272: Science and the Supernatural

Some people are more able to control their supersense, their ability to hold supernatural beliefs, then others, but we have to accept that such beliefs are a natural phenomenon as a consequence of the design of the mind.

Supersense helps us to understand the world, so that we are able to make decisions and choices that feel good. It helps us to feel united with others, that hold the same beliefs.

The human being is a social animal and our need of social contacts is so strong that it is doubtful that we ever can ban supernatural beliefs with rational arguments.

Supernatural beliefs have always been with us, from the moment that we have archeological proof of the homo sapiens and the fact that he is conscious of his existence.

Deep in caves we find drawings on the walls which are more than thirteen thousand years old. These drawings are certainly not intended to be pieces of art or meant for public exhibition.

There is a famous little statue: the Lion Man. [behind me] It was found in the Hohlenstein-Stadel cave of Germany's Swabian Alb and dated at 32,000 years old, is associated with the Aurignacian culture and is the oldest known anthropomorphic animal figurine in the world.

Whether it is a human with a lion head or a lion with a human body we don't know, but what we do know is, that our ancestors already had imagination, were able to imagine things that not really exist. It means that they already possesed supersense.

Such a statue and cave drawings suggest clearly that prehistoric man used rituals and ceremonies. The prehistoric human must have known questions like: What happens when we are dreaming? What is there after death?

In the past 400 years there has changed more in our world than in the ten thousands of years before. Our knowledge of the universe has increased tremendously as has our knowledge of the smallest particles of matter.

Science has become more and more the fundament of our knowledge of the world. Thence you would expect that it gradually would have replaced supernatural beliefs about our world.

But it has not. And we have to face the question why people ignore what science has to tell us about supernatural beliefs. People just don't listen to scientists who say that supernatural beliefs make no sense at all.

There is something interesting in supernatural beliefs. We can distinguish two types: religious supernatural beliefs (God, angels, demons, devils, reincarnation,heaven, he, etc.) and profane supernatural beliefs( telepathy, clairvoyance, astrology, ghosts, trolls etc.)

All religions are based on supernatural beliefs, but not all supernatural beliefs are based on religion. This is very important to notice, because we now have in fact three belief-systems: profane supernatural beliefs, religion and science.

There is something very remarkable here. Religious supernatural beliefs are for some reason untouchable. When you intend to start scientific research on the existence of god or angels, they'll say you are nuts.

However, when you say that you gonna start thorough scientific research on astrology or clairvoyance, people say …wow….interesting….. I guess you will end up proving that is does not exist at a all or doesn't bring valid knowledge.

One possible explanation for this difference is that religion is not just a supernatural belief-system, but also a political means to unite people and control them.

In spite of the tremendous amount of scientific knowledge, science does not seem to get any grip on supernatural beliefs. Even worse, some people even find science a pretty suspect business.

As soon as scientists started to tinker with Nature (cloning a sheep, modifying plants like corn and soya, creating nuclear bombs etc.) 50% of the consumers in the US believed that modified products were dangerous. And science it to blame for it.

Science, religion and the profane supernatural are often each by themselves subject of a discussion, but how can these three belief-systems exist in ONE person next to each other and even overlap? And we say,that we are rational beings……..?!

For now we may conclude, that these three belief-systems aren't clearly separated. There are overlaps and we pick beliefs from any belief- system as it pleases us and suits our needs.


The Discussion

[13:23] herman Bergson: Thank you ..:)
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: very true
[13:23] herman Bergson: You have the floor ...
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:24] Alarice Beaumont: ok
[13:25] Alarice Beaumont: yes.. this really is true.. fascinating if presented
[13:25] itsme Frederix: Herman, I've a question about your "People just don't listen to scientists who say that supernatural beliefs make no sense at all.". Supersense seemed to act as a glue for society - you stated that too. So in my opinion for that and other reasons it makes sense, a lot of sense.
[13:25] Alaya Kumaki: what is funny is that since supernatural beliefs coexist with sciece beliefs, i wonder why scientists dont find out about their own supernatural beliefs which influence their search
[13:26] itsme Frederix: besides it just seems wired in our brain and our consiousness
[13:26] Alarice Beaumont: but there are scientific studies to find proof if supernatural happens
[13:26] itsme Frederix: supernatural does not happen, it is supersense interpretation
[13:26] herman Bergson: to clear up one point.....
[13:27] herman Bergson: It is a fact that our supernatural beliefs have a function...
[13:27] herman Bergson: as Itsme stated...
[13:27] herman Bergson: It works...
[13:27] herman Bergson: as a social glue for instance...
[13:27] itsme Frederix: ok
[13:28] herman Bergson: and what also becomes clear is that in this approach the scientific model of reality should prevail.....
[13:28] herman Bergson: a supernatural belief???
[13:28] AristotleVon Doobie: I wonder if the is supersense is manifested to counter a lack of confidence in ones ability or worthiness
[13:28] herman Bergson: I wouldnt say so...
[13:29] AristotleVon Doobie: or if those espousing it need others to feel unworthy
[13:29] herman Bergson: becaue it is the only model in which statements that lead to authority over others can be tested end refuted.
[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: hmm
[13:29] Alarice Beaumont: hmmm.. i would rather join in on the power part you mentioned in one of the earlier classes
[13:30] herman Bergson: You mean that the supernatural beliefs are used as a political power Alarice?
[13:30] Alarice Beaumont: not only political.... but also in normal life
[13:30] Alaya Kumaki: yes, in religions, they are,
[13:30] Alarice Beaumont: yes.. i think it is .. to make people afraid
[13:31] herman Bergson: Oh yes...
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: indeed
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: can imagine that
[13:31] AristotleVon Doobie: try as I might, I can only see this supersense as a contrived tool to subordinate and not an innate ability
[13:31] herman Bergson: But the remarkable thing here is that religious supernatural thinking works..
[13:31] Alarice Beaumont: because not everyone is a scientist and can look for proof
[13:31] herman Bergson: while esoteric supernatural thinking has no effect
[13:31] Alarice Beaumont: hmm... yes right
[13:32] Alarice Beaumont: hmmm sure about that?
[13:32] Alaya Kumaki: they are used to make people finance some politic task without them knowing the real underlying cause, by telling them tales,, that they would beliefs, as for to go in war
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: yep, like me watching the LHC in action everyday for ex
[13:32] Alarice Beaumont: i have a colleague who believe in shamans
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: got to think about the movie angels and demons
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: thats a really good theme of science vs religion
[13:33] herman Bergson: Yes Alarice...esoteric thinking works on an individual level
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:33] herman Bergson: but religious thinking works on a collective level...
[13:33] herman Bergson: Oh that battle is raging now Bejiita
[13:33] Alaya Kumaki: collective beliefs is a fascinating phenomenon
[13:34] Alarice Beaumont: hmmm.... yes.. sounds right for me... doesn'T move the masses as much.. .. yes
[13:34] herman Bergson: Dawkins...The God Delusion...for instance
[13:34] herman Bergson: Yes Alaya...
[13:34] herman Bergson: especially related to supernatural beliefs
[13:35] AristotleVon Doobie: and the primary push in religion is to establish the unworthiness of the congregation
[13:35] herman Bergson: In the ned we may conclude that we cant get rid of supernatural beliefs :-)
[13:35] herman Bergson: end
[13:35] AristotleVon Doobie: we should try
[13:36] AristotleVon Doobie: :)
[13:36] Alarice Beaumont: perhaps not totally ...
[13:36] Abraxas Nagy: impossible
[13:36] herman Bergson: In fact you are right Aristotle..
[13:36] herman Bergson: But our brain is wired to produce supernatural beliefs
[13:37] itsme Frederix: Last week someone mentioned solipsism in this lecture. The more I read about the brain a.s.o. the more I think everything is reality but me-experience seems very virtual.
[13:37] herman Bergson: and loosing them might be a disaster even...
[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: I have dumped mine, an swore an oath not to pass the ones I was given on
[13:38] itsme Frederix: swore is supernatural
[13:38] itsme Frederix: what does "swore" add
[13:38] Alarice Beaumont: ^^
[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL, to my god itsme
[13:38] herman Bergson: Yes and loosing the supernatural means loosing our fantasy...
[13:38] herman Bergson: our ability to imagine thing that do not really exist...
[13:38] Alarice Beaumont: yes.. you are right there Herman..
[13:38] itsme Frederix: So Ari you failed, but succeeded to be human
[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: if ones seeks the joy in life, fantasy is unnecessary
[13:39] AristotleVon Doobie: no itsme I am my god :)
[13:39] herman Bergson: a basic drive of scientific research is the imagination of the researcher...
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: btw we now have a new fish discussion in the usa hormone salmon that wil grow faster
[13:39] herman Bergson: He imagines thing which are not there according to other...
[13:39] herman Bergson: then he proofs his hypothesis
[13:40] Alarice Beaumont: yes... and honestly Gemma... i have my doubts if that is ok lool
[13:40] herman Bergson: there we go again Gemma...creepy science
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: lolol
[13:40] Bejiita Imako: hahaha
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: i know
[13:40] Alarice Beaumont: proofs what Herman was saying earlier
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: ohoh ab crashed
[13:40] AristotleVon Doobie: that is all I ask, in order to accept is to be shown the evidence
[13:41] Alarice Beaumont: but not everyone has the education to follow the evidence
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: or even wants to try
[13:41] Alarice Beaumont: given by scientists for example.. so they have to believe
[13:41] herman Bergson: That, Alarice , is the big problem....
[13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: that is where the supersense proponents come in, like government...they deliver up the truth for the ignorant, unquestioned
[13:42] herman Bergson: SO the Dawkins like people ask for more education....focused on science only
[13:42] itsme Frederix: Well not really, using supersense might give you the opportunity to "believe" in scientific fact without understanding these.
[13:42] herman Bergson: No fairy tales in the classroom anymore
[13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: I am not convinced Dawkins isnt one of those
[13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: he has developed his own little realm
[13:43] herman Bergson: one of who Aristotle?
[13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: the manipulators
[13:43] herman Bergson: Manipulating in what sense?
[13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: science has its power hungry folks like all disciplines
[13:44] herman Bergson: true....
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: He has to be able to prove all the things he advocates too
[13:44] herman Bergson: just do some research on cheating in science...you will be shocked
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥
[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: I am sure
[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: as long as humans are involved LOL
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: ok
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: depends on who is paying for the study in some cases
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: haha
[13:45] Alaya Kumaki: i think that most scientist search are fine, its the outcome and what is it use for e that are lead by the beliefs of many.. afterward or even before , it is that what lead the search, very experiemental
[13:45] AristotleVon Doobie: true Gemma, subjective bias
[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: yep
[13:46] Alarice Beaumont: yes
[13:46] itsme Frederix: Well one of the things is that being scientist is a job, a way to make a living, so tthese guys have the same properties as others.
[13:46] herman Bergson: my goodness.......
[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: when the cave man picked up a stick to stir his stew, there was another there who proceed to use it to poke another cavemans eye out
[13:46] herman Bergson: Just do a goole search on "cheating in science"...lol
[[13:47] Bejiita Imako: ¨hehe ok
[13:47] itsme Frederix: but .... cheating in politics is a pleaonasm
[13:47] herman Bergson: true Itsme...
[13:48] herman Bergson: the further we get with this project the weirder we look as human beings...^_^
[13:48] AristotleVon Doobie: because we are weird :)
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: haha
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:48] herman Bergson: At least the idea that we are rational beings becomes more and more questionable ^_^
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: very true
[13:48] Alarice Beaumont: don't say that!
[13:49] herman Bergson: ok...
[13:49] itsme Frederix: well rationality is not the thing that evolution drives so ...
[13:49] herman Bergson: I would say....
[13:49] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL, or I think we are unable to keep the primal brain in as good a control as we ought to
[13:49] Alaya Kumaki: yes that rationality based on beliefs is weirder
[13:49] herman Bergson: But it is Alaya...:-)
[13:50] Alaya Kumaki: yes
[13:50] herman Bergson: I think it is time to wait and see what the next lecture will bring us ^_^
[13:50] AristotleVon Doobie: indeed
[13:50] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:50] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation....
[13:50] Bejiita Imako: yeah
[13:50] herman Bergson: Great discussion
[13:50] itsme Frederix: causality & teleologics <= big super nonsense , but it seems to please us well
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:50] AristotleVon Doobie: Thank you , Professor :)
[13:50] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: see you tuesday I hope
[13:50] Bejiita Imako: as said getting more and more interesting every time ㋡
[13:50] herman Bergson: Class dismissed :-)
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: party time
[13:51] itsme Frederix: thx Herman
[13:51] Bejiita Imako: cu soon
[13:51] herman Bergson: Yes GEmma!
[13:51] Alarice Beaumont: lol
[13:51] Alarice Beaumont: thanks Herman :-)
[13:51] Alaya Kumaki: thank you herman, as interesting as usuall
[13:51] herman Bergson: my pleasure Alaya
[13:51] Alaya Kumaki: now the next week, is far...
[13:52] Alarice Beaumont: you can study in between Alaya ,-)
[13:52] herman Bergson: Gives me time to cook up something nice for you Alaya ^_^
[13:52] Alaya Kumaki: ill google cheating on science meanwhile
[13:52] AristotleVon Doobie: lol
[13:52] herman Bergson: dont be shocked Alaya...
[13:52] herman Bergson: it is really fun
[13:52] Alaya Kumaki: oh,lol well yes its fun

267: Supersense introduced

Would you buy the house in which a serial killer abused and murdered 19 young girls and burried the bodies in the backyard? In some American states the seller of the house is obliged by law to reveal the history of the house.

When I was a Bruxelles about ten years ago they were restoring a house, that dated from 1450. I have forgotten what the function of the building was…some castle or palace. I picked up a little piece of an old brick and kept it. It is still on my desk here. Why?

What drives the souvenir hunter or for instance the collector of Nazi memorabilia? Memorabilia collectors and fetishists behave in a very special way. They attribute to material objects invisible features that make them unique and irreplaceable.

This behavior is very common through the ages. In the Middle Ages there was a lively trade in bits of wood of the cross of Jesus. If we would collect them all now and assemble the pieces, we probably can build a house of all the wood.

What is it with these objects, that we believe that they have special qualities? It is a matter of fact, that we can not scientifically proof these qualities. Thence these qualities are supernatural.

This brings us to the quintessential question: why do we believe in the supernatural?

Whenever our beliefs rely on mechanisms and phenomena that go beyond our understanding of nature, we're in the field of supernatural beliefs Of course there are a lot of things we can not explain, but this doesn't make them supernatural.

Take for example the problem: how does my mind control my body? We are inclined to see the mind as a not material thing more or less independent of our material bodily. How do these two entities interact?

How to explain all this? The answer has to be found in human nature and in particular in the way we think and in how our thinking developed from childhood to adulthood.

It seems that somewhere in the process we have developed that special frame of mind regarding other people and our environment: we'll call is SUPERSENSE, as suggested by Bruce Hood.

To explain things with reference to supernatural forces is in harmony with our ideas about how the world functions, with all kinds of hidden structures and mechanisms.

We have to expand our quintessential question. We not only will ask "why do we believe in the supernatural?", but also "What is the source of this way of thinking about the world?"

Some immediately will point at religion as the primary source. Religions teach us a lot of supernatural things. A lot of miraculous events, which they want us to believe in, defy all laws of nature.

But you don't need to be religious at all to believe in the supernatural and feel your supersense in action. All forms of superstition, for example, are based on our supersense.

Sometimes we hardly notice the influence of our supersense. Do you remember that creepy feeling, when you entered that dark corridor, or the feeling of being watched by those staring eyes in that painting on the wall behind you, or your reluctance to touch certain things?

We can use all kinds of scientific methods to investigate the brain to discover how the mind works, but the supernatural eludes us here completely.

All our scientific methods don't seem to work on the supernatural. Every time we try it, we find nothing. But this lack of scientific credibility does seem to undermine our belief in the supernatural at all.

It looks as if the supernatural is all around us and that we have our supersense to see it.

So the questions we are going to try to answer are: Why do we believe in the supernatural and What is the source of this way of thinking about the world?

We'll start with that this Thursday ….. :-)

The Discussion

[13:27] Abraxas Nagy: wow interesting
[13:27] AristotleVon Doobie: yes very
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: aaa really :)¨
[13:27] herman Bergson: thank you Abraxas
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: the east would give us good reasons :-)
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: eastern thought about mysticism that is
[13:28] AristotleVon Doobie: if one could believe in supernatural
[13:28] herman Bergson: Well Gemma..we'll come to that certainly
[13:28] Abraxas Nagy: mmm the merge between quantum mechanics and eastern thinking
[13:28] AristotleVon Doobie: of course there is no proof
[13:28] Alarice Beaumont: or the greeks with their gods
[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: exactly
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes
[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: no proof anywhere
[13:28] herman Bergson: Wait.....
[13:29] herman Bergson: We should keep the problem clearly formulated...
[13:29] herman Bergson: The problem is that we believe in things that defy natural laws, the laws of physics etc.
[13:30] herman Bergson: And we hold these beliefs to be TRUE!!!
[13:30] herman Bergson: so as a real part of reality
[13:30] herman Bergson: And the problem with these beliefs is that we cant investigate them and test them scientifically
[13:31] itsme Frederix: the point is that the proposition is: supernatural beliefs are natural . I guess Bruce has a good point with that.. The 2nd is that is is quite efficient to use these supernatural conventions.
[13:31] AristotleVon Doobie: is it a possibility that the destination was arrived at by the rails of a agreed upon collective thinking or rather misthinking?
[13:31] herman Bergson: Yes Itsme...very true...but you are reading ahead lol
[13:32] itsme Frederix: well you gave a clue
[13:32] herman Bergson: Yes..the supernatural is natural....but that has severe consequences...
[13:32] herman Bergson: and those we are going to study in on coming lectures...
[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: are they natural? I think not, they must be implanted
[13:32] itsme Frederix: lets first define why it is natural, it looks like it has been evolved in our brains
[13:32] herman Bergson: Well Aristotle....
[13:33] herman Bergson: there are two points that make the supernatural natural...
[13:33] AristotleVon Doobie: evolved or repeatedly nurtured, itsme?
[13:33] herman Bergson: one is: the culture we live in
[13:33] itsme Frederix: Bruce claims evolved
[13:33] herman Bergson: two is: the construction of our brain
[13:34] AristotleVon Doobie: I agree culture can be contaminating to good thought
[13:34] itsme Frederix: our brain seems to be wired up with circuits that support supernatural
[13:34] herman Bergson: and yes Itsme...the evolution of the brain is a major point in this discussion
[13:34] herman Bergson: Beware Itsme....
[13:35] herman Bergson: This statement has consequences...
[13:35] herman Bergson: I do not remeber if you attended the introduction on September 2?
[13:35] itsme Frederix: but I do, I did
[13:35] AristotleVon Doobie: can the evolution of the brain be affected by hearsay evidence or does that require empirical data??
[13:35] Abraxas Nagy: nope
[13:36] herman Bergson: But there I have stated that this project will take its stand in materialism...
[13:36] Abraxas Nagy: ah
[13:36] Josiane Llewellyn: I think dreams are part of why we believe in a supernatural world and sense.
[13:36] AristotleVon Doobie: I suppose I will be your counterpoint LOL
[13:36] Alarice Beaumont: Hi Qwark :-)
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: hi Qwark ㋡
[13:36] herman Bergson: There are emirical data about the evolution of the brain Aristotle...
[13:36] itsme Frederix: well by stating the brain is wired for supersense you do the materialization, you just have to find the circuits then ... voila
[13:37] Qwark Allen: ㋡ ˜*•. ˜”*°•.˜”*°• Helloooooo! •°*”˜.•°*”˜ .•*˜ ㋡
[13:37] Qwark Allen: Hey! friends ,-)
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: Hooo!!!
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: Hoooo!
[13:37] herman Bergson: Hi Qwark..:-)
[13:37] bergfrau Apfelbaum: hi qwark :-) and hii hope :-)
[13:37] Abraxas Nagy: Hiya Qwark
[13:37] Alarice Beaumont: but some people are more superstisious then others
[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: yes, but can hearsay make the brain evolve?
[13:37] Beertje Beaumont: hi Qwark
[13:37] herman Bergson: EVenRodney!! Welcome:-)
[13:37] Abraxas Nagy: hiya hope
[13:37] Rodney Handrick: hi herman
[13:38] hope63 Shepherd: hi all of you.. just ignore my presence and let me listen for a while..
[13:38] herman Bergson: We will pay attention to the evolution of the brain Aristotle in future lectures
[13:38] Qwark Allen: sorry got here late, there was a lot of trafffic to cross the bridge
[13:38] itsme Frederix: why hearsay, you are founding supersense in hearsay?
[13:38] herman Bergson: Hi Hope ^_*
[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: if I tell you god spoke to me and you believe me, will you children believe it too?
[13:38] hope63 Shepherd: smile.. hello old friend herman:)
[13:38] Alarice Beaumont: Hope ..:-))
[13:38] Alarice Beaumont smiling heartily
[13:39] AristotleVon Doobie: what else is our beliefs without data to prove them but hearsay?
[13:39] herman Bergson: I guess so Aristotle....they have a natural inclination to believe such things, reported by an authority
[13:39] Rodney Handrick: just so you all know caileach in rl is living through earthquakes
[13:39] itsme Frederix: I'm really sorry, but I supersense my wife needs me now. Sorry
[13:40] AristotleVon Doobie: :)
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: ok
[13:40] herman Bergson: smiles
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: oh that is good rodney
[13:40] AristotleVon Doobie: yes Rodney I was thinking of her this morning reading the paper
[13:40] herman Bergson: not everyone can say that Itsme..lol
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: was thinking of her the other day
[13:41] Adriana Jinn: yes we think of everyone
[13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL, wave you hand and I submit that the hearsay must be repeated to the next generation
[13:41] herman Bergson: Ok I guess...we get diverted....
[13:41] Rodney Handrick: I forget how to raise my hand
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: always
[13:42] herman Bergson: So maybe better to move on to next Thursday with our discussion
[13:42] Alarice Beaumont: honestly.... me too Rodney
[13:42] herman Bergson: To conclude our discussion of today I especially want to thank Gemma Cleanslate. She drew my attention to an interesting website --> http://www.pbs.org/wnet/brain/
[13:42] Rodney Handrick: thanks gemma
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: yw
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:42] herman Bergson: A very nice website that shows the history and physiology of the brain and more
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: lets see what that can be
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: lots of information
[13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: it was a series wasnt it?
[13:43] herman Bergson: So thank you all for your participation today....hope to see you next Thursday again!
[13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: thanks Professor
[13:43] herman Bergson: Class dismissed
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: interesting topic for sure this ㋡
[13:43] Abraxas Nagy: thank YOU professor
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: thanx
[13:44] Josiane Llewellyn: thank you Professor
[13:44] Rodney Handrick: wow... that was fast!
[13:44] herman Bergson: There will be lots more Bejiita ^_^
[13:44] Abraxas Nagy: i sure hope so
[13:44] Beertje Beaumont: Thank you Herman:)
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: great
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:44] Adriana Jinn: thankyou herman
[13:44] Jozen Ocello: thanks Professor
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: see you thursday
[13:45] Adriana Jinn: always so interesting
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: aaa
[13:45] Abraxas Nagy: see you all on thursday
[13:45] Jozen Ocello: I'm afraid I've not done much reading ... but I will read up before Thursday
[13:45] Adriana Jinn: thanks a lot to all
[13:45] Jozen Ocello: thanks and see you on Thursday
[13:45] Jozen Ocello: bye all
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: ill try show up
[13:45] Alarice Beaumont: thank you Herman :-)

11b Is Creationism bogus?

"Evolution is the origin of atheism, communism, nazism, behaviorism, economic imperialism, militarism, debauchery, anarchism and many anti-Christian beliefs and practices"

This is a quote from "The Remarkable Birth of Planet earth ",(1972) by H.M. Morris, one of the leading creationists. Let us take this serious.

It sound like a factual observation of history, so we may ascribe a truthvalue to it.

Furthermore we could suppose that this statement is a deduction from the theory of Creationism, because Morris claims that creationism is the correct scientific description of the origin of species.

So we assume that we are dealing here with a scientific observation and we should apply scientific method to it, to test it. But who tells me what is scientific method and what is not.

I assume, that what we can expect scientific method is at least able to establish the truth or falsity of a statement. But how we do that?

Well, we could agree on the demand, that to say that a statement is true means, that everybody on earth can observe the state of affairs ,which a statement refers to.

Or said in simple words: I could be in a room with a chair and I could say that the statement, that you can sit on that object is true. I can invite people from all over the world to my room and say: you can sit on that, pointing at the chair. I demonstrate and they try themsleves.

Now the quote says that evolution is the origin of a lot of things. So what we have to do is to show how evolution did all that, but maybe we can choose for another stategy.

We could say,no, it is easier to proof that anarchism, atheism or debauchery existed before evolution. I guess it won't be that difficult to find irrefutable historical evidence for this hypothesis.

This means that evolution is for instance not the origing of anachism. Example: William Godwin (3 March 1756 – 7 April 1836) was an English journalist, political philosopher and novelist. He is considered one of the first modern proponents of anarchism.

Thus the quoted statement is false. Logic says that a conclusion can only be absolutely true, if the premisses from which it is deduced are true. Then we must conclude that creationist theory contains untrue premises.

However, is this the right way of reasoning? Isnt it completely the other way around? We can proof that anarchism has existed in history. We have all kinds of evidence, from books to bombs.

But this has serious consequences for our quote, because then we can say, as the creationists say: The creationist claims that evolution does NOT exist. IF anarchism exists, then evolution exists, for evolution is the origin of anarchism, as the creationist says.

With all due respect, but here we are stuck in a contradiction: something seems to be true and false at the same time. Even common sense opposes to that possibility

and because we have proven that anarchism exists, it is justified to say that the claim that evolution does not exist is false, if we regard the quote as a true statement.

What are the ingredients of what we call our scientific method? First of all that a statement is either true or false. Second that we need empirical evidence to establish the truth of a statement.

Third, that true premises never can lead to a false conclusion and fourth, that when we find empirical evidence that is contradictory to some statement or theory, then the statement or theory are false.

To defend the rationality of scientific method it even got that far that in a court of law in 1981 in Arkansas a judge had to tell "the world" what is scientific.

The judge ruled firmly that Creation Science is not science, it is religion, and as such has no place in public classrooms. The judge ruled that the ‘essential characteristics’ of what makes something scientific are:

1. It is guided by natural law;
2. It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law;
3. It is testable against the empirical world;
4. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
5. It is falsifiable.

In the judge's opinion, Creation Science fails on all counts. When we look again at the quote we started with, it is more clear now that creationism is not a scientific theory, but a politico-religious movement.

As I showed in the former lecture, that it is at least highly questionable to base scientific theory on just a book, even if the book is called the bible, I hope I have made clear today as well that scientifically that creationism is bogus.


The Discussion

[13:26] herman Bergson: quod dixi,dixi
[13:26] itsme Frederix: Well a long way with a lot of non arguments Herman.
[13:26] herman Bergson: Explain plz
[13:28] itsme Frederix: evolution is something different (formaly) from evolunionism, the statement you quoted mixed these two things. It could state evolutionism is the origin of ....
[13:28] Myriam Brianna: and/or seriously messed up semantics here ^.- - you've got my full ack in the statement that creationism is no science, but your quote and the following argumentation didn't show that
[13:28] itsme Frederix: with evolutionism I mean giving body to the natural evolution
[13:29] herman Bergson: The quote uses the term evolution..not evolutionism
[13:29] itsme Frederix: end
[13:29] Myriam Brianna: sure, but that is picking on words
[13:29] itsme Frederix: oke, but words are the elements of the sens
[13:29] herman Bergson: I agree if you blame me of taking the statement serious
[13:30] itsme Frederix: OKE
[13:30] Myriam Brianna: if you take it literal the creationist said: "Evolution is real and it caused the following (undesired) things"
[13:30] itsme Frederix: YEP
[13:30] Myriam Brianna: but that of course can't be meant
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: i like laws final words.............about it .......it is bunk
[13:30] herman Bergson: What I basicly wanted to show is that such general statement lead to contradictions and doesnt stand scientific testing
[13:31] Myriam Brianna: k, that you've shown. And you've shown that one has to be cautious in speech
[13:31] itsme Frederix: The statement implicitly granted evolutionism (the way of thinking evolution is a power in nature)
[13:31] Myriam Brianna: but not if you would explicate it, - obviously the theory of evolution is meant, not the process in nature
[13:31] herman Bergson: I took the statement as a literalstatement of facts
[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: Of course Mr Morris is absolutely correct in stating that all thies things came into being because of evolution for evolution is from the very beginning. He tenders no credibilty to the notion that there is a devine hand that created anythng.
[13:32] herman Bergson: I dont think it makes any differenc whether you read 'evolution' or 'theory of evolution'...all leads to the same contradiction I showed
[13:33] Phooka Fairey: I think that is because when talking about crationisme, there is also a creator and than you are back to the Bible. And there stops scientic testing:-) and starts 'believing'
[13:33] herman Bergson: I agree PHooka :-)
[13:33] AristotleVon Doobie: Hearsay evidence is not empircial however.
[13:33] herman Bergson: hello Boudica :-) take a seat
[13:34] Paula Dix: yes, evolution or evolutionism would be the same there...
[13:34] Myriam Brianna: nope, don't think so. When you take creationsm as a theory (which it isn't), and evolution as a theory (which it is), you've only falsified a specific claim
[13:34] Myriam Brianna: that is: Anarchism (blah) resulted out of the theory of evolution
[13:34] herman Bergson: Yes Myriam..that is correct....
[13:35] herman Bergson: It would take another few hours to deal with all other claims
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: oh yes
[13:35] Myriam Brianna: right - and that makes the quote not an ideal point to start with ;)
[13:35] AristotleVon Doobie: Anarchism and all the rest of the enumerated ills are all for the minds of men
[13:35] herman Bergson: But by showing that at least one element in the statement is false it makes the whole statemnt false
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:35] Paula Dix: Yes the error is basically to call creationism a theory, its barely an hypothesis...
[13:36] Myriam Brianna: that is true, but it only demands a revision of the "theory" of creationism
[13:36] herman Bergson: If so even worse for creationism Paula :-)
[13:36] Myriam Brianna: or their view of evolution
[13:36] Myriam Brianna: yeah, their view of evolution. Creationism wasn't even really touched
[13:36] itsme Frederix: Herman, the statement said the (theory) of evolution was anti-christianity. Well as soon as christianity started there where anti forces - long before p.e. Darwin
[13:36] Paula Dix: What is this definition of Anarchysm?? For me it was always a form of government
[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes, Myriam..and that they do frequently....revise their theory because of counterevidence
[13:36] Myriam Brianna: Anarchism = absence of government
[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: teh application of empircal testing rightfully negates falsehoods
[13:37] Paula Dix: anarchism movement has very clear ideas about how government should be
[13:37] herman Bergson: let's not discuss anarchism here..
[13:37] Myriam Brianna: err, yes.
[13:37] Paula Dix: lol ok
[13:38] herman Bergson: Anyway....we had to deal with the question ..Is creationism science...
[13:38] Myriam Brianna: hmm ... shit, I've written about creationism as non-science, but only in German. Translating on the fly is rather hard ^^
[13:38] herman Bergson: I think we can conclude with a definite NO
[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: either way, all those ism's did evolve
[13:38] herman Bergson: Macht nichts Myriam:-)
[13:39] itsme Frederix: another point is that creationism is evented to support christianity a.s.o. - which comes up with the rewards in after-life - so these guys do not bother about emperical testing thing in "this" life
[13:39] Phooka Fairey: No it can't be science, not ever as long as there is a 'creator' on the base
[13:39] Myriam Brianna: full ack
[13:39] herman Bergson: To me it is a politico-religious movement and the issue isnt science but power and control over education in the US
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: exactly!!!!!!!!
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: my thought also
[13:39] Myriam Brianna: yup
[13:39] AristotleVon Doobie: amen
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: it is scary tho
[13:40] oola Neruda: is the process of logic considered scientific?
[13:40] Phooka Fairey: exactly, and I think also it is a way to escape the thorns of the Bible
[13:40] itsme Frederix: clear and it give many (in my eyes) stupid and often absurd ideas
[13:40] Phooka Fairey: yes, just like the Bible did over 2000 years:-)
[13:41] herman Bergson: let's look at oola's remark:is the process of logic considered scientific?
[13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: Power and control are th only reasons religion exists and if not for Gutenberg we wold still have to visti the clergy to know the turth
[13:41] Frederick Hansome: Why, then, is creationism so popular, accepted by so many?
[13:41] herman Bergson: an essential one
[13:41] Paula Dix: Agree Ari
[13:41] herman Bergson: No...logic is not science....science is the body of knowledge we humans possess....
[13:42] herman Bergson: logic is the method to acquire this ...what we call knowledge
[13:42] herman Bergson: or science
[13:42] Myriam Brianna: uhm
[13:42] itsme Frederix: Frederic because its simple, save and does not have consequences for the life you live
[13:42] Phooka Fairey: I think it is so popular because it is a new way to get the people to believe in a creator. Just a new coat
[13:42] oola Neruda: so then logic and the scientific method of inquiry are the same?
[13:43] Alarice Beaumont: people need some to look up to and give them reasons why some things are happening in the world
[13:43] herman Bergson: Well Phooka..it is only popular in the US mainly :-)
[13:43] Myriam Brianna: Logic is a trial, a method to deduce analytical truth. It cannot create new knowledge. Whatever a logical operation brings up: It was implicitely in the premises
[13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: creationism and religion is also like 'comfort food' it is ncie to think of folks passing on and sitiingwith other passed on relatives and friends
[13:43] itsme Frederix: and ... I admit .... there is always the idea of something (the unmoved mover, the begin and end but incapsulated)
[13:43] herman Bergson: Very true Myriam
[13:43] Myriam Brianna: and an analytical proof can of course be propositional false
[13:43] Alarice Beaumont: and..one is not responsible for things which happen in this world
[13:44] herman Bergson: But logic is the method to decuce hypotheses from a theory
[13:44] itsme Frederix: logic comes up with tautological (non synthetic) statements
[13:44] Myriam Brianna: sure, logic is in a sense a grammar
[13:44] oola Neruda: so we feel confident that we can get good answers from logic
[13:44] herman Bergson: Maybe so too, Itsme, but you logicaly deduce from premises a hypotheis...
[13:45] itsme Frederix: as soon we start testing we aknowledge empirics
[13:45] AristotleVon Doobie: critical thinking can hardly be applied by someone who was indoctrinated so well in their formative childhood years
[13:45] herman Bergson: From things you know you deduce a new idea to test
[13:45] Myriam Brianna: and if you don't you babble nonsense
[13:45] Paula Dix: i feel most people love the idea of universal justice in religion...
[13:45] herman Bergson: When that hypothesis shows to be wrong you know at least one of your premises is wrong
[13:45] Paula Dix: which for me isnt true of course :)
[13:46] itsme Frederix: just because we are limited we think its a new idea, but its just finding a "fact"
[13:46] herman Bergson: If you really want to get philosophical Itsme..yes
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: lol good place to do that
[13:46] Phooka Fairey: I don't think is finding a fact, I think it is hiding again
[13:46] herman Bergson: we never discover something new...it always has been there..we just didnt see it
[13:47] itsme Frederix: wow was I philosophical, thanks for teaching me that good
[13:47] Paula Dix: lol
[13:47] herman Bergson: You're welcome Itsme ^_^
[13:48] herman Bergson: I think we did our best on Creationism,,,:-)
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: what is next Herman
[13:48] itsme Frederix: Oke, but we still have creationism - a ism - in the world and it has big influence/power in education/schools
[13:48] herman Bergson: So I guess that there is no problem in dismissing class:-)
[13:48] herman Bergson: unless you really have a last statement of course
[13:49] herman Bergson: In the US Itsme...
[13:49] AristotleVon Doobie: the anymosity that exists between science and religion will persist until the clean slate can last until adolescence
[13:49] herman Bergson: Dont tell me that it has any meaning in the Netherlands for instance
[13:49] itsme Frederix: Well your arguments won't kill creationism for the creationists - how to deal with this?
[13:49] Myriam Brianna: but the US are part of our world and what happens there has effects in Europe, Africa, whatever
[13:49] itsme Frederix: Herman the netherlands is tiny
[13:50] herman Bergson: You never can kill the beliefs of a believer, Itsme, for that you have to kill the believer:-)
[13:50] itsme Frederix: and beneath sea level - we will drawn
[13:50] Qwark Allen: true
[13:50] Paula Dix: i guess the best is to give all good school
[13:50] Myriam Brianna: and yes, Creationism increasingly gets a hold in Europe. There are schools in Germany and GB, teaching ID
[13:50] Qwark Allen: herman
[13:50] herman Bergson: True..but I can swim
[13:50] Phooka Fairey: In the Netherlands not yet Herman, but as Myriam says I do agree 100%
[13:50] AristotleVon Doobie: one must not forget eh financil rewards ath religion offers to its leaders
[13:50] Paula Dix: so they can get the concept of scientific theory...
[13:50] itsme Frederix: Myrian are you serios - looks like another swine fle
[13:51] herman Bergson: With all due respect..but here is emerging a very strange situation
[13:51] herman Bergson: In all fields of science scientific method is accepted as effective....
[13:51] herman Bergson: and then there is one field where belief rules..evolution/biology..???
[13:52] Myriam Brianna: I'm serious, - in fact the British government financially aids some of these schools, in the name of multiculturalism. Oo
[13:52] Paula Dix: Ari here government is going hard after one such religious leader... its amazing how rich the guy is
[13:52] Qwark Allen: the religions business
[13:53] itsme Frederix: Herman don't forget Galilai and the churce - its just the impact of (emperical facts) ideas on "believe" "how to seee human life"
[13:53] herman Bergson: Yes Qwark...we have the wrong profession:-)
[13:53] Myriam Brianna: I guess evolution is the only thing they feel able to get a wedge into (and "the Wedge Strategy Paper" is very interesting, I recommend looking it up)
[13:53] Qwark Allen: eheheh true hermman
[13:53] AristotleVon Doobie: as long as these comfort, power and financial incentives last religion and creationism witll be with us
[13:53] itsme Frederix: well we've seen that before as nazi-ism
[13:54] herman Bergson: yes Aristotle, but not in science...inchurch only
[13:54] Myriam Brianna: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wedge_stragegy/
[13:54] herman Bergson: what is that URL Myriam?
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: have to go soon
[13:54] Phooka Fairey: True Herman, but if this is going father, than we have a new Bible in a few years.
[13:55] Myriam Brianna: it describes a social and political action plan of the discovery institute, with the aim to destroy science Oo. Srsly
[13:55] AristotleVon Doobie: if the religious group is in the majority all democracies are dangeous
[13:55] itsme Frederix: is the url complete?
[13:55] herman Bergson: Holy cow....destroy science?
[13:55] AristotleVon Doobie: the church moves into the stae
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: hope not!!!!!
[13:55] herman Bergson: The medical sciences will cheer that..haha..
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: see you tuesday all
[13:56] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Gemma :)
[13:56] herman Bergson: Bye GEmma
[13:56] Paula Dix: here churches are very deep into politics, sadly...
[13:56] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye gemma :-)
[13:56] Myriam Brianna: the url should be complete, but it would pose no problem to look it up "Wedge Strategy" as a search term, and there you have it
[13:56] Phooka Fairey: Bye Gemma, nice to have meet you:-)
[13:56] Alarice Beaumont: that is because ppl think they are loosing there lives... looking for someone to give them steadiness
[13:56] herman Bergson: Yes....but look at history...
[13:56] herman Bergson: The church was deep into all culture inEurope
[13:56] Paula Dix: Oh Herman i saw many people already telling medicine isnt science!!!
[13:56] Myriam Brianna: they are unashamedly political/social, - now that this paper is out
[13:56] Alarice Beaumont: will get worth if the financial crisis gets deeper
[[13:57] AristotleVon Doobie: yes, so much so that they are attempting to modify our founding history
[13:57] herman Bergson: Buti it lost control in the 16th century
[13:57] Qwark Allen: hard for me to type here ---->im at azert keyboard!!! what a mess
[13:57] Qwark Allen: @_@
[13:57] Myriam Brianna: ^.-
[13:57] herman Bergson: lol....
[13:57] Paula Dix: lol
[13:57] itsme Frederix: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
[13:57] Qwark Allen: cya soon
[13:57] herman Bergson: enjoy your stay in France Qwark
[13:57] oola Neruda: the political and despotic ways of the church are not so good, but i really do feel that there are many people who have bennefited from the teachings of love... and would the law alone be able to take the place of people using their religios belief to control their conduct
[13:57] Qwark Allen: ty hermann
[13:58] Paula Dix: hey Rodney!
[13:58] Qwark Allen: it¨s one moeere week
[13:58] Qwark Allen: ^^
[13:58] Qwark Allen: at least
[13:58] Qwark Allen: ehehe
[13:58] Rodney Handrick: hi paula
[13:58] herman Bergson: Rodney is there...Class is over lol
[13:58] itsme Frederix: Qwark Dvorak seems much faster
[13:58] AristotleVon Doobie: yes oola, Jesu certainly had a great message, it is the elders of the church that have betrayed him
[13:58] Rodney Handrick: I sorry..
[13:58] Rodney Handrick: I'm Sorry! Herman
[13:58] oola Neruda: yes
[13:58] CONNIE Eichel: great class professor, hope i can be for next one too :)
[13:58] herman Bergson: lol..is ok of course
[13:58] Violette McMinnar: TY all, what an interesting discussion
[13:58] itsme Frederix: Well Rodney in, class over
[13:58] AristotleVon Doobie: Thank you , Herman
[13:58] herman Bergson: CLASS DISMISSED
[13:58] Paula Dix: thanks Berg :))
[13:58] Myriam Brianna: "love" becomes a meaningless word in the context of religion, - that is my impression. And Caritas (the biblical term for love) is very different from the love in our sense
[13:59] herman Bergson: Thank you all...great class today!!!
[13:59] Rodney Handrick: ih itsme
[13:59] Rodney Handrick: hi
[13:59] AristotleVon Doobie: Hello, Rodney ?
[13:59] AristotleVon Doobie: :)
[13:59] Rodney Handrick: Hi Ari
[13:59] Alarice Beaumont: next one is thursday herman?
[13:59] Phooka Fairey: hear, hear Myriam... so true
[13:59] herman Bergson: Yes Alarice..next class on Thursday.