Is evolution enough?

[Ryedo40 10]

For many, the truth is the end of all they seek.

 

Yes, there are those who invest a great deal of time attempting to discover the truth about reality. They've made that their purpose in life. Their discoveries have been used to transform lives and shape the future of the world.

 

I also doubt people are as black & white as "the truth is the end of all they seek." People are shades of grey - even if they do invest a lot of time in whatever they've made their main purpose in life.

 

Others develop purpose, transforming the lives of individuals and shape the future of the world without basing their mission on "the truth".

 

Partly agree, but are you sure they aren't basing their mission on "the truth" - or truth as they see it? Just a thought

[DrNorm 10]

Yes, there are those who invest a great deal of time attempting to discover the truth about reality. They've made that their purpose in life. Their discoveries have been used to transform lives and shape the future of the world.

 

Which is great, I'm not knocking scientists. I guess I just wish more of the truth informed political decisions for example.

 

I also doubt people are as black & white as "the truth is the end of all they seek." People are shades of grey - even if they do invest a lot of time in whatever they've made their main purpose in life.

 

I'd agree, but with the same wish as above. Do you not imagine a better world where we made greater efforts to base the decisions we make in society on facts (while still allowing a place for gut feel - articulate "experts" sometimes mess things up the most).

 

Partly agree, but are you sure they aren't basing their mission on "the truth" - or truth as they see it? Just a thought

 

"truth" as they see it - hence the quotes!

[jfish1936 10]

Good point Ryedo, (as well as others) however ... what I've been trying to put some focus on is going beyond the "worship" of science and facts. That's (our) solid foundation. Others have built their social structures on much more shaky foundations.

 

For many, the truth is the end of all they seek.

 

Others develop purpose, transforming the lives of individuals and shape the future of the world without basing their mission on "the truth".

 

So, on a basis of Teutonic folk legends and a belief in the "Aryan Race", Hitler was able to transform the effete Germany of the Weimar republic into the powerful and effective Third Reich.

Mother Theresa was able to base on her Catholic faith the work that helped many poor people.

Based on the revelations of the Koran, ISIS is restructuring the Arab world.

Yes, these missions which disregard "the truth" can be very successful.

[DrNorm 10]

Maybe we need a calmquake...

 

A calmquake without the side-effects!

 

---------- Post added 26-07-2015 at 09:27 ----------

 

Yes, these missions which disregard "the truth" can be very successful.

 

Indeed. If we get too liberal about allowing everyone to discover the "truth", they end up discovering their own truth, or somebody else's truth which comes with free fairy stories and rules about how to live. And people like a little structure in their lives and find it so hard to think for themselves, so they become happy blinkered believers. [Wilful Blindness - there's at least a loose connection there]

 

I'm not advocating force feeding children the "truth" (we must always question accepted truths). Neither am I proposing a set of rules and doctrines to replace those from the religions we look at and wonder how they became so prevalent. But I do think it's irresponsible to have been gifted and discovered so much hard scientific knowledge and not to put a soft wrapper on it for easy consumption, accompanied with free stories which make the actual truth a little less frightening and with a guide based on collective wisdom that hopefully will lead to a world with more hope than there currently is.

 

---------- Post added 26-07-2015 at 09:44 ----------

 

Wouldn't it be great if our political leaders were informed by science, mathematics and technology? As in Lincoln? (the film) See

(YouTube, 50 secs) and

: (YouTube, 2m 48s) Edited July 26, 2015 by DrNorm

[Ryedo40 10]

Indeed. If we get too liberal about allowing everyone to discover the "truth", they end up discovering their own truth, or somebody else's truth which comes with free fairy stories and rules about how to live. And people like a little structure in their lives and find it so hard to think for themselves, so they become happy blinkered believers.

 

Liberal or not, that's always the case. All you can really do is encourage people to question and evaluate; to think critically and, to at least try to be intellectually honest.

 

But I do think it's irresponsible to have been gifted and discovered so much hard scientific knowledge and not to put a soft wrapper on it for easy consumption, accompanied with free stories which make the actual truth a little less frightening and with a guide based on collective wisdom that hopefully will lead to a world with more hope than there currently is.

 

Efforts are being made to do that, but if people aren't interested in science or if they don't value scientific knowledge, the end result will be the same: they'll become happy - or unhappy - blinkered believers in any old woo woo(including pseudo-scientific nonsense.) Or they may be completely apathetic to that side of things and just be interested in football, gardening or whatever else floats their boat; not necessarily a problem. The biggest problem is the government, the media and educational authorities, entertaining and accommodating the woo woo; or having believers in woo woo in government, media, etc, using their position to give privilege and credence to woo woo and its pedlars.

[DrNorm 10]

All you can really do is encourage people to question and evaluate; to think critically and, to at least try to be intellectually honest.

 

I'd like to support an organisation that is doing that encouraging in an innovative way. A way that is more than just educational or entertainment - it becomes a coherent way of life. There are various pressure groups that focus on single issues that you could argue becomes their way of life, but I'm not aware of an organisation that bases itself on scientific truths and attempts to shape society for the better.

 

The biggest problem is the government, the media and educational authorities, entertaining and accommodating the woo woo; or having believers in woo woo in government, media, etc, using their position to give privilege and credence to woo woo and its pedlars.

 

Yes, it's a huge problem ... I think we need some science based woo woo ... and by that I just mean something that the average human can relate to and engage with. Something that is fun and life changing and yet has a foundation of truth.

[RootsBooster 24]

I'd like to support an organisation that is doing that encouraging in an innovative way. A way that is more than just educational or entertainment - it becomes a coherent way of life. There are various pressure groups that focus on single issues that you could argue becomes their way of life, but I'm not aware of an organisation that bases itself on scientific truths and attempts to shape society for the better.

 

 

 

Yes, it's a huge problem ... I think we need some science based woo woo ... and by that I just mean something that the average human can relate to and engage with. Something that is fun and life changing and yet has a foundation of truth.

Then it wouldn't be woo woo!

http://skepdic.com/woowoo.html

[Ryedo40 10]

There are various pressure groups that focus on single issues that you could argue becomes their way of life, but I'm not aware of an organisation that bases itself on scientific truths and attempts to shape society for the better.

 

There are quite a few organisations around the world that pretty much are doing the above:

 

CFI (Center for Enquiry)

BHA (British Humanist Association)

NCSA (National Center for Science Education)

Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science

Secular Student Alliance

Atheist Alliance International

The National Secular Society

The Skeptics Society

 

And that's just a few that come to mind.

[DrNorm 10]

Then it wouldn't be woo woo!

http://skepdic.com/woowoo.html

 

No I guess not, I was being a bit flippant - some pretend fun woo woo maybe. It does have an appeal. If we make the inroads to science more appealing, maybe rationalism would be more successful?

 

---------- Post added 26-07-2015 at 15:27 ----------

 

There are quite a few organisations around the world that pretty much are doing the above:

 

CFI (Center for Enquiry)

BHA (British Humanist Association)

NCSA (National Center for Science Education)

Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science

Secular Student Alliance

Atheist Alliance International

The National Secular Society

The Skeptics Society

 

And that's just a few that come to mind.

 

Which would be the most fun for a 16 year old?

 

I've done SkepticsInThePub and would go again apart from the fact they meet on Mondays and I have other commitments ... But this is hardly an initiative to engage young people. I'm mid fifties and was probably of average age in the room.

 

Again, (being deliberately flippant), these all sound like societies for people with no friends and no sense of fun - or at the other end of the spectrum with no serious interest beyond the bounds of scientific atheism.

 

I personally wouldn't go within a mile of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science despite the fact I know he's right on most things.

Edited July 26, 2015 by DrNorm

[Ryedo40 10]

Which would be the most fun for a 16 year old?

 

I've done SkepticsInThePub and would go again apart from the fact they meet on Mondays and I have other commitments ... But this is hardly an initiative to engage young people. I'm mid fifties and was probably of average age in the room.

 

Again, (being deliberately flippant), these all sound like societies for people with no friends and no sense of fun - or at the other end of the spectrum with no serious interest beyond the bounds of scientific atheism.

 

I personally wouldn't go within a mile of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science despite the fact I know he's right on most things.

 

Right. Broadly speaking, which you seemed to be doing before narrowing down to what a 16 yr old would enjoy, some of the above organisations encourage and often work with educational bodies to help make science more fun, understandable and accessible to the public (that includes school children.)

 

You said you'd like to see a society that values scientific knowledge and reason - one that makes informed decisions based on good evidence, etc. And that's pretty much what those organisations strive for. CFI & the BHA, for instance, look to science instead of religion as the best way to discover and understand the world. And believe people can use empathy and compassion to make the world a better place for everyone.

 

I don't quite get why you view those organisations as places for people with no friends (although I guess that's something that could be said of any organisation, mosque or church.) Are they fun? Depends what your idea of fun is, I guess (personally, I don't see what's fun about having to go to places like parliament and the UN to fight for peoples rights; and trying to stop the constant flow of woo undermining education, etc.)

 

Would a 16 yr old find the above fun? Depends on the 16 yr old. But there are places like Camp Quest they may find interesting.

 

http://www.camp-quest.org.uk/index.php

[DrNorm 10]

Yes, sorry to be a bit awkward about my line of thinking and responses Ryedo.

 

I guess I'm thinking about the accessibility and ubiquity of religious organisations, and although 16 year olds aren't exactly battering down the doors of churches to get involved, at least they probably have a door to batter down which is probably reasonably near by.

 

I also guess that I'm hoping for quite a lot for an organisation that has its roots in science and yet has a broad appeal and concerns itself with more than (just) academic facts.

 

I did take a look at The Sunday Assembly in Leeds and met a few folks locally but the tone of the organisation didn't appeal to the Sheffielders I met, or they didn't have the time to help start such a group here.

[Ryedo40 10]

Yes, sorry to be a bit awkward about my line of thinking and responses Ryedo.

 

I guess I'm thinking about the accessibility and ubiquity of religious organisations, and although 16 year olds aren't exactly battering down the doors of churches to get involved, at least they probably have a door to batter down which is probably reasonably near by.

 

...

 

I did take a look at The Sunday Assembly in Leeds and met a few folks locally but the tone of the organisation didn't appeal to the Sheffielders I met, or they didn't have the time to help start such a group here.

 

 

Yes, religious organisations, while everywhere and lacking appeal these days, are on their way out. And there aren't many similar alternatives, as yet, to the church.

 

IMO, alternatives to the church - like the Sunday Assembly - aren't really necessary; they're only really going to appeal to a minority(mostly those who have been raised in and left a religious environment.) They're not going to appeal to the masses who haven't been raised religious and church going. Those masses simply aren't missing anything by not attending.

 

Speaking for myself, I have far more interesting things to be doing on Sundays - or any other day for that matter. I suspect it's the same for a lot of others too. Personally I'd rather be sat at a RSPB wildlife reserve watching birds than attend a "school" assembly environment singing happy clappy songs. There are just so many secular alternatives these days, whether it's going to a car boot, playing sport, or attending some local charity or community event like Tramlines, the church and even the atheist & secular Sunday Assembly is always going to lose out. They're never going to appeal to the masses.

 

I also guess that I'm hoping for quite a lot for an organisation that has its roots in science and yet has a broad appeal and concerns itself with more than (just) academic facts.

 

I don't really understand where you are coming from here. I can't think of any organisation that has its roots in science solely concerning itself with just academic facts. Even the Dawkins foundation, which you knocked, works with a lot of organisations - and has helped found organisations like the Clergy Project & Openly Secular. Then there are charities like Foundation Beyond Belief too. They are all growing and networking and supporting all-sorts of projects and initiatives around the world - all for the betterment of education and welfare of people. They don't solely concern themselves with academics.