Idem dito science. I said it before and I will say it again. There is a difference between the scientific method (trial and error, observation) and science as we know it.

It is wrong and not based on facts that science is just another way to practice religion. BUT again SOME people DO use science in the same way as some extreme religious people. Those people will also NO longer use the scientific method but will hide their fears behind ‘science’ and ‘numbers’ that usually (because it is only a cover up) wont mean anything.

I will repeat, I am not saying that ALL people who use numbers or science to state something use it in this way, but I have seen people who use it in the same radical way.

I do agree that it is just blatantly wrong to make a generalization of it, but that doesn’t make the statement ‘some people use science in the same way as extreme religious people’ or ‘some people use atheism in the same radical way as extreme religious people’ not less true.

(atheist, in case you wondered)

So Derren’s definition was technically correct. But I don’t think Dawkins uses it like that. He does imply that there is a negative belief present if I remember correctly, with varying degrees of certainty. According to the categorization in Dawkins’ book, I wasn’t able to consider myself 100% atheist, but I have no trouble defining myself as a 100% non-believer.

Other than that many commentators already raised many good points. Perhaps introducing the cognitive dissonance concept is also sensible:

“Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become “open” to them.”

Just google it for more…

Now… about the part related to science. I disagree with the amazing Derren Brown a bit about that part. He makes an excellent point about the science vs. pseudoscience thingy, yet once again I’m frightened by the full trust in today’s scientific authorities. I also share many views with “Sense about Science”, it is a necessary, praiseworthy effort. But it again is uncritical of the mainstream science itself. They are critical of the peer-review system to a degree, and they acknowledge that published/accepted science is not necessarily the best of the best and that the scientists are not necessarily unbiased, but they still don’t really encourage skepticism towards the mainstream science. Perhaps that’s simply because their focus is more about communication with the public, and to reduce the uncertainty in the air, yet this lack of skepticism towards mainstream science remains a widely unrecognized, unaddressed problem.

Perhaps what I’m talking about is only important in rare, exceptional situations, but still it is a very important issue I think, and should not be forgotten or ignored. Here you can find a lot of info about the flaws of the current system and the advantages of Open-Access Journals, it’s like Peer Review 2.0 in a way:
http://www.scientificjournals.org/index.php

Finally, related to what I just said, ‘Berber Anna’ touched the “HIV” subject above. I really wish I could ignore that, but I feel the need to speak out. Because after some extensive research I became what’s usually referred by the “scientific” community as an “AIDS denialist”. You can find a more objective definition of it here: http://www.reviewingaids.com/awiki/index.php/Dissident

Anyway, Anna, I just want to say that the CCR5-Δ32 mutation theory for the “Long-Term Non-Progressors” is just an unreliable assumption, it’s hold on tightly so that they can explain the phenomenon of “HIV positives” who don’t get “AIDS”. Believe it or not there are much better explanations. There are also enough non-progressors without the CCR5 mutation, but the “scientific” community prefers to ignore that. They actually ignore long term non-progressors as a whole most of the time, they don’t even want to know if all LTNPs have the CCR5 mutation. We could use some sense about science with things like that too… Sorry for off-topic. But anyway, I still agree that the human body is very flexible and versatile. I just didn’t like your example. If you’re interested in learning more about “HIV/AIDS skepticism” I often post related information on my blog(s).

Please don’t be offended. I wish I did not post my thoughts or that you would have overlooked my post, so I would not have had to respond. I’m not lazy, just extremely over worked to the point I can’t think or will at least need to hibernate for the next six months. I guess I am to blame here.

Alas, you responded to my post. Which I appreciate. Which in turn requires a response. I don’t think this is the right forum to go into great detail about my beliefs, or how I have investigated the bible from a historical stand point.

However, you make your points very clear. I think anyone with any clout could make an argument either for or against. After all, what are lawyers good for?

In regards to having a “default mode” of not believing in something until it is proven, sounds very logical. However rather a “boxed in” mode of thinking. Am I therefore “illogical” for believing in something that scientifically has not been proven? I think it all depends on your viewpoint. Which is why I presume you are an atheist and I am not. We have different mind sets. Yes, you may believe your way of thinking is the “most logical” but is it necessarily the best for all peoples, races, and cultures. The beauty of mankind is that we all are created equal and through our experiences come to have differing mind sets and view points. Should we all think alike? Some of the greatest minds who were able to still think rationally and logically, Albert Einstein, Newton, also believed in the existence of God. They were scientists, yet still believed in the unknown, the “unproven.” I think where you and I differ are our “default mode” of viewing the world.

In regards to the medical miracles, it can be argued either for or against. However, to save me some time, I may agree with you on that one. It COULD be a deity or it could just be the magnificence of the human body, (which I believe has to have a creator, once again, only my view point)

Lastly but definitely not least, love. Sadly, I have never really been deeply in love, I think. I am fairly young so I still have plenty of time for a broken heart. Believe me, I know the mechanics and the wonderful effects of Oxytocin, not because I am a drug addict, but due to the nature of what I have to study. I still can’t quite understand why we fall in love with only certain people, if a hormone was in “control” should we not fall in love as easily with anyone, if the hormone levels are right? If that was the case, then you could “shoot me up“ , and next thing you know I will be reciting poetry to the man next to me in line at the supermarket. However I question whether Oxytocin will “tell” your brain to sacrifice something for your loved ones, even go one further, offer up your life, for the person you love. It is a natural human response to want to preserve and protect your own life, “survival of the fittest.” You will be going against every natural human instinct of self preservation, all in the name of a hormone? It may be a possibility, but only just that.

In some respects I may be a sentimental fool, however I like answers too. That is where I can agree with you wholeheartedly. What I like about Derren Brown is that he seems a genuine person who talks about things that really make you think. He may be the only man on British TV that actually has something interesting to say. Even though I do not agree with him on everything. Searching for answers is a good thing, although as two different individuals we come to two different answers. I believe in God, you don’t, we just have to agree to disagree.

In regards to finding answers, I actually intend to not only read The God Delusion but I will also read the books written in response to that, which include The Dawkins Delusion, and apparently some impressive essays written by Marilynne Robinson, Terry Eagleton and H. Allen Orr. All refute Dawkins, so once again, you can argue either for or against something. Your viewpoint will decide which side you take.

I now intend on finding the nearest cave and hibernating for the next six months. I bid you good day.

Medical ‘miracles’, to me, aren’t proof of the existence of a deity, but rather of the flexibility and versatility of the human body. Some people’s bodies manage to defeat HIV. After much research, it was found that this is because of a mutation that dates back to the times of the plague epidemic (the plague bacteria attack immune cells in a similar way to HIV). Some people’s bodies manage to defeat other ‘incurable’ infections, or regrow nerve cells when most people’s bodies cannot. It is likely that some genetic mutation makes their bodies just that little bit different. That’s how natural selection works. In a few millennia, maybe all humans will have those mutations, because they aid survival.
If a deity WERE responsible for ‘miracle cures’, by the way, I’d consider it a very cruel deity indeed. Why cure a random few, and leave others to suffer and die? If that’s the act of an omipotent deity, which could supposedly cure anyone it wished to, it’d be a bit mean, don’t you think?

As for love, it’s a great feeling. It’s caused by a mixture of hormones, such as endorphins, oxytocin and adrenalin, producing changes in the body and brain. Those changes are perfectly measurable using fMRI, and I suppose some bloodwork would show the hormones responsible.
Yes, I know I love my family and friends because oxytocin ‘told’ my brain to feel that way. Knowing the cause does not lessen the feeling… it just means that I know the mechanics behind it.

Science has never pretended to have all the answers. Science is a way to FIND answers. If all answers had been found (which seems rather impossible, as there is an almost infinite number of questions out there), there’d be no need for science anymore.
I think what you mean is that not all answers should be sought after, because mysteries do have a certain appeal as well. I understand that sentiment, but I do not agree to it. I like answers, quite frankly.

Great post Mr B.

Google has all the answers………………..

Science has all the questions……………….