Science fiction provides the perfect backdrop for exploration on the borders of morality because it creates alternate realities which are limited only by the depth of our imagination. Promising technologies can be created, controlled, and finally be seen to unexpectedly turn on their former masters. New planets can be discovered and explored for ancient civilisations or exploited for basic resources. Alien species can threaten our planet with annihilation or they can teach us what it means to be human. In the world of science fiction all these possibilities can occur; new worlds, galaxies, and alien species can be created and destroyed over and over in myriad combinations – then it can all be written again. The remoteness of these new galaxies and the unfamiliar forms of alien species allows for an ethical discussion of current events in a way that does not threaten the personal identity of those directly involved. Science fiction allows a lot of nonsense to be bypassed and lets the viewer to look directly into the heart of important subjects1.
- Religion & Irreligion • Re: I want to oppose Islam... Fri May 18, 2012 5:53 pm Dragan Glas
- Atheism & Theism • Re: What if a god does exist? Fri May 18, 2012 4:54 pm Dragan Glas
- Gaming • Re: The Kerbal Space Program Appreciation thread Fri May 18, 2012 4:50 pm CEbbesen
- Gaming • Re: What are you playing right now? Fri May 18, 2012 4:49 pm CEbbesen
- Religion & Irreligion • Re: Park51 or the "Ground Zero Mosque" Fri May 18, 2012 4:42 pm IBSpify
- March 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- December 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- Astronomy (5)
- Censorship (33)
- Culture (26)
- Entertainment (15)
- Events (15)
- History (7)
- Introductions (10)
- Literature (13)
- News (57)
- Philosophy (45)
- Politics (8)
- Random (15)
- Reason (68)
- Religion (61)
- Research (8)
- Reviews (2)
- Science (53)
- Show (5)
- TubeGuardian (2)
- Uncategorized (1)
- Website (6)
- YouTube (33)
Posts Tagged ‘Aught3’
Could you patent the sun?
One of the biggest enemies facing critical thinking and scepticism is that of personal bias. Bias is extremely easy to spot in other people, but notoriously difficult to spot in yourself. No one likes to think that they may be biased but everyone is, in one way or another. Bias often appears in science denialism where someone may be religiously biased towards a Biblical interpretation of the fossil evidence (for example) rather than towards the scientific explanation. The best we can do about our biases is recognise them and be extra vigilant when we come across evidence that conforms to our biased pre-judgements. Because bias has such an affect on our interpretation of evidence, scientists especially should try to limit the influence of such outside factors on their impartial research. Yet we see precisely the opposite occurring. As research and industry snuggle into a cosy relationship, scientists have become enamoured with their commercial partners.
The commercialisation of research has exploded in the fields of biomedical science and biotechnology, with industry poised to make millions, scientists are all too happy to take a cut of the action. However, money is a powerful motivator and researchers now have an added incentive to find certain result. The result which favours whatever corporation provides the funding. If scientists are being influenced by their source of funding, then it should be apparent in their results. Industry funded projects should find positive results more often than non-profit funding. Indeed, taking the example of pharmaceutical research, that is what we find.
Science vs. religion: are they incompatible?
One question that frequently confronts the New Atheists (especially those with a science background) is whether a religion and science are incompatible. The stock answer is that many religious leaders accept science as a good way to understand the natural world and conversely, many scientists have a religious faith (Ken Miller and Francis Collins come to mind). In a previous blog post I talked about how sociological research had revealed that about half of American scientists are able to both perform cutting-edge science and maintain a religious identity. An even larger proportion is still interested in matters of spirituality despite daily engaging in rational, empirical inquiry.
These facts show there is, at least, a kind of ‘brute compatibility’ between science and religion; a single person can hold both ideas simultaneously. However, the obvious counter to ‘brute compatibility’ is to point out that in certain cases the findings of science conflict with specific religious claims about the nature of the world. For example, if you claim that the world is 6,000 years old, science says you are wrong. According to empirical data, the world is more like 4.5 billion years old and anyone who says the scientific evidence shows otherwise is simply mistaken. Because science can only conflict with specifically defined religious claims, I call this ‘specific incompatibility’. Although this type of incompatibility is important, and probably accounts for a large proportion of science’s moderating impact on religion, it does not completely contradict all types of religious claims. Again, this answer is too superficial; the original question is asking something more fundamental – are religion and science incompatible at the deeper, philosophical level?
Countering “The Narrative”
A recurring phenomenon in the spate of Islamic terror attacks has been that the perpetrators are often citizens who turn on their own countries. Mjr. Hasan’s attack on Ft. Hood in America being a prime example. A recent 60 minutes documentary purports to explain how peaceful Muslims can be turned into fanatical extremists willing to engage in suicide attacks on the very countries they live in.
Recruiters for these fundamentalist Islamic organisations rely on ‘the narrative’, a collection of stories, conspiracy theories, propaganda, and outright lies that claims the USA and the rest of Western civilisation is trying to eradicate Islam. This set of stories has been propagating wildly since the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre and appeals not to the poor and needy, but to prosperous and educated citizens who make foreign countries their home. Consider Mohamed Atta, the leader of the WTC attacks and educated at universities in Cairo and Hamburg. Mohammad Sidique Khan, leader of the London metro attacks, educated at Leeds University and prior to the attack was holding down a steady job. Or the would-be Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad. He holds double degrees from American universities, had a good job, a wife, and a nice house in the suburbs. These are the faces of Islamic terrorism in the West.
Even though there are many instances of Western governments defending or supporting Muslims in Bosnia, Somalia, Kuwait, Pakistan and Indonesia (disaster relief), Iraq and Afghanistan (overthrowing tyrannies) belief in the narrative remains strong. This set of beliefs is also being successfully exported to Western countries, with tragic results. Hatred of those who kill Muslims is encouraged yet, despite the fact that deliberate suicide bombings by Al-Qaeda kill more Muslims than drone attacks by American forces, adherents to the narrative still direct their hatred towards the West and their support towards terrorist organisations. The narrative includes the idea that the US government actually encouraged Al-Qaeda to carry out the attack on the WTC as a justification to invade Afghanistan – these fundamentalist Muslims are apparently 9/11 truthers.
Funded by the oil revenues of the Arab states, political Islamism is attempting to spread itself across the globe by going to war with any opposition. Having seized control of many regimes in the Muslim world, Islamists are enlarging the area they control. Conflicts between Muslims and other local populations in Russia, Indonesia, India, North Africa, Europe, and the USA show they have been extremely successful in spreading their ideology and bringing the fight to us. According to Maajid Nawaz (a former Islamic radical) of the Quilliam Foundation, countering the narrative is the most important aspect to preventing the spread of Islamism. I would add that moving away from an oil-based economy and ending the cozy relationship with Saudi leaders would also help by cutting off the economic backing of this dangerous, and deadly, movement.
Science vs. Religion
A sociological survey by Prof. Elaine Howard Ecklund of Rice University has asked a sample of 1,700 scientists from top tier American universities about their view on religion. Perhaps surprisingly, a large proportion (50%) did claim a religious identity. The scientists in this survey were less religious than the general population, 52% said they had no religious affiliation compared with only 14% of the American population. A greater majority (65%) say they are interested in matters of spirituality. Ecklund has recently published a book discussing her research called, Science vs Religion: What Scientists Really Think.
Around 300 of these scientists (both religious and non-religious) were followed up in more in-depth interviews. Many scientists had the view that religion was not a topic for discussion amongst their colleagues and chose to keep their faith hidden. Others had unorthodox views of religion – not believing in God while still identifying as a catholic, for example. Only 2% identified their beliefs as ‘fundamental’ or ‘evangelical’. The best news was that none of the interviewees though intelligent design (creationism) should be taught in classrooms.
Interestingly, the results of this survey indicate that learning about science does not seem to cause people to lose their religious beliefs. Most of these scientists had already come to their religious point of view before engaging into higher education. The biggest predictor of a scientist’s religion (or lack thereof) was still the religion of their parents.
I think this survey has revealed some heartening information about the scientific community (at least in USA). Scientists that are also religious already understand the tensions between science and faith, and how to resolve them. These religious scientists are also more likely to be accepted into faith-based communities and have the best chance of imparting good scientific information. As long as they are not to scared to ‘come out’ to their colleagues, there is a great opportunity for some useful dialogue in the science vs. religion debate.
Ecklund, Elaine and Christopher Scheitle 2007. ‘Religion Among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics.’ Social Problems 54: 289–307.
Introducing an old hand
Long gone are the days when YouTube stars like djarm67 and AndromedasWake would broadcast their thoughts to our humble league. With the web log lying dormant (what, we have a blog!?) it was time for a rag-tag team of forum mods and chat ops to pick up the flag of reason and march bravely forward into the blogosphere. *My idea*
Most of you probably know me already, or have at least argued with me over some trivial detail in an unimportant thread. I’ve been here since the earliest days of the League of Reason and it’s become one of my favourite online communities. I hail from New Zealand which is a nicely sized nation in the South Pacific. I consider myself very lucky to have been born surrounded by all this natural beauty – see Lord of the Rings for your walk in the local park. I’m still finishing my university education but have so far completed a degree in biotechnology.
I’m a lifelong atheist but it wasn’t until the final years of college that I got into scepticism. I’m a member of the NZ skeptics and do what I can to help out on worthy causes. I might as well pimp the new sceptical podcast: The CUSP . If I have to choose a label I’d go with freethinker because I think that best sums up the way I (want to) approach new information and ideas. I’d also like to consider myself a fierce proponent of all things scientific and have done my best to inform people on matters involving evolution, global warming, vaccines, homeopathy, and other alternative medicines.
Enough of what you agree with me about, where can we have an argument? I think objective morality exists, GM agriculture is a good idea, and support the wars on Iraq and Christmas. Threads can be found around the LoR and other sites in which I (attempt to) defend these positions. I love to read and would probably class myself as a bit of a bibliophile. Whether you agree with my positions or not, I hope my blog posts will make you think about current issues facing atheists, freethinkers, and sceptics and that you get something out of them.
Before I came to this site I had never heard of Carl Sagan so I’ll finish with a quote from him that goes right to the heart of my philosophy: “It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” I think that’s exactly right.
Blog: Indoctrinating Freethought
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/Aught3 and http://www.youtube.com/user/Belikescopes