Prometheus

It's so hard not to let anger get the better of you at times like this. Is it not legitimate to at least ask whether followers of a certain ideology are more inclined to acts of violence? I have not heard reports of mass killings perpetrated in the name of Jainism for instance. It does not seem crazy to speculate that the religion a person follows influences their propensity towards violence. Perhaps the greater part of the rise of Islamic terrorism is socio-political in nature - but is there a contribution from the teachings of Islam? I have heard it said often on this forum that the Christian god is a bronze age war god. Islam follows the same god. The difficult part is identifying what, if anything, in Islam increases propensity to violence without sullying all of Islam and implicating all Muslims. I suspect only other Muslims will be able to perform this task.

Getting off topic now but by your reasoning I can claim the Force is real - i was certainly moved by Star Wars far more than any nativity scene. This Force must then be real, because i feel it is real. Many people agree with me, and Jedism is a growing religion. You cannot prove the Force does not exist, as it is based on the feelings of its followers. Hopefully not too many will join the dark side and start blowing people up.

You provided evidence some religious people seek preferential treatment and will cry 'unfair' when held to the same standards as everyone else.

I can only take your word for it about your dreams. I can also only take your word for it that your god exists. Therefore, in making decisions about my life, both are irrelevant at best. I like the analogy though and would like to extend it to say god is naught but a dream some humans have.

Reminds me of how some people like Dawkins are referred to as militant atheists, like they are somehow comparable to the militant religious. How religious people can equate harsh words to suicide bombings and mass killings is beyond me, but i suspect the source is the same as the 'why do scientists pick on us with evidence' whine.

But lab rats do not create narratives to their lives which help make them and their group happier. The first criteria i mentioned, claims about the physical world requiring evidence, are enough to make a realistic belief system. But then we humans do like to find meaning to our lives, which is what i mean about creating a narrative. As a species we have created meanings for ourselves with our narratives. Creating a narrative does not require evidence: it is something we create. Evidence then provides us with bounds for our belief systems so they can better reflect reality, but within these bounds we are free to make up our own meaning in life. From all our narratives we can select those which seem 'best' to us - by what measure of best is not obvious. I was going to give a specific example but struggling to be concise: i hope i have explained my perspective sufficiently.

I agree there are a plethora of religions and not all are equally as valid. However, I do think there are at least 2 ways of measuring them. If a religion makes a physical claim (water into wine, or talking dogs) we can seek evidence - or as many of these claims are historical, apply current understanding. Any religion that holds itself above these criteria (i.e. god just did it), is at best useless at describing the physical world. If a religion restricts itself to coming to terms with being sentient and ethics then the measures are far more vague, but still we can still apply some metric, even if it is just 'this group seem happier and do less harm to others'.

Religion should be held to the same scientific standards as any other discipline making claims about the physical world. The religious should not be given special treatment just because evidence might hurt their feelings.

If a species that went extinct because of man is reintroduced it would likely just become extinct again - depending on exactly what pressures caused the extinction and whether man still creates these pressures. If nothing has changed there seems no point in reintroducing the species.

I'll be happy to answer that question, for whatever it is worth, once you have answered mine:

The expectation might be infinite in which case though it is possible for Satan to repent he could remain eternally evil. An interesting aside: i'm just reading Milton's Paradise Lost and Satan does on occasion wish he could repent, but always feels things have gone too far. God, however, declares Satan is forever without the grace he extends to Man, for though man sinned he did so under Satan's influence while Satan rebelled under no duress.

Do male nurses get paid more on average? I've not seen any stats to suggest this - have you? My experience though is that male nurses disproportionately occupy senior roles: i've served under 6 matrons: 4 male, 2 female. I'm not sure how representative this is. Occupying senior roles could explain higher average wages: assuming this is true. I was a male nurse until recently. Some patients express a preference for a nurse of a certain sex for certain things. This is accommodated as much as possible, but as the profession is still female dominated, patients get their preference for male nurses less often. My experience is that more men are entering the profession, implying it is easier for men to enter the profession. I'd be interested in seeing the stats behind your questions.

Small point: Buddha isn't (generally) regarded a god and 'Buddha' is a title as much as a name.

It is my observation that many people who become atheists do so after much soul searching and thought, having to go against mainstream opinions on the subject: they are therefore typically more creative than perhaps the 'normal' person. However, in an increasingly secular society we are seeing more people born atheists. Having had discussions with such people I have found some to be quite dogmatic on the subject, believing in evolution, say, simply because that is what they have been told is the truth. I certainly have no problem with teaching evolution as truth, i just use it as an example that some people will believe whatever you tell them without much question (we came from mud, or from sky daddy, or from animals), while others will always question. I don't know what makes people behave one way or the other, but the latter seem more able to adapt their beliefs to the evidence, and are more creative because of it.

The problem has changed slightly. C is now a probability at a particular time, t. Is the above still valid?

No, that is what you state is the cause. Some of us still question whether there is actually a real effect at all, and even if there is, no-one in the given literature thus far has been able to say what causes the increased incidence. What does 'biochemical changes rather than individual traits' actually mean? A biochemical change could be an individual trait.

At first glance of this meta-analysis the effect certainly looks real. Looking into it a little and some of the studies could have suffered from a reporting bias (i.e. some weekend cardiac events recorded as monday events as this is when patients present). Not enough info on the individual studies to be sure. Here's the full text. I also found this meta-analysis which seems a bit better (they consider potential reporting bias and also publication bias). They find a much smaller effect than the previous meta-analysis, but it's still a significant difference.

So a lot of focus has been on the fact we have already been broadcasting our existence, either via radio waves or the voyager probes. But from all the links provided it seems these are quite ineffective means of making contact. Presumably we could do better if we tried. The new debate is about whether more purposeful attempts should be made at making contact. Originally i too thought such an attempt wouldn't mean very much due to a low probability of aliens getting the message, and even if they did would they realistically be able to traverse those distances. But i find the points about the terrestrial effects interesting: could it really lead to weaponisation in space? I guess it could be used as an excuse to sway public opinion, but if someone with the resources to put weapons in space really wants to, do they really need public opinion? Balance this risk against the inspiration it could evoke and potential technologies developed and i'm not sure the cons outweigh the pros.

Interesting articles, thanks. From them i take it that though we have been broadcasting for a short while, these are unlikely to be heard and there are other means we could employ to increase the likelihood of being noticed. So, should we?

There is a debate as to whether the human race should attempt to make contact with alien species by sending a message: a flare to light up our presence. So, should we attempt to make contact with alien species given what we have experienced when more technologically advanced peoples meet those less advanced? If so, what message should we send up?

There is plently of science to discuss behind light. There is plenty of mythology to discuss about light. By trying to smudge the two together you end up talking about neither of these interesting concepts.

What, in particular, did you want to discuss?

It might be interesting to talk about the meaning of the sacred with respect to light. The myth of Prometheus springs to mind. But the OP refers specifically to photons, which implies a desire to muddy the waters of science with all this new age quantum woo. I just don't understand it: at best it annoys scientists and distracts spiritual people.

Once we have defined a word we stick to it. So to does not equal computer. I agree it is silly to try to redefine a word once we have established a meaning for it. But this is exactly what you are doing. We are all using a meaning of happiness, then you come along and say no, let's stop using this definition of happiness and use mine instead. It is better and I can scientifically prove my definition. You cannot scientifically prove a definition. OK, you admit there are different kinds of happiness. Good. Things are far more subtle than you make out. Have you really never felt two apparently conflicting emotions at the same time? I had a recent bereavement but i was at once happy and sad: happy because she wanted to die having suffered for a long while but sad becuase my little part of the universe became a little more drab with her cessation. I do not doubt that this emotion was the result of some neuro-chemical cocktail. But what caused the release of this particular cocktail? Well, it was the meaning i associated with the event, which is tempered by my life experiences and the meaning i chose to attach to the event. My brother was there and felt a different cocktail because his life experiences are different to mine and he chooses different meanings to events. Does any of that make sense to you? Great. No one is disagreeing with you, so what are you arguing about?

Then please stop doing it. Words are not tied solely to their scientific properties. Some words have specific meanings which we say are scientific. All this means is that scientists will use them to mean slightly different things to lay people. That is all. You seem to want to give 'scientific terms' some mystical properties. This thread really belongs in philosophy it has nothing to do with science. There aren't other versions and the scientific version: it's just the way you have chosen to view the world. No one is arguing that emotions such as happiness aren't mediated by neuro-chemistry. But you choose to add that it is merely neuro-chemistry. Let's say i win a nobel prize. This will make me very happy (i imagine). I could just say, well it doesn't mean anything, this feeling is merely neuro-chemistry. Or i could say this neuro-chemical arrangement which makes me happy has come about through my hard work and a bit of luck; well done me. Both views are just as valid, and have nothing to do with science. I am unable to follow your long posts so please indulge my simplicity for a minute. Can you, in just one short paragraph, say what your idea is. Something like: Happiness is caused by certain neuro-chemicals. More neuro-chemicals cause more happiness. Then, again briefly, state how you might begin to test the idea. Something like: Measure levels of various chemicals and levels of peoples happiness. See if there is a correlation.