were proven to be right.[/quote]

I don’t really think that scientists supporting neutrino mass where really alienated by the general population, do you?

And with science, ideas and theories can be debated and supporting or contradictory evidence can be found; experiments can be done.

With faith, the simple fact that it’s illogical and unreasonable is twisted into an asset. The fact that God requires an unprovable faith somehow strengthens the belief.

An “alienated” scientist can eventually be proven right or wrong… And any scientist worth the title will admit being wrong when shown incontrovertible evidence. An alienated believer can only ever be accepted within his own like-thinking sect/cult/church. Any idea presented that opposes their core beliefs is simply rejected without consideration. If reality itself clashes witht their belief, then reality or their perception of it is wrong; never the beliefs.

In that way, scientific and religious alienation are quite different entities.

[quote]Calm down. Becoming sad with those statements is also a waste. I understand your frustration, but you cannot let it affect you. You’ve lost the battle if you do.
[/quote]

Whether you like it or not, it does affect you. In large numbers, those people can vote their beliefs into laws. The Dark Ages happened once; who’s to say they can’t happen again?