Brian,

Yes, what have the scientists ever done for us?

I certainly agree with your observations in regard to the widespresd disdain for, and ignorance of science and its contributions to civilisation. However, I'm sure 'magical' thinking is a legacy of our evolution on the Savannah, there's survival value in making rapid and unscientific generalisations about phenomena.

G.K Chesterton- "When people stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything.", so the loss of traditional religious faith doesn't really transform humans into rational beings.

Science is difficult, boring and remote to large segments of the population, pseudo-sciences are much easier to grasp, people feel they 'understand' homeopathy,astrology etc.
So until our Stone Age brains evolve, superstition will always be part of our culture.

True faith believes a new better world is possible; where diseases etc are overcome and we work toward that objective by discovery, adaptation and change.

"a new better world is possible; where diseases etc are overcome and we work toward that objective by discovery, adaptation and change."
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 5 October 2011 9:35:51 AM

You have 'faith' in science [to continue to deliver], Philo?

Hi
This is a weird article. It appears to say the public is too superstitious to accept technologies like nuclear and genetic engineering.

This ignores the reality of what these technologies have produced. Depleted uranium is causing birth defects in Fallujah and the continual meltdown in Fukushima will have potentially catastrophic effects.

When there are alternative power sources like solar, wind, geothermal, not to mention demand reduction, why should we be subject to the dangers of nuclear power?

GM is another technology that has failed to live up to its promoters promises. GM plants are failing in the field. They are creating superweeds and superpests in the US and so much Roundup is being used on GM crops that it is falling in the rain in Mississippi. There are increased birth defects and illness in GM growing areas of Argentina caused by the high use of chemicals associated with the GM crops.

When agroecology has been shown by scientists to be the most effective way of feeding people why should we risk eating GM?
While ignoring the reality of GM the author then claims unjustifiable benefits for GM for example:

"the book of life - is being restructured so that we will create new species of plants, be able to defeat all disease in humans and even halt the aging process."

This is utter fantasy as the main GM traits are insect resistance(plant produced toxins kill some insects) and herbicide tolerance (GM plant can be sprayed with weedkiller and not die). It is far more important to have a wide genetic variety of plants to breed from and to eat. Claiming magical properties for GM that it does not have appears to put science in the new age basket.

The lack of acceptance of nuclear and GM is likely to be because people have looked at how the dangers of the technologies have been glossed over for political and economic reasons. There are also viable alternatives that are much less risky. It would seem to be rational to prefer renewables and agroecology.

lillian:"It would seem to be rational to prefer renewables and agroecology."

Rational to prefer them, yes. I certainly prefer them.

Not rational to blindly believe that they will save the world and feed everyone in perpetuity and ignore everything else.

All technologies should be on the table (and generally are) and their relative risks and benefits regularly reassessed. That's rational.

Oh, and while we're on the subject, Brian never mentioned GM crops, and in fact what he was talking about was not insect or herbicide resistance or anything similar.

What he was talking about, not specifically of course, is that we are in an era of biotechnology, medicines and vaccines are being produced that take advantage of genetic technologies "restructuring the book of life" as it were. Genomic medicine and gene therapy are already producing wonders.

While you are sitting there, typing at your magic machine, wondering what has science ever done for you? Scared that it will take something away from you, when in reality you never really had it anyway.

A bizarre piece, for sure.

>>How much more do the masses need to be witness to before finally appreciating that evidence-based knowledge is the only knowledge upon which decisions are to be based?<<

The "only" basis? Hardly.

That's a pretty harsh line to draw, Mr Holden. I know that you were simply separating the "scientific" from your example of "mind-body-spirit faith", but you have excluded the entire dimension of human emotion. Arguably, it is the critical difference between ourselves and plant life. At the very least it is a highly recognizable human characteristic, one that is present in both pure scientists and new-agers.

If "science" were the basis of every decision we make, why would we bother to get out of bed. Bacon and eggs must be one of the most profoundly non-scientific breakfasts possible, after all.

Some people need their religion, or new-age chants, or watching the footy on a Saturday afternoon. Sometimes it is even essential, in that it provides a necessary defence against evidence-based knowledge. Given that the latter tells us clearly not only that we are all going to die pretty soon, cosmically speaking, but also that the earth will perish, sometime before the heat-death of the universe.

What basis is that upon which to make rational decisions?

I am with you Pericles, Wednesday, 5 October 2011 12:19:07 PM .
Altho you will agree no doubt what an expert is ; you might care to shine the light on what a "Scientist" is.

BS has baffled brains for centuries but now BS Artists dominate politics

and Science we are in a dire position.
And should you harbor doubts a cursory examination of Fiscal Science will no doubt scare somewhat and results of any inquiry of integrity
would have to include BS many times and "never believe a Scientist" should be etched into our minds.

"Science-think is obsessed with evidence."

What a sweeping statement! It certainly does not apply in respect of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the socalled 'moral challenge' of our time ('immoral challenge' would be more apt).

Professor Ian Lowe begins his book, ‘A Big Fix’, by stating that he is a scientist, but then (on page 86) explains how we should abandon the traditional scientific method in favour of ‘sustainability science’ which ‘differs fundamentally from most science as we know it’. Lowe writes that, ‘The traditional scientific method is based on sequential phases of inquiry, conceptualising the problem, collecting data, developing theories, then applying the results. … Sustainability science will have to employ new methods, such as semi-quantitative modelling of qualitative data, or inverse approaches that work backwards from undesirable consequences to identify better ways to progress’.

With regard to the IPCC's AGW hypothesis that human-caused greenhouse gases cause dangerous global warming, the socalled climate scientists turned away from traditional scientific method, as it failed to produce the required scientific evidence to support their political agenda.

Instead, those scientists used 'sustainability science' to promote their case that human-caused dangerous global warming is real. They developed climate models with assumptions tailored to produce the alarmist outcomes, that then were presented to, and accepted unquestionably by, the media (e.g. the ABC) and our politicians.

Raycom, Wednesday, 5 October 2011 11:01:17 PM

Thanks Raycom you post is a ripper and a welcome enlightenment .

The damage these Goons are doing to our Country will be immense mob hysteria the biggest Crap since Goebbels very sad for our Land .

The important difference in today's West: we may have just as many lunatics, but they are no longer running the asylum. In general -- and unfortunately with many exceptions -- we can rely on our leaders to make decisions using the methods of science rather than prayer, human sacrifice or astrology. Bit by bit, kicking and screaming, the supernaturalists are being edged out of the positions of power and prestige that they have long demonstrated their utter unfitness to fill.

Scientific morals on display: Nuclear weapons, gas chambers, abortion clinics.

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"

Christian morals on display: Hospitals, universities, schools.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

progressive pat, of course!

Hospitals, universities and schools aren't the product of science and don't use science in any way, how could I have been so blind?

It's a weird point of view, but I guess many people hold it in defence of their blind faith.

That's just silly, progressive pat.

>>Christian morals on display: Hospitals, universities, schools.<<

Hospitals pre-date Christianity. Does the name Asclepius mean anything to you?

Schools also pre-date Christianity, by a long way. We know for certain that they existed in Mesopotamia four thousand years ago, in India three and a half thousand years ago, and in China at least three thousand years ago.

Universities were largely the product of the medieval guild system in Europe. The University of Bologna, which is generally regarded to be the oldest university, began as a law school in 1088, and has been autonomous (i.e. no religious or royal patronage or control) for its entire existence.

Not everything is the product of your religion, you know, much as you'd like to convince yourself otherwise.

Sorry Pat, but when I think of Christianity, I have to have near the top of the list, the inquisition, burning witches, & the crusades.

Kind of balances any good they may have done in imposing their form of law.

@ Bugsy,

Science as a tool to investigate our surrounds (or God's creation) has always existed, I can't understand why the new atheists see science as some modern invention that will lead us to utopia and tell us how to behave and think, as if science will ever have the capability to answer moral questions...what would be the science answer for a response to something like 9/11? Abortion survival? Gay marriage (evolutionary, biology, human right?)

'Scientific revelation'? - I think the authour means 'atheistic revelation fails to convert the masses'. Science needs to be guided by a moral person. We see in history that science guided by Christians has led to pro-life developments (Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Sydney, Chicago Hope, etc.), whereas science guided by pure atheists or humanists has been less productive (nuclear weapons, etc.)

pat, are you saying the president of the United States that ordered the research into nuclear weapons was an atheist, or at least a humanist?

You are right about science being a tool, it is a method. It sorts the reality from BS.

Science has a lot to say about what is not real. A lot of people don;t care to listen though and prefer to create their own reality, as is their right. Don't expect me to join in though.

@ Has been, A lot of people feel that way about Christianity these days. This is because the secularists dominate our cultural heights (media), they are only giving you half the story, they seek to make religion look bad.

Christians need to embrace the media, it's that simple.

it is really good to hear from you progressive Pat in contrast to the regressive new athiest whose faith thankfully is being rejected by a great number. They now need to produce instead of pretending it is only the íntellectual elite'who really understand that something come from nothing. The fruit of their godliness is on display for all to see except of course those who fail to examine themselves.

Whilst I agree with your general argument, Brian, as a dyed-in-the-wool pedant, I must point out the glaring factual error in your opening statement. Natural nuclear fission has occurred at least once in the Earth's history, 1.7bn years ago, in Africa.

I also must take issue with your statement that, 'the holistic perspective that New Agers have is a good thing for the world'. Firstly, is it really 'holistic'? In general, the Newage (rhymes with sewage) idea of 'holism' means, in practice, little more than espousing woolly spiritualist bunkum *instead of* evidence or logic-based thinking.

And that is most definitely *not* 'a good thing for the world'.

Here Here ! Clownfish very nicely put.
But I fear results missing , perhaps Electro Therapy...........?

You're grabbing at the wrong straw, progressive pat.

>>I can't understand why the new atheists see science as some modern invention that will lead us to utopia and tell us how to behave and think, as if science will ever have the capability to answer moral questions.<<

I'm not sure anyone here is suggesting that science is a modern invention, nor that it can answer moral questions.

Mr Holden is simply pointing out the predilection of some humans to reject scientific explanations in favour of magic, the supernatural, shamanism and New Age antics. Now, it is possible for you to feel that he is subtly classifying your religion in the latter categories, but that is only an interpretation.

Religion is a purely emotional response to life, since it has absolutely no basis in observable fact. That is its entire purpose, after all, to fill in the gaps between the realities of which we are aware, with fables. Some of these fables are soothing and comforting - "God is looking after you", that sort of thing. And some of them are morally educational - "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's".

In the same way that science is completely silent on the topic of moral behaviours, religion is totally lacking in any guidance towards the factual composition of our universe.

And that's exactly the way it should be. One is not a substitute for the other. They have entirely different purposes.

By the way, Brian, are you based around Launceston, may I ask? I believe I've recognised you, from your photo, in the street once or twice. I thought of introducing myself and saying hello, but I thought you might be cross at me for disagreeing with you so often ;)

Clownfish,

Hear, hear: it's really nice to know I'm not the only man alive familiar with the realities of the Oklo reactor. And it's even nicer to know that there are other folk in the world who prize empirical information above woolly spiritualist bunk.

What a shame you're a Southern Nancy (Tasmanian) - if you were closer to home I'd invite you out for a drink.

I was recently given a "cultural briefing" for some aid work in the Pacific. One subject was religion, specifically Christianity and how it was not practised quite the same as western minds might think. Essentially they adopted Christianity because the missionaries were obviously far wealthier and more powerful than they, and it couldn't harm to have a "bet each way". They largely keep their old superstitions, rituals and practices but also attend church on Sunday.
This "bet each way" works because religion is so detached from knowledge that keeps you alive, fed, wealthy and healthy. The fact that there are so many versions of the "one God" and so many opposing views on "God's will" just shows that modelling or even understanding reality is not it's purpose. (Seriously, you'd think the creator of the universe would have better communications skills! :-) )
Religion has no need to be accountable to facts, and when it does it loses all it's value (& credibility). Just look at what happens when religion has a say in Law!
Religion seems to work best when it is detached from the "real world" decisions, and science only works when it sticks to evidence based constructs.
I actually think the "new agers" have more in common with garden variety faiths like Christianity than the modern secular multiplex mind. Despite the rantings of some who claim that Christianity is the source of all human good, history clearly shows that personal responsibility, consideration for others and respect for rationality are the real achievers.
Science and rational ethics are hard work. Religion is like Opium, easy, soothing, sometimes necessary but ultimately disabling if overused.