Nice to see O'Bama working on getting rid of midnight Bush rules

[Jester]

You mean like Stephan Hawking who said in Quantum Cosmology, "...there would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time . . . The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE . . . What place, then, for a creator?"

Show me tangible evidence for super strings, or 11th dimensional M-theory.

First, the requirement for scientific theories is that they be testable, not that they be currently testable. Brian Greene has proposed ways in which we might observe strings, if we look carefully. Many scientists are very, very skeptical about mathematically-elegant but empirically-poor theories like String Theory or M-Theory. But this is the whole idea. Ideas are tested by evidence, and until they have stood up to multiple rigorous tests, they are considered speculative, which is exactly where String Theory is now.

However, this entire line of thought is a sidetrack. If it turns out not to be strings, then perhaps there is some other reconciliation of quantum mechanics and gravity. Science has been one long string of ideas which get eventually rejected; that's the whole point. Time and science will tell, and religion, as usual, will contribute nothing but some vague mutterings about how god somehow lurks below and beyond what we've seen. Strings are not *perpetually and definitionally* beyond our capacity for knowledge. God is. (Alternately, if it isn't, the lack of evidence for it makes String Theory look like a done deal.)

What the good Dr. Hawking is talking about is the implications of a scientific theory, which would directly refute well-known theological arguments (Aquinas, at the very least) that postulate god as a necessity due to the arrow of time. He is quite definitely *not* making substantive empirical claims about unobservable phenomena. And, even if he was, science is a method, not a collection of people. You can't just pick statements by individual scientists (however iconic) and claim that they stand for science itself.

-Jester

[Taem]

I feel like I should ignore them, because I don't really understand what point you are trying to make.

I'm sorry I didn’t structure my points well. Really, I suppose its due to posting at work and not having the time to read over what I wrote to word it better. I guess I'll spell it out more dirrectly. In my first post, you stated, "<span style="color:#999900">The duty of medicine is not to "improve the quality of life", it is to heal." I was trying to bring up two points:

1) Sex is not necessary for our survival, and not being able to have it, while possibly psychologically damaging for some, does not mean you need healing; there are drugs for psychological problems. My point is that there are some drugs people take simply to "feel better" and not so much to heal. I brought up this fact to dispute your claim cited above.

2) I have a relative who is a general practitioner, and I know from having conversations with this person that if someone has a chronic problem, they can simply prescribe a medication to be refilled after "x" amount of doses instead of calling them into the office for visits. I brought up my dog and his vet as an example of two things: a) While most if not all doctors enter the medical field to heal their patients, some will abuse the system (i.e. making extra visitations mandatory when they are unnecessary) to generate extra income, b ) It's not limited to human doctors, but all medical doctors across the field.

You brought up the argument, "<span style="color:#999900">It would be easy to show that for many doctors it is not about the money.", but I will contend that it's just as easy to prove the latter. Just because a doctor says they love what they do does not make them greedy.

In my second post, I quoted a snippet of you explaining how to Lisa's how her definition of medicine, "<span style="color:#3333FF">The purpose is to affect a better quality of life for the patient, be it healing, treating, prolonging, and yes, ending in as dignified manner as possible." was far too broad, "<span style="color:#999900">You want to attach the field of medicine to "improving the quality of life" for some reason. I think a well running automobile, a fat bank account and a clean house improves my quality of life. It is a vague notion that can apply to almost anything.", by insinuating if medicine were used to actually "improve someone’s life," then it could be used for many other things, perhaps not as righteous?

So, I countered with these points:

1) Dying soldiers given Morphine to easy their suffering before they die. Thought it was fitting and melded nicely with Lisa's post. I was trying to argue against your point of view that medicine is "only for healing," by pointing out it's uses for bettering ones quality of life, if but for a few moments. The person is going to die; there is no need to "treat" them except for the sake of being humane. Do you consider being humane part of healing, because to me, those are different subjects?
2) Medical Marijuana issued to patients in the state of California; I'll tell you right now, there are plenty of quack doctors out there that prescribe medicines to people I know to be nice, even though they don't need it. Medical Marijuana is just another example of a drug used to better someone’s life, but it has no healing properties; it is no healing ointment or bandage. It is a pain reliever for some, a time to get high for others. Do you consider marijuana to be a legitimate "healing" drug? Where to pain relievers fit into your scheme?
3) How medicines role in our lives has metamorphed from life saving, to "improving the quality of your life" through advertisements. Go to any doctors office and look in any magazine and you will see ads for every type of drug imaginable saying, "ask your doctors about...." And your telling me, yet again, that these ads have no effect whatsoever on the human psyche? Have you ever taken an interpersonal communication or psychology class? Are you aware of the effect groups and peer pressure can have on an individual? And you still think I'm full of horse manure? Someone needs to rethink what I said, because I think Lisa hit the nail on the head when she said, "<span style="color:#3333FF">but you refuse to listen and choose to think that only your narrow minded definition is the be all and end all of medicine is the problem."
4) A few personal examples how some doctors manipulate people to get their money and,
5) How people believe everything a doctor tells them. There are many studies and news reports on how doctors are wrong quite often, and I remember a study done by a university that said doctors misdiagnosed roughly 65% of the time. As Jester is so fond of pointing out, those statistics could have been done from biased poles to generate an end result said study group wanted, and I can't find a web link, however I think it's accurate. My point? That most people could get better on their own without any medicine at all, and it is mainly the doctors pushing it on the people, or better yet, the insurance companies trying to make a buck pushing them to push products to "better ones quality of life." Did I really have to explain all that too you, or were you playing coy to get me riled up?

What does "improve the quality of life" mean to you? For example, does "Art" improve the quality of your life? Does clean air and water improve the quality of your life? Do safe neighborhoods improve the quality of your life? Words have meanings, yes. I define medicine as the science, which relates to the prevention, cure, or alleviation of disease. Physician and doctor in my dictionary still mean "one skilled in the healing arts". I didn't define "what medicine is...", I gave two vastly different definitions by doctors in contrast to Angel's definition.

I suppose there is many different interpretations to what that could mean. To someone in a third world country, that might be as simple as a towel or bowl of soup; to someone in the US, it might be a golden toilet bowl. In regards to medicine, I meant exactly what I said before, that the media is what basically controls what people think and if the media tells people medicinie will better your life, and insurers and doctors agree [$$$], then that's what it is - majority rules, right?

I have no high horses. I train them.

Cute.

[Lissa]

My boss was an ass, and I started at less than $3 per hour. Doubt all you like.

This I don't doubt. What I doubt is that you got a number of raises in a few short months that made it difficult for them to keep you around. Getting rid of someone costs a business money in time spent having to find and train a new person a business would rather try to fix the situtaion that get rid of someone.

Be that as it may, this is totally getting away from the crux of what has been going on here.

Or, the professional when asked for counsel on life changing medical procedures use their best judgment, which includes their ethics and morality, in giving that counsel. The patient, who is actually in charge of their well being, can accept that advice, or shop around for more or better advice. Hence the saying, "Get a second opinion..."

Your duty as a medical provider is to provide the best care possible for your patients. If you know of some form of care that will benefit a patient, but believe that it goes against your morals, it is not your place to leave the information out from the patient. By doing so you are telling the patient your beliefs are more important than the patients well being. Sure the patient can go elsewhere to get a second opinion, but you're doing a disservice to the patient if you don't let them in on the information that you know. And who's to say that the other medical professionals the patient goes to see knows about the information that you know. Do you think then it's still right to withhold that information?

This is impractical because there can be many solutions to a problem, and so a professional would do best by laying out the "best" solutions to the problem. Again, most anyone who becomes pregnant has heard about "abortion". The GP may consider even the suggestion of "you could kill it" as unethical. If someone in our society is looking for an abortion, they know where to go (Planned Parenthood) and they don't need a referral. What you are suggesting is akin to forcing the 2nd century Christians to bow down and worship the Roman gods. Or, more directly in order to keep their chosen livelihood, you will have people violate their conscience and beliefs to satisfy your viewpoint on what is proper.

This is why the medical practioneer should lay out all the options. It's not impractical, it's good sense. Ultimately the medical practioneer is one part healer, one part psychologist, and one part sage. The medical practitioneer's job is to council, heal, and help their patient, thus improving the patient's quality of life. If you, as a medical practioneer, refuse to perform part of these duties, then you shouldn't be in the position of medical practioneer. People go to a medical practioneer to feel better, feeling better can vary from person to person and not everything works from one person to the next. This is why a medical practioneer must lay out all the options to the patient and let the patient be the final arbiter of what they do.

I'm narrow minded? It is you, in the face of alternative evidence, who cling to your own definition. You want to attach the field of medicine to "improving the quality of life" for some reason. I think a well running automobile, a fat bank account and a clean house improves my quality of life. It is a vague notion that can apply to almost anything.

And what happens if you get a terminal disease that leaves you in a great deal of pain, what is that automobile going to do to improve you quality of life? How about that clean house? That fat bank account? Improving one's quality of life can come from a number of different things, but what one chooses to improve one's quality of life will differ from person to person. In some cases, no amount of money, home, or car is going to do jack for a medical issue you have. Sure, you could use all those things in combination with the care provided by a medical practioneer to improve you quality of life, but in the end, that medical practioneer is not necessarily "healing" you, but making you more comfortable. So, as I said, you're too narrowminded on what you view medicine does.

You don't understand what medical professionals do and your continued arguement about a narrowminded view of what medicine is about shows that you don't understand it even when you post quotes from various doctors that state that medicine is about improve the quality of life of the patient.

Well, that is not what I said. So, get your jaw off the floor. I said, I think the doctor and the mother should make the decision that will affect both the life of the baby and the life of the mother. I never gave the life of the baby more weight than the life of the mother.

What you did was you danced a jig around it and never fully answered the question. You ellude to in your comments that you felt the unborn's life was more important, here let's go back and look at what you said:

Me? Personally? Let me take off my devil's advocate hat... I personally believe that the process of gestation is a continuum, where at the beginning there is an embryo which has the potential to become a human being, but around 5 months that embryo has been proven in many cases to be viable outside the womb when premature and assisted medically with incubators, respirators and steroids. So, ethically, that embryo becomes a human being sometime between months 2 and 5. Intentionally killing a fetus in months 5 through 9 in my mind would be infanticide. Those later months are where the fetus gets refinement and extra growing time. Not knowing exactly at what point a human being becomes one is an ethical issue that I would trust a doctor to decide, when weighing all the risk factors. I'm glad I'm not the one making the decision, because my uncertainty would tend to make me want to err ethically on the safe side. As a libertarian, I would want to grant full citizenship and constitutional protection to any fetus past 3 months of age. It would very much simplify much of case law involving children and rights.

So if I take this the way you wrote it, once an unborn child hits 5 months, even if the unborn child could kill the mother, the child must be born or it's infantcide. So the if birthing said unborn child kills the mother and the child, so be it because killing the child after 5 months is infantcide and the doctor should be put up on charges of some degree of murder even though the doctor is saving the life of the woman from a pregnancy gone bad. There isn't a whole lot of grey area here to work with Kan. You can hand wring all you want, but when it comes down to the choice, you either are potentially condeming two human beings to death or one that hasn't even experienced anything outside the womb.

I also said, that at some point in the pregnancy that the fetus is a human being, and that by my best measure of viability that it seems to be before 5 months. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, resuscitation of premature babies under 400g is not recommended. 400g is normally achieved at about 5 1/2 months. The fetus is fully formed at about 12 weeks. So the time period in doubt is that time between 12 weeks and 22 weeks. Even then, the fetus < 12 weeks old has the potential to become a human being, so ethically I wouldn't treat any fetus as arbitrarily disposable.

We're not talking about treating a fetus as disposable, we're talking about a situation where the mother's life is in danger if the pregnancy goes forward. Do you let the pregnancy continue and potentially give the mother in question a death certificate or do you end the pregnancy so that she may live. We're not talking about abortions for the purpose of birtch control, we're talking about abortion used in a life or death situation for the mother. This is not an arguement about having all abortions wildly available, this is about abortion under very specific terms, terms that most people say it should go forward.

RU428 causes abortion as well (is an abortifacient). There are other medicines (ECP's), such as "Plan B" or other "morning after pills" that are more effective in preventing pregnancy without the convulsive side effects of RU428 and other abortifacients.

Ummm...have you read about what RU-486 actually does? It stops ovulation, prevents fertilization, and can keep a fertilized egg from implanting itself on the uteran wall. We are talking about percribed amounts of RU-486 to perform this task, not high doses that is used in conjuction with other abortion methods. We are also talking specifically about rape victims using the drug in the way I just descriped in the second sentence, to prevent a pregnancy within a specific time frame (before the fertilized egg can implant on the uteran wall). I have been talking about very specific instances this entire time, but you want to include a further gambit, not the real issue at hand (dealing with rape victims stopping a potential pregnancy).

You make too many assumptions about me and my associations.

If you had associated with medical professionals, this whole arguement would be moot. The fact that you continue to push and make wild comments and try to use sources to make your arguement stand when the sources you give show the exact opposite shows that you don't have a good idea what medical professionals do. You think you know, but you don't have the experience of being around them and seeing what they do.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Please, spare my old, tired eyes. Save 'color' for signatures.:)

Sex is not necessary for our survival, . . .

As an individual, no. As a species, yes. And the imperative to reproduce is as strong, sometimes stronger, than the imperative to live.

. . . there are some drugs people take simply to "feel better" and not so much to heal.

That's an antiquated notion. It's based on the primitive idea that somehow the body and the mind (*not* the brain) are two separate entities. That there is a 'physical' body and a 'spiritual' being (and, according to some, that they are in conflict). Modern informed opinion is that there is but one physical entity, including the brain which appears to be the seat of the mind. If a person has pneumonia, then the person is sick, not just the lungs. If a person has depression, again, it is the person who is sick, not just the mind.

If 'healing' is fixing what's broken, then anti-depressants and pain medications are every bit as much healing drugs as are anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, anti-viral. And, in my experience, more so than anti-rejection.

The often made argument that anti-depressant and other mood altering drugs are over-prescribed and thus somehow unimportant is both partially true (they are over-prescribed) and vacuous. One of the great modern medical problems is drug resistant bacteria. A contributing cause of this problem is the over prescription of antibiotics for non-bacterial illnesses. And, yet, few would claim that antibiotics are somehow unimportant because they've been overly and wrongly prescribed.

. . . Lisa's how her . . .

Wrong gender.

---------------------------------------------------

A whole bunch of this discussion reminds me of the Committees on Patty's Pig. The Bacon Committee claims the bacon *is* the pig but the Pork Chop Committee responds that since the bacon isn't the whole pig, then there is no bacon. One errs by being too inclusive, the other too exclusive. Medicine is not *just* about healing or *just* about improving life. These things are not mutually exclusive. Nor are they exhaustive. Quit emulating the brain dead cable news political pundits who see only black and white and wake to the realization that, not only are there grays, there is a whole spectrum of colors.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Please fix the tags, makes it hard to follow the post otherwise. Thanks.

This is why the medical practioneer should lay out all the options.

You mean like laetrile, faith healing, homeopathy, acupuncture (yes, I know it has been shown to work -- but nowhere as well or as universally as its proponents claim), chiropractory (ditto)?

Sorry, but I think much of the responsibility for information should rest with the patient. That's what multiple opinions are for, that's what specialized clinics are for. A doctor's responsibilities is to provide the services he offers (which can and often do include referrals to other specialists) and not necessarily to suggests treatments he disagrees with for either medical or moral reasons.

--Pete

[Lissa]

Hi,

Please fix the tags, makes it hard to follow the post otherwise. Thanks.

I've tried, I'm not sure why the tags are screwed up. All the quotes are closed properly.

[Delc]

I've tried, I'm not sure why the tags are screwed up. All the quotes are closed properly.

You have an extra /quote at the end of the paragraph that starts with ru248.

[Lissa]

Hi,

You mean like laetrile, faith healing, homeopathy, acupuncture (yes, I know it has been shown to work -- but nowhere as well or as universally as its proponents claim), chiropractory (ditto)?

Sorry, but I think much of the responsibility for information should rest with the patient. That's what multiple opinions are for, that's what specialized clinics are for. A doctor's responsibilities is to provide the services he offers (which can and often do include referrals to other specialists) and not necessarily to suggests treatments he disagrees with for either medical or moral reasons.

--Pete

I have seen a doctor refer someone to chiropracy, I've also see a referal to homeopathy. Not sure was Laetrile is, so no idea there. Have not seen a referal for acupuncture. And no doctor I know of has referred someone to faith healing.

Not all patients know what is available out there, but medical practioneers tend to. They can point a patient at a variety of options and allow the patient to decide which option is best for them. Also, patients don't always have near the resources to look around for information as there are a fair number of people out there that are quite poor and don't have access to things like the internet (even most libraries now charge for internet usage and a lot of the poor would see that as a frivalous use of their meager money). Especially in the case of dealing with the poor, it behooves the medical practioneer to make sure the patient has every resource available to make a proper decision on their health and welfare.

[Jester]

acupuncture (yes, I know it has been shown to work -- but nowhere as well or as universally as its proponents claim)

I think the current status is that sticking pins in people seems to have some very minor nausea and pain relief effect, but that it doesn't matter if you're using traditional Chinese methods, or just poking people randomly, it all has basically the same effect. It seems more or less like jabbing people with pins makes for an especially convincing placebo.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Do you think then it's still right to withhold that information?

It depends upon the situation. If we are talking about a Catholic hospital, then perhaps conscience can be a guide. If you are working for Planned Parenthood, then you probably would always offer to abort the baby.

If you, as a medical practitioner, refuse to perform part of these duties, then you shouldn't be in the position of medical practitioner.

I don't know about you, but I'm always the one who is asking about things that my doctors have not recommended. Why would I blindly trust that a single doctor has "all" the answers? They also tend to never recommend some things, like chiropractics, like acupuncture, and other non-traditional treatments that I research and bring up during our consultations.

So, as I said, you're too narrow minded on what you view medicine does.

I agree with the dictionary, and the encyclopedia's definition of medicine and the role of a physician. I would say that I understand what "Quality of Life" means, and how to get it for myself. I'm not sick, I don't have a terminal illness, and I don't need pain medication. So, my quality of life comes from raising my children, making artful things, and tending to my home. I think this is why many cities are compared for "quality of life" which includes things like arts, parks, crime, schools, etc.

You don't understand what medical professionals do and your continued argument about a narrow minded view of what medicine is about shows that you don't understand it even when you post quotes from various doctors that state that medicine is about improve the quality of life of the patient.

You keep saying I don't understand, however, I know you are wrong so I won't waste the time needed to defend that useless ad hominem attack. My challenge to you then is to show me some quotes where doctors say that the definition of medicine is only something as vague as "improving a persons quality of life".

What you did was you danced a jig around it and never fully answered the question. You allude to in your comments that you felt the unborn life was more important, here let's go back and look at what you said:

The salient portion is "Not knowing exactly at what point a human being becomes one is an ethical issue that I would trust a doctor to decide, when weighing all the risk factors. I'm glad I'm not the one making the decision, because my uncertainty would tend to make me want to err ethically on the safe side."

So if I take this the way you wrote it, once an unborn child hits 5 months, even if the unborn child could kill the mother, the child must be born or it's infanticide. So the if birthing said unborn child kills the mother and the child, so be it because killing the child after 5 months is infanticide and the doctor should be put up on charges of some degree of murder even though the doctor is saving the life of the woman from a pregnancy gone bad. There isn't a whole lot of gray area here to work with Kan. You can hand wring all you want, but when it comes down to the choice, you either are potentially condemning two human beings to death or one that hasn't even experienced anything outside the womb.

Doctors kill people all the time and are not brought up on charges. It is an occupational hazard that we all recognize is a part of their job, to make life and death decisions. Take a case of conjoined twins; separating them sometimes kills one, which is a risk that is taken and sometimes it results in a death. If the doctor is negligent, then he might face a malpractice suit, or other legal problems.

We're not talking about treating a fetus as disposable, we're talking about a situation where the mother's life is in danger if the pregnancy goes forward.

In that case, as I've said, it is a decision that the doctor and the pregnant woman would make when taking into account all the risks. My objection to abortion is when it is used to dispose of babies when they are inconvenient.

Ummm...have you read about what RU-486 actually does?

Look we basically agree, although I would recommend something like "Plan B" rather than an abortifacient like Mifepristone. In small doses it can also act as an emergency contraceptive, but it has more side effects.

If you had associated with medical professionals, this whole argument would be moot. The fact that you continue to push and make wild comments and try to use sources to make your argument stand when the sources you give show the exact opposite shows that you don't have a good idea what medical professionals do. You think you know, but you don't have the experience of being around them and seeing what they do.

Like I said before, you have no idea who I associate with. Please don't pretend to know about my life, because you are pretty clueless about it.

[kandrathe]

I think the current status is that sticking pins in people seems to have some very minor nausea and pain relief effect, but that it doesn't matter if you're using traditional Chinese methods, or just poking people randomly, it all has basically the same effect. It seems more or less like jabbing people with pins makes for an especially convincing placebo.

My wife gets pins stuck in her by a woman from China twice a week for managing pain, and it helps her reduce the dosage on her other pain medication. She swears by it. I would be pretty hesitant to let anyone stick long needles in me.

[kandrathe]

My point is that our theoretical or hypothetical knowledge consists of many things which are invisible, and/or unprovable. They are merely ideas or concepts which we use to discuss together regarding our experience and reality as we know it. I don't look down on people who want to talk about "God" as embracing a fairy tale, any more than I would Dr. Stephan Hawking when he is talking about parallel universes. Currently, parallel universes are just as much a fairy tale, but they might explain reality in Dr. Hawking's manner of thinking. Might proof of parallel universes or proof of the existence of God occur tomorrow? Perhaps.

[--Pete]

Hi,

My point is that our theoretical or hypothetical knowledge consists of many things which are invisible, and/or unprovable.

Strictly speaking, anything unprovable is unknowable. We can postulate it, speculate about it, imagine it, write sf stories about it, etc., etc., but we can't know it. We can believe in it, but it would have to be a faith based belief.

I don't look down on people who want to talk about "God" as embracing a fairy tale, any more than I would Dr. Stephan Hawking when he is talking about parallel universes. Currently, parallel universes are just as much a fairy tale, . . .

Major difference: 'god' is a concept that has no basis. Belief in god is strictly unsupported faith. There is no theory that falsifiability explains part of existence and that extrapolates to 'god'.

Parallel universes come about from extension of theories (quantum mechanics and general relativity) which are testable (and have been extensively tested). Parallel universes today stand in the same place that electromagnetic waves stood in 1865. They are predictions made on the basis of equations which are in turn based on observation and experiment.

When Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism, manipulating the resulting equations resulted in a prediction of waves propagating through space. Had those waves not been found, Maxwell's Equations would have had to be modified. Since Hertz was able to generate and detect those waves, the likelyhood that Maxwell's equations were valid was increased.

Might proof of parallel universes or proof of the existence of God occur tomorrow?

No. The difference between testing for radio waves and testing for parallel universes is that no one knows how to do the latter (yet) and it will probably take many orders of magnitude more energy than we know how to control or generate at this time. Parallel universes are a prediction generated from the extension of tested theories, god is just an unsupported hypothesis, underivable and untestable.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Strictly speaking, anything unprovable is unknowable. We can postulate it, speculate about it, imagine it, write sf stories about it, etc., etc., but we can't know it. We can believe in it, but it would have to be a faith based belief.

Agreed.

Major difference: 'god' is a concept that has no basis. Belief in god is strictly unsupported faith. There is no theory that falsifiability explains part of existence and that extrapolates to 'god'.

True. Ontological arguments, and anecdotal (heresay) evidence, but no testable hypothesis.

Parallel universes come about from extension of theories (quantum mechanics and general relativity) which are testable (and have been extensively tested). Parallel universes today stand in the same place that electromagnetic waves stood in 1865. They are predictions made on the basis of equations which are in turn based on observation and experiment. ... Parallel universes are a prediction generated from the extension of tested theories, god is just an unsupported hypothesis, underivable and untestable.

To someone who is versed in understanding physics, and/or mathematics this might make some sense, but for the vast majority of people on the planet it is just so much mumbo jumbo. For many, to believe in these untestable cosmological ideas requires faith. In the spirit of Kant, I can't sufficiently prove to all doubters that my reality is not just of figment of my imagination either. In my contemplation, I find three possible solutions; a) The universe has always existed. It has an infinite past and future. b) The universe winked into existence randomly, or c) The universe was caused to exist by something beyond it (created perhaps). I'm not sure which one is true, so until there is overwhelming evidence for one of the options, I'm willing to entertain them all.

[Delc]

To someone who is versed in understanding physics, and/or mathematics this might make some sense, but for the vast majority of people on the planet it is just so much mumbo jumbo. For many, to believe in these untestable cosmological ideas requires faith.

Just because people don't understand it doesn't make it the same as religion. Religion just takes anything that isn't understood, and attributes it to god(s). Imagine if someone didn't understand how their car worked, so rather than trying to understand, they decided their was a deity inside of it that liked offerings of gasoline. When this deity got angry the car had to be repaired. You can't prove there isn't a deity inside the car making it work, so it must be there.

[Jester]

In my contemplation, I find three possible solutions; a) The universe has always existed. It has an infinite past and future. B)The universe winked into existence randomly, or c) The universe was caused to exist by something beyond it (created perhaps). I'm not sure which one is true, so until there is overwhelming evidence for one of the options, I'm willing to entertain them all.

Entertain them to what end? By their very definition as preceding or being outside of our universe(s), they are unobservable, and that's if the question of "what came before" even means anything at all (like "what's north of the north pole"). What we say or think about them is, now and forever, fruitless speculation.

So, all well and good to pick an opinion, know them, collect them, trade them with your friends. But this is does not appear to be what five billion (or so) people are engaged in when they are engaged in Religion.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Entertain them to what end?

I find there is little point in trying to assert that any one of them is the only correct answer. I really don't know the right answer, I might speculate but couldn't prove it so, and it hardly matters to my daily existence.

Almost everyone is seeking to understand their own importance, and their role in the bigger scheme of things. I've said this before, but if the well worn grooves of our cultures help people to be happy in a knowledge, which may or may not be true, so be it. It is another form of societal glue. For example, there are some people I know that are atheists, or agnostics, but they don't mind if people "pray" for them and their problems. It certainly doesn't hurt, and at least it is a way that one human being shows another that they are concerned enough to take a moment once in a while to think about someone else's problems.

Most of the worlds modernized religions teach people to live peaceably with one another, and to care about one another. At least that is generally the case, until some bright bulb decides to form a sect that redefines some ancient text and uses them to justify a holy war or something.

Another way to put it is that I'm unwilling to pick a fight on existential truthiness with people (esp. one that cannot be proven one way or another), in exchange for peacefulness.

[--Pete]

Hi,

What we say or think about them is, now and forever, fruitless speculation.

Not quite. It is now speculation. But it may be, one day, testable. If that day comes, it will be because of speculation. Thus, we cannot, a priori, consider the speculation fruitless.

Too lazy to look up the source, but a prominent scientist of the past listed things that would always be beyond our knowledge. Among these was the composition of the sun. Not only did he turn out to be wrong, but the element helium was first observed in the spectrum of the sun (and thus its name). That physicist failed to predict the technology of spectrometry. It wold be a fun speculation to predict the technology that would make other present unknowables future observables. Making those fun speculations is a large part of theoretical physics.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Religion just takes anything that isn't understood, and attributes it to god(s).

That is the primitive notion of religion, and yes, there are many people where that is sufficient for them. Others seek a higher understanding of their own existence. For example, in Buddhism, developing one's mind is the path to wisdom which in turn leads to personal freedom, and that the path of one's life is to develop discernment, insight, wisdom, and thereby enlightenment.

The road analogy works very well for me in explaining this quest we call life. Some people are walking, some are moving more quickly in vehicles, some are going the wrong way. Are you the kind of person who curses at the slow movers on your way past? What purpose does hurling that discouragement serve? Some people are taking a steep path which is more difficult, but perhaps shorter. Some people have crashed and lay wounded in the ditch. Will you be the one to stop and give them a hand? Others are heading down a dead end. As long as the people on the road are obeying the rules, can we not give each of them the respect of sharing that road equally with them? So you meet a person whose world view is "deluded by fairy tales", but if that world view is one of peace, morality, and benevolent reciprocity why should we worry? The religions of peace are just well worn paths, and atheism is a different path which may be steeper and more difficult. I just don't believe it is right in trying to make everyone take that same path, especially when you are not entirely certain it is the correct one. It seems better to me to allow everyone to choose their own way, and then respect that decision.

Consider a person who's IQ is well over 200. Would it be useful for that person to spend much time being frustrated by the ignorance of the 99% of people in the world? No. They need to value the exceptional gift they have and put it to some good use. So, if as Pete, Jester, or others here believe that they have the "right" answer and everyone else are "deluded by fairy tales", then move past it and do something useful with this insight. Luckily, we still live in a society that guarantees you the freedom to believe, or not believe in whatever you like. Perhaps even this tolerance is a sign that our societies are making some progress.

[Jester]

Almost everyone is seeking to understand their own importance, and their role in the bigger scheme of things.

This is a very different thing than speculating about the "first cause" of the universe. This is assigning oneself, and one's species, a fundamental cosmic role. With no evidence of the divine powers that have apparently granted us this special treatment, it seems like no more than than self-aggrandizement. We are very small, we evolved from tiny proteins, and we could be wiped out by any one of a hundred fairly minor astronomical events at any time. That is the measure of our importance at present.

I'm with Douglas Adams on this one. Our "role" in the universe is so extraordinarily trivial that to even grasp the true dimensions involved in our cosmic insignificance would be psychological suicide. (Thankfully, we're not equipped to do that, no matter how hard we try.)

For example, there are some people I know that are atheists, or agnostics, but they don't mind if people "pray" for them and their problems. It certainly doesn't hurt, and at least it is a way that one human being shows another that they are concerned enough to take a moment once in a while to think about someone else's problems.

Being concerned enough for someone think about and empathize with their problems is one thing. Asking the invisible, unknowable creator of the universe to give them a hand is another. I'm sure some people do both at once, but it's the first that seems considerate to me, and the second bizarre (not to mention ineffective).

Even this is just talking about prayer as a harmless personal issue, where nobody really expects tangible results. People die each year because they or their family believe in the literal healing power of prayer, and refuse medical treatment and put their faith in god. So, prayer, on the whole, is certainly not harmless. It impedes people's ability to take the world seriously on its own terms.

-Jester