disarray

I don't mind detail that contributes information as with regards to the distinction between rebirth and reincarnation that you brought up yourself in much detail. Did you think that I was being captious by pointing out that your entire response to my substantial list of relevant points was merely to say that I had made a grammatical error? I was really just trying to encourage you to focus more on the thrust of the discussion rather than the side issues. And this upsets you....seriously?

I don't think Buddhism is homogeneous any more than you do, and have repeatedly made that point, e.g., with regards to "flavors." Yes, Buddhism is in the eye of the beholder, so when I say that Buddhism maintains some belief or attitude, it is implicitly stated that I refer to certain Buddhists or people who hold beliefs and attitudes consonant with certain flavors of Buddhism (For you to point this out this grammatical nicety seems unnecessarily pedantic, don't you think, given that you ignored the many major points for discussion that I made regarding Eastern religion's conflict with science vs. Western religion's conflict with science?). ............................. As for the Middle East resisting the tide of modern science (for a variety of factors, many of which were connected to religion): "In Bernard Lewis's phrasing, "The Renaissance, Reformation, even the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment, passed unnoticed in the Muslim World."6 Instead, Muslims relied on religious minorities -- Armenians, Greeks, Jews -- as intermediaries; they served as court physicians, translators, and in other key posts. With their aid, the Muslim world accomplished what is now known as a limited transfer of science and technology....In particular, the great theologian Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali (1059-1111) used the tools of the philosophers to undermine philosophical and scientific inquiry." http://www.meforum.org/306/why-does-the-muslim-world-lag-in-science And this, "the changes that occurred in Western Europe were not able to take hold in the Ottoman Empire as the Islamic belief of superiority suppressed new ideas [with regards to industrialization, ect.] out of Europe due to the thinking that they were inferior and useless. Furthermore, the interest groups such as the Ulama, the guilds, and the Janissaries were able to progress the decline as they feared that change would upset their role in society" http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=the_ottoman_empires_inability_to_industriali

Prometheus You state that "I accept that the majority of Buddhists believe in rebirth, but the key point is that such belief is not necessary and can (if you want) be taken separate from karma." However, in Buddhism, if anything, what goes between stages, be they incarnation or spirits, is typically said to be "karma. However, there is no point arguing what Buddhism exactly means by "self," as Nirvana is, as I mentioned, a state where one is united with the whole, much like the metaphor of a raindrop returning to the ocean. So, no, I don't think that it is a place, and I have no idea what you mean when you state that you don't like my description of it, since I made no particular description. For me, the bottom line, again, is that why would one bother trying to escape from the cycle of rebirth (or reincarnation for that matter) in the first place if there is no self (in the sense of 'consciousness') at all that will escape from the suffering of rebirth and find repose in Nirvana? Indeed, I think that one can get hung up on the idea that Buddhism does not refer to the endurance of a self after death, so I prefer to use the word "consciousness": "If it is not the physical body that is reborn, then what is this “compelling force” that is at the core of rebirth? In Buddhism, the core of rebirth is described as the alaya-vijnana (storehouse consciousness)....When you die, your store consciousness (alayavijnana) is the last to leave your body, and the first to arrive in the next body" from the same website you gave me on "Reincarnation and Buddhism" http://www.alanpeto.com/buddhism/understanding-reincarnation-rebirth/ Yes, one can find selected early texts, or whatever, where Buddhism just refers to this life, but this is not generally what Buddhism refers to today, if it ever generally did, and if one wants to just restrict a definition of Buddhism to referring to one's temporal lifetime on earth, then Buddhism becomes no different than the idea that one should meditate to keep healthy. (Confucianism is also perhaps in this regard even more mundane and down to earth than Buddhism, as in not focusing (very much) on any sort of afterlife. As such, arguably Confucianism is even less of a religion than Buddhism.) But regardless of what one thinks the "Buddha" supposedly meant exactly with reference to what is transferred from one life to another, there is some sort of change of lives, and some transfer of something from one to the next, be it karma, or causality, or whatever. Thus, I too might find remarks about what the Buddha supposedly said about previous lives as well: "In the process of becoming enlightened, the Buddha is said to have recognized all his previous lives." http://www.alanpeto.com/buddhism/understanding-reincarnation-rebirth/ In any case, it is just as absurd to talk about what the Buddha supposedly said as it is to quote what Jesus supposedly said, and indeed, like Jesus, there are no written records about Gautama found from his lifetime or for some time (perhaps) centuries thereafter. So we are really back to the notion that there are many flavors of Buddhism, and to argue about what he said or meant exactly is just trying to make sandcastles in the wind. I am not sure even what your point is. On the one hand you point to the evidence that suggests that Buddhism doesn't believe in rebirth, and then you point to evidence to suggest that Buddhism believes in rebirth, but not reincarnation. I never claimed that Buddhism embraced reincarnation in the same sense that, say, Hinduism does. I do think that there are parallels as well as distinctions between the two terms as used by Buddhism as opposed to Hinduism. A lot of bayoneting of straw men going on here, I think, as well as a lot of semantic splitting of hairs. Unless you have some particular point, I would rather focus on the issue of the discussion, which is why people need to invent a conflict between belief and science. I do think that it is relevant to suggest that Eastern Religions (specifically, Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism) are often mentioned as embracing principles that are parallel to those of modern physics. I am under the impression that, broadly speaking, there does not seem to be as much conflict between Eastern "religions" today and science as is the case with Western monotheistic religions (i.e., Christianity, Islam, and Judaism). With this thought in mind, an interesting exercise would be to examine the reasons for this difference: Eastern religions generally put less emphasis upon the idea that there are absolute moral truths Eastern religions generally put less emphasis upon the idea that one's personal "ego" will be saved Eastern religions generally put more emphasis upon human's harmonious place in nature Eastern religions generally don't put as definite a line between human beings and animals Eastern religions generally put more emphasis on the cyclic aspects of Nature Eastern religions generally seem to have worldviews that are more compatible with modern physics. With respect to the last point, Dr. Capra, for example, states that ""Eastern thought, and more generally, mystical thought, provide a consistent and relevant philosophical background to the theories of contemporary science." http://www.hinduism.co.za/hinduism.htm Indeed, some historians suggest that Middle Eastern culture did not develop industrially as quickly as it might have because it resisted the discoveries and principles of science over the centuries, even more recalcitrantly than did Christian Europe.

Again, I can't reply to vague generalizations. Give me a single question and I will respond to it.

Interesting comments, but not sure I want to just accept them without some sort of evidence or qualification. Can you give me an example of a "flavour" of Buddhism, perhaps as practiced in the East, in which karma does not interface with the concept of reincarnation, if that were your point? I am surprised that, having made your first statement, you then make the second generalized claim that (apparently no flavour of) Buddism does not accept reincarnation. I take your point if you are referring to a certain flavour of Buddhism, of which we can say that, Traditionally, Buddhism teaches the existence of the ten realms of being. At the top is Buddha and the scale descends as follows: Bodhisattva (an enlightened being destined to be a Buddha, but purposely remaining on earth to teach others), Pratyeka Buddha (a Buddha for himself), Sravka (direct disciple of Buddha), heavenly beings (superhuman [angels?]), human beings, Asura (fighting spirits), beasts, Preta (hungry ghosts), and depraved men (hellish beings)." http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/reincarnation.htm So what we have in this flavour is that there is a sort of nonphysical 'reincarnation'. But again, that is not the only flavour of Buddhism, as you say: “When Buddhism was established 2,500 years ago, it incorporated the Hindu belief in reincarnation. Although Buddhism has two major subdivisions and countless variations in regional practices, most Buddhists believe in samsara or the cycle of rebirth. Samsara is governed by the law of karma: Good conduct produces good karma and bad conduct produces evil karma. Buddhists believe that the soul's karma transmigrates between bodies and becomes a "germ of consciousness" in the womb. Periods of afterlife, sometimes called "the between," punctuate samsara, coming after death and before rebirth We suffer because we desire the transient. Only when we achieve a state of total passiveness and free ourselves from all desire can we escape samsara and achieve nirvana, or salvation. http://people.howstuffworks.com/reincarnation2.htm Underlining is mine. However, perhaps you are just agreeing that some nonspecific 'je ne sais quoi' can be in and can pass between different stages of being, but that Buddhism doesn't strictly believe in reincarnation in the same sense as Hindi do because they have a different concept of self. I understand the idea that Buddhism does not think that we survive death in the same sense as, say, a Christian might. I understand that the the Buddhism concept of what exists in Nirvana is not our daily Joe-Blow personality who grumbles, laughs, likes cheeseburgers and beer, etc. I understand that some flavours of Buddhism do not think that we are reborn as a different animal. I understand that the Buddhist concept of a higher Self is more rarefied and ephemeral than usually found in most "religions." Point taken......but nevertheless, there is some ephemeral level of awareness that many flavors of Buddhism, if you like, believe in that needs to follow various paths (e.g., eightfold path), and/or that needs to overcome attachment and desire in order to escape from its present condition in the first place. If our awareness is Completely! extinguished after death, why bother, one might ask, trying to escape. Something must remain: "no matter which translation you pick, it is understood that to be in a state of Nirvana means to be free from those bonds that enslave us; It is a state of profound peace and great wisdom. It is the ultimate happiness that comes when we are liberated from finding pain or pleasure in impermanent (transitory) objects. https://www.thebuddhagarden.com/nirvana-meaning.html So no, we don't eat ice cream, or sing hymns, or play harps, or perhaps even experience either sorrow or pleasure, but there is some residue of consciousness (according to some flavours of Buddhism) that experiences peace and freedom. Sounds like you were wandering from the discussion then....of course, not everything anyone says is gold. Again, perhaps you can show me how the word "karma" is used by most, if any (substantial number of) practicing Buddhists in a way that only refers to "payback," for lack of another handy word, in this life and not in connection with reincarnation? In terms of "street language," yes, sometimes people use the word karma to suggest that crime does not pay in this lifetime, for example. But even then, most people on the street are aware, as they use this term, that the meaning of the term springs from the spiritual use of the word in connection with reincarnation. Perhaps a Christian would use a phrase such as "you sow what you reap," and a neutral phrase (in terms of "religions") is perhaps "what goes around, comes around," but if I had to choose, I would say that this phrase relates most closely to Hinduism. In any case, I think it is fair that atheists (by definition) do not believe that there is some personal God that ensures that such justice in the world is taken care of by anything or anyone besides people's own fallible judicial system and their own efforts to get even? It is controversial whether Buddhism is even a religion (in the usual sense of the word), but Hinduism generally is considered to be, and it is Hinduism that most fully embraces the word "karma" in terms of the way it is used on the street. So, I would suggest that many if not most atheists would not subscribe to the concept of some supernatural, or even natural, moral justice in the universe that ensures that people 'get what they deserve', even if we are just talking about this life on earth alone.

Not sure that I see the consistency in your remarks: You state on the 24th of June that "Reincarnation/Karma is a pseudo god," but then state rather enigmatically in your last post that you believe in karma, but not in reincarnation. Similarly, you state on the 23rd that "how was Nietzsche wrong when he declared "God is dead"; the idea seems prophetic." but in your last post you state that "God is dead", "not everything he said was gold" as if you did not think much of his claim. I guess I would just suggest that you elaborate a little more rather than making vague allusions, e.g., such as asking if I am familiar with Nietzsche. Similarly, you might elaborate cryptic remarks, e.g., by explaining how it is that you believe in karma, but not in reincarnation, particularly since a rather standard definition of karma is "(in Hinduism and Buddhism) the sum of a person's actions in this and previous states of existence, viewed as deciding their fate in future existences. In short, the concept of karma typically goes hand in hand with the concept of reincarnation as far as I can discern.

Yes, I think that people instinctively feel that they are making decisions independent of biological influences (e.g., instincts). Pinker has a lot to say about this, but suffice to say that religion, parental upbringing, our legal system, etc. all contribute towards this rather illusory feeling. All the more reason to teach not only evolution, but also evolutionary psychology. The two (obviously generalized) scientific estimates I have heard were 50/50 or 40% environment and 60% genetic with reference to the development of personality. Of course, these are just rough figures presented to make a point, namely, that genetics does indeed have a huge impact on personality Freud may have gone down a lot of dead ends, but his basic vision that people need to be more aware of the influence of biology on their behavior is timeless. dimreepr: So let me get this straight: On the one hand you are arguing against the (Eastern) religious concept of reincarnation/karma as if it were a "pseudo God, and, in the same breath, hinting about the need for god. Do you see a contradiction here? I don't recall having any dialogue with you regarding Nietzsche as you say, but would prefer that you would just state what is on your mind with regards to him, rather than just beating around some (apparently Mosaic) bush. Secondly, I stated that my view of reincarnation, though originally taken from Eastern religions, was shorn of any religious connotations (much like Jefferson took ideas from Christianity and rejected the religious connotations such as the miracles) . For example, I stated that my view did not include "karma" which is, in my and Weber's opinion, an attempt to keep the masses in line in an ethical sense. Moreover, there is no room for a personal god in my view, and indeed, Buddhism (unlike Hinduism) generally has no personal god per se, and indeed, many would not even classify it as a religion. (And no, I am not a Buddhist apart from endorsing a few of its tenets; nor do I believe in Karma or anything like it). Yes, people are atoms, but the atoms (or, perhaps more specifically, the molecules) do not disappear upon physical death....rather they are more or less recycled. Similarly, it is not scientifically inconceivable that something similar happens to "consciouosness" (I put the word in inverted commas to signify that scientists do not have much of a grasp on what consciousness is or what it entails anyway): "According to the two scientists [renowned physicists, Roger Penrose and Dr. Stuart Hameroff], our brain is a biological computer and the consciousness is a program run by the quantum computer found in the brain that continues to exist after we die. They argue that what people perceive as consciousness is actually the result of quantum gravity effects inside these microtubules. This process is named by the two scientists "Orchestrated Objective Reduction" (Orch-OR)....the "Orch-OR theory" ...remains a controversial theory among the scientific community." Although, this is not the exact scientific approach I had in mind as far as what happens with regards to any residual mental activity after physical death, the quote above illustrates that it is not ridiculous to take a scientific approach (e.g., non-religious, non-spiritual) the issue of life after death, especially when one does not invoke faith, God, divinely inspired scriptures, divine rewards and punishments, penance, rituals such as baptism, the supernatural, etc. I had a look at the link you posted re evolution and supports Intelligent Design, the darling anti-evolution theory of Christians in general and (covert) Creationists in particular. I could engage in a discussion as to the points made in the article, and there are plenty of books on the shelf written by scientists far brighter than me who engage in such discussions far better than I can, but it seems to me that you are rather quick to glibly dismiss anything is not in line with your own religious views, judging from the manner in which you apparently skimmed over my post (as you disagreed with statements that I did not even make or when I had actually said the opposite of what you accused me of saying!). Moreover, the thrust of this thread is why religious people continue to 'invent conflicts' with scientists, not to re hash old arguments. But since you mentioned it, the 'odd' (pun intended) religious article aside, the theory of evolution is the backbone of biology and related sciences: "Evolution is so interwoven into the fabric of modern life that it is almost impossible to imagine the world without it....Darwin’s legacy to posterity lies as much in revolutionizing the methodology of the life sciences as in offering particular views about evolution...Historians generally shy away from engaging in “what if” stories, but most would agree that had “On the Origin of Species” not been published, we would still believe in evolution, but the development of modern biology would have unfolded much differently, and with less striking success." from https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/darwin/textonly/darwin_essay1.jsp

Raider 5678, you say "Quick question, is sentience a trait or, according to some(memaammals link), something that can't be real becuase all animals are the same. Exactly the same." In a nutshell, I consider physical evolution to be a fact. I do, however, speculatively entertain, from a scientific rather than religious standpoint, the idea that consciousness may survive physical death, as well as the idea of reincarnation (sans Karma). I say scientifically with reference to the likes of physicists such as Roger Penrose. Bottom line though, is that I observe that modern homo sapiens are vastly superior on an intellectual level than other animals, though of course every animal has its fortes. Given that I embrace evolution, I don't think there is a distinct line, or rather any line at all, between people and the rest of the animal kingdom whatsoever. So no, I think that your are going around in circles with semantics regarding the meaning of "sentient," particularly if one starts making ad hoc definitions of the word as one goes. My main recollection of this word is in connection with my readings of Eastern religions, which, for example, say that eventually all sentient creatures will be saved (i.e., reach a state of Nirvana). Moreover, I think that it is generally conceded in the scientific community that all animals are sentient. It used to be that many if not most people thought that animals, not only did not have souls, but barely experienced consciousness or pain. The following quote is from a webpage that directly addresses the issue: "A strong and rapidly growing database on animal sentience supports the acceptance of the fact that other animals are sentient beings. We know that individuals of a wide variety of species experience emotions ranging from joy and happiness to deep sadness, grief, and PTSD, along with empathy, jealousy and resentment. There is no reason to embellish them because science is showing how fascinating they are (for example, mice, rats, and chickens display empathy) and countless other "surprises" are rapidly emerging....Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors" https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201306/universal-declaration-animal-sentience-no-pretending So, in terms of evolution, whatever you think humans have, be it free will or consciousness or sentience or emotions or instincts or a soul or whatever, other species in the animal kingdom have it or at least the 'rudiments' of it on some level and to some degree. ........................................................ John L-G: I can't help throwing in my 2 cents on your question about Freud and Jung. Their relationship was indeed one of the great intellectual quarrels in history, with Freud being the atheistic and deterministic scientist (with ironic Jewish background) who objected to Jung's alleged 'contamination' of his version own understanding of human psychology with the sort of "occult mysticism" that Freud thought was perhaps not much better than voodoo. As the question as to whether we have a subconscious in the manner in which Freud outlined it is perhaps still in the "not sure" box as far as the "scientific community" is concerned, though it seems to me that Jung offered, apart from anthropological evidence (much as Frazer had done in his Golden Bough, or J. Campbell in his work on mythology) for the existence of some collective unconscious....which is central to his depth psychology. In recent years, I have read a few articles claiming that neurologists had vindicated the much maligned field of psychoanalysis (and thus Freud himself), by pointing out that many of the mechanisms (e.g., the defense mechanisms) outlined by Freud and his daughter could be matched up with certain neurological functions. I have never read anything suggesting that Jung's ideas could be defended from a scientific standpoint. Indeed, though he expressed reverence for science, he had a great affinity for Eastern Religions. In that regard, here is an interesting Christian website entitled, Carl Jung: Man of Science or Shaman, that concludes that Paul warned against the sort of "deceptive influences" that Jung represented: http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/08/nathan/jung.htm

This could get to be a pretty confusing world if people are just going to make up their own definitions, simply to have the last word: Typical definition: "Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience)." Of course, one can always look into the derivation of this word to see that it just does not mean using logical reasoning to overcome instinct. Indeed, in philsophical/religious contexts, the word often refers to the ability to consciously experience, to feel, to have sensations, and the like. The fact that there is a pecking order in the animal kingdom in terms of estimated IQ, so that dogs sometimes don't seem too bright too "us humans," contributes, I think to the validity of evolutionary models of brain development in particular and evolution theory in particular.

Memammal: You state that "It is called evolution and sorry to tell you that even though we are indeed more advanced, scientifically speaking we are still animals." Yes, we are getting down to brass tacks in terms of getting into an old-fashioned controversy between religion and scientists, e.g., between Creationists and Evolutionists. Perhaps some scientists like to point out the fallacies in, for example, Creationism, Biblical literalism, belief in miracles, etc., but with all due respect for people's Faith, in a science forum, it seems not only irrelevant to have such debates, but also to distract from the thrust of the topic (not to mention that rarely is anything ever resolved). Indeed, the thrust of this post was not to conduct a verbal conflict between those taking a religious pov and those taking a scientific one, but to determine just why "religious people keep trying to invent a conflict between belief and Science." Indeed, it seems to me that you are reluctant to engage in such a dialogue as to whether, for example, people are superior to animals. So rather than disputing the beliefs of those whose ideas are quite out of sync with modern science, perhaps one might ask why some religious people so adamantly refuse to accept the generally overwhelming evidence that underpins a scientific worldview. I am not sure how one goes about this exactly, as my own observation is that religious people have a worldview that is consistent enough to resist any logic that scientists can throw at it, e.g., the logic and evidence for the theory of evolution. Indeed, one obvious answer to the question of this thread is that religious people find that the general world view of scientists, esp. evolutionism, to be a threat to their beliefs and efforts to evangelize these beliefs. In terms of religion, ones worldview is literally a matter of life and death (i.e., salvation or damnation), not to mention the religious values that many think keep society from devolving into anarchy and evil. Scientists, on the other hand, do not have, comparatively speaking, such an emotional investment in the conflicts between religion and science, except, perhaps, when it comes to impeding what they think is scientific progress (e.g., the banning of evolution in the school system), and perhaps issues such as banning stem cell research on religious grounds. I think that comparing the motives of those who cling to creationism, literalism, divine intervention, etc. with the motives of scientists is a good approach to the topic question of this discussion. But alas, this too is often a dead end effort, since many religious people have it in their heads for one reason or another, that scientists have their own nefarious agenda, e.g. to spread atheism and materialism and to eradicate religious values.

Zapatos: You state "No, you didn't. You paraphrased him, and did it incorrectly." I don't agree. I first quoted him and then I addressed his claim with respect to Higgs. Strange's remark in full was that, "There is no scientific theory that describes the creation of the universe. There is speculation from the likes of Hawking, but I am not convinced that is any better (in terms of scientific support) than "goddidit". As I had mentioned Higgs, along with Hawking, it is logical that he was also talking about research done on the Higgs Boson. So, I responded to his quote by noting that the Higgs Boson, though not 100% complete or successful, is an attempt to 'describe the creation of the universe', or rather to explain how it created itself. If Strange meant that there was no scientific theory to support the religious beliefs about the creation/origins of the universe, then I have misunderstood him. But this is unlikely, since I mentioned Hawking and other scientists, and there was no reference on my part in this regard to religious writers or to religion whatsoever. I presume that you are not suggesting that I deliberately misconstrued his remark. In any case, if I did misinterpret what he meant, I think that he would be the one to clarify it, as he is the one that might have been offended. As a third party, your assumption that I misconstrued what someone else supposedly meant only serves to further confuse things. If you disagree with something, why not just state your point directly. All I have heard so far, in this regard, is the word "huh." I clearly listed several reasons that the discovery of the Higgs Boson contributes to an understanding of the possible manner in which the universe may have originated on its own, so again, you might try to address these points directly. In any case, here are some specific points that you might actually address: “That being said, the release of evidence for the existence of these mighty specs {Higgs-Boson], and the wealth of new discoveries that will surely be made as a result, could have a radical impact on views of how the universe was formed.” http://bigthink.com/think-tank/evidence-of-the-existacne-of-the-higgs-boson-whats-the-significance The Higgs-Boson field theory, unlike Creationist or ID accounts, fits in with Big Bang theory. “Some are claiming that this discovery is a blow to Christianity. The Higgs boson is “another nail in the coffin of religion,” said one Cambridge University professor… inflation could be viewed as a cause of the Big Bang, and this is likely why Kaku suggested that a Higgs-like particle (or more precisely, a Higgs-like scalar field) was the “spark” for the Big Bang.” http://www.icr.org/article/higgs-boson-big-bang/ (Note: This is a Christian web site that tries to tell Christians not to worry so about the Higgs Boson replacing God, but it does point out that the ramifications of the Higgs Boson to one degree or another, be it directly or indirectly, do just that.) “New research by UCLA physicists, published in the journal Physical Review Letters, offers a possible solution to the mystery of the origin of matter in the universe.” http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/ucla-physicists-offer-a-solution-to-the-puzzle-of-the-origin-of-matter-in-the-universe Thus, the Higgs-Boson is related to an explanation of the origins of the universe in that it helps provide a credible explanation for the origins of matter (e.g., particles with mass). Not only that, but it may help explain why inflation occurred in the first place according to a CERN bulletin as explained in the following web page: https://cds.cern.ch/journal/CERNBulletin/2013/12/News%20Articles/1525938 Again, I never claimed that the Higgs-Boson theory provided a complete and final explanation for the origins of the universe… I just said that it was a step in that direction and provided key pieces in the puzzle. It should be obvious by now that there is far more evidence for the Higgs-Boson theory (especially since it dovetails so well into Big Bang theory about the development of the universe) in terms of explaining the origins or "creation" of the universe (even if we see such a creation as ex nihilo) than any nonscientific "goddidit" explanation.

dimreepr and Zapatos: You say "When did 'Strange' suggest there was? You've read them all, right, 'disarray', understand Nietzsche, much?" Um, I just quoted from what Strange said on page 2 of this thread at 12:08 a.m. I have no idea what your allusion to Nietzsche is supposed to mean. But since you asked, I've read all of Nietzsche's works as well as books about the meaning of his work...so what is your point? And no, I am not referring to any Nietzschean Eternal Return, if that is what you might be suggesting? Zapatos: Of course the Big Bang theory does not explain the origins of the universe. I acknowledged that before. What it does do is lay the blueprint for explaining how the universe may have originated. The discovery of the Higgs Boson created a huge celebration among scientists...this particle helps explain how all other matter has mass...a huge issue. Higgs-Boson research just takes us a little bit closer to an understanding of how the universe either originated or continually recycles. For example, the Higg's Boson helps explain how other particles, e.g., the elements may have then developed as well as helping to explain why the universe developed the way it did (e.g., size and inflation): The Universe, which today extends over billions of light-years, was incredibly minuscule at its birth. To simulataneously explain this dichotomy of scale and the fact that matter is seemingly distributed in a homogeneous fashion throughout the Universe, physicists have had to resort to a theoretical trick: they added an inflationary phase to the Big Bang, an initial phenomenal expansion in which the Universe grew by a factor of 10^26 in a very short time. Physicists have a hard time, though, accounting for this rapid growth. In its first moments, the Universe was unimaginably dense. Under these conditions, why wouldn’t gravity have slowed down its initial expansion? Here’s where the Higgs boson enters the game – it can explain the speed and magnitude of the expansion, says Mikhail Shaposhnikov and his team from EPFL’s Laboratory of Particla Physics and Cosmology. In this infant Universe, the Higgs, in a condensate phase, would have behaved in a very special way – and in so doing changed the laws of physics. The force of gravity would have been reduced. In this way, physicists can explain how the Universe expanded at such an incredible rate. http://phys.org/news/2011-09-higgs-boson-size-universe.html I am well aware that the term "God Particle" with reference to the Higgs-Boson is something of a misnomer. Nevertheless, the point is that we are making headway in the effort to explain how the universe might be self-sufficient, both in terms of how it originates (or appears to originate) as well as how it runs, without resorting to a God to provide explanations or fill in the gaps of what we don't know. I think that what we do know with a fair degree of confidence about what happened over 14 billions years ago is pretty amazing accomplishment on the part of scientists. I have not claimed that scientists have provided a complete theory that proves how the universe originated....merely that scientists are, by the thousands, putting together a pretty consistent, coherent, and cogent explanation without relying on an completely unscientific God explanation.

Strange: you write that “There is no scientific theory that describes the creation of the universe. There is speculation from the likes of Hawking, but I am not convinced that is any better (in terms of scientific support) than "goddidit".’ My point about Hawking was that he popularized the concept that the universe did not have a beginning, and either suggested that it was cyclic or that the question as to what existed before the universe began was meaningless. I think scientists such as Higgs would strongly disagree that there explanations about the origins of the universe are no better than “goddidit.” Research done on the Higgs Boson is more than just idle speculation. Apart from the amount of money spent on such research (about $13.25 billion according to Forbes) , The head of the world's biggest atom smasher says they have discovered a new particle that is consistent with the long-sought Higgs boson known popularly as the "God particle," which is believed to give all matter in the universe size and shape. This research is supported by two teams of scientists, one of 2,100 and the second of 3000. Research on the Higgs Boson is steadily providing more pieces to support the overall standard model accepted most widely today about the theory of the beginning of the universe: “The discovery of a Higgs boson is only the beginning. Attention will immediately shift to studying the particle in detail… The data from Cern is quite consistent with the plain vanilla Higgs particle predicted in the simplest model but there are already hints that things may not be so straightforward and that really whets the appetite for the future.” To say that scientific evidence for the Higgs Boson is no better than “goddidit” suggests to me that you have not been actually reading about the research. Keep in mind that all I have to do is to demonstrate that there is some scientific evidence to support the Higgs-Boson field theory (e.g., data that is consistent with the already organized and systematic evidence backing the Big Bang theory) as opposed to the "goddidit" claim which has zero! scientific evidence of any sort whatsoever to support it. And yes, it seems that you agree with my point that the U.S. is full of anti-science fundamentalists, as opposed to Zapatos’s (who lives in the U.S.) claim that “religious people are not what I would call anti-science.” You also state that, “As for vaccinations I have never heard of any connection between that and religion.” Again, it only takes a couple of minutes to read a little about the research to find such a connection: “Religious objections to vaccines are based generally on (1) the ethical dilemmas associated with using human tissue cells to create vaccines, and (2) beliefs that the body is sacred, should not receive certain chemicals or blood or tissues from animals, and should be healed by God or natural means. For example, in Philadelphia in 1990, a major measles outbreak occurred among unvaccinated school children who were members of two fundamentalist churches that relied on prayer for healing, and opposed vaccines. In 1994, a measles outbreak occurred in a Christian Science community that objected to vaccination. Religious and political objections by Muslim fundamentalists have driven suspicions about the polio vaccine in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Nigeria. For example, the local Taliban in Southern Afghanistan have called polio vaccination an American ploy to sterilize Muslim populations and an attempt to avert Allah’s will. Resistance to vaccination has even resulted in violent beatings and kidnappings. Similar objections halted polio vaccination campaigns in Nigeria.” http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/cultural-perspectives-vaccination I’m willing to bet I could find dozens of other specific examples in a half hour. The above research on the Higgs took me about 4 minutes to find, copy, and paste, and the info on vaccinations only took me three minutes to find, copy and paste information that, with a little effort you could have found yourself.

Zapatos, you said that, "Science has something to say about how the universe evolved, not about how it came to be" I don't see how you can make such a claim given the work done by scientists to either do just that, or alternatively, to show that the universe, in effect, had no begging, e.g., Higgs and Hawking, respectively. Perhaps you meant to say that the Theory of Evolution has something to say about how living creatures evolved, but not about the origin of life. But it would be no surprise if the origins of life one day is explained by scientists in terms of the evolution of bits of crystal or RNa or whatever that led (perhaps rather smoothly) to the beginning of life forms. Indeed, the line between non-organic and organic is somewhat gray. Another point I would dispute is your claim that "religious people are not what I would call anti-science. They are not against it. They still get their kids vaccinated..." Perhaps in your experience you have read or heard Creationists and Fundamentalists, in particular, rail against 'atheistic, materialistic, God-hating, scientists' as I have. Indeed, such examples are so prevalent in our society that I am surprised that you are, apparently, unaware of it. Then there is the claim made by some religious people that scientists can't criticize religion because, after all, science is a religion itself. Perhaps you might listen to the more conservative sermons that one hears on the radio. And no, there are plenty of religious people who are against vaccination on religious grounds, not to mention birth control, and indeed, some religious people refuse to let doctors operate on their children. In any case, I am surprised that you would not be aware of this. As for airplanes and the like, the Amish come to mind in that the simplicity they strive for is in keeping with their religious vision of life. And even your observation that those who oppose science still use things made by science ignores the fact that even neo-Luddites use technologies despite viewing them as the enemy...Indeed, unless one has the luxury of having land on which they can support themselves, most people are forced to use machines simply by virtue of living in a town or city, (e.g., no horses around, and if one is to feed oneself one must get a job, which is often too far away to walk to). All in all, I think that it is a false generalization that religious people don't actively attack science and/or scientists.